[Senate Hearing 107-493]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 107-493
CONFIRMATION HEARING ON THE NOMINATION OF ASA HUTCHINSON TO BE
ADMINISTRATOR OF THE DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 17, 2001
__________
Serial No. J-107-30
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
80-047 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2002
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman
EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah
JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware STROM THURMOND, South Carolina
HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin JON KYL, Arizona
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York MIKE DeWINE, Ohio
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
Bruce A. Cohen, Majority Chief Counsel and Staff Director
Sharon Prost, Minority Chief Counsel
Makan Delrahim, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Page
Biden, Hon. Joseph R., Jr., a U.S. Senator from the State of
Delaware....................................................... 53
DeWine, Hon. Mike, a U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio......... 51
Hatch, Hon. Orrin G., a U.S. Senator from the State of Utah...... 4
Kyl, Hon. Jon, a U.S. Senator from the State of Arizona.......... 71
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont. 1
PRESENTERS
Conyers, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Michigan.................................................... 10
Hutchinson, Hon. Tim, a U.S. Senator from the State of Arkansas.. 8
Lincoln, Hon. Blanche L., a U.S. Senator from the State of
Arkansas....................................................... 9
STATEMENT OF THE NOMINEE
Hutchinson, Hon. Asa, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Arkansas.................................................... 11
Questionnaire................................................ 15
SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD
Fraternal Order of Police, Gilbert G. Gallegos, National
President, Washington, DC, July 17, 2001, letter............... 70
CONFIRMATION HEARING ON THE NOMINATION OF ASA HUTCHINSON TO BE
ADMINISTRATOR OF THE DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION
----------
TUESDAY, JULY 17, 2001
U.S. Senate,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m., in
room SD-226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Patrick J.
Leahy, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Leahy, Biden, Feingold, Durbin, Hatch,
Specter, DeWine, and Sessions.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. LEAHY, A U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF VERMONT
Chairman Leahy. Good morning. The committee today is going
to consider the nomination of Asa Hutchinson. Mr. Hutchinson is
a distinguished Member of the House of Representatives, and he
has been nominated by President Bush to serve as head of the
Drug Enforcement Administration.
Many of us on the committee know Representative Hutchinson
well from his service within the House Judiciary Committee,
where he has earned the respect of his peers from both sides of
the aisle. Indeed, 14 of the committee's Democrats wrote me in
support of his nomination, and the chairman and ranking member
of the House Judiciary Committee have strongly supported his
nomination. Now, their support does not surprise me. I have
known Asa Hutchinson for a number of years. I know him as a man
of integrity and intelligence who is committed to reducing drug
abuse in this country.
Representative Hutchinson has been deeply involved in drug
issues as both a United States Attorney in Arkansas in the
1980's and as a House Member. In addition to serving on the
House Judiciary Committee, he is a member of the Committee on
Government Reform's Subcommittee for Criminal Justice, Drug
Policy, and Human Resources, has served on the Speaker's Task
Force for a Drug Free America. He has reviewed Plan Colombia as
a member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
Representative Hutchinson and I have similar views about
some of the drug issues facing the United States, and I am sure
we will occasionally have differing views about others. I will
discuss some of the issues that I believe are important, and I
look forward to hearing his testimony and his responses.
Drug abuse has become an increasingly serious problem even
in my own State of Vermont. Indeed, although Vermont has
historically had one of the lowest crime rates in the Nation,
its crime rate rose 5 percent last year as the national rate
held steady, and drug crimes have increased by 7 percent.
Recent estimates show that heroin use in Vermont has doubled in
just the past 3 years, and the number of people seeking drug
treatment has risen even more rapidly. The average age of a
first-time heroin user dropped from 27 to 17 during the 1990's,
a very frightening thing to every parent in Vermont. This has
signaled the sharp rise in teenage drug abuse.
Earlier this year, to give one example, Christal Jones, a
16-year-old girl from Burlington, Vermont, was murdered in New
York City. According to the reports, she was recruited in
Burlington to move to New York and become part of a
prostitution ring to earn money to feed her heroin habit. When
she died, drugs were found in her body, although that was not
the cause of her death. Murder was. Christal Jones' tragedy
apparently is not unique. As many as a dozen Vermont girls may
have been involved in this New York ring. And since her death,
others have come forward to say that teenage girls in
Burlington are prostituting themselves to get money to buy
heroin.
Now, when we look at the drug problems facing Vermont and
all of our States, we find the same thing. It seems clear there
is a shortage of drug treatment. All of us serving on this
committee know that the answer is not just law enforcement
alone, even though that is such a significant and important
part of it. Senator Hatch and I have joined together with a
bipartisan coalition of Senators on this committee to introduce
S. 304, the Drug Abuse Education, Prevention, and Treatment
Act. Both Senator Hatch and I agree that as important as law
enforcement is in battling drug abuse, it does not solve our
drug problem alone. The bill would provide millions of dollars
not only in my State but all 50 States for programs to offer
treatment for people addicted to heroin and other drugs,
hopefully to prevent them from using illegal drugs in the first
place.
Donnie Marshall, whom Asa Hutchinson would be succeeding as
head of the DEA, testified before this committee in March that
treatment and prevention efforts play a vital role in assisting
law enforcement. I hope the new director will take a similar
view.
I have a number of other concerns about our current drug
policies. I am increasingly skeptical about the need for and
fairness of mandatory minimum sentences, and I am pleased that
we have not imposed mandatory minimums in S. 304, and I
compliment Senator Hatch for that. I hope we can begin to look
at amending existing law to reduce our use of them. A 1997
study by the RAND Corporation of mandatory minimum drug
sentences found that ``mandatory minimums are not justifiable
on the basis of cost-effectiveness at reducing cocaine
consumption, cocaine expenditures, or drug-related crime.''
Despite this study and the mounting evidence of prison
overcrowding, legislators continue to propose additional
mandatory minimums. I know that Representative Hutchinson has
expressed some hesitancy about expanding mandatory minimums,
and I hope we can work together.
He has also expressed concerns about the sentencing
disparity between those convicted of offenses involving crack
and powder cocaine. Current Federal sentencing guidelines treat
one gram of crack cocaine and 100 grams of powder cocaine
equally for purposes of determining sentences. I don't think
that is justifiable. Unfortunately, Congress has not followed
the recommendation of the U.S. Sentencing Commission, which
also found it not justifiable.
Last, I want to see how Federal law enforcement will
address the tension between Federal power and States' rights in
those States that have adopted laws permitting marijuana to be
used for medicinal purposes.
I will put the rest of my statement in the record because I
know that the distinguished senior member of the Republican
side of this committee has a conflict with the Finance
Committee, so I would yield to Senator Hatch.
[The prepared statement of Senator Leahy follows:]
Statement of Hon. Patrick J. Leahy, a U.S. Senator from the State of
Vermont
The Committee will today consider the nomination of Asa
Hutchinson, a distinguished Member of the House of
Representatives, to serve as head of the Drug Enforcement
Administration. Many of us on the Committee know Representative
Hutchinson well from his service with the House Judiciary
Committee, where he has earned the respect of his peers from
both sides of the aisle. Indeed, 14 of the Committee's
Democrats wrote me in support of his nomination, and the
Chairman and Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee
are here today to introduce him. Their support does not
surprise me, as I know that Asa Hutchinson is a man of
integrity and intelligence who is committed to reducing drug
abuse in this country.
Rep. Hutchinson has been deeply involved in drug issues as
both a United States Attorney in Arkansas in the 1980s and as a
House member. In addition to serving on the House Judiciary
Committee, he is a member of the Committee on Government
Reform's Subcommittee for Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and
Human Resources, has served on the Speaker's Task Force for a
Drug Free America, and has reviewed Plan Colombia as a member
of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
Rep. Hutchinson and I have similar views about some of the
drug issues facing the United States, and I am sure we will
occasionally have differing views about others. I will discuss
some of the issues that I believe are important in my statement
today, and look forward to hearing Rep. Hutchinson's testimony
and his responses to Committee members' questions.
Drug abuse has become an increasingly serious problem in my
State of Vermont. Indeed, although Vermont has historically had
one of the lowest crime rates in the nation, its crime rate
rose 5 percent last year as the national rate held steady, with
drug crimes increasing by 7 percent. Recent estimates show that
heroin use in Vermont has doubled in just the past three years,
and the number of people seeking drug treatment has risen even
more rapidly. The average age of a first-time heroin user
dropped from 27 to 17 during the 1990s, signaling a sharp rise
in teenage drug abuse.
Earlier this year, Christal Jones, a 16-year-old girl from
Burlington, was murdered in New York City. According to news
reports, she was recruited in Burlington to move to New York
and become part of a prostitution ring, so she could get money
to feed her heroin habit. When she died, drugs were found in
her body, although they were not the cause of her death.
Christal Jones' tragedy apparently is not unique - as many as a
dozen Vermont girls may have been involved in this New York
ring. And since her death, others have come forward to say that
teenage girls in Burlington are prostituting themselves to get
money to buy heroin.
In looking at the drug problems facing Vermont and all of
our States, it seems clear that there is a shortage of drug
treatment. In response to that shortage, Senator Hatch and I
have joined together with a bipartisan coalition of Senators on
this Committee to introduce S. 304, the Drug Abuse Education,
Prevention, and Treatment Act. Senator Hatch and I agree that
as important as law enforcement is in battling drug abuse, it
cannot solve our drug problems alone. This bill would provide
millions of dollars for my State and all 50 States for programs
to offer treatment for people addicted to heroin and other
drugs and to prevent people from using illegal drugs in the
first place. The legislation provides Federal funding
specifically directed to drug treatment in rural States like
Vermont, residential treatment centers for mothers, drug
treatment programs for juveniles, and drug courts for juvenile
and adult offenders. It also includes funding for drug
treatment programs in prisons and jails, to help break the
cycle of recidivism that so often accompanies drug-related
crime.
Donnie Marshall, whom you would be succeeding as head of
the DEA, testified before this Committee in March that
treatment and prevention efforts play a vital role in assisting
law enforcement. I hope that you will take a similar view and
offer your support for the proposal that Senator Hatch and I
have made.
In addition to my interest in placing a higher Federal
priority on drug treatment, I have a number of other concerns
about our current drug policies. First, I am increasingly
skeptical about the need for and fairness of mandatory minimum
sentences. I am pleased that we have not imposed mandatory
minimums in S. 304, and I hope that we can begin to look at
amending existing law to reduce our use of them there. A 1997
study by the RAND Corporation of mandatory minimum drug
sentences found that ``mandatory minimums are not justifiable
on the basis of cost effectiveness at reducing cocaine
consumption, cocaine expenditures, or drug-related crime.''
Despite this study and the mounting evidence of prison
overcrowding we have seen in the ensuing years, legislators
continue to propose additional mandatory minimums. I know that
Rep. Hutchinson has expressed some hesitancy about expanding
mandatory minimums, and I hope we can work together on this
issue.
The nominee has also expressed concerns about the
sentencing disparity between those convicted of offenses
involving crack and powder cocaine. Current Federal sentencing
guidelines treat one gram of crack cocaine and 100 grams of
powder cocaine equally for purposes of determining sentences.
The U.S. Sentencing Commission has previously recommended
equalizing these penalties by reducing the mandatory minimum
penalties that currently apply to crack offenses.
Unfortunately, Congress has not followed that recommendation.
Finding a fair solution to this problem has been stalled by
concerns that addressing this issue is too politically
perilous--this Congress should overcome those fears and solve
this discrepancy.
Finally, I am concerned about how Federal law enforcement
will address the tension between Federal power and States'
rights in those States that have adopted laws permitting
marijuana to be used for medicinal purposes. The Supreme Court
recently decided in U.S. v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers'
Cooperative that there is no medical necessity defense under
the Controlled Substances Act, at least for the manufacture and
distribution of marijuana. This decision has created a conflict
in those States with medical marijuana laws, as--Federal law
criminalizes conduct condoned under State law. Although I have
not endorsed those medical marijuana initiatives, I am curious
as to what balance our law enforcement officials will strike
between our Federal drug laws and our commitment to State
sovereignty, and I would appreciate hearing any thoughts our
nominee may have on this question.
STATEMENT OF HON. ORRIN G. HATCH, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE
OF UTAH
Senator Hatch. Thank you so much, Senator Leahy.
I certainly join with Senator Leahy in welcoming
Congressman Hutchinson, his wife, and his family here today. We
are very proud of you. You are good people, and we are grateful
that you are willing to serve in this capacity.
Earlier this year, President Bush announced that his
administration will ``wage an all-out effort to reduce illegal
drug use in America.'' Considering the growing amount of
illicit drugs flooding into America each year and the
increasing pervasiveness of drug use among our youth, I welcome
President Bush's commitment. And today we will consider the
nomination of a person who, as Administrator of the Drug
Enforcement Administration, will help spearhead the President's
efforts in this regard.
I want to begin by taking a moment to thank the outgoing
DEA Administrator, Donnie Marshall, for his service to this
country. In the course of his distinguished 32-year career with
the DEA, he rose from special agent to the highest position in
the agency. Countless times he made himself available to this
committee for hearings, and under his direction, the DEA played
a helpful role in our successful effort to pass meaningful drug
legislation. So, while I know Mr. Marshall is not here today, I
want him to know how appreciative we are of his service to our
country.
Congressman Hutchinson, in my view, the President has
picked the right person to succeed Administrator Marshall.
DEA needs a dynamic, innovative, and experienced leader,
and I am confident that, Congressman Hutchinson, your past
experiences prosecuting drug crimes as a United States Attorney
and formulating drug policy as a Congressman have prepared you,
and prepared you well, to take the helm of the DEA. I applaud
President Bush for focusing intently on this crucial issue and
for his excellent choices of nominees to head America's two
most important anti-drug offices, the DEA and ONDCP.
The epidemic of illegal drug use in this country remains
one of our most urgent priorities. I believe all of us here
today will agree that we need a comprehensive strategy
embracing both demand and supply reduction in our struggle
against drug abuse. I have said repeatedly that the time has
come to increase the resources we devote to preventing people
from using drugs in the first place and to breaking the cycle
of addiction for those whose lives are devastated by these
circumstances. This is a bipartisan view, which I am pleased to
say is shared by our President and by our chairman of this
committee, Senator Leahy.
To address this deficit in demand reduction, earlier this
year I was joined by Senators Leahy, Biden, DeWine, Thurmond,
and Feinstein in introducing S. 304, the Drug Abuse Education,
Prevention, and Treatment Act of 2001. Since its introduction,
S. 304 has received strong widespread support from Federal and
State law enforcement agencies, prevention and treatment
entities, and community groups. What has brought these groups
together? The realization that this legislation will ultimately
help to cut supply by reducing the demand for drugs by
preventing our youth from using drugs in the first place and by
treating those who are the most consistent and addicted users.
However, let there be no misunderstanding of our intent
with this legislation. While we need to shore up the resources
dedicated to prevention and treatment, we remain committed to
the necessary and integral role law enforcement plays in
combatting drug use.
Congressman Hutchinson, I know you are acutely aware of the
enormity of this problem, this drug problem that our Nation
faces. In my opinion, the previous administration lost ground
primarily because it failed to make the issue of drug use a
national priority.
All Americans should be encouraged that this administration
will correct this mistake. The President has taken a fresh look
at how to lower drug use in America and is ready to employ
effective law enforcement strategies supported by education,
prevention, and treatment programs that are science-based and
have been proven effective.
Congressman Hutchinson, I know that you share my concerns
and all of our concerns up here, and I am interested in your
thoughts on these issues. I commend Chairman Leahy for holding
this very important confirmation hearing, and I urge him to
schedule in the near future a hearing for John Walters, the
nominee for Director of the Office of National Drug Control
Policy. It is important that the DEA and the ONDCP have
effective leadership, especially now that we are heading into
this appropriations season. Once the top positions of both the
DEA and ONDCP have been filled, we can all begin to work
together to effect real change that will benefit all Americans.
Let me just say that I can only be here part of the time
because of the markup in the Finance Committee and the
reorganization of the Finance Committee, so I will have to
leave. But I will try and get back as much as I can. But I
certainly respect you very, very much. I think we all do. And
we look forward to working closely with you and helping you
every step of the way. And I believe you will make a tremendous
difference in this country and I look forward to working with
you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Hatch follows:]
Statement of Hon. Orrin G. Hatch, a U.S. Senator from the State of Utah
I'd like to join Senator Leahy in welcoming Congressman
Hutchinson here today. Earlier this year, President Bush
announced that his Administration will ``wag[e] an all-out
effort to reduce illegal drug use in America.'' Considering the
growing amount of illicit drugs flooding into America each year
and the increasing pervasiveness of drug use among our youth, I
welcome President Bush's commitment. And today we will consider
the nomination of a person who, as Administrator of the Drug
Enforcement Administration, will help spearhead the President's
effort.
I want to begin by taking a moment to thank the outgoing
DEA Administrator, Donnie Marshall, for his service to this
country. In the course of his distinguished 32 year career with
the DEA, he rose from special agent to the highest position in
the agency. As Administrator, he was committed to his agency's
mission, and what is more, he took a personal interest in
working to educate our youth about the dangers of drugs.
Countless times he made himself available to this Committee for
hearings, and under his direction, the DEA played a helpful
role in our successful effort to pass meaningful drug
legislation. So, while I know Mr. Marshall is not here today, I
want him to know how appreciative we are of his service.
Congressman Hutchinson, in my view, the President has
picked just the right person to succeed Administrator Marshall.
DEA needs a dynamic, innovative, and experienced leader,
and I am confident that your past experiences prosecuting drug
crimes as a United States Attorney and formulating drug policy
as a Congressman have prepared you well to take the helm of the
DEA. I applaud President Bush for focusing intently on this
crucial issue and for his excellent choices of nominees to head
America's two most important anti-drug offices, the DEA and
ONDCP.
The epidemic of illegal drug use in this country remains
one of our most urgent priorities. I believe all of us here
today will agree that we need a comprehensive strategy
embracing both demand and supply reduction in our struggle
against drug abuse. I have said repeatedly that the time has
come to increase the resources we devote to preventing people
from using drugs in the first place and to breaking the cycle
of addiction for those whose lives are devastated by these
substances. This is a bipartisan view, which I am pleased to
say is shared by our President and by my colleague, Chairman
Leahy.
To address this deficit in demand reduction, earlier this
year I was joined by Senators Leahy, Biden, DeWine, Thurmond,
and Feinstein in introducing S. 304, the Drug Abuse Education,
Prevention, and Treatment Act of 2001. Since introduction, S.
304 has received strong widespread support from federal and
State law enforcement agencies, prevention and treatment
entities, and community groups. What has brought these groups
together? The realization that this legislation will ultimately
help to cut supply by reducing the demand for drugs by
preventing our youth from using drugs in the first place and by
treating those who are the most consistent and addicted users.
However, let there be no misunderstanding of our intent
with this legislation. While we need to shore up the resources
dedicated to prevention and treatment, we remain committed to
the necessary and integral role law enforcement plays in
combating drug use. The DEA has a long, distinguished history
of protecting America's citizens from the destructive drugs
sold by traffickers and the attendant violence. Particularly in
today's world, where drug trafficking is an international,
multibillion dollar business, DEA's cooperative working
agreements with foreign source and transit countries are
essential in preventing illegal drugs from being smuggled into
the United States. Moreover, the DEA provides needed training
and support to State and local law enforcement agencies in the
investigation of drug trafficking and manufacturing cases. For
example, DEA plays a vital role in methamphetamine lab
detection and cleanup. Without the DEA's assistance, State and
local law enforcement agencies would lack the knowledge and
resources necessary to investigate and cleanup methamphetamine
labs safely.
Congressman Hutchinson, I know you are acutely aware of the
enormity of the drug problem our country faces. According to
national surveys, since 1990, the number of first time users of
marijuana has increased by 63 percent, of cocaine by 37
percent, of hallucinogens, including ecstasy, by 91 percent,
and of stimulants by 165 percent. The use by teens of so-called
``designer drugs,'' such as Ecstasy and GHB, is soaring. Last
year, annual use of ecstasy among 10th and 12th graders rose
sharply, an increase of 33 percent and 55 percent respectively.
It is simply shocking that by the time of graduation, over 50
percent of our youth have used an illicit drug.
These figures are especially frustrating when one considers
that from 1980 to 1992, we had made significant progress in
curbing drug use. For example, between 1985 and 1992, there was
a reduction of almost 80 percent in cocaine use. In my opinion,
the previous Administration lost ground primarily because it
failed to make the issue of drug use a national priority.
All Americans should be encouraged that this Administration
will correct that mistake. The President has taken a fresh look
at how to lower drug use in America and is ready to employ
effective law enforcement strategies supported by education,
prevention, and treatment programs that are science-based and
have been proven effective. I agree with the President that if
we focus more of America's attention, energy and resources on
the problem of drug abuse, we can make real progress.
Congressman Hutchinson, I know that you share my concerns,
and I am interested in your thoughts on these issues. I commend
Chairman Leahy for holding this very important confirmation
hearing, and I urge him to schedule in the near future a
hearing for John Walters, the nominee for Director of the
Office of National Drug Control Policy. It is important that
the DEA and ONDCP have effective leadership, especially now
that we are heading into the appropriations season. Once the
top positions at both the DEA and ONDCP have been filled, we
can all begin to work together to effect real change that will
benefit all Americans.
Chairman Leahy. Thank you.
Just so that the nominee can hear all the nice things that
would probably be said at his funeral, for those who have
suggested that that is what this hearing might be, because
Congressman Hutchinson and I were on opposite sides during a
major event in the Congress, the impeachment trial in the
Senate, where he was named prosecutor and I was one of the, for
want of a better word, defense counsel. The two of us handled a
number of the depositions together. I would note for the record
that throughout that time, notwithstanding the fact we were on
opposite sides, Congressman Hutchinson's word was gold with me.
He never broke his word. He never showed anything but the
highest integrity and the highest standards of the Congress.
But to continue with the statements, I have to assume that
the next person to speak, the senior Senator from Arkansas, is
in favor of the nominee, although I have not asked him. So I
would ask Congressman Hutchinson's brother, the Senator from
Arkansas, Senator Tim Hutchinson, to speak. Go ahead, sir.
STATEMENT OF HON. TIM HUTCHINSON, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE
OF ARKANSAS
Senator Hutchinson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to
thank you, after our reorganization, for so expeditiously
scheduling the confirmation hearing for Asa. And thank you for
the opportunity to say a few words of introduction.
I know Senator Lincoln and I have during the Clinton
administration years had lots of opportunities to introduce
Arkansans who were being nominated for various positions, and
it was always an honor to do that. But this is very special to
be able to introduce not only a great Congressman from Arkansas
but my brother, and I want to say, Senator Biden and Senator
Feingold, I have resisted enormous constituent pressure from
Arkansans who have urged me to put a hold on his nomination and
do everything I could to block it.
[Laughter.]
Senator Hutchinson. Because they are going to miss him in
the 3rd District. It is a great honor and it is a proud day for
the State of Arkansas, and it is especially a proud day for me.
From the introductory opening statements, I know that the
committee is already familiar with Asa professionally. You know
his work as United States Attorney, and he was a distinguished
United States Attorney and did a wonderful job and held the
respect of the FBI and the DEA and all of the law enforcement
agencies with which he worked in that position and his
familiarity with the drug issue in our country and our society
because of is role as United States Attorney.
I know you are familiar with his work in Congress, not only
as a fair Impeachment Manager but as somebody who on the
Judiciary Committee in the House has been very, very involved
in this issue and has shown his concern not only through
legislation but through his travels, through his work on the
task force in the House on this issue.
So let me just speak a little bit about some of his
personal qualities, things that I know, not just as the senior
Senator from Arkansas but as Asa's brother.
I can assure you that he is going to be aggressive and
hard-working and tireless in this job. Every position Asa has
ever held, every position, every activity he has been involved
in, he has brought the quality of aggressiveness, a great work
ethic, and just tireless. And I think that you are going to see
that, and I think that is the kind of person that we need in
this position.
Let me also say that he brings the quality of being ale to
unify people, and that is something that in the effort on the
drug issue we desperately need, because there are so many
competing viewpoints, so many varying ideas. And Asa has always
had the capacity to bring those with varying viewpoints to find
common ground, to find common interests, and be able to bring
people in a spirit of cooperation and to get something
accomplished for the common good.
Let me also say that Asa will bring a spirit of
fearlessness. In his role as U.S. Attorney, he was very hands-
on, he was very engaged, and there were a lot of some high-
profile cases. But he was not just someone who worked in the
courtroom, though he is a great courtroom attorney, but he was
out on the front lines. And in the role that he is about to
assume, the quality of fearlessness is one I think that is a
great attribute.
And, finally, I have found Asa throughout his life to be
someone who is compassionate and someone who is passionate. And
I have been asked repeatedly by people in Arkansas why, why
would someone leave a position in the U.S. House of
Representatives to direct the Drug Enforcement Administration,
an oftentimes thankless job. And I think the answer is that he
is compassionate and he knows the price that America has paid
for illegal drugs, and he knows the impact that it has not only
upon our country but upon families and individuals, and he is
very passionate about doing something about it. So I am very,
very pleased and proud to be able to support, to endorse, and
to introduce my brother today.
Chairman Leahy. Thank you very much, Senator Hutchinson.
Senator Lincoln, we are always delighted to have you here.
Please go ahead.
STATEMENT OF HON. BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF ARKANSAS
Senator Lincoln. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is with great
pleasure that I am here this morning to introduce my friend and
colleague in the Arkansas congressional delegation, Congressman
Asa Hutchinson. I haven't known Congressman Hutchinson for a
lifetime, as the senior Senator from Arkansas has. And if I
were Congressman Hutchinson, I would be a little nervous if
three of my siblings were here who could tell incredibly
colorful stories they could tell of our growing up.
Chairman Leahy. That is in the confidential and classified
part of the hearing record.
[Laughter.]
Senator Lincoln. But I certainly know that Senator
Hutchinson has been very supportive of his brother, and that is
a great thing for us to see.
President Bush, obviously you all know, has nominated
Congressman Hutchinson to head the Drug Enforcement
Administration, and I don't believe that the President could
have selected a more qualified individual for this position.
Much of his background has been described, but as a Federal
prosecutor, Congressman Hutchinson observed firsthand the
effects of Federal drug policy on our law enforcement system.
As a Member of Congress, he has continued his commitment to
anti-drug efforts, holding field hearings to address the
methamphetamine explosion, which has been devastating to our
State in Arkansas, securing funding for local law enforcement,
and supporting measures to stop the flow of drugs into the
United States.
But Congressman Hutchinson is much more than a one-note
drug warrior. He has a keen appreciation of the effects of drug
policy on people's lives, as his brother, Senator Hutchinson,
has described, and has a great passion in wanting to do
something about that effect on individuals' lives, especially
our young people.
He understands that not all drug problems should be
addressed through prosecution and punishment. They are also a
concern for our communities, for our neighborhoods, and for our
families. And to that end, Congressman Hutchinson is committed
to a balanced approach to the drug problem that includes
education and treatment. He supports drug courts as an
alternative sentencing method for first- and second-time non-
violent offenders. He has been a strong advocate of community
involvement to educate our children about the dangers of drugs.
He has been one of the foremost advocates of social work
research to address the social dimensions of substance abuse,
such as domestic violence, poverty, and broken families.
As a U.S. Senator, I have enjoyed working with Congressman
Hutchinson and his staff on a number of issues important to our
State in Arkansas, and I am confident that he will bring to
this position at the Drug Enforcement Administration the same
diligence, foresight, integrity, and passion, as was mentioned
before, that he has brought to his service in the U.S.
Congress.
So as a fellow Arkansan, I am very proud to be here, Mr.
Chairman and members of this committee, and I am happy to
support his nomination to this distinguished position.
Thank you for allowing me to share with the committee this
morning.
Chairman Leahy. Thank you very much.
We are also honored and pleased to have before the
committee Congressman John Conyers. Congressman Conyers is the
ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee on which
Congress Hutchinson serves, and he knows him well from the
other side of the aisle, and he put together an extraordinary
letter signed by him and all Democratic members of the House
Judiciary Committee endorsing Congressman Hutchinson. It is
either the case that they think the world of him, or they want
him out of town.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Leahy. I am not sure which, but I suspect it is
because they think highly of him, and, Congressman Conyers, you
honor us by being here, and I appreciate your being here, sir.
Senator Lincoln. Mr. Chairman, excuse me. May I just
apologize and excuse myself. I have the same markup in the
Finance Committee.
Chairman Leahy. I understand. And I should mention, both
you and Senator Hutchinson have other commitments, and please
feel free to leave.
Senator Lincoln. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN CONYERS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Representative Conyers. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I am delighted to see all my friends here today: Senator
DeWine, former Chairman Biden, Russ Feingold, and, of course,
yourself.
I almost got derailed as I listened to Asa's brother, who
raised the question why should anyone want to leave Congress.
Well, I got about 105 reasons why anybody should want to leave
Congress without having any appointment in store. But I
digress.
[Laughter.]
Representative Conyers. I come here representing in an
unusual way my colleagues on the Democratic side of the
Judiciary Committee just to let you know, as our letter
indicates, that we are unusually--it is unusual that we bring
this level of support to a nominee not from our administration
and not from our party.
I think I know the reason why. This is the case of another
charming Arkansan coming to Washington.
[Laughter.]
Representative Conyers. I mean, here we go again. I don't
know what they drink down there, but this is what we are in
for. This is the way it goes from that State. We all like him a
lot. We have fought a lot. But, on the other hand, he has
joined with us on the violence against women issue, on the
questions of juvenile justice. On health care issues we have
enjoyed his support, and on racial profiling legislation, Asa
Hutchinson has been there with us.
The reason that I want to invest my credibility in his
nomination is that he is going to be able to bring the biggest
issue that divides us on how we fight the scourge of drugs in
this country by raising the level of discussion of whether it
is to be increased punishment, mandatory sentences, lock them
up and throw away the key, or whether we will turn to sane
methods of prevention and treatment. And it is in that hope for
that kind of discussion and leadership, I am willing to bank on
Asa Hutchinson as our next Drug Enforcement Administrator.
Now, my chief of staff, Julian Epstein, had written pages
and pages of laudatory comments which I will put in the record,
and let us all get on with the other issues of the day. But
thank you for inviting me here.
Chairman Leahy. Thank you.
Senator Biden. Good to see you, John.
Chairman Leahy. It is always good to have you here, as you
know, and the members of this committee have worked with you
over the years, and we appreciate your being here.
I also understand the House schedule is such that you are
going to have to go back, so I appreciate your being here.
Representative Conyers. Thanks.
Chairman Leahy. I would call the nominee forward.
Would you raise your right hand? Do you solemnly swear or
affirm that the testimony you are about to give will be the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Representative Hutchinson. I do.
Chairman Leahy. Please sit down, and I wonder if you might
be kind enough to introduce any members of the family who are
here.
STATEMENT OF HON. ASA HUTCHINSON, OF ARKANSAS, NOMINEE TO BE
ADMINISTRATOR OF THE DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION
Representative Hutchinson. I would be delighted to. I have
with me my wonderful wife, Susan--go ahead and stand, Susan--
and then my daughter, Sarah, who lives in the Washington, D.C.,
area, and her husband, Dave Wengel. And I might also say,
Senator, that I have my son, Asa, III, who is a lawyer in North
Little Rock, and his wife, Holli; my grandson, same age as
yours, I think, or close to it, Asa IV; and John Paul, and
Seth. And I don't want to neglect any of them.
Chairman Leahy. Well, you know, the transcript becomes part
of also the family archives, I am sure, so they should all be
mentioned.
Go ahead. The floor is yours.
Representative Hutchinson. Thank you, Chairman Leahy,
Senator Biden, Senator Feingold, Senator DeWine. I thank each
of your for the courtesies that you have extended to me as a
committee during the course of this nomination process. I
particularly want to express appreciation to Chairman Leahy and
Senator Hatch for their very generous comments this morning.
Chairman Leahy, if I might, it would have been easy for you
to yield to some of those who expected a critical view of my
nomination because of previous controversies, which found us on
different sides. But I want to thank you personally for taking
a different approach and for seeing my nomination as an
opportunity to demonstrate to the American people that, despite
any differences that might exist, we can be harmony on one of
the most critical problems that faces our Nation.
I also want to thank Senator Hutchinson, Tim, and Senator
Lincoln, Blanche--we go by first names in Arkansas--for their
support and confidence in my nomination. I am gratified that my
colleagues in Arkansas are excited and supportive of this
nomination and this challenge that I face. It meant a great
deal to me to have John Conyers, my colleague on the Judiciary
Committee, come over here today and his colleagues expressing
support for my nomination. Probably one of the most gratifying
things that has happened to me in Congress is when people that
you fight with and disagree with sometimes but yet you can see
through that and see someone's heart. So I am grateful for his
testimony today.
I want to introduce Susan, but I want to say a special word
that Susan, my wife, has never failed me to join--with a smile,
I might add--as I seem always to choose the road less traveled
by in life. And now I believe that we are embarking on a noble
crusade for the hearts and minds of a generation. And it is
good to have Susan travel with me on this road.
I will be gratified to have the opportunity to work in a
Justice Department led by John Ashcroft. I think he has set a
good example in the Department, and I look forward to working
with him, and I am grateful for his support.
Most importantly, it is an honor to be named by President
Bush to lead this effort as head of the Drug Enforcement
Administration, if confirmed, and I am grateful to the
President for the nomination. But, more significantly, I am
grateful for what I see as his heartfelt desire to strengthen
the American character by reducing the Nation's dependence on
drugs. This is accomplished in part through vigorous
enforcement of our laws, which I hope to be engaged in, but
there is more. It is also important to focus on educating our
youth for the best life choices and the rehabilitation of those
who have become addicted to drugs. And I fully support the
President's balanced approach to the problem of drug abuse.
As everyone in this room knows, it is a high privilege for
me to serve in Congress. And it is a distinct honor
particularly to represent the people of the 3rd District that
have sent me to Congress three times. And people ask me, as Tim
mentioned, why I would leave an institution I love in order to
engage in an effort in which success is doubted and progress is
hard to measure.
The answer goes back to what I learned as United States
Attorney in the 1980's. I learned that drug abuse destroys
individuals, it shatters families, and it weakens the fabric of
a community and a nation. But I also learned that there is
hope, and hope that this Nation can offer that we can be
effective in saving lives and rebuilding families and
communities. Surely, from this conclusion I reached in the
1980's, this is a noble purpose worthy of a great crusade. And
I think it explains why I am willing to accept this
responsibility.
Finally, while I was United States Attorney, I learned
about the extraordinary and dedicated men and women of the DEA.
They put their lives on the line to make a positive difference
for our Nation, and they deserve the support and praise of the
American people for the great work that they do. I hope to
provide leadership that is worthy of such dedication and
sacrifice.
Mr. Chairman, when I came to Congress, I continued my
personal commitment in this arena by serving on the Speaker's
Task Force for a Drug-Free America, and my oversight
responsibility on the Judiciary Committee was very instructive
to me. I chaired the oversight hearings on methamphetamine and
club drug abuse in California and other States, and it gave me
an appreciation for the risk our front-line officers take every
day. In California, I was able to see the California drug court
system. And drug courts impressed me as a very useful tool to
provide intensive, long-term rehabilitation for non-violent
drug abuse offenders. And I think that long-term rehabilitation
is what it takes, particularly when you are looking at
intensive drugs such as methamphetamine.
But as a result of my work on the front-line as a Federal
prosecutor, working with our drug agents in the field, and my
legislative efforts as a Member of Congress, I think I bring
experience to this noble cause. This experience includes
prosecuting scores of drug cases, providing leadership in the
area of cooperation between law enforcement agencies, and
encouraging communities to develop anti-drug coalitions to
encourage young people to make the correct life decisions.
But I think this job is much more than experience. I pledge
to bring my heart to this great crusade. My heart will reflect
a passion for the law; it will reflect a compassion for those
families struggling with this nightmare; and it will reflect a
devotion to helping young people act upon the strength and not
the weaknesses of their character.
I want to emphasize that the work of this committee is
critical to our anti-drug efforts. Your dedication, your
counsel, and your leadership are essential to building an
effective Federal team. And I pledge my cooperation and
availability to this committee, and I look forward to working
with you.
Charles de Gaulle, the former leader of France, one said
that France would not be true to herself if she was not engaged
in some great enterprise. Well, it is my belief that America
cannot be true to its own character without engaging our young
people, our families, our communities, and our leaders in this
great, just cause of reducing drug abuse.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will yield to any
questions.
[The biographical information of Representative Hutchinson
follows.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0047.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0047.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0047.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0047.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0047.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0047.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0047.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0047.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0047.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0047.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0047.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0047.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0047.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0047.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0047.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0047.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0047.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0047.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0047.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0047.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0047.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0047.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0047.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0047.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0047.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0047.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0047.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0047.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0047.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0047.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0047.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0047.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0047.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0047.034
Chairman Leahy. Thank you, Congressman, and I appreciate
and applaud your statement.
As you know from our earlier discussions, Senator Hatch and
I have introduced S. 304, the Drug Abuse Education, Prevention
and Treatment Act. The bill we have introduced would devote
substantial Federal funding to improving drug treatment and
other demand reduction programs, as well as drug courts for
adults and juveniles, drug treatment and testing for prisoners,
and other programs.
Now, I know as head of DEA your primary concern is law
enforcement, but do you believe that improving drug treatment
and prevention programs actually assists law enforcement?
Representative Hutchinson. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman, without
any doubt whatsoever. I don't think there is anyone more than
folks in law enforcement that understand we keep the finger in
the dike and keep the dam from breaking, but it is ultimately
education, prevention and treatment that is going to make
ultimately the biggest difference in our society.
So I applaud you, Chairman Leahy, for this legislation, as
well as the others that have introduced this. I think that if
you can find more money in the budget to put in treatment--and
I noted trying to provide treatment for those in prison; I
think that is a very important part of it. More education for
our young people--I applaud you for that, and I know the
Department is looking at that legislation and I wish you
success as you try to increase funding for the demand side.
Chairman Leahy. During floor debate in the House last year,
you said ``We should not extraordinarily expand mandatory
minimums. I think that moves us in the wrong direction.'' I
have actually voted for some mandatory minimums in the past,
and some of them I now look at and question whether I voted the
right way.
I have severe reservations about the usefulness and the
effects of many of the mandatory minimum sentences Congress has
passed over the past few decades. A lot of the Federal judges,
as you know, have complained openly about this.
So I might ask you this: under what circumstances do you
think mandatory minimums are helpful to law enforcement, but
are there also mandatory minimum sentences under current law
that we ought to look at possibly to change?
Representative Hutchinson. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think
mandatory minimums reflect the concern of society for a
particular problem. Primarily, they are directed at the drug
offenses and the gun offenses, and I think that the mandatory
minimums have been helpful in reducing violent crime in our
country.
I think Congress was very wise in coming back--was it in
1994--in creating the safety valve so that under certain
circumstances the judge can revert to the Sentencing Guidelines
rather than to the mandatory minimum sentence. There is always
those extraordinary circumstances that it is appropriate. As I
stated in the committee and on the floor, I have been reluctant
to expand mandatory minimums because I think they are directed
at the serious problems.
You asked about the future, and I think we have to be
careful, recognizing that you don't want to overly tie the
hands of the judge. But this is a way that Congress sometimes
finds to express the outrage of a community.
Ecstasy, for example, is an extraordinary problem and if
you offered mandatory minimums for someone who was selling
1,000 pills of Ecstasy at an event that they advertised as
alcohol- and drug-free, I think it would probably be
appropriate. I mean, it would be hard for me to say that is not
an appropriate discouragement for that activity and you have to
assess a firm penalty.
Chairman Leahy. Do you think that possibly with the number
of mandatory minimums on the books that there will be a time
that Congress would do well to go back and review them all?
Representative Hutchinson. I would have no problem in
Congress reviewing the mandatory minimums, and that is not pre-
judging any outcome, but I think it is appropriate whenever you
have that type of a mandatory sentence that takes it out of the
discretion of a judge that from time to time Congress review
that.
Again, my policy has been trying to be hesitant about
expanding those. I think that in the drug arena and in the
violent crime arena, they have been very effective, but I would
certainly support a review of it by Congress.
Chairman Leahy. A number of States, including fairly
conservative States like Arizona, have adopted initiatives in
recent years legalizing the use of marijuana for medical
purposes. The Supreme Court recently affirmed the Federal
Government's power under the Controlled Substances Act to
prosecute those who distribute or manufacture marijuana,
including those who distribute it to people who are ill in the
States that have voted to allow it.
I have not been one supporting the legalization of
marijuana and I have not taken any position on these
initiatives the States have passed. It is not something Vermont
has taken up and has left that to other States to determine
what they want to do, but I am concerned about the tension
between the State and Federal authority in those States.
There are a lot of drug cases that Federal agents and
prosecutors can bring, and you were a prosecutor, too, and you
understand the discretionary part. Do you think the Federal
Government should make it a priority to prosecute people who
are distributing marijuana to ill people in those States that
have voted to make it legal?
Representative Hutchinson. Well, there is a tough tension
that is there, Mr. Chairman, and you phrased the question as
tough as it can be phrased. You are clearly a good former
prosecutor.
I think that the Supreme Court decision was correct because
it affirmed Congress' discretion in designating marijuana as a
Schedule I drug that has no legitimate medical purpose. I think
we have to listen to the scientific and medical community. At
this point, they have said that there is not any purpose from a
medical standpoint for marijuana that cannot be satisfied by
some other drug.
So I think it is very important that we do not send the
wrong signal from a Federal level to the young people, to the
people in this State, or California or wherever, that marijuana
use is acceptable practice. It is still illegal and it is
harmful and there are many potential dangers, and the
scientific community does not support the medical use of it.
And so I think that as far as the enforcement policies, that is
something that I want to work with the Attorney General on and
develop an appropriate policy there reflecting those points.
Chairman Leahy. In other words, you can't take a position
today, and that is understandable, but let me urge this, and my
time is up and I will wait for the next round. More States are
going to do this and I think you and the Attorney General
should start having some long talks with the attorneys general
of those States that have done it because this could create a
real problem between State and Federal relations. There are
enough areas where you are going to have to cooperation in the
drug war. I am not suggesting what the outcome should be, but
this is something that I think should be fairly high up on your
radar screen.
Senator DeWine is also, like the two of us, a former
prosecutor, and I will yield to Senator DeWine.
Senator DeWine. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Let me
ask that my opening statement be made a part of the record.
Chairman Leahy. Without objection.
[The prepared statement of Senator DeWine follows:]
Statement of Hon. Mike DeWine, a U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing today to
consider the nomination of Representative Asa Hutchinson to be
Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Agency.
As you know, this position is vital in our fight against
illegal drugs, and Representative Hutchinson is an excellent
choice to head the Drug Enforcement Agency. During his time in
Congress, he has shown great integrity and thoughtfulness in
his work, gaining him the respect of colleagues on both sides
of the aisle. Moreover, Representative Hutchinson understands
that we must remain steadfast in the fight against drugs if we
are to protect our children, restore our cities, and strengthen
our families.
Mr. Chairman, in our continuous fight against illicit drugs
in this country, it is becoming increasingly clear that we need
a balanced, comprehensive anti-drug strategy--a strategy that
includes the elimination of both the demand for and supply of
drugs, as well as adequate treatment for addicts and anti-drug
education. I have long maintained that to be to be effective,
our national drug control strategy must be a coordinated effort
that directs resources and support among domestic law
enforcement, international eradication, and interdiction
efforts.
As we know all too well, when drugs are cheap and
plentiful, kids buy them and kids use them. More children today
are using and experimenting with drugs--many, many more.
According to the ``2000 Monitoring the Future Study,'' since
1992
Overall drug use among 10th graders has
increased 53 percent;
Marijuana and Hashish use among 10th
graders has increased 88 percent;
Heroin use among 10th graders has increased
83 percent; and
Cocaine use among 10th graders has
increased 109 percent!
These statistics represent an assault on our children, on
our families--and on the future of our country. That's why I
fought hard to include the reauthorization of the ``Safe and
Drug-Free Schools and Communities Program'' in the education
reform bill that we recently passed. This program is the
primary federal source of drug and violence prevention efforts
in 97 percent of America's schools. As a member of the ESEA
conference committee, I will remain dedicated to keeping the
reauthorization of this program in the final bill.
In addition, I joined the Chairman and the Ranking Member
in introducing the ``Drug Abuse Education, Prevention, and
Treatment Act of 2001.'' This bill would help us maintain a
balanced drug policy among demand, supply, and drug
interdiction by increasing resources for prevention and
treatment.
Ultimately, Mr. Chairman, I believe we must protect our
kids before the drug dealers get to them. That means we must
get drugs out of our schools and communities, prevent them from
ever entering our country, and maintain balance in our overall
national anti-drug policy. I believe that Representative Asa
Hutchinson can lead us on a solid path to these important
goals.
Senator DeWine. I will spare you all the nice things I was
saying about you; you can read them in the official record.
We welcome you here today, and I think this is a great
nomination by the President. We are very happy about it.
Representative Hutchinson. Thank you, Senator.
Senator DeWine. I wonder if you could outline for me what
you think DEA's role in the President's Andean initiative is
going to be and how you see that part of the world, that very,
very important, troubling part of the world.
Representative Hutchinson. Well, as you have, Senator, I
have traveled down there, looked at Colombia, but also the
circumstances in Ecuador. They are concerned about a pour-over
effect into that country, and I believe that it is a risk that
we have to take in order to support a very old democracy in
South America and make sure that it survives. I think we should
not delude ourselves, but our efforts there hopefully will have
some good side benefit for the drug supply in America. But we
have to realize the primary impact is to support that
democracy.
In reference to the DEA's role, one of the probably not so
greatly emphasized portions of the initiative is the criminal
justice sector. And if we are going to have an impact on the
supply of drugs coming in, we have got to put the major
trafficking organizations in jail. That takes investigation.
The DEA will be training, supporting better law enforcement
efforts in Colombia, in Venezuela, in Peru, in the South
American countries, in addition to making sure that they have
quality prosecutors, law enforcement people that can get the
job done. So we are backing them up. We are doing the training
there, and that criminal justice sector is probably as
important as any portion of the Andean initiative.
Senator DeWine. Well, I am delighted to hear you say that
because I think when we look at this whole battle of preserving
democracies--certainly, Colombia is not an emerging democracy,
but it is true with some of the emerging democracies that they
do need help as well, and that it is the developing of that
criminal justice system that actually does work and that gets
results.
The ability that we have as a country to train and the
ability to share our ideas and our expertise, I think, is very,
very valuable. You have a lot of that expertise at the DEA, and
so I am delighted to see that you intend to do that.
Another area I would just mention--and this is not directly
under your portfolio in DEA, but I just think that as you will
become one of the senior counselors to the President on drugs
that I would just urge you to always keep the balance that you
and I have talked about in the past with drug treatment, drug
education, domestic law enforcement, and international
interdiction.
I think it is important that every one of us who has any
input into this from the point of view of Congress, or in your
case from the administration, weigh in heavily and make it
clear to the country that this is what we have to do. It has to
be a balanced approach.
Representative Hutchinson. I agree completely, Senator
DeWine, and you can be assured that I will support the
President's intention to have a very balanced approach to our
anti-drug effort.
I have been delighted to know of the success and energy of
the demand reduction section of the DEA. I believe that if you
are talking about a law enforcement initiative, there is
probably nothing more important than educating folks to obey
the law and what the law is. The demand reduction section has
been very effective in the DEA working with community
coalitions, working to educate schools, administrators and
teachers about the new wave of drugs coming in. So I think it
is something that I intend to make sure is alive and well at
the DEA, as well as our enforcement efforts.
Senator DeWine. Let me just close with a question in regard
to Haiti. Last year, it is estimated that about 15 percent of
the drugs destined for the U.S. passed through Haiti as a
transit point, and you and I the other day talked a little bit
about this. I would just urge you to keep the few DEA agents
that we do have down there, and I would be interested to get
reports periodically on how they are doing.
Representative Hutchinson. I would be happy to, and thank
you for that counsel, Senator.
Senator DeWine. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Leahy. Thank you.
The former chairman of this committee, Senator Biden, has
probably spent more time on the issue of illegal drugs and how
to combat them than any other member of the committee, and I
yield to Senator Biden.
Senator Biden. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Congressman I am for you, and I ask unanimous consent that
my statement laying out my reasons why I support your
nomination be placed in the record at this time.
Chairman Leahy. Without objection.
[The prepared statement of Senator Biden follows:]
Statement of Hon. Joseph R. Biden, Jr., a U.S. Senator from the State
of Delaware
Today the Judiciary Committee considers the nomination of
William Asa Hutchinson to head the United States Drug
Enforcement Administration. I intend to support this
nomination.
Congressman Hutchinson is well known to all of us on this
Committee not only because he has served in the House of
Representatives where he has been a member of the Judiciary
Committee, but also because he is the brother of our colleague
Senator Tim Hutchinson.
Asa Hutchinson has had an impressive legal career and is
quite an adept lawyer. He was just 31 years old when he was
appointed by President Reagan to be the U.S. Attorney for the
Western District of Arkansas, making him the youngest federal
prosecutor in the country at the time. He has also
distinguished himself as a lawyer in the private sector.
I am pleased to note that Congressman Hutchinson's
nomination has been endorsed by the majority of his Democratic
colleagues on the House Judiciary Committee and by the
International Association of Chiefs of Police.
The next head of the IDEA will have a great opportunity to
influence the shape of our nation's response to illegal drugs -
both domestically and internationally.
I urge you, Congressman Hutchinson, to keep a number of
important issues in mind as you consider what drug policy
should look like in the future:
First, we need to prove that we can walk and chew gum at
the same time by passing S. 304, the Drug Abuse Education,
Prevention and Treatment Act, a bill that I am working on with
the Chairman, Senator Hatch, and several other members of this
committee, which authorizes $2.7 billion for drug treatment and
prevention programs over the next three years. I hope we can
pass this bill out of Committee soon and I hope that we will
have Congressman Hutchinson's support.
Second, we have to deal effectively with the emergence of
new "club drugs," particularly Ecstasy. Parents and kids are
under the false impression that these drugs are "no big deal."
We need to educate kids so that they know the risk involved
with taking Ecstasy, what it can do to their bodies, their
brains, their futures. Adults also need to be taught about this
drug - what it looks like, the paraphernalia - pacifiers, water
bottles, glow sticks, etc. - that go along with Ecstasy use,
and what to do if they discover that someone they know is using
it.
Third, the United States must continue to stay engaged with
Colombia. Last year, the United States made a major commitment
to help Colombia and other Andean nations stem the production
and trafficking of illicit drugs. We must continue this
essential effort, not only in Colombia but with the other
countries in the Andean region.
Fourth, we must build on the new level of cooperation with
the Mexican government. President Fox has recently extradited
several Mexican nationals wanted in the United States on drug
trafficking charges. This is both courageous and historic - and
it should be commended. The Fox Administration has also
acknowledged the corruption in its police forces and has
signaled its willingness to work with the United States to
bolster Mexican law enforcement.Fifth, we need to make sure
that new antiaddiction medications such as buprenorphine are
made available to those who need them. Senators Hatch, Levin,
Moynihan, and I worked with IDEA agents and others last year to
pass a law to create a new system that would allow select
qualified doctors to prescribe certain pharmacotherapies from
their offices rather than through a series of clinics on the
periphery of the medical world. We need to make sure that this
new system is given a chance to work so that we begin to close
the "treatment gap" and also move drug treatment into the
medical mainstream.
I hope that we can work together on these and other issues.
In drug policy, we tend to become overwhelmed with the enormity
of the task ahead of us. We focus on the fact that we have
nearly 15 million drug users in this country, four million of
whom are hard-core addicts. But we lose sight of the fact that
we have cut the number of drug users by almost half since 1979.
And far too often we forget that this is our second wave of
drug addiction in this country. We beat the first wave back in
the 1880s, and I remain confident that we can beat this one
too.
Mr. Hutchinson, as I told you when me met last week, I
intend to support your nomination. You have a tough job ahead
of you, but I sincerely believe that you have what it takes to
be a strong IDEA Administrator. I wish you the best of luck and
I look forward to working closely with you on both domestic and
international drug policy matters.
Senator Biden. One of the things that you and I talked
about is this notion about whether or not we are winning or
losing in this effort to deal with the drug problem. We have a
semantic disagreement we have not discussed, and that is I have
never called it a war. I read your statement about your not
wanting to have it referred to as a cancer, like the last drug
director did, because you were concerned that it would appear
as though we thought there wasn't a solution.
The thing that worries me most after all these years, and
every single year writing a national drug strategy--I am the
guy who wrote the law, and it took 6 years to get it passed,
setting up the drug director's office. When I was chairman of
this committee, a previous administration wanted to merge the
DEA with the FBI. I don't think it is an exaggeration to say my
opposition to that played some role in it not being merged.
My consistent fear has been that we will yield to the
frustration that there is not much we can about this problem,
and therefore why not ultimately legalize it. Where I have some
concern about the States that have passed referenda for medical
use or marijuana, I have less concern about the actual medical
use than the message it sends.
There are other substances, there are other drugs that can
alleviate the pain for those who have debilitating and in many
cases terminal illnesses. I don't want to quarrel about that
now, but what I do worry about is I worry about this notion,
whether it is marijuana or Ecstasy, or I might point out
initially the club drugs, rohypnol and ketamine, or initially
angel dust--I mean, I can go down the list, and initially we
have tended to embrace every drug that has come forward as not
being as harmful as other drugs.
You may recall, because you were a Federal prosecutor at
the time, the debate I had with the Carter administration and a
gentleman who was the chief adviser to the Carter
administration, a medical doctor, who came up to see me and
asked me why I was ``picking on cocaine.'' Why was I picking on
cocaine? To put it in perspective, the American Medical
Association did not declare cocaine an addictive substance
until the late 1980's. It was a constant battle.
So the point I want to make is this: there is a frustration
in dealing with this problem, and when we don't come up with
the right answers and reduce the numbers of people who are
consuming these drugs, the tendency is, out of frustration--
well-thought-out, like Former Secretary of State Shultz, a very
fine man, and William Buckley and others, leading conservative
voices, as well as liberal voices--Mayor Schmoke, a Rhodes
scholar--talking about the legalization of drugs.
I think we don't focus on the facts here. The facts are we
have made great progress. In 1979, there were 25 million
Americans regularly using and abusing controlled substances in
America. That is down to 14.8 million. Years ago when I chaired
this committee, there were 5.6 million hard-core addicts. That
number is down to 4 million, still too many, but we have
actually made some genuine progress.
It seems to me we are right at the point--I making a
statement, not asking a question here--it seems to me the whole
point here is that we don't want to let ourselves get into this
mind set that we can't do anything about it, and the key to me
at this point is treatment. Treatment works, but it does not
work unless we provide the funding for it.
In the United States of America, nearly 769,000 people
between the ages of 18 and 25 who need drug treatment can't get
it. You show up at any municipal organization in the United
States of America and walk and in say, I am a drug addict, I am
out there committing crimes, I have committed 3 felonies in the
last 4 weeks--by the way, they commit between 90 and 180
felonies a year to sustain the habit, depending on what figure
you take--help me. And they will say come back in 4, 6, 8, 10
weeks, and 6 months in most major cities.
So, Asa, it took me 4 years to get drug courts endorsed.
Your endorsement of them is very helpful. The fellow we are
about to bring in as the head of ONDCP does not share your
view, unless he has a conversion at the moment of his
confirmation hearing. Mr. Walters is a fine man. We have argued
for 14 years about treatment.
I hope that you will be willing not only to do the job of
managing that vast department--I realize my time is up, Mr.
Chairman--but I hope you will weigh in. And the reason it is
important is you will be the head of DEA and you are viewed as
a strong conservative voice. And that is the next stage here;
we have got to move to treatment and availability of treatment
on demand.
That is why I didn't give my opening statement. I have no
questions for you because I asked you all the questions I
needed to ask you in our private meetings.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Representative Hutchinson. Mr. Chairman, can I just respond
real quickly and just express my appreciation to Senator Biden
for his leadership?
Chairman Leahy. Of course, you can.
Representative Hutchinson. I think your leadership has made
a difference, and I am grateful to you. I am particularly
grateful about the hope you expressed to the American people as
to the progress that we have made.
You know, I perhaps could have been wiser in reference to
my criticism of General McCaffrey on not using the word ``war''
because I didn't mean to get into a semantic battle.
Senator Biden. It is not a big deal.
Representative Hutchinson. What I believe is important, as
you said, is that we send the right signals, that we express
intensity. And so the way I express that intensity is talking
about a great crusade, and I think that is good, strong
language we need to use.
And you indicated that the key is treatment. I agree that
treatment is a critical element of this. I do believe that the
law enforcement community forces people to treatment many times
by making an arrest, and I have had that expressed to me many,
many times. And so it all works together, and I appreciate
again your leadership.
Senator Biden. You ask any law enforcement officer in a
rural community whether or not they would rather have two more
officers or two serious treatment facilities that rural America
can get to, where the use of drugs is increasing faster than in
the inner-city. I bet you eight to one that you will find them
saying, give me the treatment facilities.
Chairman Leahy. Well, they would in Vermont. I know that.
The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Senator Specter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Congressman Hutchinson, I compliment you on your
nomination. I know your record in the House of Representatives
and I think it is an exemplary one. I appreciated the
opportunity to talk to you when you came by for the informal
visit and the extensive conversation we had at that time.
A couple of points that I would like to make this morning
really more for the record involve some items we talked about,
and it picks up on what Senator Biden has talked about on
rehabilitation. I came in at the very end of his questioning.
I would renew my request formally to you at this time when
you have the position officially to make a study as to the
cost-effectiveness of the very substantial funds that the
Federal Government is putting into the war against drugs. I
will use the term ``war against drugs.'' We have to fight it at
many, many levels.
We are currently considering an appropriation for Colombia,
close to $900 million, which would supplement the $1.3 billion
from last year. As I said to you privately and at a hearing of
the Foreign Operations Subcommittee, I have grave doubts about
the value of that kind of a Federal expenditure.
I am very much concerned about what happens to the
government of Colombia and the people of Colombia, and they
have had a very, very tough time, including the attack by the
drug warlords on the supreme court of Colombia. But when we
make an analysis as to where we ought to put U.S. dollars, it
seems to me we do not get much for our money.
I would like your analysis as to the expenditures which we
have made in Colombia before the $1.3 billion and the efficacy
of another large investment. Then I would also like your
analysis as to where we ought to be putting our money on the
supply side versus the so-called demand side.
Interdiction, I think, is important, but how effective is
it? When we put funding into limiting the growth of drugs in
Colombia, what effect does it have beyond pushing drugs into
Bolivia or Peru? I have made a number of trips into that area
over the past two decades and still wonder if there is any
value to our putting a lot of money into discouraging people in
one country from growing drugs when it seems to move right into
the next country. Then the issue comes up on the so-called
demand side, where education, I believe, has worked and
rehabilitation has a prospect.
Let me give you a chance to respond as to your approach
philosophically to the allocation of Federal funds on supply
versus demand.
Representative Hutchinson. Thank you, Senator Specter, and
I did enjoy our discussion on that issue. I think in reference
to Colombia and the investment in that region, I have supported
it. I believe that it is important that we do support that
democracy and their struggle there.
I think it is certainly appropriate that Congress continue
to look at the effectiveness of the money that we invest there.
Are we getting a good return? Are we having proper
accountability? I feel confident that the DEA role in the
criminal justice sector will work well. I think that is a good
investment.
In reference to the supply versus demand side debate, I
think we have to be careful about the debate itself. I think
the question should be are we investing what we should be on
the supply side, the law enforcement side. Are we taking care
of folks there, protecting them against the dangers of going up
against a methamphetamine group in a search warrant? On the
demand side, are we investing enough in education?
In both of them, we could probably invest as much as you
could write a check for out of Congress because there is great
need there, but the balance we should always be looking at. But
I think they work together. I have been impressed with the
letters that I have gotten in my initial phase here during the
confirmation----
Senator Specter. Congressman Hutchinson, I am going to
interrupt you because my yellow light went on and I am about to
be interrupted by the red light which goes on. So let me raise
one other issue here again for the record, and it is something
we discussed, and that is the issue of taking Cuba up on
Castro's offer to cooperate with us on drug interdiction.
There was a day when Castro was a real threat, when he had
Soviet missiles in Cuba back in 1962 or when there was a
problem about turning Latin America communistic, but I think
those dangers have lost since past. I made a trip to Cuba 2
years ago and had a talk with President Castro about many
items--human rights, Lee Harvey Oswald, the Cuban Missile
Crisis, and drugs.
It seems to me that we ought to be using every facility we
have as to intelligence and to drug interdiction without
respect to the kinds of concerns we have had about Castro in
the past. My red light is on, so I will stop, but that doesn't
stop you from responding.
Representative Hutchinson. Well, thank you, Senator
Specter. I certainly think one of the great things about the
DEA is that many countries, even when we have a philosophical
difference of viewpoint, are willing to work together fighting
drugs. Certainly, when you look at the Caribbean, we have a
strong investment there to interdict, to stop the supply coming
in.
I don't, quite frankly, know as much as you do about our
relationship with Cuba on that issue. That is something that
the State Department will weigh in on, I am sure, but I will
certainly take your views into consideration there.
Senator Specter. Well, the State Department will weigh in,
but the head of the Drug Enforcement Administration should
weigh a little more on this issue on that point.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Leahy. Thank you, Senator Specter.
Senator Feingold?
Senator Feingold. Welcome, Congressman. I greatly admire
your abilities. I congratulate you, and I know you have a
longstanding commitment both as a Congressman and as U.S.
Attorney to our Nation's fight against drugs. I very much look
forward to working with you in your new position.
As you know, the role of the DEA in drug interdiction
efforts has been invaluable. I do think that the thousands of
men and women of the DEA should be proud of their service to
our country, but I believe that drug interdiction should be
part of a strong multi-pronged approach to the fight against
drugs.
I believe that effective enforcement of our Nation's laws
against the production, sale and distribution of drugs is
essential, but I also believe that effective drug prevention
and treatment is essential. In other words, and as almost every
Senator on this committee has said, while we use enforcement
tools to fight the supply side of the problem, we must also use
prevention and treatment tools to fight demand.
In the brief time I have, Congressman, I would like to ask
you about a somewhat related issue, and that is the issue of
racial profiling. As you and my colleagues know, both President
Bush and Attorney General Ashcroft have strongly expressed
their belief that racial profiling is wrong and should end in
America.
As you know, as well, your strong supporter, Representative
Conyers, and I have introduced legislation to end racial
profiling and we look forward to fruitful discussions with the
administration on our bill. I am extremely pleased that you,
too, have spoken out against racial profiling and supported the
Federal Government taking a leadership role in combatting the
practice, and I was delighted with your presence at our news
conference where we introduced our bill. In fact, I think in
this position you will have the opportunity to do just that, to
combat this practice.
As you know, many believe that our Nation's so-called war
on drugs has resulted in or encouraged racial profiling by law
enforcement officers. According to the May 1999 ACLU report
entitled ``Driving While Black: Racial Profiling on our
Nation's Highways,'' we know that, contrary to popular belief,
drug use and distribution are not confined to racial and ethnic
minorities. Indeed, five times as many whites use drugs.
Nevertheless, the war on drugs since its inception has
targeted racial and ethnic minorities. Through a program called
Operation Pipeline, the DEA trained some 27,000 police officers
in 48 States to use pretext stops to find drugs in vehicles,
and introduced a racially biased drug courier profile.
I understand that the DEA fortunately now claims that it no
longer teaches racial profiling in its training courses. So I
would ask you, if confirmed, what steps would you take to
ensure that the DEA does not engage in racial profiling?
Representative Hutchinson. Thank you, Senator Feingold, and
I appreciate your leadership on the issue of racial profiling.
And I do hope that Congress will respond to your leadership and
to the President's statement that racial profiling should end.
I think it is important that the Federal law enforcement
agencies set the example for the States. The DEA has a major
role to play in training and what I will do at the DEA--I know
that we already have a policy that prohibits racial profiling
and that needs to be--make sure that it is enforced, make sure
that the training is done in conjunction with that. And if the
Senate does confirm me, I will certainly go over there with
that intent.
Training is important. I would want to look at the training
to make sure that as the DEA trains State and local law
enforcement on how to do stops for those who are suspected of
drug trafficking that there is not race used as--racial
profiling used in that context.
Senator Feingold. I really appreciate that because as we
work carefully with the State and local law enforcement people
on racial profiling, they do point out that the DEA sort of
began the concept and the training on it. So that is a helpful
statement.
In fact, what steps would you take to address the fact that
agents have trained State and local law enforcement officers to
use racial profiling techniques in the past?
Representative Hutchinson. Well, Senator Feingold, I have
not studied Operation Pipeline in detail. I have looked at some
of the reports that indicate that there was not racial
profiling that was taught in that context. I know the ACLU has
a different view on that and I don't know the nuances of it.
All I can say is that as I go over there, I want to make
sure that it does not happen and that not only we set the
proper example as a Federal agency, but we make sure our
training is consistent with our desire to end racial profiling.
Senator Feingold. Thank you. Just a couple of other quick
questions in relation to this.
In June 1999, President Clinton signed an executive
memorandum ordering all Federal agencies to collect data to
determine if racial profiling is occurring. Each Federal agency
was asked to develop a system for collecting data, and it is my
understanding that the Bush administration has kept that
executive memorandum in place.
As DEA Administrator, would you encourage the Bush
administration to continue with the previous administration's
executive memorandum to collect data from Federal agencies?
Representative Hutchinson. Well, Senator Feingold, that is
a major part of the legislation that you have introduced along
with others, and as a legislator I supported the need for
statistics-gathering because I believe it is a good management
tool. The only concern I had was in how some of those
statistics might be used in litigation. It is a fair debate.
I look forward in my new position, if confirmed, to work
with the administration to develop appropriate policies in that
regard. And so I understand the need and we hope that we can
accomplish our common goal to end that problem.
Senator Feingold. I appreciate that answer. Finally, I
would just ask would you support releasing that data that comes
in for public review?
Representative Hutchinson. The releasing of the data that
is used as a management tool?
Senator Feingold. That is gathered with regard to the
executive memorandum from President Clinton that so far the
Bush administration has not rescinded.
Representative Hutchinson. I need to look at the nuances of
that. My reaction is always that we need to have openness in
government, but we need to look at the details of that and the
extent of the information that would be released.
Senator Feingold. I would just ask, Mr. Chairman, if you
could get back to me on that point in a reasonable time, I
would really appreciate it. I congratulate you again,
Congressman.
Representative Hutchinson. Thank you, Senator.
Chairman Leahy. In fact, the record, of course, will be
kept open for questions and answers, and we would ask the
nominee to respond to that as quickly as possible.
I would also note just before we go to Senator Sessions
that the committee--and we have the agreement of the ranking
member for this--will hold a nomination hearing tomorrow
afternoon on James Ziglar to be the Commissioner of INS. We
were able to juggle around the schedule to do that. Otherwise,
we would run into the problem of not getting it done prior to
the August recess.
The Senator from Alabama. I would note, Congressman
Hutchinson, you are surrounded by former prosecutors.
Senator Sessions?
Senator Sessions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and it is a
delight to see Congressman Hutchinson here. I have known him
for a number of years. I remember on a Saturday morning at a
conference in New Orleans we first met, I believe, having a cup
of coffee there. My wife and I met with you and I have
respected you since that time.
You have tried over 200 cases. That is good experience in
itself. You learn what the legal system is all about when you
litigate. I was really impressed with your record over the
years. I have watched it with great admiration. I was just
delighted that the President saw fit to pick someone of your
integrity and dedication and your understanding of what America
is about to head the Drug Enforcement Administration.
I have great affection and admiration for the DEA. They are
some of the finest investigators I know. They work extremely
hard. They often work nights and weekends when a drug deal is
going down. It never seems to be during the day, eight to five;
it is always when they have planned to be on a vacation with
their family or something like that. It is very disruptive. I
believe you understand that, and I believe that you will seek
to do all you can to affirm them for the important work that
they do.
Asa, let me ask you this: do you believe that in our effort
to reduce drug use in American that criminal law enforcement
plays an important role?
Representative Hutchinson. Thank you, Senator Sessions.
Absolutely, I believe that criminal law enforcement, as I have
mentioned before, does a number of things. It sends the right
signal to the Nation that certain conduct is unacceptable,
unhealthy, and not consistent with the values of this Nation.
That is an important message and law enforcement sends that
signal.
Second, we talk about treatment and education. Many times,
a law enforcement action will not result necessarily in jail,
but many times results in rehabilitation and treatment. So it
forces someone to confront their illegal activity, confront
their need for help.
Third, what I started to remark earlier, a lot of the
letters I get talk about the concern of parents about the easy
availability of drugs. And I think that goes to the supply side
that you have to have the education and the treatment which is
critically important and ultimately the solution, but you have
got to deal with the supply side and the law enforcement side
as well.
Senator Sessions. That is well stated and I certainly agree
with that. It is also a part of, I believe, a national
statement that drug use is unacceptable. At its base, that is a
moral argument that we do not and will not accept drug use in
our society and we are prepared to punish those who participate
in making that occur. I think that is very, very important.
One of the things that I have expressed concern about
recently in a letter to DEA--I believe we have written DEA and
GAO--is some of the inaccuracy in reporting from some DEA
agents about the number of cases that have actually been made,
investigated and prosecuted. It appears that in Puerto Rico,
for example, some very serious allegations arose that suggested
they were simply claiming credit for any case investigated in
their neighborhood almost.
Are you concerned about that, and will you make it a
priority of yours to make sure you have accurate accountability
in the statistical information that you receive?
Representative Hutchinson. I will, Senator, because
whenever we have reports of inaccurate information, then that
undermines the public confidence in what we are doing. It
undermines the investment that we made from Congress'
standpoint in law enforcement. So the statistics-gathering, the
case reporting is critical. We only take credit for what we do
and are responsible for, and so I will certainly do all that I
can to make sure that it is accurate under my watch.
Senator Sessions. Well, it will be important for you to
evaluate how well your agents are doing, but as you know, more
and more we are involved in task forces. There can be a 40-
person task force and one DEA agent assigned and one FBI agent
assigned and one Customs agent assigned, and they arrest 10
people and all 3 of them claim credit for arresting 10 people.
That is not good information to make decisions on, and I hope
that you will see if you can go pierce through all of this
because we want to encourage task forces and investigative
forces and I hope you will work on that.
Another matter that I hope you will wrestle with and will
not be afraid to discuss is your budget as compared to other
expenditures of money for drug interdiction and resistance. For
example, your budget runs about $1 billion; DEA's budget is
about $1 billion. We are talking about spending $1.6 billion in
Colombia over a year or 2 years to somehow reduce our drug
problem.
In my view, there is probably no more effective agency in
the country in reducing drugs than DEA, and I hope that in the
inner circles you will evaluate DEA's contribution and question
some of the other moneys that are out there. Do you have any
thoughts about that?
Representative Hutchinson. Thank you, Senator, and I do. I
think that the DEA, as you mention, is our most effective
weapon in this effort from a law enforcement standpoint. It is
a single-focus agency. There are extraordinarily professional,
talented, dedicated women of the DEA, and I think that needs to
be recognized.
Whenever you look at the problem they face, it is enormous.
And whenever we look at the budget, I know that in a number of
arenas that hasn't been an increase and I will be advocating
looking at it carefully as to what is effective, what works,
and where your best investment will be, and I will certainly
share that when I come to those conclusions.
Senator Sessions. Well, I do think, from nearly 15 years
working as a Federal prosecutor with DEA agents and other drug
agents, that there is no more effective agency fighting drugs
than the Drug Enforcement Administration. I do believe that
sometimes leaders in Washington want to tell them they can only
work some huge, big, big case. As a result of that, they don't
start with mid-sized or smaller cases that work their way up
into bigger cases.
With regard to drugs, somebody got it ultimately from
Colombia if it is cocaine. It always goes up to a higher and
bigger organization, and to say you are not going to start at
mid-level dealers and work your way up is really short-sighted
and typical of a Washington view.
You were the United States Attorney in a middle-America
district. Do you have any insight into that mentality of
Washington?
Representative Hutchinson. I think the goal should be,
Senator, that we disrupt the major trafficking organizations. I
mean, that should be the focus, but you are exactly right that
those cases begin at a lower level.
One instance that you would identify with--I prosecuted a
case out of Hot Springs. It was small quantities of cocaine,
relatively speaking. They got that cocaine from New York City.
The person in New York City got it from Colombia. I mean, it
was a two-step process to bring that cocaine to Arkansas, and
you are able to trace that. We have to go after that, but many
times it starts at the lower level of the drug culture.
Senator Sessions. My time is out.
Chairman Leahy. Go ahead, go ahead.
Senator Sessions. One more comment is I believe you need to
look at convictions carefully, get good data, and insist that
your agents are out making cases that are prosecutable.
Ultimately, that is what you are paid to do, and I am not sure
that the numbers that you are receiving based on this task
force concept are as accurate as they were 20 years ago and we
need to make sure that the taxpayers' money, if you get what
you get or even more, is going to be well spent. I think
accurate numbers is going to be key to that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Leahy. Thank you.
Before we go to the distinguished Senator from Illinois, my
memory was jogged when the Senator from Alabama mentioned three
different agencies all coming and taking credit for the same
arrests.
When I was prosecuting cases, we had a police chief from a
small town, a wonderful person, very popular on the dinner
circuit. He spent very little time doing law enforcement and a
great deal of time doing PR. We might be totally on the other
side of the county and some major arrest would be made and he
would hear it on the radio. It was off in the distance, but we
would hear the siren as he comes wheeling around, usually
getting there ahead of the TV cameras, kind of a four-wheel
slide. He would jump out and by then the press would be set up
and he would say, thank God we caught them; boy, we worked hard
on this one, and off we would go. So I know what you mean. Not
that that ever happens in the Congress, I want you to know.
The Senator from Illinois.
Senator Durbin. Congressman Hutchinson, thank you for
joining us and thank you for meeting with me this morning. I
really appreciated it very much.
I guess it has been a year ago now that I met with the
director of the Illinois Department of Corrections and we
talked about some of the problems that he is facing. He gave me
a statistic which I think is very important for us to reflect
on at this hearing.
In my home State of Illinois, in 1997, we had 500 prisoners
in our State corrections system for the possession of a
thimbleful of cocaine--500 in 1997. Currently, we have 9,000.
The average incarceration period for a drug criminal in the
Illinois prison system is 1 year. Yet, during that period of
time, my State offers no drug treatment program to these
addicts. They come in addicted, they leave addicted, but they
have sharpened their criminal skills during their period of
incarceration. That, to me, is a hopeless situation to allow
that to continue.
We take great comfort in arresting people and sending them
off to prison, but if we don't take an honest and realistic
view of addiction and how to deal with it, we are turning these
addicts back out on the street, now that they have hooked up
with gangs, hooked up with other criminals, still addicted,
still looking for victims to finance their habit. That, I
think, is a failure in our society if that becomes the norm,
which it has been for so many years.
I think that the DEA has taken some positive steps with
demand reduction in the last few years. I think there is a lot
more that we can do. I know that Senator Biden and others have
already spoken about this, but I hope that we can invest in
treatment. You just don't get the same kind of press attention
to people who are graduating from a drug treatment program who
now finally have their high school diploma that you get if you
have a raid and you can stack up all the pounds of heroin and
cocaine and marijuana in front of you before the cameras. Yet,
we know, if the RAND study can be believed, that it is
dramatically more effective in reducing drug crime to deal with
the treatment situation, and I hope that as the head of the DEA
you will do that.
One of the other aspects of this which we discussed this
morning that I want to just focus on very briefly is the whole
question of racial profiling. Attorney General Ashcroft and
members of the administration who have come before this
committee have made it clear that they are really dedicated to
eliminating racial profiling and I applaud them for that. This
shouldn't be a partisan issue. If we are going to have justice
blinded to a person's economic status or racial condition,
whatever it happens to be, then we have to deal with this, I
think, in an honest fashion.
I asked General McCaffrey when he sat in that same chair a
few years ago about this. I asked him about some statistics I
had read and asked him if they were true. The statistics I read
were these: African Americans represent 12 percent of the
United States population; they represent 13 percent of its drug
users. Keep that number in mind--13 percent of drug users. They
represent 35 percent of people arrested for drug possession, 55
percent of those convicted of drug possession, and over two-
thirds of those incarcerated in America for drug possession. It
starts at 13 percent and ends up being over 60 percent.
There is no way that you can read those statistics and
believe that we are doing the right thing here. Filling our
prisons with people of color in the name of drug enforcement
may give us some comfort when we look at the numbers, but they
don't give us comfort when we look at the people and realize
that the vast majority of users are not black and brown. They
are white, and they don't end up being arrested, convicted or
incarcerated.
What would you like to see done when it comes to the DEA
and addressing this racial profiling issue?
Representative Hutchinson. Thank you, Senator Durbin, and I
appreciate your thoughtful attention to that issue and your
passion with which you speak about it.
I think it is important, one, on racial profiling that it
end, and that obviously has an impact out there. Second, I
think that when you look at our enforcement activities and who
is targeted, you want to make sure that there is not any racial
bias in the law enforcement procedures. That is something that
has to be good management, something that comes from the heart,
and I pledge that commitment.
In addition, you mentioned the need for more drug treatment
programs in prisons, and I share that view. I think that if we
are going to send someone to prison, we have an opportunity
there to change their lifestyle and we ought to take advantage
of that opportunity. So I hope that we can do more in that
regard. That is one of the reasons I certainly support drug
courts because it intensifies the treatment option.
Senator Durbin. Let me ask you one other question and then
I will stop, and that is on Plan Colombia. I supported it. A
number of people on the Democratic side were kind of surprised
that I did, but I went to Colombia and met with President
Pastrana. He took us out on a helicopter trip with his army in
Colombia to a southern province known as Putamayo, and as we
flew in that helicopter over these lush green fields the army
officers pointed out all of the coca under cultivation,
destined to become cocaine destined to come to the United
States.
I made a rough estimate that in the province that I
visited--you are familiar, being from Arkansas, with St. Louis
and the distance between St. Louis and Chicago, which is about
300 miles. I estimated that what I saw under coca cultivation
that day on that trip was the equivalent of a one-mile ribbon
of coca production from St. Louis to Chicago 300 miles long, 1
mile wide, under cultivation headed for the United States.
So I supported Plan Colombia. I was disappointed that more
South American nations did not, and I am curious as to whether
or not, on reflection, it was the right vote and whether we
should be continuing along this line. I think it is foolish for
us to ignore production. It is, I think, foolhardy of us to
ignore an administration like President Pastrana's,
democratically elected, putting his life and the lives of all
of his cabinet on the line trying to fight the narcotraffickers
on the right and on the left. But I wonder if we have taken the
right approach. If it comes up again, I am going to have to
look hard at it and see whether or not it has worked.
What is your impression?
Representative Hutchinson. Well, like you, Senator Durbin,
I supported Plan Colombia when it came through Congress, and I
also believe that when you see President Pastrana taking some
very heroic steps to preserve democracy there, when you see so
many who are putting their lives on the line, that we need to
help them. So I think that was the hard attitude of Congress
when we supported that plan.
I think it is important to look at the results that come
in. That one-mile stretch--what progress will we make in
reducing the coca cultivation there and what impact does that
have on the rebel forces? What I have emphasized is the small
part of the Plan Colombia, the criminal justice sector, very
important, training the Colombian national police not only to
obey human rights, but also to properly investigate a case, to
help the court system, and I think that is an important part of
it as well.
Senator Durbin. Let me close by saying that I think you are
going to do very well by this committee. I am really encouraged
by the fact that so many of your colleagues, Democrats and
Republicans, on the House Judiciary Committee are standing
behind your nomination. I look forward to working with you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Representative Hutchinson. Thank you, Senator.
Chairman Leahy. Thank you.
We are going to be having a vote soon and normally I would
go with the rotation going back to me, but I understand the
Senator from Alabama has another question, so I would yield to
him.
Senator Sessions. I appreciated the comment Senator Durbin
made about treatment and intervention in a person's life who is
going astray.
You mentioned, I believe, drug courts. I helped bring Judge
Goldstein from Miami in the mid-1980's up to my hometown of
Mobile, Alabama, to discuss establishing a drug court. One has
been established and I think it works well. In my view, the key
to it is that when a person is arrested for a drug offense,
they are not just released on probation and told to behave.
They have to come in on a regular, maybe biweekly basis. They
are drug-tested regularly. They are confronted by a probation
officer and a judge who watches them, and if they need
treatment they are required to go to treatment and fulfill the
requirements of that.
When you do it that way, oftentimes you can send a lot
fewer people to prison if they are going to be closely
monitored when they are released, as compared to what we have
been doing in the past, just release them, have them come in
once a month and say hello to their probation officer.
Do you favor that? Do you think we could expand our ability
to confront people involved with drugs and effectively
intervene and change their lives with a combination of tough
love from law enforcement and treatment?
Representative Hutchinson. I do. I think it is probably one
of the most hopeful programs that is out there that combines
enforcement and intensive treatment and can make a difference
in people's lives.
I was impressed when I went to California and saw a drug
court demonstration--not a demonstration; it was a real-life
episode where the defendants, the people that were subject to
the treatment program came in with their counselor, with the
prosecutor. The judge was there. They asked the question how
are they doing on their drug test every week. They are taking
it. Are they positive or negative? Are they going to the
rehabilitation classes? Are they staying out of trouble, going
to their job? They are keeping their employment, they are
making their children support; that kind of oversight.
It is a year program, and when you are looking at
methamphetamine that has an intensive addictive quality to it,
30 days is not enough. And so that is the advantage that drug
courts give. The recidivism rate--the temporary statistics show
that it is much improved with that kind of supervision.
Senator Sessions. We are doing some studies and asking the
Department of Justice to study just how well drug courts work,
but we do know that in the period of time they are in the drug
court's supervision they are certainly much less likely to
commit crimes. Some drift back into crime after they get out of
that supervision, but I think we have got to use those kinds of
ideas.
I would just like to remind you that during the period of
time that this Nation took very seriously a resistance to
drugs, we were able to reduce, according to the University of
Michigan study, drug use by high school seniors by over 50
percent from 1980 through 1992.
We have shown some increases since then, and I think some
of that was because we were sending an uncertain message or
sounding an uncertain trumpet, that we were suggesting that,
well, maybe it is OK to inhale; that is kind of cool. We don't
need to be sending that message, and the combination of strong
statements and aggressive law enforcement and intensive
supervision of people who violate the law are the key, I think,
to driving those numbers back down. We ought to not settle for
anything less than a reduction in the current use of drugs in
American, and we can achieve it.
Chairman Leahy. I thank the Senator from Alabama. If we can
reduce the demand in this country, we are far ahead of the
game. We sometimes make a mistake, I believe, in blaming
Colombia or any other country for all our ills. We are a Nation
of over a quarter of billion people, the wealthiest Nation
history has ever known, and with what seems to be an almost
insatiable demand for drugs. The money is there. The production
is going to show up somewhere. And we have got to do a far
better job in decreasing demand here through a whole
combination of things, whether it is law enforcement, it is
education, it is rehabilitation, and some pretty positive
example and reinforcement by parents in this country, too.
I want to submit, because we are coming close to the time
for a vote, and I want Senator Biden to have time, I am going
to submit my questions for the record, but I do want to raise
one issue. I am concerned about the way our asset forfeiture
laws are working in this country. I am concerned that sometimes
when you have asset forfeiture laws, law enforcement is more
interested in what the asset is that may be forfeited than what
the crime is that might be stopped.
Somebody with drugs with an expensive car they own looks a
little bit different than somebody who is using a beat-up rent-
a-wreck. A number of States have reformed asset forfeiture laws
that really were becoming scandalous. They found that their
police can get around the reforms by turning the seizures over
to the Federal law enforcement agencies. An agency will keep 20
percent and give 80 percent back. So even though the States
have felt that there was a problem in their own State with the
way the asset forfeiture laws were working and reformed them,
police get around them by getting 80 percent of it anyway back
from the Federal agencies. Now, they then avoid the State
restrictions that earmark the forfeiture proceeds to education
and treatment instead of going to the police department. They
get around the more stringent proof requirements.
I would hope that as head of the DEA your voice will be the
strongest voice possible in this, that you will work to develop
policies that would make sure Federal agencies are aware of
what the States feel and aware that there have been State
abuses so that we are not using the forfeiture laws in a way
that is really abusive, because if they are, you know the way
the pendulum goes. The States will get rid of them, and the
Federal Government will get rid of them. And something that
could be a real law enforcement tool will be gone. So will you
please assure us--I don't expect you to have all the answers
today, but assure us that this is an issue, the forfeiture
issue is one you will look into.
Representative Hutchinson. Absolutely, and I believe that
asset forfeiture is a very important tool for fighting the
major drug traffickers. I mean, it hits them where they don't
want to be hurt. But we are going to lose that tool, as you
pointed out, Senator, if we do not abide by the constitutional
protections and by the law in taking that asset and proving the
case on it.
I think Congress did the right thing by reforming the asset
forfeiture laws, making sure the burden of proof is on the
Government and not on the citizen that has that asset to be
taken. That was an appropriate reform, but it still allows this
very effective tool to be used in the right cases. So I will
certainly watch that to make sure that it is used appropriately
and not abused.
Chairman Leahy. Thank you.
Senator Biden?
Senator Biden. Thank you.
Plan Colombia, again, sometimes when you get too close to
things, you lose your perspective. But I received a call, I
guess about 10, 12 days ago, from President Pastrana who
periodically--about every 3 weeks--calls and gives me his view
of what is going on. And as the record will show--I will not
take the time now--his government is actually doing the hard
stuff now, taking on the paramilitaries and taking on the
paramilitaries up in the northeast where the ELN is operating.
They have made some real progress. The coca production level is
down, but as you know, it has to get way down for it to have
any real impact.
So, again, I would be reluctant for us to--I am not
suggesting you are doing it--write off Plan Colombia as not
having worked. He is doing about everything we are asking him
to do. And now the Third Battalion is about to be fully trained
and in the field, and so I hope you will do an analysis. But I
suspect, I predict you will find it is more positive than the
critics say it is.
On the drug court issue, to put this in perspective, and
the reason why you are going to have to fight for these drugs
courts is that when that legislation was written, what finally
prompted my colleagues to support it was my pointing out there
were 600,000 people arrested every year out there who got
nothing. Nothing happened to them. They didn't get probation,
they didn't get parole, they didn't convicted--I mean, they got
convicted, but after that, that was it. They were just
released. Nothing.
And so this is a lot tougher than the idea--it was
originally characterized, as you will recall, as sort of some
soft method of going about this. But as the Senator from
Alabama points out and as you pointed out in California, it
requires people to show up all the time, twice a week, et
cetera.
One of the reasons I raise it is in my State we have now
initiated juvenile drug courts, and we have them in all of our
counties. We only have three counties. It is easy to say ``all
of our counties.'' But we have them in our counties now, and
they are really working. I would like to invite you at some
point--and I mean this sincerely--to come up and take a look at
our drug courts and the juvenile drug courts to see, to give
you a sense, because I think I can say without equivocation the
most extensive drug court system in the Nation is in my State.
And it has gotten very positive results.
In prison, as you well know, every study shows that
somewhere about close to 80 to 85 percent of the prisoners in
prison have some substance abuse problem, and that very, very,
very few get any treatment when they are in prison. And, again,
in terms of cost, it costs $12,500 a year for residential
treatment for cocaine addiction. That is a lot of money. It
costs $40,000 a year for incarceration. It costs $17,000 a year
for an extensive probation program. So the irony is the
cheapest of the treatments is residential treatment in these
areas. Those are the numbers.
And so I hope that you will be able to, again, as it
relates to the prison side of it, the National Center for
Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University said 70 to
85 percent of the inmates in State prison need some level of
treatment. You know what percent get it? Thirteen percent.
Thirteen percent. And so we let out of the State prisons--
roughly 200,000, 250,000 people a year walk out of a State
prison, get their $10 and their bus ticket, while addicted to
drugs as they walk out because they have gotten the drugs in
the prison, while they walk out, as they walk out the door of
State prisons. And I don't know what you can do federally on
that except your voice will be listened to. So I hope you weigh
in on the fight to persuade our Governors as well that there is
a need for in-treatment facilities.
My one question is this: Do you think that there is a
necessity based on your experience in Arkansas, like the
Senator's experience in Vermont and mine in Delaware where you
have rural States, do you think there is a necessity for you to
take a look at the distribution of manpower in DEA and think
about according more support to rural areas where the problem
is growing faster than urban areas?
Representative Hutchinson. Well, I do believe that it is a
great need that with the growth of the Internet crime can be
committed in a rural area just as easily as going to an urban
center. And so coming from a rural State, I believe you have to
make an investment of resources. Whenever I was United States
Attorney in the 1980's, we had zero DEA agents in my district.
They were out of Little Rock station there. We now have a DEA
office in Ft. Smith and Fayetteville. It is a high-growth area,
but it is still a rural area, but it has made a huge
difference.
I have always had the view that we ought to be able to
fight the drug problems in rural areas as well as the urban
centers. Now, I don't think you can necessarily just deplete
the urban areas because there are huge problems there we have
got to make investment in. But I would certainly agree that we
need to review that to make sure that--I want our agents and
our DEA folks out there making the cases where the crime is.
Senator Biden. Well, I would like to request that you do
take a look at the allocation of manpower, because the Senator
from Vermont can tell you, one of the reasons why drug use is
up in Vermont is because of the fact the cost of doing business
in Boston and in Albany and in other places has gotten too
high. It is easier to crack a market--you know that old
expression. They asked Willie Sutton why he robbed banks. He
said, ``Because that's where the money is.'' Why are they going
to rural America? Because police departments are less prepared
to deal with it, because the market is wide open, and because
there is little competition. They are not shooting at each
other on a corner to make sure Aramingo Avenue in Philadelphia,
which has been a drug market, open-air market for years--it is
dangerous for them to operate there with one another. But when
they move to Harrington, Delaware, it is not as dangerous.
And so I hope you will take a look at it. I appreciate it.
Representative Hutchinson. I will and I would certainly
love to come see the juvenile drug court in Delaware.
Senator Biden. I will take you up on that. Thank you very
much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Leahy. I thank the Senator from Delaware, and
obviously your answer is music to the ears for anybody from a
rural State. And as chairman of this committee and as a member
of the Appropriations Subcommittee that funds the DEA, I will
followup with you on that. I think it is extremely important.
You know, you and I both come from rural areas, and we
know, as Senator Biden has said, it is a different world.
Everybody knows everybody else. In some ways, it is far more
shocking when we see drug abuse coming there, but we know it is
there. And as Senator Biden said, it is where the market is, it
is where the money is, and it goes there.
I will put into the record appropriate letters and
statements of other members.
I thank you very, very much for being here, and this
hearing is recessed.
[Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]
[Submissions for the record follow:]
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Grand Lodge
Fraternal Order of Police
Washington, DC 20002
July 17, 2001
The Hon. Patrick J. Leahy
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Mr. Chairman,
I am writing this letter to advise you of the strong support of the
Fraternal Order of Police for the nomination of Congressman Asa
Hutchinson to head the Drug Enforcement Administration.
We have had the privilege of working with Congressman Hutchinson,
who served on the House Judiciary Committee and the Subcommittee on
Crime, on a number of important law enforcement issues throughout his
tenure in Congress. We worked with him to create and fund the National
Center for Rural Law Enforcement, which provides needed training and
resources for law enforcement agencies in rural America. According to
the National Center for Addiction and Substance Abuse, drug use among
young teens in rural America is now higher than in large urban centers.
We believe that Mr. Hutchinson will bring a new perspective to fighting
drug use in the United States. As a former U.S. Attorney, Congressman
Hutchinson understands that our country needs to recommit itself to the
war on drugs.
We also worked very closely with Congressman Hutchinson last year
on civil asset forfeiture reform. He authored a substitute amendment to
protect the ability of law enforcement to continue to use civil
forfeiture as an effective crime fighting tool. Ultimately, we
succeeded in our joint efforts.
I have every confidence that Asa Hutchinson will provide the same
sure leadership for law enforcement at the Drug Enforcement
Administration that he did in Congress. He will be an outstanding asset
to DEA and to the war on drugs.
If I can provide any further recommendations for Congressman
Hutchinson, please do not hesitate to contact me or Executive Director
Jim Pasco through my Washington office.
Sincerely,
Gilbert G. Gallegos
National President
Statement of Hon. Jon Kyl, a U.S. Senator from the State of Arizona
ARIZONA'S DRUG PROBLEM
The drug epidemic that America continues to fight takes on
a different character in each region of the country.
This is no more evident than in Arizona where the
geographic landscape makes it ripe for: international smuggling;
homespun cultivation; and the widespread distribution of drugs.
First, Arizona shares its 350-mile southern border with
Mexico. Drugs are transported across the border by vehicle, on foot,
and through underground tunnels. For example, Colombian cocaine is
smuggled into Arizona by Mexican trafficking organizations.
The northern part of the state is very rural and the
remoteness and scattered population make it a haven for the cultivation
of drugs.
Apache County, in the northeastern corner of Arizona,
spans more than 11,000 square miles and over 60% of the land is
situated on various federal reservations consisting of national
forests, national parks, and Indian reservations. The population
consists of only 70,000 citizens.
In the middle of the state is Maricopa County, of which
Phoenix, Arizona's capitol is a part. The area includes 24 cities and
towns, five Indian reservations, and one of the busiest airports in the
world. The area also has three Interstate Highways and several State
highways intersecting the country. The Phoenix metropolitan area is the
fastest growing area in the country.
The DEA reports that Arizona is notably different than
other regions of the country as the majority of drugs seized in the
state are not intended for local use, but were seized while en route to
other states.
Phoenix has become a major drug distribution center.
METHAMPHETAMINE LABS
This problem is reflected in the proliferation of
methamphetamine, the production of which, has risen dramatically over
the last ten years.
In the Southwest, production has reached epidemic
proportions. In 2000, over 350 clandestine labs, primarily for the
production of methamphetamine, were seized in Arizona.
As a result, Phoenix has the second highest rate for meth
emergency room admissions in the U.S., according to the Drug Abuse
Warning Network (DAWN).
The DEA was vital in supporting local law enforcement's
seizure efforts by contributing more than $1.8 million to the clean-up
of meth labs in Arizona.
The effort to investigate, seize, and destroy these labs
is a daunting task, but is absolutely necessary to fighting the
epidemic. The DEA is essential part of the support system.
The President's FY02 budget includes $48 million to help
state and local authorities--$20 million for the clean-up of meth labs
and $28 million for enforcement activities aimed at meth.
DRUG LEGALIZATION
Arizona is one of several states that has served as a
testing ground for drug legalization initiatives spearheaded and funded
by out-of-state donors.
In 1996, a ballot initiative, which passed, legalized the
medical use of Schedule I drugs, including marijuana, methamphetamine,
heroine, and LSD was funded with over $1 million dollars from out-of-
state donors looking to fulfill their own agenda.
These individuals are now funding similar initiatives in
other states. In California, they contributed $3 million of the $3.5
million dollar total to fund the passage of Proposition 36, a measure
which mandates treatment rather than jail terms for non-violent
narcotics offenders.
The opponents of Proposition 36, backed by dozens of state
elected officials, spent only $340,000.
Now, the same individuals who funded Proposition 36 are
planning similar efforts in Florida, Michigan, and Ohio with a budget
estimated at $3 million per state.
CONCLUSION
States like Arizona look to the DEA for support in
fighting the infiltration of drugs across our borders; the production
of drugs in our backyards; and the undue influence of wealthy special
interest groups who impose their personal agenda on communities whose
resources are often scarce.
The partnership between state and local police, and the
DEA establishes a united front against the widespread production,
distribution, and usage of illicit drugs.
I am confident with your leadership at the DEA, that
partnership will continue. I look forward to your confirmation and to
working with you in the future.