Mr. HUGHES. I hear some concerns expressed, just like I hear concerns expressed by other law enforcement agencies. Unfortunately, I think uncertainty is created because of what happened to ATF. There were morale problems we went through in DEA for a while, they had some chilling effect, how much it is hard to meas ure. But there are people, obviously, who are competent, who want to serve. That is the point I have made, and they will be coming forward. I have no doubt that the missions are important enough, and the agencies have sufficient credibility, particularly DEA, which has a great deal of credibility Mr. MULLEN. Exactly. Mr. HUGHES [continuing]. Worldwide, not just in this country, that they will be forthcoming. I have no doubt about that. Mr. MULLEN. There are always, in any agency, going to be some people who are dissatisfied. You find a malcontent here and there. But, in general, the morale is high, it is a very exciting time for DEA, things are going well. I invite you and any other member of this committee to visit any office, even unannounced, and talk to the people yourselves and hear what they are saying about the current investigative efforts. Mr. HUGHES. You know I do that from time to time. I don't want to dilute the point I am trying to make. Where we need additional resources to fight drug-related offenses, what we should be doing is we should be recruiting for DEA. That is the agency that should be doing the work. Let me just move on Mr. MULLEN. I just can't let that pass. The drug problem is such a problem that we should not be so narrow as to think that only one agency-we need Federal, State, local Mr. HUGHES. I didn't say that, Mr. Mullen, you are putting something into my statement that I didn't say. I didn't say that at all. What I said was that where we need additional resources to combat drugs-what we should be doing is taking on the additional resources in the DEA, not diluting other functions in other agencies. That is the point I am trying to make. I am not suggesting that we should have one-mission agencies, you know, because we have too much of that, and the task force operation is bringing that together a little more. We went through that with the Department of Defense with a modification of the posse comitatus law. They didn't want to hear about law enforcement problems, which is absolutely wrong. The problems of intelligence gathering should be a concern of the Department of Defense, just like it should be a concern of all agencies. So I am not suggesting that we should have one-mission agencies. That is part of the problem. The point I am making is that where we need additional resources to combat drug-related offenses, we should be taking on those resources in the DEA, not diluting other law enforcement agencies and their missions, which are already spread so thin that we can't do a good job. We are a poor partner with the State and local law enfor agencies in many areas because we are dumping matte that are basically Federal in nature. Up until 4 or we had an informal rule in southern Florida, that if a amount to 2 tons of marihuana, we declined the jurisdiction to the local governments. In many areas, you know, 25 grams is still serious business, but- Mr. RANGEL. If you would yield just on that point, one of the differences we may have in understanding each other is a point that Mr. Hughes is making as to what you see as your role as the coordinator of local and State law enforcement efforts, and what some of our people consider as our responsibility to produce national leadership in law enforcement, and perhaps we should have an executive meeting to discuss this, but I come from a city that has one of the best police forces that we have in the country, and they do not believe that there is sufficient Federal presence. Now, we can debate that, but not at this forum. But when you talk about how proud we are of the role in coordinating local and State efforts, there is a difference of opinion as to how much of that effort should be local and State officials supporting the Federal role. And I don't mean that philosophically. Twenty years ago, as a former Federal prosecutor, I knew there were agents around. Now, you have established some new philosophy, high conspiracy cases, which we don't feel the impact of directly, and we can't argue with you. But the purpose of these hearings is that sooner or later, we are going to understand each other's language, and I don't think we will have as much difficulty, Mr. Hughes, once we find out what they consider the Federal role. Mr. HUGHES. Well, I only have one additional area that I just wanted to touch on. I think your testimony today gives us a good overview of the nature of the drug problem. I think most folks agree that the drug problem is just absolutely out of control in this country. We have always used a price-purity equation to measure the amount of drugs in the country, and we have looked at the number of overdose cases and casualties at hospitals as a way of trying to estimate. And I want to tell you, I have some concern over just how accurate those measures are. We have had some colloquies in the past that some effort is being made to update that and see if we can get a better measure. My question is, I get the feeling that when we talk about the changes in marihuana consumption, and the suggestion that we see some success stories, I wonder whether or not what we are not seeing is a change in the habits of people who are using narcotic substances. Cocaine is, I think you described, the new narcotic of choice today. I have a feeling that cocaine use in this country is totally out of control, it is on the upswing. We haven't seen the top of the curve yet. And that we are in for some very serious stormy times ahead of us with what is happening, particularly in Colombia. Up until now, Peru and Bolivia, in particular, have been major suppliers of the coca paste. Now, Colombia is developing its own in-country capability. They have the labs and now they are developing their own in-country raw material. That concerns me for any number of reasons. First, putting aside the political problems, is the question of whether or not Colombia is benefiting economically from the trafficking. Putting that aside, considering just the raw nature of the country is the inability of the central Government, even if it had the will to do more, to exercise much control in about 60 percent of Colombia. We have much going on in Colombia that reminds me of the insurgency that we have in parts of Southeast Asia. It is reminiscent of the Communist insurgency in Burma, and the problems at the border in Thailand. We have every bit the same problem in Colombia at a time when the demand in this country is on the upswing and that gives me tremendous concern. I wonder if what we are seeing really is a change in the habits of Americans, not particularly a leveling off of drug abuse, in the area of marihuana particularly, but just an upswing in the use of another form of narcotic substance, cocaine. Mr. MULLEN. That could be part of the problem, but we not only work with price purity, but intelligence. We have special programs, we have sources, we have household surveys, and we, at least I, have not been advised of any swing from marihuana to cocaine. There are individuals who use both drugs, maybe many drugs. But that certainly could be a consideration. Mr. HUGHES. Let me ask you about Colombia. What effective presence do we have in Colombia? How effective is our intelligence gathering in Colombia given the fact that so much of it is beyond the control of forces of the central Government? Mr. MULLEN. I have to say, with regard to Colombia, from my perspective, the problem is in the area of eradication and crop control. The Colombians have established a special enforcement group, I believe 500 or 600 officers, and actually they are doing a fair job, and they are exchanging some very valuable intelligence, and they are making some excellent progress. Mr. HUGHES. That is long term, Mr. Mullen, as you indicated in your Mr. MULLEN. The eradication is long term. Mr. HUGHES. That is very long term. I mean, first of all, to have eradication and crop substitution, you have got to have some degree of internal control. Mr. MULLEN. That is right. Mr. HUGHES. We don't have that at the present, so that is very long term. You have the same problems with the Indians that we have with the hill tribesmen in Thailand and Burma, with the historic and traditional use of that substance, we really have some serious problems in dealing with that. And that is not going to be the solution near term for us. Mr. MULLEN. I agree with what you are saying with regard to the eradication and substitution. The point I was making, though, is that the Colombian enforcement agencies are making some effort at investigations, interdiction, and are making arrests. They are cooperating and are giving us some substantial intelligence. Mr. HUGHES. Well, I am way beyond my time, I thank you for your testimony. I thought that your testimony was an excellent overview. Mr. MULLEN. Thank you, Congressman Hughes. I am sure I will have additional opportunities to talk to you in the future. Mr. HUGHES. Thank you. Mr. RANGEL. We have a vote on, and I don't want to hold you up, since there are no other members here. If time permitted, I was going to ask you to restate your position as it relates to priorities, which I think you were saying that we should concentrate on education, rehabilitation and local law enforcement. We will send you questions to ask you to amplify on that. That is a potential area of sharp differences, I think, with a lot of Members of Congress. It doesn't mean that we are right. But, one, as to the leadership that is provided, as it relates to law enforcement on the Federal level; and the second as to whether or not after a decade of getting the State Department involved in putting pressures on these source countries, whether or not your recommendations don't appear as though we are taking a step backward and saying that the emphasis should be on demand rather than on supply. I don't know whether we have a difference, it could be semantics, but I would like to include that with my questions. Mr. MULLEN. We probably do have some differences in philosophy, but I want you to know that none of us in the enforcement area question your support and the support of Congressman Hughes for our efforts. We appreciate it. Mr. RANGEL. Thank you very much. The committee stands adjourned until 2 p.m. [Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the Select Committee was recessed, to reconvene at 2:00 p.m., the same day.] [A letter of response pertaining to the role of DEA and the 1982 Federal strategy follows:] I am pleased to provide you with responses to the questions Thank you for the opportunity to elaborate on those issues relating to the Federal drug enforcement program. Sincerely, Doman D. Lowell Jensen Associate Attorney General Enclosure |