U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

67–601 WASHINGTON : 2000

S. HRG. 106–750

A REVIEW OF THE PRESIDENT’S

ANNUAL CERTIFICATION PROCESS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SENATE CAUCUS ON INTERNATIONAL

NARCOTICS CONTROL

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MARCH 21, 2000

(

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office

Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402

(II)

SENATE CAUCUS ON INTERNATIONAL NARCOTICS CONTROL

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa, Chairman

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Delaware, Co-Chair

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama

MIKE DEWINE, Ohio

SPENCER ABRAHAM, Michigan

BOB GRAHAM, Florida

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California

WM. J. OLSON, Staff Director

MARCIA S. LEE, Minority Staff Director

(III)

C O N T E N T S

OPENING STATEMENT

Page

Senator Charles E. Grassley ................................................................................... 1

Senator Dianne Feinstein ....................................................................................... 3

Senator Paul Coverdell ........................................................................................... 6

Senator Jeff Sessions ............................................................................................... 9

PANEL I

The Honorable Rand Beers, Assistant Secretary of State for International

Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, Department of State ........................ 11

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 13

Donnie Marshall, Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration ................ 17

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 21

SUBMITTED QUESTIONS

Donnie Marshall, Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration ................ 51

The Honorable Rand Beers, Assistant Secretary of State for International

Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, Department of State ........................ 68

(1)

A REVIEW OF THE PRESIDENT’S ANNUAL

CERTIFICATION PROCESS

TUESDAY, MARCH 21, 2000

U.S. SENATE, CAUCUS ON INTERNATIONAL NARCOTICS CONTROL, Washington, DC.

The Caucus met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in room SD– 215, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Charles E. Grassley,

chairman of the Caucus, presiding.

Present: Senators Grassley, Coverdell, Sessions, and Feinstein.

Senator GRASSLEY. I want to thank everyone for being here

today, and I know we have sparse attendance because of the bad

weather and we have some witnesses yet that have to come, but

we will go ahead and get started anyway.

Our hearing today is to look at the certification decisions that the

President forwarded to Congress under law March 1. The law requires that on each March 1 the President submit to Congress his

assessment on international cooperation to control illegal drug production and transit. It also requires details on cooperation to combat money laundering and the sale of chemicals used to produce illegal drugs. In addition, it also requires the submission to Congress

of the International Narcotics Control Strategy Report, and that is

this voluminous document that I am holding up here.

The report is the single most detailed drug report on international drug production, and also the efforts that we are putting

forth to combat it. The International Narcotics Control Strategy

Report gives us the factual basis for understanding the current

state of illegal drug production and international cooperation that

is being conducted to stop it.

I believe the certification process is very, very important. It is

important to focus at least once a year the attention of Congress

and the administration on drug policy. It is important as a key element in protecting U.S. national interests.

There are some basic principles that I think we need to grasp

about this very serious matter of drugs. We don’t do drug policy as

some sort of luxurious process or as an add-on item for either Congress or for the executive branch of Government. Most drugs consumed in this country are produced overseas and smuggled here.

Those drugs actually kill thousands of Americans and endanger

many more every year.

This is something that we all believe we need to fight, although

sometimes we tend to forget how seriously we ought to take it and

how intensive our fight ought to be. And, of course, we have partners in this fight, and that is the other countries that are engaged

2

in it. We have a moral obligation and responsibility to ensure the

general welfare and, of course, that general welfare involves the

lives of our young people and the safety of our schools and streets.

Certification is not some abstract policy for a bunch of Washington bureaucrats to play with. It is about taking drugs seriously

and doing something serious about drugs both here and abroad.

This is something that we all need to be engaged in and working

together on the combating of. The drugs that we are talking about

are in every town and in virtually every rural community in Iowa

and on Main Street, USA.

I just saw statistics from my own State, from counties that had

hardly any drug arrests 4 or 5 years ago that are having an incomprehensible number of drug arrests in rural counties numbering in

the hundreds now. Well, these drugs got there because some drug

thug is pushing them, and in most cases the fields and the labs for

making the drugs are overseas.

Congress, in a bipartisan consensus, created the certification

process in the mid-1980s for a clear reason to accomplish a clear

set of goals. The country was in the midst of a major drug epidemic, and still is. At that time, the public was deeply concerned

about it. Congress shared that concern and recognized that all of

the major illegal drugs consumed here were produced overseas.

Those illegal drugs were grown illegally in some other country.

They were processed illegally in those countries. They were smuggled out of those countries illegally, and they were illegally smuggled into the United States. Drug traffickers broke local laws in the

countries of origin internationally and in the United States. That

did not bother them.

It was also clear that many of the producing and transiting countries for those drugs did not much care either. Corruption and intimidation of local officials accounted for much of the indifference.

But in many cases, local authorities were content to ignore local

drug production. Doing this required ignoring or not enforcing local

laws, international agreements, and bilateral agreements with our

country. That was then and still is not acceptable.

We need to take the drug problem seriously and we need to ensure that we aren’t the only country that does. Certification is one

tool to do that. It is only one tool, but it is an important tool. In

today’s world, despite many changes, this country taking something

seriously still counts and has an influence upon other countries.

We ought to make sure that we are still standing up and being

counted on this issue.

Although the State Department opposed this idea initially, every

single drug report in the last several years has acknowledged the

critical importance of the certification process in winning cooperation, of fostering it where it did not exist, of shoring it up where

it did, and of setting a standard for international cooperation.

Of course, not many foreign governments liked the process, but

then they obviously might not. But they still worked with us to

varying degrees, but tried to satisfy us. More recently, however,

some in the administration have helped to create the impression

here and abroad that the certification process is not helpful. Senior

officials of this administration have attacked the process overseas.

3

They have supported efforts to circumvent it, they have endorsed

efforts to cut it and basically use it to play games.

Last year, the administration dropped Iran and Syria from the

majors list. They did this without prior consultation with Congress,

and they resorted to flimsy legal gimmicks and sleight of hand with

the facts in order to pull off the dropping of Iran and Syria. I don’t

know why it is that such rogue states and enemies of this country

seem to get such special treatment.

Similarly, North Korea, long reputed to be deeply involved in

drug trafficking, has avoided serious scrutiny. It is kind of game

of catch-22 that is played. The administration did not report on

North Korea until Congress required it. And despite the fact that

the President assured Congress that North Korea would be the

subject of a closer watch, this year’s drug report reads almost the

same as it did last year.

I had my staff ask senior intelligence officials how these numbers

were arrived at, the numbers that were being reported, and we did

not get an answer. The answer turns out to be that they are the

same because no one took a harder look.

So here is the catch-22 in play: in order to know the answers,

you have to ask the questions. You can’t report on the scale of

opium production unless you look, and no one is looking to see

what that scale might be. The administration cannot find any hectares because they are not looking for places of production. How

convenient.

It was never the intent of Congress, nor was it understood by

previous administrations that major drug-producing and transiting

countries could escape scrutiny on a technicality. So we get back

to the legislation. I think the legislation and its intent is very clear:

to make international trafficking in illegal drugs a major U.S. national security concern, and more than a concern, to make a subject

of serious action.

This ought to be something where we see more cooperation and

more serious commitment. That is why I find the gamesmanship on

this issue very disappointing. I hope that today we can get some

answers on how to do better in making the certification process

work to accomplish serious policy goals.

I call on Senator Feinstein, and then Senator Sessions.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let

me just say that I very much agree with you. I think if there is

a soft underbelly in this Nation, it is drugs. And I am one that

agrees that we have a demand problem and we are trying to address that problem. I am one that also believes that there is one

area which is the total responsibility of the Federal Government,

and that is in interdiction and enforcement. No local government

can do it and no State government can do it.

Mr. Chairman, last year you, Senator Coverdell, Senator Sessions, Senator Hutchinson of Arkansas, and Senators Torricelli,

and myself sent a letter to the administration suggesting new

benchmarks in certifying Mexico as a partner in the war on drugs.

I want to just quickly go over what those benchmarks are and then

I want to comment on progress, as I understand it, in each of the

areas.

4

The benchmarks were extradition of major drug traffickers wanted in the United States on drug charges; secondly, arrest and prosecution of the leaders of the major drug syndicates; third, enforcement of money laundering laws; fourth, improved eradication and

seizure efforts; fifth, increased cooperation between the United

States and Mexico counter-narcotics forces; and, lastly, conclusion

and implementation of U.S.-Mexico maritime agreement.

Now, let me begin by saying that there is evidence to suggest

that the Mexican government is now cooperating with the United

States on a number of levels. On the other hand, certainly not

enough progress has been made on any level to have a real impact

on the massive, ever-expanding and ruthless drug cartels throughout Mexico.

Extradition, I believe, is the key to judging cooperation between

the two countries. The willingness to apprehend and turn over

those criminals facing justice for crimes against this Nation would

be one true sign that our two nations are in sync. We have turned

over more than 80 people to Mexico in recent years, including at

least 12 United States citizens.

Only by removing powerful drug kingpins from their surroundings in Mexico can we ever hope to dismantle these complex

and sophisticated criminal organizations. Left in Mexico, even in

jail, these kingpins can continue to run their businesses, order hits

on their enemies, and reap the profits of their corrupt and illegal

activities.

There is some evidence to suggest that things are getting somewhat better in this area. The Zedillo administration’s policy for the

first time allows the extradition of Mexican nationals. As a result,

last year saw the first Mexican national ever extradited solely for

drug offenses, Tirzu Angel Robles, and the government has agreed

to turn over a number of key drug traffickers of Mexican nationalities; for instance, Jesus Amezcua and his brother, of the methamphetamine cartel. Unfortunately, that case, like many others, is

now bogged down in the Mexican court system.

Further, the average number of persons extradited per year from

Mexico has jumped from just one in 1994 to more than ten. However, there is much more to be done on the extradition front. For

instance, not one major drug kingpin of Mexican nationality has

yet been extradited, and the number of pending cases remains well

over 100; about 125, according to the Department of Justice.

I do recognize that much of the problem now rests with the system of judicial appeals in Mexico which is, at least to some extent,

beyond the control of the Zedillo administration. However, I will be

watching closely to see how the Mexican supreme court rules in the

Arturo Paez Martinez case. If the court rules, as some expect, that

no more Mexican nationals can be extradited to this country, I

would hope that the Mexican legislature would take swift, sure

steps to correct the fluke in the law that will allow this to happen.

There is also significant evidence that the Mexican government

is cooperating on interdiction, seizures, and eradication. Seizure

numbers for many drugs are at an all-time high, and I want to

quickly go through them. From 1998 to 1999, cocaine seizures increased 7 percent, from 24.1 tons to 25.74 tons. Marijuana seizures

increased 47 percent, heroin seizures 82 percent, opium gum seiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:38 Mar 19, 2001 Jkt 070921 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\67601 pfrm09 PsN: 67601
5

zures 409 percent, and marijuana eradication seizures 38 percent.

Additionally, close cooperation between the Mexican Navy and the

Coast Guard has led to an increasing number of multi-ton seizures

of cocaine: over 6 tons in June, 8 tons in August, 8 tons in September, and 2.6 tons in December.

Now, I think it has to be pointed out that never before in history

have these kinds of tonnages been found in drug trafficking, and

the point I would like to make is that tons suggest that heroin and

cocaine aren’t coming across the border in backpacks; it is coming

across the border in large loads. And this would bring to bear Senator Coverdell’s and my drug trafficking kingpin legislation, and

my hope that our Government will begin as soon as possible to enforce that legislation.

I think we both believe that those who transport these large

loads of narcotics are equally guilty, and the drug kingpin legislation sets into motion a procedure to deal with this. I, for one, will

be looking very closely at the administration to see that this law

is put in place and enforced and carried out as we mean it to be.

Let me touch on corruption. There is evidence that the Mexican

government is stepping up its fight against corruption. Mexican authorities have reportedly fired more than 1,400 of 3,500 federal police officers for corruption, and so far more than 350 have been

prosecuted. In fact, when a court demanded the reinstatement of

fired officers, the Mexican government rectified that situation by

changing the law, and I for one appreciate that.

The Mexican government showed an unprecedented level of cooperation late last year in allowing the FBI to participate in the

Juarez investigation on Mexican soil. I know that not everyone

within Mexico was pleased with having the FBI on Mexican soil,

but the Mexican government went forward with cooperative efforts

despite internal dissent and this indicates a strong desire to cooperate. Recently, when Tijuana saw its second police chief gunned

down in less than 6 years, the government arrested 7 suspects in

that investigation. This details cooperation on the rise.

On the other hand, significant problems do remain. There are

frequent DEA reports of a lack of cooperation below the border and

of a system so corrupt and so full of leaks that mounting a secret

operation against a major drug trafficker is simply impossible.

No real progress has been made toward dismantling the major

drug trafficking organizations, which was one of the benchmarks

the six of us suggested to the administration. Known drug kingpins

are still too free to move about the country with no fear of arrest

even when our own officials warn the Mexican government of the

whereabouts of those criminals.

A good case in point is the governor of Quintana Roo that everybody agreed was guilty of criminal complicity with drug traffickers.

He had at least two teams of detectives on his tail. He was scheduled to be arrested the day he left office. The day he left office, despite the tails, he and his family disappeared. Their whereabouts

are unknown as of today. When arrests and prosecutions do occur,

it is often only the low-level operatives that face eventual prosecution. The high-level traffickers still escape the system.

Some Mexican courts have begun to rule that no extradition may

take place if the person in question faces life imprisonment in the

6

United States. This is extremely problematic. Our treaty already

eliminates the death penalty as an option for any person extradited

from Mexico, and some crimes carry the possibility of only two sentences—life in prison or death. If our Government must forego both

possibilities, we will face an extremely difficult situation.

And we may soon face a decision by the supreme court of Mexico

in the Arturo Paez Martinez case that bars the future extradition

of any Mexican national. Let me be clear. This sends a clear and

dangerous signal in the wrong direction. If such a decision does

occur, I believe it would be vital to continued cooperation between

our two nations that the Mexican legislature take swift steps to

correct the law because without extradition, the drug cartels will

never, in my view, be brought to justice.

There are several questions that must be answered. Is Mexico

doing everything it can, given the political situation, to extradite

drug traffickers? Is Mexico doing everything it can, again given the

political situation, to eradicate crops of illegal narcotics? Is Mexico

doing everything it can, given the political situation, to intercept

drugs on their way to this country, and are they doing everything

they can to root out corruption within their own ranks?

Another signal recently was the person in the attorney general’s

office who committed suicide with $750,000 in a bank account.

Where did that money come from? Did this indicate complicity on

the part of that office? If not, what were the circumstances? These

are major situations and they have to be addressed.

Additionally, as far as I am concerned, I will be interested to

hear from the DEA whether there has been improved intelligence

between Mexican authorities and our authorities in the drug battle

because only if there is good intelligence-sharing and the ability to

have mutual trust on the both sides of the border are we really

ever going to be able to get at the major traffickers who are the

heads of the drug syndicates or the five large Mexican cartels.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator GRASSLEY. Thank you, Senator Feinstein.

Now, Senator Coverdell, then Senator Sessions, and then we will

go to our panel.

Senator COVERDELL. Mr. Chairman, first, I thank you for calling

this hearing. And in the name of time, which the Senate is always

too pressed to accomplish, I will just submit my statement to the

record.

[The prepared statement of Senator Coverdell follows:]

7

8

9

Senator COVERDELL. I will just make a comment that I appreciate the extensive statement of Senator Feinstein of California,

and have appreciated the ability to work with her on this question.

It is a complicated dilemma. Clearly, there are signs, as she has

noted, that progress is being made, but it is the scope of the problem, I think, that raises the questions that we continually confront.

It is just so large that it does raise questions about what our ally,

the Republic of Mexico, can do and accomplish.

I think there are some pretty serious questions about what we

are doing and what we are accomplishing. You could read a pretty

rugged list for ourselves. But, again, I am very appreciative of the

work she has done, the chronology of data that has been presented

here in her statement. I will look forward to continuing to work

with each of the members that are present here today in trying to

determine what is the best use of our time and energy as we try

to develop the appropriate tools to deal with this international crisis.

I will just end with it does appear to me that government to government we are making some headway. There are the legal ramifications of extradition, but the scope of the problem and the depth

of it in the Republic of Mexico is very deep and very broad. I have

thought to myself, well, if I were president of that republic, just

what would I do, given all the depth of the problem there.

I will stop with that, Mr. Chairman.

Senator GRASSLEY. Senator Coverdell, thank you for your leadership as well as your statement.

Senator Sessions.

Senator SESSIONS. Well, I think my friend from Georgia raises a

good question. If you were president of Mexico, what would you do?

I believe that the president of Mexico and the leaders of a lot of

these nations need to ask themselves that very question and to recognize that the danger of the increasing narco empire is so great

that they had better take strong leadership to make changes.

Bolivia has made that decision without a lot of Federal money

from the United States Government. If we have got to give money

to countries to help them fight drugs, I say give it to a country that

has made progress. I think Bolivia ought to be a beneficiary of our

support.

But, fundamentally, a nation is not going to be successful until

that nation itself desires to eliminate drugs within their borders,

to stop the ever-growing corruption and big money that comes from

it. And, frankly, Mexico is not there, Mexico is not there. If you extradite one or two more people, what is that? Zero, nothing.

The Senator from California was looking to some of these supreme court rulings and other matters, but I would just suggest we

will come back here next year and you can count on one hand the

number of people that have been extradited. These narco businesses are so large and so prominent they cannot be overlooked.

You have to be blind not to know they exist, with the wealth they

are accumulating in a country that is not known for wealth.

So I have been hearing these speeches since the 1980s, 1970s. I

have been reading and following the testimony in these hearings,

and Mexico and Colombia have promised to do better and better,

but it hasn’t gotten any better. From all I can see, nothing substanVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:38 Mar 19, 2001 Jkt 070921 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\67601 pfrm09 PsN: 67601
10

tially has changed because it is going to take leadership with a

firm will who is willing to pay some significant prices to eliminate

or substantially reduce drugs.

I am asking myself why are not large numbers of these Mexican

cartel members in Mexican jails, why do they have to be indicted

in the United States. They passed last year, or the year before last,

laws for money laundering. How much money has been taken from

the drug cartels? It doesn’t do any good, it is nothing but a meaningless gesture to pass money laundering legislation if it is not

going to be used. What good is it to have laws that allow forfeiture

of illegal assets if drug cartel members live in huge homes and

amass large tracts of land and drive the most fancy automobiles

and that sort of thing, and have huge amounts of cash that is not

being seized?

So I would just suggest that Mexico is not where it needs to be.

Colombia, as we know, has had a huge increase in the last year,

I believe nearly double the increase in exporting and production of

cocaine to the United States. How can that be considered progress?

I don’t know.

I have suggested here previously that I am not sure this certification process is of any benefit. If a nation wants to sink into this

kind of narco corruption, I am not sure the United States has any

power to stop it. It will take an individual decision by that country

perhaps more than acts from the United States to change it.

And, frankly, we ought not to misunderstand. If our concern is

about the United States and the drug problem we have in this

country—and I don’t like the trends in the last 7 or 8 years—if that

is our concern, we have got to do it here. We are not going to be

able to blame our drug problem on Colombia or Mexico.

When we have a consistent, strong, steadfast anti-drug policy in

this country, as we have had, we can win this war on drugs. We

have, in fact, driven down, from 1980 to 1992, by 50 percent the

number of high school seniors, according to the University of Michigan study, who have used drugs. That was a great success. It has

gone up in recent years and now the last year or two it has sort

of flattened out, but we have had a 40-percent increase since 1992

in drug use, and I think it is a lack of will at the top in this country.

We need to send a clear and certain message, and I know the

previous head of DEA is not happy about the Mexican situation. He

testified courageously last year at this committee that he could not

see—basically, I would interpret his testimony to be that he could

not see how Mexico could be certified, and he cited a litany of bad

news from Mexico.

So I don’t know the answer. I know this: Mexico is a great country, it is our neighbor. We had a great conference down in your

State last year with a large number of Mexican members of parliament and we were able to discuss these issues and others. I long

for continued and improved relations between our two countries,

but how to achieve it I am not sure.

So I am not sure I have said anything worthwhile, Mr. Chairman, other than having been involved in drug matters for a long,

long time, I remain concerned about our ability to effect anything

in some of these nations. When you have got leaders like in Bolivia

11

that put their mind to it, they can make great progress, and that

is what I would like to see in a number of other countries. And I

am concerned about the Netherlands, I am concerned about North

Korea, I am concerned about Jamaica, and I am glad you will be

talking about that, too.

Thank you, sir.

Senator GRASSLEY. Thank you, Senator Sessions.

We will now go to our panel. We are going to hear from Mr.

Beers first and then Mr. Marshall, and we will hear from both of

you before we ask questions. I welcome you and thank you for your

time and attention, and particularly for listening to our opening

statements.

Rand Beers is Assistant Secretary of State at the Bureau of

International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs. He has held

that position since 1998. This is the bureau responsible for producing the strategy that I referred to, the International Narcotics

Control Strategy Report. He will be followed by Donnie Marshall,

who currently serves as Acting Administrator of DEA, and has

been in that position since July of 1999. Both of you have testified

before Congress at past hearings, and we appreciate that cooperation as well as this morning.

Mr. Beers.

STATEMENT OF HON. RAND BEERS, ASSISTANT SECRETARY

OF STATE FOR INTERNATIONAL NARCOTICS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON, DC.

Mr. BEERS. Thank you, Senator Grassley, and distinguished

members of this panel. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before this body and to discuss the issue of certification.

We in the administration agree with you completely, Senator

Grassley, that this is an important instrument available to the administration. We may not have been happy originally to receive

this instrument, but as one who has been responsible now three

times for carrying it out, I am here to tell you that we consider it

a useful and important tool that we will continue to work on and

improve and make as effective as possible.

I have submitted to you in advance a longer piece of testimony

which I ask be submitted to the record, and I will very briefly

make two or three comments before turning it over to my colleague, Mr. Marshall.

Senator GRASSLEY. In both cases, your statements will be printed

in the record as you submit it.

Mr. BEERS. Thank you, sir.

With respect to certification in a general sense, to take your

point, Senator Grassley, about its importance, I would just like to

highlight what I think are two very important and significant results of the overall certification process, and that is the efforts in

the Western Hemisphere, starting with the Miami Summit of the

Americas which built upon the Cartagena and San Antonio summits, whereby the nations of this hemisphere came together, wrote

up a hemispheric strategy, followed that with a plan of action, and

now most recently in Montevideo, Uruguay, with a multilateral

evaluation mechanism.

12

This process within this hemisphere, I think, was born of the certification legislation and the efforts by the United States to make

ourselves and nations around the world aware of the seriousness

of the drug problem and the need for all of us to work together to

do something about it.

Similarly, the UN General Assembly special session of two summers ago, in which all the nations of the world came together and

wrote out a plan of action with goals and objectives for the entire

globe to look forward to over the next 10 years, I think represents

a second area in which the level of awareness of nations around the

world of the importance and seriousness of the drug problem and

the need to do something about it again came as a result of the increased attention that we and other nations have paid to this problem and the need for nations to work together to deal with it.

That said, with respect to individual nations, which is after all

what certification is specifically about, there is a mixed result. But

we come to you today with the intent of answering your and the

other Senators’ questions in order to have a full and frank exchange.

Let me stop there. You all have raised a number of interesting

and good questions. I won’t try to answer them in my opening

statement, but I look forward to answering them individually.

Thank you.

Senator GRASSLEY. Thank you, Mr. Beers.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Beers follows:]

13

14

15

16

17

Senator GRASSLEY. Mr. Marshall.

STATEMENT OF DONNIE R. MARSHALL, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR, DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, WASHINGTON, DC.

Mr. MARSHALL. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of

the caucus. I also appreciate the opportunity to be here today to

discuss these very important issues, and I also have submitted a

detailed statement for the record.

First, I want to thank the caucus members for your support to

DEA and to drug law enforcement in general. Your support and the

support of the American people, I think, is absolutely essential for

DEA and law enforcement to do their efforts, to do their missions.

I also believe that the certification process is a very effective tool

in the international anti-drug effort.

Each year, DEA provides the Attorney General what we believe

is an objective assessment of the drug trafficking situation in the

major source and transit countries, and we base that upon evidence

and factual information that comes to DEA. We present those facts

to the policymakers so that they can make an informed decision on

the certification of each respective country.

Now, as a part of my written testimony, I have included the drug

trafficking assessment for many of these countries, particularly the

ones that have been either decertified or given a waiver recently,

countries such as Afghanistan, Burma, Cambodia, Paraguay, Nigeria, and Haiti. But because of the magnitude of the threat posed

by Mexican drug trafficking organizations, I am going to direct my

opening comments to the drug trafficking situation in Mexico.

DEA’s primary mission, as you probably know, is to target the

highest levels of international drug trafficking organizations operating in the world today. And I believe personally that the Mexicobased organizations are the greatest threat that we face in the

United States today, perhaps the greatest threat that we have ever

faced. And I believe this is especially true when you consider the

Mexican trafficking organizations’ alliances with the Colombiabased traffickers and their involvement in all four of the major

drugs consumed in the United States—cocaine, heroin, marijuana,

and methamphetamine.

Now, in addition to drug trafficking, these criminal organizations

are responsible for violence; they are responsible for corruption and

intimidation. And these things, I believe, threaten the safety and

stability of communities and cities and towns in both Mexico and

in the United States.

Now, with the disruption of the Medellin and Cali cartels in Colombia in the early 1990s, the Mexican trafficking groups really

grew in importance to our country. They consolidated their power

and they started to control drug trafficking not only along the U.S.-

Mexican border, but in many other parts of the United States as

well.

So in response to that increasing role of the Mexican drug traffickers, DEA and other Federal agencies established a Southwest

Border Initiative to attack the command and control structure of

these organized criminal groups associated with the Mexico- and

Colombia-based organizations.

18

Now, the DEA, the FBI and the U.S. Customs Service, along

with many, many of our State and local counterparts across the

country, have been very successful and very effective at that strategy over the last several years. We have conducted major operations inside the United States that have wiped out Colombianand Mexican-controlled cells operating here in this country. We

have done that time and time and time again in operations like

Zorro and Reciprocity and Limelight and others.

The most recent of those operations was Operation Impunity,

and I want to talk about that for just a moment. That was a 2-

year international investigation that was conducted predominately

by DEA, FBI, Customs, and our counterpart State and local agencies here across the country. That operation culminated back in the

fall and we arrested 106 individuals that were linked to the Amado

Carrillo-Fuentes organization based in Mexico. Now, in addition to

the arrests, that investigation resulted in 36 separate drug seizures

totaling over 12,000 kilograms of cocaine and over $19 million in

U.S. currency.

But I also have to add that the limitation of operations like this

is really that the cell heads operating inside the United States, the

people that we predominately go after at the highest level inside

the United States, can be easily replaced by the traffickers. And we

have not yet been able to successfully reach inside Mexico to arrest

and imprison the real leaders of these organizations, leaders such

as Vicente Carrillo-Fuentes, leaders such as the Arellano-Felix

brothers and many, many others. And I will add also that many

of those command and control figures are indicted here in the

United States.

Now, we do have ongoing efforts inside Mexico. In fact, we

worked very well with a small core of dedicated people inside the

Mexican attorney general’s office. And I would point out that the

Mexican attorney general himself, Mr. Jorge Madraso, I believe to

be a dedicated professional who is trying to do the best job possible

under the circumstances that he is dealing with.

Within Mexico, the DEA and the Mexican equivalent of DEA, an

organization called the Fiscalia Especializada Para la Atencion de

Delitos Contra la Salud—that is a mouthful for me, so I am going

to refer to them by their acronym, FEADS—DEA and the FEADS

continue to conduct joint investigations throughout Mexico. And we

cooperate with that organization very well on a day-to-day basis.

But the investigative achievements of the FEADS and the other

law enforcement agencies in Mexico—the achievements against the

command and control structures of the major Mexican drug trafficking organizations have been minimal. And I certainly agree

with Senator Sessions’ assessment in that regard.

Additionally, it is no secret that elements of the Mexican government have just been mired in corruption in recent years, and certainly the government of Mexico recognizes that as well. In fact,

the Federal Preventive Police was created in 1999 in response to

that corruption problem.

The government of Mexico reported that since April of 1997, as

Senator Feinstein pointed out, more than 1,400 federal police officers have been fired for corruption. Unfortunately, some of those

have been rehired. Of those, over 350 were fired in 1999, and I am

19

told that that situation that resulted in the rehiring is corrected

and that these more recently people will not be rehired.

Now, it is gratifying to me that this action is being taken against

corruption in Mexico, but when you look at the numbers, I think

those are sobering numbers and it is an indication of the large

scale of corruption that exists in Mexico.

Now, I want to give you one very alarming example of an incident involving corrupt Mexican police officials which occurred on

November 9 in Mexico, actually in Matamoros. We had DEA and

FBI special agents de-briefing a confidential source in Matamoros.

During the course of that activity, they were surrounded by a wellknown trafficker by the name of Osiel Cardenas and about 15 of

his associates.

Now, each of these associates, one of whom, by the way, was

brandishing a gold-plated, I am told, automatic assault weapon— each of these associates were identified as either municipal or state

police officers. And it was only due to the resourcefulness and the

quick thinking of those two agents that they were able to escape

from that incident unharmed. Now, that incident, I think, serves

to very vividly highlight the vulnerability of DEA and FBI agents

working in Mexico day in and day out, very dedicated special

agents, I might add.

Now, in addition to the police firings that I described earlier,

there has been one judicial effort to fight corruption in the judiciary. On January 11 of this year, there was a Mexican federal judge

who actually issued an arrest warrant for a magistrate who erroneously or wrongly freed a methamphetamine trafficker, Adan

Amezcua. But in direct contradiction to that incident, however,

there was a Mexican court, on February 4 of this year, who freed

an Amezcua associate, Jaime Ladino, whose extradition had been

requested by the United States.

Now, there has been a treaty in effect since 1978, but as Senator

Feinstein pointed out, there have been no extradition requests actually signed or granted until 1996. Consistent with the pattern, in

1999 no major drug traffickers were extradited from Mexico to the

United States. They did extradite 10 fugitives on narcotics or

money laundering charges. Eight of those were U.S. citizens and

two were Mexican citizens.

So, in conclusion, I would say that we all recognize, I think, that

Mexico is a country of great strategic importance to the United

States. Counter-narcotics is one of the critical aspects of our relationship with Mexico, but the effectiveness of the national and our

bilateral efforts against drug organizations depends, I believe, on

demonstrable progress in the area of extradition, in the area of disrupting and dismantling major trafficking organizations.

And I would point that that includes on their own apprehending,

prosecuting, indicting, convicting and imprisoning major drug traffickers. It includes exposing and prosecuting individuals and businesses that are involved in providing support networks to these

traffickers, such as front companies, security, transportation, communication companies, and the like.

And I really believe that the command structure of the Mexican

attorney general’s office is genuinely committed to trying to do

those things. So it is vital that DEA and other U.S. Government

20

agencies continue to engage, continue to support the government of

Mexico in their efforts and in our efforts. And in turn, I hope that

the rest of the government of Mexico will provide adequate investigative manpower, financial resources, equipment, things of that

sort that are necessary for them to make progress in this bilateral

law enforcement effort.

I want to thank you again for your support, and thank you for

the opportunity. I will be happy to try to answer any questions that

you might have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Marshall follows:]

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

Senator GRASSLEY. We will have 5 minutes for each person, and

then we can have more than one round if there is interest of the

caucus to do that.

First of all, some basic things. Mr. Beers has already said that

he thinks the certification process is a useful tool. Mr. Marshall,

would you say that it is a useful tool?

Mr. MARSHALL. Yes, it is. In my opinion, it is a useful tool.

Senator GRASSLEY. Okay, then three questions that would make

some reference to statements from the report. The extent to which

the certification process is taken seriously—this report says that

the certification process is useful in forcing corruption to the surface and it is useful in efforts to combat corruption. It also says

that the certification process has been a powerful foreign policy

tool. And the report says that the certification process may be uncomfortable, but it is a healthy process.

Mr. Beers, would you agree with what the report says on those

three very fundamental questions?

Mr. BEERS. Yes, sir.

Senator GRASSLEY. Is it your view that the administration as a

whole shares these views and takes the certification process seriously?

Mr. BEERS. Overall, I believe that is true, sir, but I am sure you

can find people within the administration who would be critical of

aspects of it or the process as a whole.

Senator GRASSLEY. Regardless of some disagreement, as you say,

I might be able to point out, based upon what you have told me

from your own point of view, could you explain why the majors list

has been perpetually late?

Mr. BEERS. Sir, having participated in this now for several years,

I can only say that the discussions that occur within the administration over the list, which begin with plenty of time, one would

think, to complete them, have certainly under my tenure—I can’t

speak before that—ended up in issues being surfaced and discussed

at the most senior levels, and disagreements over judgments one

way or the other leading to it being late. I regret that that is the

case, sir, but it is.

Senator GRASSLEY. Let me emphasize that and say that it has

never been on time.

Mr. BEERS. I am aware of that sir, painfully.

Senator GRASSLEY. How much heroin or opium gum transits

Iran?

Mr. BEERS. Sir, we don’t—at least I am not aware of a figure of

how much specifically transits Iran, but I can ask the intelligence

community, unless you know that, Donnie.

Mr. MARSHALL. Well, no, I don’t have that number right offhand.

I do know that southwest Asia heroin constitutes, I believe, something on the order of 12 to 14 percent of the U.S. market. I will

try to get that number and submit it for the record.

Senator GRASSLEY. Mr. Beers, did you recommend removing Iran

from the majors list in 1998?

Mr. BEERS. Sir, I am being careful here. This is a presidential

decision and I don’t want to talk about individual participants, but

it was a consensus recommendation to remove Iran from the majors list.

40

Senator GRASSLEY. Based on earlier decisions to remove Iran,

were you involved in the decision not to put it on last November’s

list?

Mr. BEERS. This past year?

Senator GRASSLEY. Yes.

Mr. BEERS. Yes, sir.

Senator GRASSLEY. You made that decision without knowing how

much heroin transits Iran?

Mr. BEERS. Sir, the amount of heroin that transits Iran would

not be the relevant figure for us. The relevant figure for us would

be the amount of heroin that transits Iran and comes to the United

States. And with respect to that issue, we have Mr. Marshall’s

agency’s signature program which can distinguish between— Donnie, correct me if I am wrong—between Afghan heroin, Burmese heroin, and heroin from Mexico or Colombia.

The figure that Mr. Marshall quoted, which is 12 percent—I

thought it was actually a little lower, but then what portion of that

actually comes through Iran? At those points, our degree of ability

to determine precisely that amount is not highly precise. But I

think it is fair to say that the understanding is that those drugs

from southwest Asia which come to the United States are more

likely to come through Pakistan rather than Iran or the northern

tier.

But beyond that, Donnie, I don’t think we have the degree of

specificity precisely as to what that—— Senator GRASSLEY. How much southwest Asian heroin comes to

the United States?

Mr. BEERS. Mr. Marshall quoted 12 percent. I thought that the

last number that I had was 5 percent, but that is why we need to

give you the precise number.

Senator GRASSLEY. Well, it gets to a definition of ‘‘significant.’’ There are some estimates of a metric ton coming to the United

States. Is a metric ton of heroin out of a market of 15 metric tons

insignificant?

Mr. BEERS. No, sir. It is significant. I judge it to be significant.

Senator GRASSLEY. Mr. Marshall, what does the DEA currently

know about opium and heroin production in North Korea?

Mr. MARSHALL. I will have to look up particularly the opium and

heroin production. It is my impression from what I know about it

that there is not a great deal of opium and heroin production. It

is my impression that methamphetamine precursor chemicals are

the predominant problem in North Korea. If I may please submit

that for the record, I will look it up and be sure that my recollection is correct on that.

Senator GRASSLEY. Well, is the DEA dependent upon the State

Department and intelligence resources for information on that

point, in that you aren’t in a position to give detailed information

from your own sources?

Mr. MARSHALL. Well, we have information from sources in that

general part of the world. We have an office in Seoul, South Korea.

We do not have an office in North Korea, so we have to go kind

of a roundabout way.

Senator GRASSLEY. So you are dependent upon the State Department, then?

41

Mr. MARSHALL. We are dependent on the State Department and

perhaps other surrounding countries where we can get whatever

information is available to come out of North Korea, yes.

Senator GRASSLEY. Well, okay. Let’s go back to Mr. Beers and see

how long have there been reports of drug trafficking out of North

Korea.

Mr. BEERS. Certainly, as long as I have been in my current position, sir, but I believe it goes back some time before that.

Senator GRASSLEY. How many North Korean diplomats and officials have been arrested in the last several years internationally

for any kind of drug smuggling, but particularly for heroin?

Mr. BEERS. Sir, I will have to get you that figure. I don’t know

that, don’t have that in my information.

Senator GRASSLEY. I will stop there because I want to keep on

time.

Senator Feinstein.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Marshall, do you agree that extradition is a hallmark of cooperation?

Mr. MARSHALL. Yes, I do, and extradition is a very important

tool. The reason I believe that is because I sort of lived through

that problem when we were dealing with the extradition issues out

of Colombia and it proved to be a very valuable tool back in the

mid-1980s. I was involved in the very first extradition, or expulsion

at that time with extraditions to follow, and that was Carlos

Leider.

And when we began returning those Colombian criminals, the

Medellin cartel people, to justice in the United States, that was

really the thing that they feared most, Senator. Actually, the expulsion of Carlos Leider was the beginning of the end for the Medellin

cartel, and it has worked well in Southeast Asia, I might add. Operation Tiger Trap from several years ago—we extradited a number

of heroin fugitives, and the disruption that that caused along with

a few other market forces, which we were lucky enough to have

several things coincide, but the extradition played a significant role

in reducing southeast Asia heroin from something like a 65- or 70-

percent market share in the United States down to its present level

of virtually not existing in the United States.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much. It is my understanding that the Mexican supreme court will soon release a muchdelayed ruling in the case of Arturo Paez Martinez, and that ruling

may well prohibit any future extradition of Mexican nationals to

this country, which would give almost carte blanche to the cartel

leadership to continue to operate with impunity and, even if they

are in Mexican jails, to direct their operations from within the

Mexican jails.

Should that happen, what would be your view of the success of

a relationship that could deter Mexican cartel activity?

Mr. MARSHALL. Well, I think that an unfavorable ruling would

just really render a bad situation much, much worse. As you point

out, as long as these traffickers—even if they are in the jails down

there, they are in that general location. They are in that country,

they are free to communicate with their drug organizations, they

are free to continue some degree of intimidation, bribery activities,

42

that sort of stuff, essentially to run drug operations from their jail

cells.

We saw that intimidation level back in the days of Colombia.

That was very much at work then, and the reason that Colombian

extraditions were so successful and the reason that I think Mexican extraditions would be successful is if you get a dozen or so of

those key figures out of their own sphere of influence, so to speak,

where they can’t run their operations, where they can’t bribe and

intimidate, than that gives, I think, the hope of breaking the cycle

of violence and bribery and corruption and intimidation. It gives

the authorities, the good people in the Mexican attorney general’s

office, I think, a little bit more chance of success in their efforts.

So I think it is very important.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Along those lines, because I happen to agree

with you—I happen to think it is number one for any country in

terms of assessing a level of cooperation—there are a number of

cases that I am following. I mentioned Arturo Paez Martinez. They

are all on appeal—Jaime Aguilar Castellum, Miguel Angel Martinez, Francisco Rafael Camarena Macias, Luis AmezcuaContreras, Jesus Amezcua-Contreras, and Jesus Emilio RiveraPinon. These cases are all on appeal. The Jesus Emilio RiveraPinon case has been on appeal since June of 1995.

Do you have any specific information about why these cases remain pending or how soon they will be resolved?

Mr. MARSHALL. No, unfortunately I don’t, Senator. I have talked

about that very issue with the Mexican attorney general and unfortunately that is under almost the complete control of the Mexican

courts.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Last year, I pressed for implementation of a

U.S.-Mexico maritime agreement which would assist both countries

in the pursuit of illegal narcotics by allowing quick refueling stops

while in hot pursuit of a drug boat or by joint operations to arrest

and prosecute traffickers found on the high seas. I am told that

there is no such agreement in place today, although informal cooperation has resulted in the seizures that I have mentioned, all

of which are very substantial seizures of several tons each.

Why has such an agreement not been reached, Mr. Beers?

Mr. BEERS. We have had discussions with the Mexican government about such an agreement, and we have focused our primary

effort on the actual cooperation and that is basically what has happened. Our Coast Guard officials have been working over the

course of the year, and I think have worked out an effective working relationship with the Mexican Navy and the Mexican government.

I would note that we do not have a maritime agreement with

Canada. We have a working relationship with them of the first

order.

Senator FEINSTEIN. So you are not pursuing an official agreement?

Mr. BEERS. No. We just don’t have it yet, and we have focused

primarily on the issue specifically of day-to-day cooperation. That

has been Mexico’s desire to focus first on that and build on that

foundation.

43

Senator FEINSTEIN. Well, you might want to also consider getting

an agreement with Canada because if we tighten up at our ports,

stuff is going to come into Canada as well. It might be nice to be

ahead of the curve for once.

Mr. BEERS. I understand, but the point the Coast Guard makes

to me is—and they should speak for themselves—the relationship

with Canada is of such a sort that they don’t feel they need an

agreement. And I am not saying that that necessarily applies to

Mexico, but we are definitely trying to build the elements of cooperation so that we have the basis for the best possible agreement.

Senator FEINSTEIN. One quick question of Mr. Marshall. You told

us about the problem at Matamoros where more than a dozen federal police, all armed, surrounded two of your men.

Mr. MARSHALL. State and municipal police, Senator.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Pardon me. State and municipal police surrounded two of your men. What has been done by the Mexican government to see that that doesn’t happen again?

Mr. MARSHALL. Well, there is some indication that the attorney

general’s office is investigating that and trying to locate the main

player in that, Osiel Cardenas. They have not yet located him.

They have told us that they are doing an investigation. We are, in

fact, trying to cooperate with them in that investigation.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Was the implication clearly that the state police were on the payroll of the drug cartel leader?

Mr. MARSHALL. Yes, that was the clear implication, sure.

Senator FEINSTEIN. And so would your department’s expectation

be that there be action to apprehend those people who well could

have killed your two people?

Mr. MARSHALL. Yes, that would be our expectation, yes.

Senator FEINSTEIN. It will be interesting to see what happens.

Thank you very much. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

Senator GRASSLEY. Thank you.

Senator Coverdell.

Senator COVERDELL. The President has certified Mexico full cooperation. As I indicated in my opening statement, there are a lot

of incongruities here. I will pose the question to both of you because there will be a congressional reaction to this ultimately.

Give me your explanation of why the certification occurred and

why it is the correct thing to do, in light of the testimony—lack of

extradition, the impunity with which some of these cartels operate

in the country, corruption in the judiciary. You both alluded to it.

Step back from it and, in a broader picture, what is your assessment of full cooperation? What constitutes full cooperation in your

mind, Randy?

Mr. BEERS. Sir, as I have indicated in earlier testimony, we have

looked at the phrase ‘‘full cooperation,’’ and in an attempt to make

the most clear and deliberate decision on this process we interpret

the phrase ‘‘full cooperation’’ not to mean perfect cooperation, that

that is a standard that no country is able to effect, in some cases

only by inadvertence.

And so we have looked at a basket or a range of activities regarding which cooperation would be an important factor and tried to determine whether or not that cooperation constitutes a serious and

44

significant effort on the part of the government to work effectively

with the United States or, as the law says, to comply with the 1988

Vienna Convention. That is the basis on which we come to each

and every decision that we make about countries on the majors list.

With respect to the decision on Mexico, in many ways Senator

Feinstein, I think, has fairly laid out the good, the successful, the

areas of cooperation, and has fairly noted areas in which we have

not had full cooperation or perfect cooperation.

With respect to the issue of extradition, I don’t think there is

anybody in this Government who doesn’t want an extradition process that works with the government of Mexico. Where we are now

is largely a system in which the government as a whole, the executive, has made a decision that they are prepared to fully support

extradition. And it is, as Senator Feinstein correctly said, in the

courts; that is, we are waiting for a test case, if you will, in the

courts.

I share her concern—I think we all do—if it goes the wrong way,

but this is also a case that the Mexican government, in selecting

which case to take to the supreme court, has sought to find the

case that they thought they had the best chance of winning. That

remains to be seen.

My main point here is that extradition is not an issue in which

the government hasn’t been cooperating with us. It is an issue that

the due process of the Mexican system has left within the domain

of the courts. The Senator correctly indicated that the seizure statistics this year and the eradication statistics this year are all up,

and that progress is clearly being made and that the effort, I think,

is significant. That is certainly something that we would rate in

the area of forward movement.

With respect to the issue of combatting criminal organizations, I

think again that the Senator’s remarks are correct. Donnie Marshall has said it; they haven’t taken down fully a major organization in that country. They have successfully disrupted the Quintana Roo segment of the Carrillo-Fuentes organization, but even

there they haven’t arrested the leadership.

This is an area of serious concern on our part, but their failure

to actually successfully take down the organization is not what we

are measuring. We are measuring whether they have been trying,

whether they are judged to be fully cooperating. And where we

have come down as a result of that, I think, is that at the level of

senior level of the government there is a serious commitment and

there are serious actions on the part of the government that we

judge to be in the nature of fully cooperating.

That is how the administration has come to make this decision,

and I can appreciate that others may not necessarily agree with

that decision process, but that is how the administration made the

decision.

Senator COVERDELL. Mr. Marshall.

Mr. MARSHALL. Senator, I have to confine my comments to my

area of expertise, and that is law enforcement. As you have heard

from Mr. Beers, there are certainly other elements that go into certification, but I think what I would be looking for in this area

would be what has been their progress toward the benchmarks that

were laid out. I would look at progress in terms of extradition, in

45

terms of arresting and prosecuting the leadership of the organizations, in terms of general cooperative counter-narcotics programs,

and their efforts to clean up corruption.

Certainly, I have pointed out some progress that they have made

in each of those areas. However, when you get right down to the

bottom line, there have been no major extraditions. There have

been no major organizations that have been disrupted or dismantled, in spite of their well-placed intentions, and they should get

credit for that, to clean up the corruption problems. There are still

massive problems there. So those are the kinds of things that I

would look at from a law enforcement perspective.

Senator COVERDELL. A quick question to each of you. Time is up.

These major cartels, are their leaders under pressure sufficient

that they are in permanent hiding, or do we generally know where

they are? I mean, are they figures that if they were in the United

States they could be apprehended or not?

Mr. MARSHALL. Well, with regard to your last question——

Senator COVERDELL. The Fuentes and the Felixes.

Mr. MARSHALL. If they were in the United States, I think we

would have a much greater expectation of apprehending them in

the United States. Now, with regard to what is their situation, I

think it varies with the individual traffickers.

In many cases, we have information from time to time and we

know general areas in which they operate. We hear of sightings.

We hear of them traveling in large convoys often, as in the

Cardenas situation in Matamoros, with police escorts and protection and that sort of stuff. I mean, they don’t any longer go out

wide open and, you know, give press interviews and that sort of

stuff like they did a few years ago.

So I have to believe that there has been some degree of greater

pressure by the Mexican authorities to drive them a little bit further underground. But certainly when you look at a person with

the magnitude of the operations that they have, were that level of

violator in the United States, I think that it would be fairly quickly

that we would be able to locate them.

Senator COVERDELL. Mr. Beers, do you want to comment on that?

Mr. BEERS. I concur with what Donnie said. I mean, I think that

the pressure has increased, but it is certainly not a perfect system

yet. The fact that one of the leaders died under the knife trying to

change his face is an indication of the pressure, but it is not a perfect system by any means.

Senator COVERDELL. Thank you.

Senator GRASSLEY. Senator Sessions.

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you. I think you said, Mr. Beers, failure to take down organizations is not what we are measuring. It

is well that it is not because you wouldn’t be able to certify them.

To me, that is the number one test of whether any country is serious about its effort against drugs, not whether they extradite. They

don’t need to extradite anybody if they put them in jail themselves.

If they take over these farms, if they eliminate the vehicles and

transport systems, and arrest and sentence people and do that kind

of thing, that is a grass-roots, tough law enforcement job.

46

And I know law enforcement is never perfect around the world.

I won’t reveal how many sheriffs in Georgia were convicted a few

years ago when I was United States Attorney, but it was over 20.

Senator COVERDELL. It was a lot.

Senator SESSIONS. I think it was 30, but most of those were

smaller acts of corruption, frankly. But there was drug corruption

even within my State of Alabama. As a Federal prosecutor, I have

seen it, and it is easy to happen. You cannot expect there won’t be

some corruption. The question is, is there a response to it and are

we creating a circumstance when it is plainly obvious to everyone

who has their eyes open that large illegal organizations are continuing uncontrolled.

Mr. Marshall, in the relief package, the assistance that the President has proposed to Colombia, I notice and have heard some concern that there is no money in that for the Colombian police. Some

people that I respect have told me the Colombian police by and

large have been courageous, and some of the best support we have

gotten in the war against drugs is from the Colombian police department.

Have you had occasion to express an opinion within the administration on that? Are you concerned about it, and would you share

with us your views?

Mr. MARSHALL. Yes. Certainly, first of all I would like to echo

your statements about the Colombian National Police. Under the

leadership of General Serrano, that organization has paid a tremendously high price. They have faced the problems down there— assassinations, bribes, intimidation, that sort of stuff—they have

faced it with the utmost courage, and the majority of the men and

women of that organization are nothing short of heroic.

With regard to Plan Colombia, I support the general approach of

Plan Colombia. The idea is to deal with the insurgent groups, the

FARC, the ELN, the paramilitaries, who control certain areas of

Colombia and prevent the national police from getting into those

areas to effectively do their job. So I endorse that concept. We need

to give that aid so that they can root out those insurgent groups.

Now, we have had quite a bit of discussion within the administration about the mix of that package, and it is my understanding

that there are some proposed changes there that would increase

DEA and Justice’s share to some degree. Now, it is my understanding that there, by one version, some $17 million that may go

to DEA programs to support the Colombian National Police, things

such as Operation Copperhead which supports their communications intercept, things such as Breakthrough which assesses the

amount of traffic coming out of there, a fusion to integrate intelligence and investigative information between the United States

and Colombia. We need to do those things.

Senator SESSIONS. Well, thank you for sharing that. If our primary goal in this effort is to reduce drugs, I think we need to make

sure that the police are not being cut out of it entirely.

I frankly believe, and have said during one of our hearings that

Colombia has a responsibility to defeat the insurgents, and it is astounding to me that they have granted a safe harbor within the nation of Colombia the size of Vermont, I understand. Are there drug

labs operating within that area, Mr. Marshall?

47

Mr. MARSHALL. Yes, there is some cultivation there and there is

some drug—— Senator SESSIONS. I think we have encouraged them to create

this safe zone. Isn’t it true that no law enforcement or army from

the nation of Colombia can even go in there to break up the labs?

Mr. MARSHALL. That is my understanding at the present time,

yes.

Senator SESSIONS. I just think that is astounding. I think it

would be hard to understand how this goes on. I am troubled about

Colombia. I really care about that nation, and I have worked with

Colombian police officers as witnesses who have feared for their

families when they have come up to the United States to testify in

drug cases, and they are courageous. A young guy told me he was

doing what he believed was right and he wasn’t worried about it,

and I was impressed.

With regard to extradition from Mexico, I think it is fair to say

there really has been no real extradition from Mexico ever. I remember as a prosecutor we were going to go to Mexico to pick up

an individual who was indicted in Mobile who was involved in the

Kiki Camarena murder, at least that organization was, supposedly.

There had been a lot of pressure from the United States, and within 10 days of the pickup date, he was reported to have escaped.

Hardly anybody ever gets extradited.

You noted that 10 were extradited and 8 were U.S. citizens. So

we had two extraditions. Of those two, one was extradited because

he had been in jail in the United States and escaped. The other one

had been involved in the murder of a Border Patrol agent. Now, if

they want to extradite somebody for murdering a lawful American

Border Patrol agent, presumably a crime committed in the United

States—— Mr. MARSHALL. Yes, it was.

Senator SESSIONS [continuing]. Then I mean that is almost an

act of war, as far as I am concerned. We have every right to expect

a nation like Mexico will act to defend the safety of our officers.

And apparently they did so in this instance, but no real indigenous

drug traffickers have been extradited. This is a myth. This has

been talked about for 20 years, and we are not having extraditions.

We ought not to even discuss it until we see bodies start coming

across the border. It is not a sign of success.

So my concern is how do we support Mexico in an effort that is

their effort to eliminate the increasing power and corruption of

drug organizations in that great country. The people of Mexico do

not favor drug dealers; they do not. I have met with their parliament members for the last three consecutive years, and I don’t

believe the members of the Mexican parliament do.

But we are confused in our thinking, and a lot of people don’t realize how tough the battle is for the Mexican leadership. My only

concern is, as a lawyer, certification ought to mean what it says.

If all we are doing is going through a game in which we are not

being honest about what fully cooperating means and we are conjuring up acts to justify our conclusion that is already made, then

I don’t want to be a part of it. I would just as soon not have it.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator GRASSLEY. Thank you.

48

Before I continue my questioning with Mr. Beers, I want to digress just a minute. Because methamphetamine is such a problem

in my State, I wanted to ask you, Mr. Marshall, if you are running

out of funds to support meth lab cleanups by State law enforcement agencies. Is that true?

Mr. MARSHALL. That is true, Senator. Actually, we have run out

of the funding for that activity about a week ago.

Senator GRASSLEY. And that is for this fiscal year?

Mr. MARSHALL. Yes, sir, that is for fiscal year 2001 that we are

in. Now, it is my understanding that there is money in the COPS

program that is earmarked for methamphetamine training, cleanup, investigations, that sort of stuff. It is earmarked for, I believe,

14 specific States. But regard to the remainder of the States, DEA

unfortunately does not have the money to continue the activity.

Senator GRASSLEY. What do you think is needed for that to continue this fiscal year?

Mr. MARSHALL. I am sorry?

Senator GRASSLEY. How much money do you think is needed,

then, to finish the fiscal year?

Mr. MARSHALL. We are projecting something on the order of an $8 to $10 million shortfall. And if you would like, I will get you an

assessment of that and get you the exact number.

Senator GRASSLEY. Please do.

Before I ask more specific questions, Mr. Beers, I kind of want

to make some sort of a summary of my first 5 minutes of questioning with you. It seems to me that the administration has taken

Iran off the majors list on the grounds that it is not a significant

transit route for heroin, even though the administration can’t say

what the flow is.

The administration says that countries like Iran should come off

the list because significant amounts of southwest Asian heroin

aren’t coming to the United States. But if you cannot say how

much is coming through Iran and that southwest Asian heroin is

a significant part of the U.S. market, it seems strange that Iran

then would come off the list. It is disappointing in light of how serious we are supposed to take certification.

Does my summation, as ironic as it sounds, seem legitimate? I

mean, that is the way I view the first round of questioning that we

have had.

Mr. BEERS. Sir, I think that the difference that I would have

with your conclusion is the point that I tried to make earlier, which

is in terms of trafficking routes that come to the United States, we

see more coming through Pakistan to the United States than

through Iran. Iranian heroin seems to flow in the direction of Turkey and onto the European market.

So it transits Turkey and goes to a western European market,

whereas Pakistan heroin, while it also feeds the European market,

also appears to come through Nigeria to the United States. And as

a result of that, while you are correct in saying we don’t have the

precise figures, we are still expected to draw some conclusions from

the information and that is the conclusion that we have drawn

from that information, sir.

Senator GRASSLEY. But you draw the conclusion without knowing

what is transiting Iran, don’t you?

49

Mr. BEERS. Sir, our transit figures are all estimates on a global

basis. We have some greater precision in the Western Hemisphere

because our information provided by DEA and the intelligence community is far better. With respect to southwest Asia, it is not as

good, and with respect to Iran, it is even less good because of the

lack of contact that we have from the intelligence perspective and

the law enforcement perspective with Iranian officials. But what

we know is what I am telling you the basis of our decision is.

Senator GRASSLEY. Going on with North Korea where I left off

with you, when did the State Department first report on North Korea’s drug production in the Strategy Report?

Mr. BEERS. Sir, I will have to get back to you on that. I just don’t

have that.

Senator GRASSLEY. Was it included because of congressional action?

Mr. BEERS. Sir, I am sorry I don’t know the answer to that question.

Senator GRASSLEY. When was the last aerial survey of North

Korea opium production made?

Mr. BEERS. Sir, to the best of my knowledge, we have never had

a successful aerial survey of North Korea. We have had efforts at

such a survey, two of which I am aware of, one of which I specifically requested over the course of the last year. The number of—— Senator GRASSLEY. Was a survey made last year?

Mr. BEERS. There was an attempt at one, sir, and it was deemed

unsuccessful for the failure to have enough pictures to be considered to be a valid sample of North Korean opium poppy likely cultivation sites. There are some problems associated with North Korean sampling. One is the weather, and two is the competition.

The competition is with respect to concerns on the part of the Department of Defense about North Korean military intentions toward South Korea, and on the part of both the Defense and State

Departments and the whole U.S. Government on the course of

North Korea’s possible efforts to obtain weapons of mass destruction.

Senator GRASSLEY. Now, if this survey for 1999 reporting on

1998 indicates that North Korea is not on the majors list but will

be the subject of greater attention to determine its role in illegal

drug production and transiting, and if you attempted to get an aerial survey and didn’t get one, just how is the administration monitoring closely opium production to make a determination if it

should be in the report?

Mr. BEERS. Sir, the effort is to get a satisfactory survey of the

areas of potential opium production. Given the geography of North

Korea and the expectation that if there is a crop, it is a single crop

in a calendar year, the survey effort has to be done at a particular

time of year because the survey looks for the crop at its height

when it is most visible to overhead.

We therefore look in a specific time frame of the year, not a day

or a week, but a several-month period in which we would expect

those crops would come to final bloom, and we have sought to do

that. We sought to do it last year. We will try to do it again this

year, but until we have that we can’t tell you with confidence that

they do or do not have such a crop. And we have not put a country

50

on the majors list without having the benefit of that confirmation

from imagery with respect to cultivation. So, that is where we are

now and that is what we are seeking to do.

That is one part of our effort to monitor the activities in North

Korea. In addition to that, the intelligence community and the law

enforcement community have been asked to bring to bear information that is derived from other sources, and we have received regular reports on that and we have had some lengthy analysis done

over the course of the last year in order to determine just what is

happening there, in part to be responsive to your known concerns

about that, but also because we are concerned as well.

Senator GRASSLEY. I am going to ask Senator Sessions to not

only take his turn now, but then also when you are done to adjourn

the meeting.

I want to take this opportunity to thank you folks for your attendance here and your participation, and I will have some questions to submit for answer in writing.

[The questions of Senator Grassley follow:]

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

Senator SESSIONS [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for

your consistent and strong leadership on this important issue. I

know you have taken the lead in your State of Iowa and you travel

all over the State having meetings with citizens about the drug

problem. I know it is a deep concern of yours, and it is translated

into public policy here.

Let me ask, Mr. Beers, the certification of Colombia this year,

will that be under the national security exception?

Mr. BEERS. It was full certification this year.

Senator SESSIONS. Full certification?

Mr. BEERS. Yes, sir.

Senator SESSIONS. Not utilizing the national security exception?

Mr. BEERS. No, sir, there was not a national interest waiver.

Senator SESSIONS. Well, didn’t we have a major increase in the

amount of drugs shipped from Colombia last year, and production

of coca in Colombia last year?

Mr. BEERS. Yes, sir, we do.

Senator SESSIONS. How do we show that as an improvement?

Mr. BEERS. We had a major effort on the part of the Colombian

government to eradicate as much coca as possible. In part, what

has happened in Colombia with respect to cultivation is that the

traffickers have been able to move more quickly and more expansively than the government’s efforts to eradicate that. So in that

area, you are correct, but they have made a significant effort.

With respect to the issue of trafficking, Mr. Marshall is in a position to comment about a very significant law enforcement activity

which was only one of several that occurred in Colombia called Operation Millennium. And in addition to that, we have seen a major

effort on the part of the Colombian government to pull together a

strategy and effect operations in the field around the country to

deal with drug trafficking.

But let me let Mr. Marshall comment specifically on Millennium,

which we think was a very significant activity.

Senator SESSIONS. Please.

Mr. MARSHALL. Yes, Mr. Beers is correct about Operation Millennium, and that was a partnership operation with the Colombian

National Police. And certainly we have already spoken of how effective the Colombian National Police are.

What we did for the first time was we had a Colombian investigation essentially at the request of the United States. We identified through our investigations here in the United States a group

that was operating in Colombia and supplying many of these cells

that I spoke of in my opening statement into the United States.

And what we did was we shared all of the information that we had

with the Colombian National Police.

They then took that information in a joint operation, both in Colombia and back and forth between Colombia and the United

States. And we built a case against 34 of the top drug traffickers

in Colombia, including Fabio Ochoa and Alejandro Bernal Madrigal, two of the absolute biggest traffickers operating in the world

today. What was significant about this is that there was not a——

Senator SESSIONS. Well, Ochoa has been recognized as that for

20 years.

Mr. MARSHALL. Oh, yes, many, many years, he and his family.

62

Mr. BEERS. He has been in and out of jail.

Mr. MARSHALL. What was most significant about this is that

there was not a parallel Colombian investigation with the intention

of Colombian prosecution. This was done solely in order to extradite these 34 traffickers back to the United States and, as I mentioned before, get them out of their own sphere of influence and

into American jails, which is the thing that they fear most.

Now, if that process comes to fruition, which I am optimistic it

will, and if we are successful in getting those 34 back into U.S.

jails, I have to predict that that would be probably the single most

important and effective thing that we have done in the area of drug

enforcement in many years.

Mr. BEERS. And the Colombians have extradited two last year already, indicating that they don’t have any legal judicial impediments to carrying through on the constitutional amendment that

they passed the year before in order to effect extradition. That is,

I think, a significant demonstration of cooperation and government

will.

Senator SESSIONS. Well, that would be dramatic, and I would

just say you better hope they don’t escape before the time comes

along.

Mr. MARSHALL. Well, you mentioned that, and frankly we are

concerned that this be an expedited or a timely process so something like that does not happen.

Senator SESSIONS. Well, that, and just basically some way, somehow, the system has consistently not produced the extraditions that

have been promised for many, many years.

Mr. Beers, why do we not think in terms of certifying Mexico

under the national security exception? How can we say that there

is any really significant progress there when we have got police

force threatening the lives of American police at the direction of a

major drug dealer?

How can we say that Mexico is really making progress? They

won’t sign a maritime agreement. They are not extraditing anyone.

The cartels continue to enrich themselves and get more entrenched

and more powerful. We have a few little things that we claim as

progress, but in the scheme of things it is difficult for me to see

how they are real progress. Why don’t we just do it as a national

security exception?

Mr. BEERS. Sir, that is always a possibility in situations like this.

We judge them to be fully cooperating.

Senator SESSIONS. Well, I don’t see how that can be justified. I

was just looking here, Mr. Marshall, at USA Today. The Mexican

drug dealers are offering a $200,000 bounty on United States Federal law enforcement officers’ heads for murder. It talks about the

entrenched Tijuana drug cartel. USA Today knows who they are

and where they live and what they do.

Are you concerned about that? Is that a matter that affects the

security for your agents as they go about doing their work both in

the United States and in Mexico?

Mr. MARSHALL. Absolutely, I am concerned about that, and it is

one of the major issues that we have in Mexico with our operations

there.

63

Senator SESSIONS. And when was it, just a few months ago, that

the chief of their police, Alfredo Delatore, was murdered?

Mr. MARSHALL. A few weeks ago, actually, is my recollection.

Senator SESSIONS. A few weeks ago, and another police chief was

murdered 6 years ago in Tijuana.

Mr. MARSHALL. Yes.

Senator SESSIONS. I guess my deep concern is that Mexico’s very

existence as a healthy nation is at stake here. Wouldn’t you agree,

Mr. Beers? If this kind of activity continues, business can’t afford

to invest in Mexico as they would like to because they are afraid

for their lives or their people’s lives. Isn’t this a threat to the economic growth that Mexico is capable of?

Mr. BEERS. Yes, sir, I would agree that it is, and I think that

the current administration in Mexico would agree with you as well.

They have come to us and spoken in as dramatic a set of terms as

you are using now, and they are making their effort to deal with

that.

Senator SESSIONS. Well, we have had some increase in seizures,

I note. Mr. Marshall, do you have any indication as to what percentage of the drugs being imported into this country are being

seized on the Mexican side?

Mr. MARSHALL. Well, certainly, that is all kind of an estimate because you don’t know——

Senator SESSIONS. Well, you have estimates of how much comes

across the border from Mexico, do you not?

Mr. MARSHALL. We do, and we estimate that in the aggregate of

all the drugs that come in here, on the order of 55 to 60 percent

transit Mexico en route to the U.S.

Senator SESSIONS. I see in the USA Today article, apparently,

75,000 pounds of cocaine were seized along the Mexican border

near San Diego; that is 30-some-odd tons. Do you know what percentage of the total supply is being seized? I am first asking about

in Mexico.

Mr. MARSHALL. If you look at our total estimate of the world supply, I think our current estimate is some 765 metric tons of cocaine

worldwide. And if there were 75,000—did you say pounds?

Senator SESSIONS. Yes.

Mr. MARSHALL. That would be 35 tons seized in Mexico, so that

would be 4 percent, by my mental math, of the world supply.

Senator SESSIONS. Not enough to affect the supply in the United

States in any significant way, it strikes me.

Senator Feinstein, who has done such a fine job on this and has

been steadfast in her concerns about it, noted, I believe, there were

6 tons seized of marijuana on the part of the maritime agreement.

Well, I remember we called cases in Mobile the 10-ton case and the

6-ton case. I mean, 6 tons of marijuana is insignificant in the world

supply.

Can you say, Mr. Marshall, with confidence that the supply of

narcotics—I will just say marijuana, cocaine and amphetamines—

coming into the United States from Mexico has been reduced?

Would you compare 1997, 1998 and 1999? Are the numbers still increasing in quantity coming across the border based on DEA surveys?

64

Mr. MARSHALL. I don’t see any evidence that those numbers have

been reduced in the areas of heroin, cocaine and marijuana. There

have been perhaps some spot shortages following operations like

Impunity and Millennium and that sort of stuff, but they don’t

really last. There are also some indications that we may finally be

making a bit of progress in the methamphetamine issues coming

out of Mexico, things like lower purities coming out of the labs,

things like a shift from methamphetamine to amphetamine, but

with regard to the other three drugs, no indication that that is having an effect in the U.S. market.

Senator SESSIONS. Based on our history of 20 years, is it fair to

say that we are not likely to be able to affect the number of drug

users in the United States through cooperative agreements with

Mexico?

Mr. MARSHALL. I don’t think that we will directly affect the number of users in the United States. I think you have to count more

on the demand side of the equation—education, prevention, that

sort of stuff.

Senator SESSIONS. You left out law enforcement.

Mr. MARSHALL. No. I am about to get to that, if I may.

Senator SESSIONS. Okay.

Mr. MARSHALL. I think where law enforcement fits in there, however, is that until you manage through the prevention programs to

get the number of users down, you have a lot of mean, vicious, violent, evil criminals that are pumping this stuff into our country,

and all the violence and the corruption and the intimidation that

goes along with it.

We have to deal with those as a law enforcement, as a criminal

issue until we can further impact the demand numbers downward.

And I think that one of the Senators in an opening statement

pointed out that since 1979, we have reduced the number of users

in this country. We have to do a better job, but in the meantime

law enforcement has to be right there to take care of and to impact

on the criminals that are doing so much evil in the country.

Mr. BEERS. Sir, if I might interject, I agree with Mr. Marshall’s

statement. What our overall strategy is is to try at each point in

the process from cultivation to use to have an intervention that is

the best that we can put together to try to effect a reduction in the

overall amount of supply available, and then after that process is

over also to intervene with respect to users to try to get them to

stop. It is all part of a large package, but I think Mr. Marshall’s

point is correct.

With respect to the Mexican border, the amount of flow that we

have seen has been roughly about the same. And if you look at the

seizures on both sides of the border and if you look at the seizures

in South America overall, what we have seen overall is that that

flow to the United States has been to date almost impervious to

each stage of that effort. And unfortunately over that period of

time, there is more going to the rest of the world.

Our market to some extent has gone flat. I mean, we can talk

about the perturbations of use over the last 10 or 20 years, but the

overall amount, by our estimates, has been relatively flat over

probably the last decade. And where the increase on a global basis

has occurred has been Europe—this is cocaine—and now Latin

65

America. That is why we have gotten the attention of governments

around the hemisphere of their own national interest need to try

to deal with this problem.

It is sad that it has gotten to that point, but that is where we

are, and that is why we think, to go back to your own remarks, sir,

that we have a chance to make success as governments perceive it

as in their own national interest and not simply something that the

United States is asking them to do on behalf of the United States.

Senator SESSIONS. Well, I agree. Surely, that will become clear

to a lot of people. I had occasion recently to be in a conference with

the drug czar in the United Kingdom, and they are all of a sudden

becoming worried. As a matter of fact, I had some law enforcement

people express concern to me about the Netherlands. They have

marijuana coffee shops where they allow that kind of stuff to go on,

and it is becoming a transshipment point to Europe. With the European Union, once it is in Europe, it is pretty well easy to transport.

Do you think that is a growing concern, Mr. Marshall?

Mr. MARSHALL. Absolutely, that is a concern. I have talked to a

lot of law enforcement officials in Europe and they share that assessment and they are quite concerned about it. They are very displeased with the situation in the Netherlands.

Senator SESSIONS. I am sure the Netherlands thinks they are

just sophisticated, you know. They have prostitution everywhere

and drugs everywhere, and they think that makes them more sophisticated. But we are going to find out it is not going to work.

They are not going to be happy with what happens to that country

when they allow more and more use of drugs. It is not going to be

good for them and it is not going to be good for their reputation.

Have we taken any steps, Mr. Beers, as part of this process to

examine whether or not the Netherlands is cooperating sufficiently

in our efforts?

Mr. BEERS. Yes, sir, we have looked at that, and that will be an

ongoing area of concern. You are right in raising those questions,

sir.

Senator SESSIONS. I hope that we would look at that.

Well, this is a real challenge for our country, and I do believe we

have a responsibility to the world. It would be better for the United

States and for all nations of the world if other markets for cocaine

and illegal drugs are not created. It is not going to help us if the

Colombians begin to focus on other countries around the world and

create additional markets. They will just be stronger. And those

nations, many of whom are our allies, are going to be damaged by

this and it is just not good for anybody.

So I do not mean to suggest we should not be vigilant in encouraging nations in this hemisphere particularly to reduce their production of illegal narcotics. What I do deeply believe is that ultimately there will probably be enough into this country to supply

the demand that exists here. And if we want to deal with our demand, then we need to have a strong public relations education

campaign. We need to have very strong law enforcement at the

street level.

I think it was proven in New York City by Rudy Giuliani that

if you prosecute smaller crimes on the street, the drug dealers and

66

the pan-handlers and the two-bit thieves, you cannot begin to

break up criminal activities and reduce all crime. I have believed

that for a long time. There is no doubt in my mind that if you want

to reduce the amount of drugs used in my hometown of Mobile, if

you go in there and steadfastly break up the virtually open sales

of drugs and put those people in jail and send a message that users

will be prosecuted, you will see it go down.

As a matter of fact, I have seen drug use go down under intensive pressure. I just believe we don’t need to lose our focus from

that critical aspect of the war on drugs in a more unconnected effort to reduce supply, over which we have such little control ultimately. Those are my concerns.

Thank you for your testimony here again. We will keep the

record open to allow others to submit questions and any comments

or supplements that you would like to submit. Mr. Beers, do you

have anything to add to this?

Mr. BEERS. No, sir, except to thank you for the hearing. We regard this as an important opportunity to go beyond the actual administration expression of certification to bring it to the attention

of the Congress and the American people. Thank you.

Senator SESSIONS. I would say I am very concerned about Colombia. I am not sure what my thinking is at this point, but if our assistance could help them preserve the second oldest democracy in

the Western Hemisphere against a Marxist group of drug traffickers, I think we need to be considered what we can do to help.

Mr. BEERS. Sir, I think that the proposal that the Colombians

and the administration have presented to the Congress represents

the best chance that we will ever have to accomplish both your

goals and our common goal of dealing with drug trafficking as it

emanates from South America.

Senator SESSIONS. I am not convinced that our position of not

even endorsing the democratically-elected government of Colombia

against these Marxist drug traffickers and protectors and kidnappers is a good policy. That may not be in your bailiwick, but Mr.

Pickering testified in this very room, I believe, a few weeks ago

that we have not even officially endorsed the nation of Colombia

in their effort.

We are trying to have peace talks and that sort of thing. We are

encouraging them to allow large areas of their country to be a safe

zone. We ought to be encouraging, in my mind, the nation of Colombia to defeat these insurgents who have taken over 40-plus percent of their country. And until they do so, I don’t see how we can

ever expect Colombia to control production if they don’t even control their territory. So I think we ought to help Colombia, and I

just want to be sure that we are doing it in the right way.

Mr. Marshall, do you have any further comments?

Mr. MARSHALL. Just a brief comment, Senator. I would like to

also thank you for your support, and the entire caucus as well. As

I said earlier, we can’t do our jobs without the support of Congress,

the Senate, this caucus, and the American people.

With regard to your comments about cleaning up our streets at

the neighborhood level, I agree with your viewpoints on that. In addition to the national, international and major command and control investigations that we conduct, we have a couple of programs

67

that do focus on helping local jurisdictions out with those types of

crimes. I would be happy to give you or your staff a briefing on

those programs, if you would like.

Senator SESSIONS. I would be delighted to hear that. I think cooperative law enforcement is a key step. I believe in the task

forces; I have seen them work successfully. How do you find who

the big dealer is in your town? You start prosecuting the little dealers and you make them tell who they got it from, and pretty soon

you have gotten the big dealer. But to say you are going to start

at the top is silly, from my experience.

With regard to the HIDTA program, I understand that the management of that has been turned over to the drug czar’s office and

away from the Department of Justice. Are you able to make any

comment on whether you think that is an effective organization

structure for HIDTA, or should it be within the Department of Justice?

Mr. MARSHALL. It has actually always been, to my recollection,

in the Office of Drug Control Policy. It is their funds and they manage the overall program. DEA has quite a bit of involvement in

that program, as does the FBI, Customs, and the Department of

Justice. You know, I think that is a legitimate question. I think

that it maybe bears further examination as to where the management of that program should be.

Senator SESSIONS. Well, DEA, in my opinion, has a single mission and it is very effective in that mission. I salute you. My experience is that DEA agents know what their job is and they go about

doing it effectively, and they put their lives at risk. Over the last

decade or so, they have become much better in working with State

and local law enforcement, to the benefit of both. If we keep that

up, I believe we will be in good shape.

Sometimes, I wonder about the billions we are spending there

and we can’t find a few million for you to hire just a few more

agents to work within the cities and communities of the United

States. If I have a criticism of the war on drugs, I think it is that

we are looking for causes outside ourselves, and if we utilized our

resources effectively, particularly through DEA, and the local police

increase their narcotics units, we can as a Nation make a reduction

in narcotics possible.

Thank you so much for your testimony. Unless there is anything

else, we will stand adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 12:01 p.m., the Caucus was adjourned.]

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126