[House Hearing, 107 Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] WHAT ARE THE BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE INTERGOVERNMENTAL EFFORTS TO STOP THE FLOW OF ILLEGAL DRUGS? ======================================================================= JOINT HEARING before the SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY, FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS and the SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE, DRUG POLICY AND HUMAN RESOURCES of the COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION __________ APRIL 13, 2001 __________ Serial No. 107-32 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house http://www.house.gov/reform U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 77-056 WASHINGTON : 2002 ____________________________________________________________________________ For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001 COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York HENRY A. WAXMAN, California CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland TOM LANTOS, California CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut MAJOR R. OWENS, New York ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York JOHN M. McHUGH, New York PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania STEPHEN HORN, California PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii JOHN L. MICA, Florida CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington, MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana DC JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio BOB BARR, Georgia ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois DAN MILLER, Florida DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois DOUG OSE, California JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts RON LEWIS, Kentucky JIM TURNER, Texas JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois DAVE WELDON, Florida WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri CHRIS CANNON, Utah ------ ------ ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida ------ ------ C.L. ``BUTCH'' OTTER, Idaho ------ EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont ------ ------ (Independent) Kevin Binger, Staff Director Daniel R. Moll, Deputy Staff Director James C. Wilson, Chief Counsel Robert A. Briggs, Chief Clerk Phil Schiliro, Minority Staff Director Subcommittee on Government Efficiency, Financial Management and Intergovernmental Relations STEPHEN HORN, California, Chairman RON LEWIS, Kentucky JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois DAN MILLER, Florida MAJOR R. OWENS, New York DOUG OSE, California PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York Ex Officio DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California J. Russell George, Staff Director and Chief Counsel Earl Pierce, Professional Staff Member Grant Newman, Clerk Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana, Chairman BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois JOHN L. MICA, Florida, BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont BOB BARR, Georgia DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois DAN MILLER, Florida JIM TURNER, Texas DOUG OSE, California THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia ------ ------ DAVE WELDON, Florida Ex Officio DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California Chris Donesa, Staff Director Nick Coleman, Professional Staff Member Conn Carroll, Clerk Tony Heywood, Minority Professional Staff Member C O N T E N T S ---------- Page Hearing held on April 13, 2001................................... 1 Statement of: Brown, Lorraine, Special Agent-in-Charge, Office of Investigations, U.S. Customs Service; William T. Veal, Chief Patrol Agent, San Diego Sector, U.S. Border Patrol, U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service; Errol Chavez, Special Agent-in-Charge, San Diego Division, U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency; Michael Schneewind, under sheriff, Imperial County Representing the California Border Alliance Group; Steve Staveley, director, division on law enforcement, California State Attorney General's Office; and Larry Moratto, commanding officer for investigations of narcotics, city of San Diego Police Department............. 4 Grier, Roosevelt ``Rosey'', chairman of the board, Impact Urban America; Estean Hanson Lenyoun III, president and chief executive officer, Impact Urban America; and Ken Blanchard, chief spiritual officer, the Blanchard Companies 97 Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by: Brown, Lorraine, Special Agent-in-Charge, Office of Investigations, U.S. Customs Service, prepared statement of 7 Chavez, Errol, Special Agent-in-Charge, San Diego Division, U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency, prepared statement of........ 31 Horn, Hon. Stephen, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, letter dated May 24, 2001............. 91 Moratto, Larry, commanding officer for investigations of narcotics, city of San Diego Police Department, prepared statement of............................................... 65 Schneewind, Michael, under sheriff, Imperial County Representing the California Border Alliance Group, prepared statement of............................................... 46 Staveley, Steve, director, division on law enforcement, California State Attorney General's Office, prepared statement of............................................... 60 Veal, William T., Chief Patrol Agent, San Diego Sector, U.S. Border Patrol, U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, prepared statement of...................................... 16 WHAT ARE THE BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE INTERGOVERNMENTAL EFFORTS TO STOP THE FLOW OF ILLEGAL DRUGS? ---------- FRIDAY, APRIL 13, 2001 House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Government Efficiency, Financial Management and Intergovernmental Relations, joint with the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources, Committee on Government Reform, San Diego, CA. The subcommittees met, pursuant to notice, at 11:08 a.m., in the 12th Floor Committee Room, City Administration Building, 202 C Street, San Diego, CA, Hon. Stephen Horn (chairman of the Subcommittee on Government Efficiency, Financial Management and Intergovernmental Relations) presiding. Present: Representatives Horn and Souder. Staff present: J. Russell George, staff director and chief counsel; and Grant Newman, clerk. Mr Horn. A quorum being present, this joint hearing of the Committee on Government Reform, Subcommittee on Government Efficiency, Financial Management and Intergovernmental Relations which I chair and the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources chaired by Mr. Souder of Indiana. Mr. Horn. This is the second in a series of field hearings being held by the Government Efficiency Subcommittee examining how the Federal Government works with State and local governments to serve the people of America. At today's hearing, we will explore the interaction between governmental agencies in California involved in the ``war against drugs'' and the impediments to greater success in their effort to stop illegal drugs. At every level of government, the effort to interdict drugs consumes vast amounts of resources. Inevitably, the actions of the Federal, State and local governments overlap and, at some times, they conflict with each other. Each level of government has its own laws and regulations which need to work in tandem. Victory in the ``war on drugs'' continues to elude the Nation. Billions of dollars have been expended by those on both the supply and demand side, and yet, no capitulation by those willing to do whatever it takes to traffic in illegal drugs. The President's budget for fiscal year 2002 notes that the Federal Government will spend more than $18 billion on drug control activities this year with State and local governments expected to exceed that amount in their anti-drug efforts this year alone. With moneys that could be used on other government programs being spent on a seemingly impossible problem, we are seeking the degree of cooperation which exists between the various levels of government. We are particularly interested in limiting the duplicative actions and the waste of government funds. From our first panel, the subcommittees will receive testimony from various Federal, State and local government witnesses. In the second panel, we will hear from two community leaders who have made a difference in the war on drugs, who will discuss the tools they have used to overcome obstacles in their successful efforts. I now recognize the co-chairman of today's hearing, the honorable gentleman from the State of Indiana, chairman and Representative Mark Souder, for an opening statement on behalf of his subcommittee. Mr. Souder. I thank Chairman Horn. It is a privilege to be here in California. This is actually I think my third congressional hearing here in California on the drug issue and my third time in San Diego. One time previous on the drug issue and Chairman Mica, when he chaired this subcommittee that I now chair, and once with Chairman Riggs on the Education Committee looking at Head Start and other education issues here in southern California. Our subcommittees are conducting this oversight field hearing as part of our need to understand fully the Nation's drug crisis and what the challenges are that face Federal, State and local authorities in the implementation of effective drug control efforts. Today, we will learn about the Federal, State and local efforts to respond to the drug crisis in southern California and along California's border with Mexico. The California border is one of the most vulnerable and challenging regions in America for our law enforcement officials. I am pleased to join Chairman Horn here today in support of efforts to stop the flow of drugs into the United States and to protect our communities from the ravages they cause. I recognize that he is a resident expert on the needs and concerns of citizens throughout this area of southern California and is an important force in fashioning Federal, State and local solutions. He has truly been a leader in Washington on the intergovernmental efforts. And I wish to thank all the witnesses for their presence here today and for their dedication to this issue of critical importance across America, not only you directly, but the people who work under you put their lives in danger and are at constant risk, and we cannot thank you enough for what you do for citizens throughout the entire Nation, because what you do here has an impact in far greater regions than just southern California. We are honored to have testifying before us today a number of Federal, regional and local officials who are engaged in responding to the drug crisis and its terrible consequences daily. These officials serve on the front line investigating, apprehending and prosecuting drug producers and traffickers and are in need of our support and assistance. Our subcommittees are particularly interested in how communities and regions are dealing with critical responsibilities and implementing successfully our national--not just Federal--drug control strategy. Most law enforcement and drug control activities are primarily State and local responsibilities. However, as a border region, southern California has special needs and concerns, such as trade, immigration and transit issues, which means that the Federal Government plays a unique role along the border. In Congress, we want to ensure that the Federal Government is doing everything possible to assist you, both in reducing the supply of drugs in communities as well as the demand for drugs. This region of California continues to be a primary transit point for illegal drugs entering the country and transitting across and through the State. In recent years, the flood of drugs including methamphetamine, marijuana and cocaine has only increased, placing more demands on resources than ever before. This demand will increase, not diminish, in the future. In response to this terrible drug crisis, this area of California has been designated by the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy as a high-intensity drug trafficking area. HIDTAs are defined as regions in the United States with serious drug trafficking problems that have a harmful impact on other areas of the country. The mission of HIDTAs is to ``enhance and coordinate'' America's drug control efforts among Federal, State and local agencies in order to eliminate and reduce drug trafficking, including the production, manufacture, transportation, distribution and chronic use of illegal drugs and money laundering and its harmful consequences in critical regions of the United States. The subcommittee I chair is responsible for authorizing, as well as overseeing, ONDCP and the HIDTA program. So the subcommittee I am on is a little different in the sense that it is not just the oversight, it is also the authorizing subcommittee. Today, we will learn more about the effectiveness of the HIDTA in combating drugs in this area. Designated as one of the HIDTAs in 1990, the Southwest border HIDTA region is a critical line of defense in efforts to reduce drug availability in the United States. ONDCP estimates that about 60 percent of the cocaine entering the United States passes through Mexico. Mexico is the No. 1 foreign producer and supplier of marijuana and methamphetamine to the United States as well. Mexican heroin dominates the market in the Western and Southwestern United States. I want to again express my appreciation for the continuing dedication and professionalism of our witnesses today and their willingness to share their ideas and needs with us. I can assure you that your representatives here today will do everything we can to assist you in protecting your loved ones and our loved ones and ridding your community of the deadly drugs. We all recognize that the drug crisis demands a full utilization of available resources and close cooperation in a comprehensive regional approach. After all, that is what HIDTAs are designed to do, and it is our job in Congress to monitor and ensure their success. If obstacles are identified, then we must move to decisively overcome them. San Diego, southern California and this Nation cannot afford to wait--the drug crisis demands promising approaches and decisive action and the time to act is now. And the truth is, unless we can control what is coming into this country, our efforts to expand our prevention and treatment programs will not work. As we are working in the Drug Free Schools program, probably the first week we come back in session in the Education Committee, we know that we cannot defeat it at the school level where the prices go down and the purity goes up. We are depending on the Border Patrol along the Southwest border to work. So I wish to thank all the witnesses again for appearing before us today and I look forward to your testimony. Mr. Horn. I thank the gentleman from Indiana. Both our committees, the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources and mine on Government Efficiency, Financial Management and Intergovernmental Relations--they are both investigating committees, so we swear in all witnesses. And if you will rise and raise your right hands. [Witnesses sworn.] Mr. Horn. The clerk will note that all five witnesses have affirmed the oath, and we will start in the order that has been put on the agenda. Panel one will begin with Lori Brown. Ms. Brown is Special Agent-in-Charge, Office of Investigations, U.S. Customs Service. Please proceed. We would like you to sort of summarize on some, but we have the time today. If you want to go over 5 minutes, it is not going to offend me or Mark. But we will cut it off for sure at 10 minutes, but I think we need to get your testimony on the record. So Ms. Brown, you start. STATEMENTS OF LORRAINE BROWN, SPECIAL AGENT-IN-CHARGE, OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS, U.S. CUSTOMS SERVICE; WILLIAM T. VEAL, CHIEF PATROL AGENT, SAN DIEGO SECTOR, U.S. BORDER PATROL, U.S. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE; ERROL CHAVEZ, SPECIAL AGENT-IN-CHARGE, SAN DIEGO DIVISION, U.S. DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY; MICHAEL SCHNEEWIND, UNDER SHERIFF, IMPERIAL COUNTY REPRESENTING THE CALIFORNIA BORDER ALLIANCE GROUP; STEVE STAVELEY, DIRECTOR, DIVISION ON LAW ENFORCEMENT, CALIFORNIA STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE; AND LARRY MORATTO, COMMANDING OFFICER FOR INVESTIGATIONS OF NARCOTICS, CITY OF SAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT Ms. Brown. Thank you, Chairman Horn, Chairman Souder, I am pleased to appear before you to discuss the U.S. Custom Service's work with State and local governments in California to interdict the flow of drugs into this State. Much of the narcotics seized by Federal, State and local law enforcement officers in California enters the United States from Mexico. Along the California border with Mexico, there are six ports of entry. A total of 53 percent of the Southwest border seizures were made at these California ports of entry in fiscal year 2000. To help address this threat, the San Diego area was designated as a high-intensity drug trafficking area [HIDTA]. The HIDTAs promote cooperation and intelligence sharing among Federal, State and local agencies involved in the investigation of narcotics smuggling and trafficking. San Diego Customs is a member of the San Diego HIDTA known as the California Border Alliance Group. The Customs office investigations participates with State and local officers in five of the ten HIDTA initiatives. The five initiatives include an intelligence group, an Imperial Valley group, a Marine task force, a task force at San Ysidro and a financial task force. All State and local officers in these five initiatives have been cross designated as Customs officers. In fiscal year 2000, these five HIDTA initiatives were responsible for seizures of almost 9,000 pounds, or 4\1/2\ tons of cocaine, 167 tons of marijuana, 170 pounds of heroin and 672 pounds of methamphetamine. One of the other San Diego HIDTA initiatives is the prosecutor's initiative. State prosecutors are funded under this initiative to handle the prosecutions for Federal agents in State court. Approximately 50 percent of the federally initiated cases in San Diego do not meet the Federal prosecution guidelines. The San Diego Customs agents work with the HIDTA State prosecutors to prepare these cases for prosecution in State court. Additionally, the San Diego HIDTA intelligence initiative distributes reports of Customs arrests and seizures to police departments across the country, to notify these departments when individuals residing in their areas are arrested. Despite these great successes in the San Diego border area, significant amounts of cocaine, marijuana, heroin and methamphetamine move into the Los Angeles area from the U.S./ Mexican border areas, a distance of approximately 100 miles. Mexican drug trafficking organizations dominate the drug trafficking trade in the L.A. area. In response to this threat, Customs and the other Federal agents in the four-county area work closely with the State and local agencies in the Los Angeles HIDTA, which encompasses the counties of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside and San Bernandino. There are five enforcement initiatives in the L.A. HIDTA, including the southern California drug task force, which is a collocated joint operation with Federal agencies from the Department of Treasury and the Department of Justice and 15 State and local departments. The four other enforcement initiatives are comprised primarily of State and local officers. These teams work with each other and the Federal agencies in conducting narcotics investigations. In fiscal year 2000, these HIDTA drug investigation teams seized 3.3 tons of cocaine, 38 pounds of heroin, approximately 12.2 tons of marijuana and over 4\1/2\ tons of methamphetamine and $19 million in currency and other assets. The L.A. HIDTA initiatives also arrested approximately 1,000 narcotics traffickers. The Los Angeles HIDTA won the national HIDTA of the year award in both 1999 and 2000. In addition to participating in this formal task force, Customs works very closely with various State and local departments in the continuing investigation of narcotics organizations identified through seizures here at the border. Customs agents in Los Angeles regularly work with San Diego Customs agents on controlled deliveries of narcotics seized at the border. The Los Angeles HIDTA also conducts controlled deliveries of narcotics seized in L.A. from arriving air passengers or from in-bound mail and parcels. In controlled delivery, law enforcement officers deliver the narcotics to the intended recipient in order to reach the next level of the smuggling organization. State and local officers participated in over 75 percent of these continuing investigations and controlled deliveries, assisting with surveillance and providing language, technical and analytical expertise. These controlled deliveries resulted in additional seizures and arrests and allowed law enforcement to make an impact on higher levels of the smuggling organizations. To combat the illicit movement of drug proceeds to Mexico and other countries, Customs routinely develops and employed interdiction initiatives targeting identified currency smuggling trends. State and local officers have contributed significantly to these outbound currency initiatives. In the Los Angeles office, local law enforcement officers have received Customs training and are beneficially cross-designated as Customs officers. This authorizes them to conduct Customs outbound searches when necessary and appropriate. These cross- designated officers are assigned full time to Customs groups investigating money laundering and smuggling violations. I believe that all of the above examples show the high degree of cooperation between the Federal agencies and State and local departments in southern California. The State and local departments provide additional expertise, language skills and surveillance resources to the Federal agencies. In turn, the Federal agencies offer additional authority and jurisdiction to the local officers. Law enforcement benefits by a coordinated effort at attacking all levels of the drug smuggling organization. This concludes my oral testimony. I will be happy to answer any questions that you have. Mr. Horn. Well, thank you very much. And I might tell all members of the panel that your full statement is put in the minute we introduce you and then it is up to you whether you want to read the beginning or the end or summarize it. As I say, if we can do it in 5 minutes, just so you do not go over 10 We are now with William Veal, the Chief Patrol Agent, San Diego Border Patrol Sector, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice. Glad to have you here. [The prepared statement of Ms. Brown follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7056.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7056.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7056.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7056.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7056.005 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7056.006 Mr. Veal. My pleasure, sir. Chairman Horn, Chairman Souder, thank you for the privilege of being able to appear before this body. I would like to take you back to just 10 short years ago on the Southwest border of the United States. In effect, we had created a no-man's land between the United States and Mexico. Chaos reigned on our border. Organized elements were freely able to move people and contraband from Mexico into the United States. In effect, we were overwhelmed. The Congress--and I thank you and I thank your colleagues-- over the period of the last 7 years, has supplied the resources to the Immigration and Naturalization Service to bring the Border Patrol to a staffing level to where we have turned the corner--and I truly believe we have turned the corner on gaining control of our border. I hope you will have a chance to see for yourselves that a border that 10 years ago where the United States maintained no right of way on the border, no Federal right of way, the United States maintained no border fencing, no border lighting, there was no infrastructure in place. That situation has dramatically changed. And now we do have control of the border in the San Diego sector. The Southwest border initiative was begun in about 1994. It began in El Paso, TX with Operation Hold the Line and then it spread here to San Diego with Operation Gatekeeper. And again, I ask you to be mindful of the fact that for 20 years, the border was porous and for a long time, we wrestled with the idea of, well, ``How do we control this? Do we put money into stopping people, do we put money into stopping contraband?'' And frankly, that was a failed dichotomy. You have border security or you do not have border security. You cannot have a border that is permeable for people and yet not permeable for drugs, or vice versa. I think we have come to grips with that now and realize that it is clearly in our national interest to have a border that is secure from illegal entry, whether it be from people or contraband. The Border Patrol developed a strategy to apply the resources that the Congress dedicated to us and I think you will take great pride in seeing the results of that. Before that, people had said, ``Do not bother funding these initiatives. It does not matter what you do on the border, you cannot control it. In a free society, you are not going to be able to do that.'' I think that has been proven wrong. Some of the questions that you are asking, I would commend to you the initiatives of the HIDTA program. I think that is a highly significant and successful endeavor. I was here in San Diego before we had HIDTA, we had a very fractured approach amongst the Federal, State and local initiatives. The HIDTA very much brought us all together. We have now a great many joint initiatives that never happened before. They happen now and continue to benefit our country. For example, here in San Diego, we have a maritime initiative. It is the Border Patrol, the Customs Service, the U.S. Coast Guard. The Coast Guard, by the way is just a tremendous partner in maintaining control of our national borders. They interface very well with us. Some of the recent cutbacks, some of the funding shortfalls that the Coast Guard is currently experiencing does have collateral impacts on us. This maritime task force again looks to--the Coast Guard which provides a long range. They have very long sea legs and are able to reach out. The allied agencies, the Harbor Police, the Customs Service and the Border Patrol maintain a harbor patrol that is now expanded to a 7 by 24 operation. We never had the capability to do those things before. And the HIDTA has been a significant resource for us in being able to resource that initiative. You may be familiar with the testimony of Judge Ferguson. Judge Ferguson testified about 2 weeks ago. Judge Ferguson is a District Court Judge for the Western District of Texas. He testified before the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and he noted the fact that the Southwest border initiative that the Border Patrol has put in place over the last 7 years has dramatically changed the face of what the Federal courts are seeing. We have--I am happy to say, if the Judge is not happy to hear--we have dramatically increased the caseload on the Federal docket. Judge Ferguson's testimony was to the effect that increase also needs to be addressed. We have significantly increased the caseload of the judiciary along the Southwest border and now the judiciary needs to be resourced to be able to deal with that caseload. An example of one of the collateral effects of that is that--you may be familiar with the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act that was recently passed. It was designed, I believe, to correct some of the inequities that existed in the Federal asset forfeiture process. I think we may have seen some effects of that in that formerly when we intercepted persons smuggling, either aliens or drugs, in a vehicle, we were readily able to forfeit those vehicles because they were used in smuggling operations. With CAFRA, we do not have the option of administratively forfeiting those vehicles. We are required now to look to the courts to do the forfeiture. Well, as I stated, we have already got an overburden judiciary and these cases are just not going to make their way into the system. When you entered the building this morning, you may have noticed in the lobby that there is a big sign up, they are celebrating their volunteers. There is a great civic-mindedness in our country and we routinely have folks who come to the Border Patrol and say they would like to volunteer their services to us. They would like to assist us in doing some things, and in effect, to free Border Patrol agents up to do core law enforcement work instead of some of the ancillary tasks that they have been given. Our general counsel tell us, because of the Anti-Augmentation Act, that we are unable to do that, and I frankly think that the U.S. Government is missing out on a great opportunity to bring citizens in to help agencies do things that maybe we do not need to have someone on the payroll to do. Many police departments have volunteers, many police departments have reserve officers and I think that if we had the ability to do these things--again, it would increase, would enhance the efficiency of the U.S. Government. Again, I thank you for the privilege of being here to meet with you today and I stand ready to answer any questions you may have. Mr. Horn. Thank you. That is very exciting testimony. Our next presenter is Errol Chavez, Special Agent-in- Charge, San Diego Division of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency. Glad to have you here. [The prepared statement of Mr. Veal follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7056.007 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7056.008 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7056.009 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7056.010 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7056.011 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7056.012 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7056.013 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7056.014 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7056.015 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7056.016 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7056.017 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7056.018 Mr. Chavez. Good morning, Chairman Horn, Chairman Souder and other distinguished members of this subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to address this subcommittee on our efforts to interdict drugs crossing the U.S./Mexican border into California and the coordination of these efforts with State and local law enforcement counterparts. Let me begin by saying that the 140-mile border between California and Mexico and the Southwest border in general, is considered an extremely porous part of our Nation's periphery. The growing volume of commercial and pedestrian traffic that plays an integral role in California's economy, creates an infinite number of opportunities for drug trafficking organizations to smuggle illegal drugs. These drugs are hidden in all modes of conveyances, including the compartments of cars, trucks and the bodies and baggage of pedestrians. Smuggling methods range from extremely sophisticated concealment methods to simply tossing a drug-laden package over the border which can be whisked away by foot or by vehicle. Since California is also bordered by the Pacific Ocean, drug trafficking organizations can even utilize boats and ships to position their stash of drugs close to the border for eventual transfer to the United States. It is worth noting that since August 1998, the U.S. Coast Guard has seized approximately 102 tons of cocaine in the Eastern Pacific. Over the past few years, Mexico-based trafficking organizations have succeeded in establishing themselves as the preeminent poly drug traffickers of the world. They have also entered into a symbiotic relationship with Colombian-based traffickers that has resulted in the Mexican-based organizations playing an increased role in the cocaine trade. Mexican-based trafficking organizations in cities such as San Diego, Los Angeles and San Francisco now control the distribution of multi-ton quantities of cocaine once dominated by Colombian organizations. It is now estimated that approximately 65 percent of all cocaine smuggled into the United States crosses the U.S./Mexican border. In the San Diego area, a significant number of cocaine seizures made by the U.S. Customs and the U.S. Border Patrol indicate that drug traffickers continue to utilize the shotgun approach attempting to minimize successful interdiction efforts by sending smaller loads. Cross-border cocaine shipments generally are smuggled across the U.S./Mexican border in concealed compartments with cars, truck, recreational vehicles or commingled with legitimate tractor-trailer cargo. The border has also become a significant transit point, not only to the U.S. heroin markets West of the Mississippi, but increasingly to the primary markets in the Northeast. Recent seizures in 2000 and 2001 reflect that Mexican black tar heroin is increasingly being smuggled into the United States in larger quantities than in the past. In June 2000, a multi-jurisdictional investigation was completed with the arrest of 249 targets, the seizure of 64 pounds of heroin, 10 weapons and over $300,000 in currency. Given the expanse of the California border shared with Mexico, it is clear that no single agency can completely filter illegal drugs from the massive quantities of legitimate commercial cargo that flows across this border each day. Inter- agency cooperation with our valuable counterparts from the U.S. Customs, U.S. Border Patrol, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, as well as coordinated efforts with State, local and foreign law enforcement authorities provide the only logical response to the magnitude of this problem. DEA's strategic approach to targeting major drug trafficking organizations is to initiate and pursue high impact, intelligence-driven multi-agency, multi-jurisdictional investigations which rely heavily on State and local cooperation. This attitude and strategy has resulted in noteworthy successes in targeting and dismantling major trafficking organizations operating in the California/Mexico area. The marked resurgence of methamphetamine purity and abuse in the 1990's can also be attributed to Mexican traffickers who exploited their ready access to precursor chemicals to seize a portion of the U.S. methamphetamine market. Through a comprehensive international chemical control effort and domestic precursor chemical control program, we have only recently observed a dramatic decline in the purity of methamphetamine sold in our country. In San Diego County, the methamphetamine strike force, established over 5 years ago, is a collaborative effort between Federal, State and local law enforcement, drug prevention, education and treatment agencies, has resulted in a significant decrease in the use and abuse of methamphetamine in southern California. This effort is a unique model and has been duplicated in several other cities in the United States to combat the methamphetamine problems. The Southwest border initiative, in particular, has developed into a comprehensive approach to meet this challenge and has been designated as an enforcement priority of the San Diego field division. An investigation strategy, this initiative relies heavily on a multi-agency approach with a broad-based assault on drug trafficking along the border. It involves the participation of Federal, State and local law enforcement with resources being directed against the most significant poly drug transportation group operating in this area. DEA San Diego has particularly focused on the Arellano- Felix organization, one of the most violent poly drug trafficking groups operating along the Southwest border. The Southwest border initiative, through its multi-agency strategy, has achieved significant progress against this organization, using investigative techniques such as electronic surveillance, undercover operations and informants. This cooperative effort has led to the identification of a number of key lieutenants in the San Diego area. DEA San Diego is extremely fortunate to have a long-established and highly productive partnership with the various Federal, State and local law enforcement agencies present in San Diego. The San Diego Field Division has several task force groups comprised of personnel from 18 various Federal, State and local law enforcement agencies. Cooperation and coordination among all participating agencies is excellent and is exemplified in the narcotics task force, NTF. This DEA-funded task force is now in its 27th year and targets local impact violent crime groups and mid-level distributors. The goal of the NTF is to provide San Diego County with coverage of narcotic enforcement expertise to promote inter-agency cooperations. All task force officers are deputized as Federal agents, giving them Federal law enforcement authority. This provides the investigators with every opportunity to take the investigation to its highest level. The Narcotic Information Network [NIN] is a high-intensity drug trafficking HIDTA initiative and another example of successful cooperation of law enforcement. This multi-agency initiative was established to enhance officers' safety throughout San Diego and Imperial Counties, reduce duplication of efforts among agencies participating in the NIN and promote the exchange of information. The goals of this initiative are to coordinate agency efforts and provide intelligence on common targets. Other examples of excellent cooperation are the San Diego Financial Task Force, Marine Task Force, the Border Corruption Task Force, the San Diego Violent Crime Task Force and the California Border Alliance Group, and the Law Enforcement Coordination Center in Imperial Valley. In conclusion, as this Nation's lead drug enforcement agency, the DEA is committed to a strategy that incorporates the coordination and cooperation of all drug enforcement efforts on all levels. It is only through this concerted effort that we can hope to minimize the scourge of illicit drugs on our society. Thank you again for the opportunity to address your subcommittee on this important topic. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have at the appropriate time. Mr. Horn. Well, thank you very much. That is a helpful presentation. Our next witness gets right down to the grassroots and that is Michael Schneewind, who is the Undersheriff, the second in command, in Imperial County, representing the California Border Alliance Group. When you live in Imperial County, you are right on the border. Thank you for coming. [The prepared statement of Mr. Chavez follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7056.019 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7056.020 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7056.021 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7056.022 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7056.023 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7056.024 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7056.025 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7056.026 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7056.027 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7056.028 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7056.029 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7056.030 Mr. Schneewind. Good morning. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I am Mike Schneewind, I am the undersheriff of Imperial County, speaking on behalf of Sheriff Harold Carter, who is the vice chairman of the California Border Alliance Group, here in San Diego. I am pleased to testify concerning our effort to address Federal, State and local cooperation against drug problems in our region. I thank you for the opportunity to appear before the subcommittee. This morning, I will describe our region and its drug threat. Let me first express my appreciation to Congress, ONDCP and its recognition that while border enforcement is a Federal responsibility, the border's impact in terms of drug trafficking, violence and other aspects is local. The formation and continued support of our California Border Alliance Group HIDTA is a response that is important. The Southwest Border HIDTA is one of the largest, most diverse and unique of the 31 HIDTAs throughout the country. There are 45 counties, 5 Federal Judicial Districts and 5 regional HIDTAs that make up the Southwest Border--southern California, Arizona, New Mexico, west Texas and southern Texas. Drug trafficking from the Southwest border, without question, affects the entire Nation. The 2,000 mile Southwest border represents the arrival zone for South American produced cocaine and heroin, Mexican produced methamphetamine, heroin, marijuana and other drugs and precursor chemicals used to manufacture illicit drugs in the United States. The California Border Alliance was designated in 1990 as one of the five partnerships of the Southwest Border HIDTA. The CBAG's area of responsibility is composed of San Diego and Imperial Counties, 8,900 square miles from the Mexican border to the Orange County and Riverside County lines, from the Pacific Ocean to the Arizona State line. The location and geography are unique--terrain that ranges from seaports and beaches to mountains and deserts, yet home to San Diego, the seventh largest city in the Nation. There are two large Mexican cities directly to our south. They are served by six ports of entry, including San Ysidro, the world's busiest land port. Tijuana is populated by approximately 2 million and growing. Mexicali, who has a population of 1 million and is the national capital of Baja Norte. The 149-mile California/Mexican border is roughly 7 percent of the entire United States/Mexican border, but it is home to 60 percent of the entire Southwest border population. Nearly 6 million people reside on both sides of the region's international border. Major highways connect San Diego and Imperial Valley to Mexico, Los Angeles and points North and East. Maritime routes, railroads, international airports, smaller airfields and clandestine landing strips are also a major concern. Because of our location and proximity to the border, drug smuggling is here and here to stay. The primary drug threats to the region are: The importation of illegal drugs and precursor chemicals from Mexico; domestic production of methamphetamine and marijuana; high drug use rates, especially methamphetamine; and, border violence that spills over and impacts our region. I have provided you with more detailed information in written form, but allow me to summarize a few facts and figures that illustrate the regional impact during the year 2000: 217,658 kilograms of marijuana, 4,384 kilograms of cocaine, 62 kilograms of heroin and 482 kilograms of methamphetamine were seized in border-related incidents on the Southwest border. Over 151,000 marijuana plants were seized from public lands and private property in San Diego County--that is approximately 330,000 pounds of marijuana that did not hit the street--many of them in large remote operations run by Mexican drug trafficking organizations. Clandestine laboratories, mostly methamphetamine labs, continue to plague our region. In the CBAG area alone, 33 labs were seized in year 2000. At least 15 major labs were seized by Mexican authorities in Tijuana and Mexicali. Eight labs were seized in the first 8 weeks of 2001 in Imperial County alone. I might add that at those sites, three-fourths of the children that were at those sites have tested positive for methamphetamine. We have a progression here of adults who are making decisions about cooking meth, but they are also dragging their children and families into this. In the past, we have ignored this, and we cannot continue to do that. We need to take some measures to ensure that we do something for these children at these sites. There were 1,400 meth labs seized statewide in 2000 in the State of California. California continues to lead the Nation in clandestine methamphetamine lab seizures. Most disturbingly, a total of 23 children were present or resided at these heavily contaminated clandestine sites, and have been removed under the Drug Endangered Children Program for treatment, assessment and placement services. Methamphetamine use in our region continues to be a significant public safety and health problem. Seventy-five percent of the arrestees booked into the Vista Jail in northern San Diego County tested positive for methamphetamine. Overall, arrestee methamphetamine use was just over 26 percent for men and 36 percent for women. Which I might comment is a decrease from a number of years ago in San Diego County. In 1994, they represented 54 percent, so what we are doing is apparently having a positive impact, although San Diego County was one of the leaders in methamphetamine and it kind of spread from here and moved to the rest of the country. Drug-related violence continued along the Southwest border during the year 2000. In January, the Juarez Cartel issued an open contract of $200,000 to kill any U.S. Federal or local agent working dope on the Southwest border. On February 27, the Tijuana chief of police was assassinated in what is almost certainly a drug-related death. Several suspects in the murder were later arrested and stated they had been working for Ismael Zambada, a prominent Sinaloan trafficker. In one of the most disturbing incidents this year, three Mexican anti-drug agents were murdered shortly after returning to Baja, CA after meeting with U.S. drug enforcement counterparts. They had assigned an investigation and arrest of Chuy Labra, the financial manager of the Arellano-Felix organization. And in one more example, 10 armed Mexicans in military uniforms crossed the international border at Otay Mesa and fired at least eight shots at U.S. Border Patrol agents before returning to Mexico. This type of violence does indeed impact our region. The Arrellano-Felix cartel has a well-established working relationship with San Diego street gangs, and cartel-related murders have taken place within San Diego and Imperial Counties as well as in Mexico. Our region's response is based on Federal, State and local agency cooperation and coordination. We are proud of the fact that this region was one of the first, if not the first, to form an integrated Federal, State and local law enforcement drug task force in the early 1970's. This task force set the tone for the level of cooperation in our HIDTA today. As a designated HIDTA, we recognize that our response to the border and the drug problem must be comprehensive. There is no magic. There is hard work, there is commitment, there is day-to-day uniform enforcement along the Southwest border in the form of the U.S. Border Patrol. The Imperial County deputy sheriffs and San Diego County deputy sheriffs makeup a thin barrier between the forces of evil that are mounting and becoming stronger to the south of us. Until we significantly address support to local agencies and the Federal agencies that are fighting this war on the Southwest border, we are not going to be successful in the war. We need support, we need it on a daily basis. We work hand in hand, we have had hand-shake agreements for my 32 years as a deputy sheriff on the Southwest border. We have had handshake agreements with DEA, we have had a relationship with the U.S. Customs and probably the closest relationship we have had is with the U.S. Border Patrol. Before the HIDTAs evolved, we did it out of friendship, we did it out of need. We recognized what was happening to our country. As this HIDTA and others have evolved along in time, it has been nothing but positive. I am on the wrong end of my career to be out there stomping around and putting people in jail, but I am certainly proud of those folks that are doing it and it is at the Federal level and the State level and the local level. Thank you. Mr. Horn. That is a moving description of reality and thank you very much for coming to share that with us. Our next presenter is Steve Staveley, director of the Division on Law Enforcement, California State Attorney General's Office. Is he here? [The prepared statement of Mr. Schneewind follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7056.031 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7056.032 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7056.033 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7056.034 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7056.035 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7056.036 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7056.037 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7056.038 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7056.039 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7056.040 Mr. Staveley. I am pleased to be able to come down to my favorite big city, San Diego, and spend a little time here. You can read the material that I submitted and you are going to hear a lot of themes that make sense to you that you have heard already and will hear the rest of the day. HIDTA works, makes sense, do it, more of it. We certainly need to continue to stay focused on this issue. I would take a little exception, Mr. Chairman, with the use of the phrase ``war on drugs.'' I do not think there has really been a war on drugs, there has been good policing going on and continues to go on. A war on drugs is like a war on bank robberies, they continue to happen, we continue to work on them in the best ways we possibly can. I want to take a little bit of time and talk to you a little bit about the Division of Law Enforcement, very briefly, and then talk to you a little bit about California, this very unique place. The Division of Law Enforcement is located in California's Department of Justice, we are about 1,600 people. The Western States Information Network--one of the six RISS's, ours is called WSIN--is a five-state project. It focuses on intelligence focused around narcotics issues, involves Alaska, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington and California. Mr. Horn. Could you just describe what a RISS is, R-I-S-S. Mr. Staveley. RISS is a Regional Information Sharing System. There are six of them in all of the United States. Sadly I cannot tell you what they all are, but there are six of them, trust me. And they essentially each gather intelligence information around criminal conduct, essentially around narcotics and share that with their member agencies. WSIN, Western States Information Network, feeds information and is connected to the NIN that you heard about earlier, San Diego NIN, the LA Clearinghouse, and to other intelligence projects in California. We have--part of my operation is the Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement [BNE], which is the oldest narcotics operation of a State government anywhere in the country--been operating since 1926. The California Bureau of Investigation, which is essentially California's version of an FBI, albeit very, very, very much smaller, and the Bureau of Forensic Services which is the crime lab system and the DNA system for California and for 46 of its 58 counties we are the crime lab. I want to talk just a little bit about what California is like. This is the largest, most diverse society in the history of the world. Federal demographers say we are 34 million people, State demographers say we are closer to 35 million people. If we went down and got in our car today at the border on I-5 and started driving North trying to get to the North end of the border, we did not run into any traffic--and I assure you that will not happen--if we did not run into any traffic and we stayed at freeway speeds, we might reach Oregon in 13 or 14 hours of steady driving. This is a big place, it is about 1,200 miles from one end to the other. And if you started at the Western end of--as you heard the undersheriff say, if you started at the Western end of Riverside County or San Bernadino County, San Bernadino being the largest in the country, and drove to the Eastern border of that same county, it would take you 4 hours at highway speeds if you did not run into any traffic. But given the fact there are 10 million people in L.A. County, almost 3 million in Orange County, almost 3 million here in San Diego County, 1.7 in San Bernadino County and about 1.6 in Riverside County, the likelihood of not running into traffic is slim to none. There are almost 35 million people in California. We are the sixth largest economy in the world and we remain, ladies and gentlemen, a donor State to the Federal Government. That is to say, we send more money there in tax dollars than we get back. In all of the services that we consume, all the services and benefits that we get back, we send more than we get back. I believe that all the things you heard said earlier about the cooperation between State, local and Federal officials is absolutely correct, it is an extraordinarily successful enterprise, working along the border, working up and down California. Ninety percent of the meth, according to some DEA experts, 90 percent of the meth that gets anywhere in the United States either is manufactured here in California or comes through California--90 percent. And you have heard all the other statistics and they are more articulate than I can be about that. But California methamphetamine strategy [CALMS], which is now in its 5th or 6th year of Federal funding, proves we can have an impact on that. We have essentially moved the major labs out of the metropolitan areas south of the Chuhatchapees and moved them into central California and into Arizona and into Nevada. Well, we are having a significant impact, but we need to continue that effort. We have had a very, very successful 19th year, I think it was, in our CAMP program, which is our marijuana eradication program. Tons and tons and tons of marijuana come to us, imported to us, but we grow--last year, we captured 356,000 plants and eradicated them in California, 70 percent--70 percent--grown by narcotics trafficking organizations and on public land, BLM, National Forest Service. We need to put more resources into that. And the bottom line I would leave you with, ladies and gentlemen, is just that, we have not put enough resources into the policing of this issue in California. The Federal Government has not put enough money in, I believe the State has not put enough money into it. And I think we need to make sure that California on this issue in particular stops becoming a donor State and starts becoming a receiving State. If we are actually going to have an impact long-term, we need to think of California as what it is, the place that is the sixth largest economy in the world. And if we are going to get serious about this and have really good policing around these issues, we have to interdict more drugs coming across that border. We have to make sure that we are putting enough resources on the border to really solve the problem or to have control of the problem. I believe additionally that there is yet another role for those of us in the State service for the CHP, as an example, and for the Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement, as an example, and that is to provide that second level of impact just behind our Federal colleagues at the border itself. We need to put some more resources and I think we need to put Federal dollars because it is essentially a Federal problem--we need to put Federal dollars into supporting the CHP and the Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement in doing a better job of interdicting drugs. They can provide the first line of defense for the Federal Government. And I think those are issues that we have to take some serious focus on. But the bottom line is, and I know the focus of your committee is, to determine whether or not we work well together, the Federal and the State and the local agencies. And I think it is--an unqualified response has to be, yes, we work very well together. But there are not enough resources devoted to taking us to the next level in solving the problem and we need to make sure that happens. I hope that after you hear all the testimony of these very bright and able people, that is one of the things you will come away with. One other thing I would like to share with you, if you have not read it yet, this is one of the products largely of the NIN, I believe, and under the Southern District U.S. Attorney's Office. This is the kind of product--I just received this the other day and read it on the airplane--this is the kind of product that really tells you what is going on in terms of intelligence information regarding narcotics activity in the Southern District, and in fact, it is repeated in the four U.S. Federal Districts here in California. There is lots of good quality information out there. What we do not have is adequate resources at this stage, to really begin impacting. And I will say one more thing and then I want to sit down. I realize it is a little disjointed, but I just completed a survey of California law enforcement agencies--30 percent of all the cops in California, and there are about 80,000 of them, by the way--twice as many lawyers in California as there are cops, that tells you something I think. About 30 percent of them have less than 5 years on the job. Now I do not know how long it takes to becomes a good Congressman, I do know it takes between 5 and 7 years to be a good radio car driver, to really learn your craft, to learn to be a really good member of the police service. And one quarter of our people, more than one quarter of our people have less than 3 years--less than 5 years on the job. I was chatting with the SAC at FBI in Los Angeles, he is responsible for about 14 or 15 million people in his population area, has about 600 Federal agents, and 50 percent of his people have less than 5 years on the job. We also need to--what I am asking for more money for is to help us build the infrastructure of police service, the law enforcement. And our infrastructure is not usually buildings and guns and cars. Our infrastructure is quality people, able to enforce the law within the Constitutional guidelines of the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California, and do it right every single time, because they know how to do it right. And so one of the things the undersheriff said is really true. He is 32 years and near the end of his career, I am 34 and very near the end of mine as well, and we have a whole infrastructure of understanding about what it means to be a police officer, what it means to be a law enforcement officer, what it means to be effective in this business. We have to rebuild and we do not have a lot of time to get it done in, frankly. So I wish you well in your efforts. I hope you get a chance to go down and spend a little time on the border itself and see the great work of your employees, the Federal officers down there. They are very, very powerful and they do a terrific job. We just need more of them. Thank you. Mr. Horn. Thank you. That is a very encouraging thing, and I hope you can stay for the questions so we can get into corrections and a few other things, if you can. We will have one more presenter. The last presenter on panel one is Larry Moratto, the commanding officer for investigations of narcotics for the city of San Diego Police Department. Welcome to your own city. [The prepared statement of Mr. Staveley follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7056.041 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7056.042 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7056.043 Mr. Moratto. I am happy to speak for the city of San Diego and our police department here and as it has been already demonstrated, we are unique here and especially in the city of San Diego, because our southernmost border is the border to Mexico and so it is a unique problem. You also need to understand in this region that San Diego is a transshipment point of narcotics. We are a focal point of where the narcotics come across the border and enter San Diego and Imperial Counties. All of those narcotics that enter our region, most of them are not designated for the streets of San Diego. A lot of them do end up on the streets of San Diego, but the biggest percentage is shipped off to other regions, from here all the way across to the coast and other places. So it does create unique problems. Just in the city of San Diego with our limited resources that we have, we cannot handle this problem on our own. We have to have help. I have been in police work for 27 years and I have had a chance to travel the country and see how law enforcement agencies interact with other agencies, Federal agencies, State agencies and so forth and I have to tell you that I truly believe, from my point here and I think I speak for the other local agencies in San Diego County, that I have never seen a region in the United States where the Federal Government and the Federal agencies work any better with the local agencies, than they do here in San Diego and Imperial Counties. Again, I have been a police officer for 27 years and when I went to the DEA Narcotics Task Force as a lieutenant, I had people working for me at the narcotics task force, San Diego police officers, that had been at the narcotics task force for longer than I had been a police officer. It has been a very effective--it is probably one of the most effective, if not the most effective narcotics task force throughout the country. And it has been that way for over 27 years. Our cooperation that we have through the Drug Enforcement Administration, the FBI, the Border Patrol, U.S. Customs, INS, U.S. Postal Service, IRS--we get that on an every-day basis. I think of most importance to us here in San Diego is how we deal with our immediate community and our neighborhoods. And we go right into the neighborhoods and our important thing is neighborhood policing. We try and find out what the priorities are for the communities, what the priority issues are in narcotics with the people in every single neighborhood. And I have got to tell you that the DEA, the FBI, U.S. Customs, they all partner with us, not just on the big projects, but they will partner with us on the smaller projects. They will give us the resources or whatever they can to help. I was around when we first started HIDTA, I was involved when San Diego Police Department first got involved with the local HIDTA here and we first started getting funding through HIDTA I believe in 1994. There are 18 different initiatives right now in San Diego and Imperial Counties that are funded through the HIDTA program. I think we have a total of about $10.3 million that comes to San Diego and Imperial Counties through HIDTA and ONDCP and is administered by CBAG. Our California Border Alliance Group, they do an excellent job of administering this program, but I have got to tell you, I have sat for many years through the process of looking at all the initiatives that come in and when we have $10 million to divvy up and we have got $20 million worth of requests and initiatives that are put in, those $20 million in initiatives, I look at them, every single one of them is important, is critical to what we need to do in this region to address the narcotics problem, but yet we have to weed out, we have to cut down, we have to eliminate some of those requests, and it is not because they are not valid requests or they are not substantially needed in this region, it is because that is the limit to the funding and that is what we have to use. And if anything that we have, our No. 1 need is to really truly look at the unique nature of our community here in San Diego and Imperial Counties and see what funding is needed, because what you do here does not just affect San Diego and Imperial Counties, it affects the drugs that are going into northern California, and all the methamphetamine labs and the lab cleanups and the things that are going on in northern California. The Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement through DOJ is extremely helpful and on board as a full partner with us here, and again in our neighborhoods and everything that we ask. But what we do here and the money you spend in this region is going to affect what happens in Minneapolis because we ship lots of drugs to Minneapolis, we ship lots of drugs to New York and Connecticut and Florida and other places in the country. So dollars spent here are dollars spent across the United States. And again, the HIDTA program here, you have to continue funding that program as much as you can because again, with our limited resources, by partnering with the other agencies in the Federal Government and State government here, we are allowed to have people interdict things at the border and interdict things at U.S. post office and UPS and rail traffic and other places that we would not be able to even scratch the surface of if we did not have the partnerships that we have here. So again, I am thankful to you and your committee for taking a look at what we have. I hope that you can really give consideration to what we need and our true needs are here in the future and I am willing to answer any questions you might have. [The prepared statement of Captain Moratto follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7056.044 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7056.045 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7056.046 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7056.047 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7056.048 Mr. Horn. Thank you very much. And I now yield 10 minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from Indiana to begin the questioning. And then when his 10 minutes is over, I will take 10 minutes and so on until we get about 50 questions out. Mr. Souder. Let me just say for the record that California should not feel bad about being a donor State. I believe 48 States are donor States and possibly 49. I know West Virginia is not, because Senator Byrd takes care of West Virginia. [Laughter.] But the problem with the donor State debate, which we all have and we all holler about is that of course, because of Federal operating costs and any money that goes overseas, nobody gets a dollar back, because it is in effect an overheard charge. In fact, many of us who believe in tax reductions believe the best way to make sure you are not a donor State is to keep the amount of money leaving your State down to a minimum and therefore it stays in your State and you can make the decisions in your State. I believe for the record that California is less of a donor State than most other States, partly because of the drug effort, partly because of water questions that we do a lot of Federal supplemental on water, partly because of the senior citizen aid and some of that goes--disproportionate aid that goes to big city programs. So in relative terms, while in the drug area, California may get more; in other areas, in the donor question, that is a comment that all of us make in our home districts and our home States. The biggest challenge we have right now, and I want to get this response because it will be helpful as we get into the kind of general debate here--the biggest problem we are facing right now after about at least 4 years of plussing up of our anti-narcotics efforts, we are under the most intense counter- attack about the so-called failure of the drug war that we have been in. These kind of things go in cycles. Political attention goes about 2 years and then if we have not solved a problem, we want to run away and go to another problem, because we are supposed to be politicians, supposed to fix them, not have something that is continuing. So we will fund something, get you all geared up and ramped up, then we will run over to child abuse here or run over to this problem there or missing children over here. And then go oh, we have a drug problem and we will come running back and plus up the numbers again. But I would like to hear your response. You have given, each of you, examples of successful things that you have done. What I would like to ask, because it is being implied to us in Congress as we get into this debate, that the enforcement, interdiction, eradication side has failed. The movie ``Traffic'' is suggesting that oh, well, maybe we ought to just give up on the stuff, if we could just reduce demand a little bit, everything would take care of itself. The ``West Wing'' had a thing about Colombia, probably more people learned about Colombia in the ``West Wing'' TV show than had known about it in all the other things and their previous knowledge was ``Clear and Present Danger,'' the movie. We are under increasing pressure in Washington to not increase your budgets, but to reduce your budgets this cycle. What would have happened in the cases that you described if your dollars go down? If we either freeze, so that your dollars go down in a realistic way, because you do not have the inflation adjustment, or you actually get a 10 percent cut, what will happen to the amount of narcotics coming into California and going to the rest of the country? That is really the question being asked of us right now. They are saying hey, it has failed. How do you respond? What will happen if we reduce your budget? Mr. Staveley. It goes up. And I do not mean to be flippant in my response--it will, it will go up. I mean it is not much different than a beaver building a dam on a stream. The water backs up on the dam. If the beaver stops doing maintenance on the dam, the water will flow through the dam and will continue downstream. My sense of it is--and again, I have been a policeman for a long time, I do not consider myself an expert, but clearly it would have to go up. There will be a direct result, more dope on the street, more of our folks exposed to it. Mr. Congressman, my personal bias is that this not--as you face that question, and I know it is a real question, California has faced it at the ballot box twice now--as you face that question, I do not know why we have to have it as an either/or question. You know, demand reduction is a useful thing to do, we should do that. Education is a useful thing, we should do that. Treatment is a useful thing, we should do that. But why do we give up the only effort we have had that has even been marginally successful so far at keeping drugs out of the country? I think you do all those things, you do not do one or the other and forget the rest of them. It is like building--it is a three or four-legged stool. Remove two of the legs and the stool is going to fall over. And I think you cannot just do treatment, you cannot do just demand reduction, you cannot do just interdiction, you have got to do all of those things, but you cannot back up on interdiction or the stool is going to tilt over. Mr. Souder. Let me ask Ms. Brown, in the Border Patrol, if we reduced the number of Border Patrol agents--one of the things we heard in the testimony was that people were moving to smaller quantities, that was you did not have a big bust. If we reduce the number of agents, would we not then also reconsolidate the loads? In other words, one of the key questions in the budgeting here is that as we do things, the traffickers do things. We up our costs, they up their costs. Could you explain to me kind of this inter-relationship because I think the fundamental question people are asking is are we getting a return for the dollar in the drug effort and that for marginal increases, if we marginally reduced, what would happen on the other side, would they change their thing-- in other words, are we consuming as much as we are going to consume anyway and by us reducing the interdiction budget, in fact, there would not be much of a change? Ms. Brown. Well, first of all, I have the Customs Service and Mr. Veal has the Border Patrol. Mr. Souder. Sorry. Ms. Brown. Quite all right. Mr. Souder. You had the quotes on the border that I was picking off of. Ms. Brown. It is true that one of things that we are facing here are the smaller loads, but I think that is just simply because the traffickers use this method to get it in, they just flood constantly. We are not finding the huge shipments into the ports that we have in the past. But without the resources to be out there at the ports of entry with the Customs or between the ports of entry with the Border Patrol, I firmly believe that it is going to come in. I certainly cannot give you any statistics that we are consuming all that we are going to consume and if there was more, we would not consume it. It appears that any time we reduce our resources, there is just more openings for the narcotics to come in, and I believe that they will come in. Mr. Souder. Do others agree with that as well? In other words, if we reduce the enforcement, the amount of narcotics coming in would increase and usage would increase? Mr. Moratto. I believe from a local standpoint and what I have seen over the years, not only do I think it would increase, but I think how they go about doing their business would drastically change. You know, the more money you put into interdiction and the more money you put into prosecution, seems to have a dramatic effect on how the drug dealers ply their wares or how they traffick their product. For example, if you bring in 90 pounds of marijuana into San Diego County or Imperial County--but I will speak to San Diego County explicitly, if you hire a 17 year old Mexican national to drive a junker car that is worth $200 with a load of 90 pounds of marijuana into San Diego, heading North to Los Angeles, if that person gets interdicted say at a Border Patrol checkpoint, then what happens is we seize the marijuana, it is impounded and burned someplace down the line; the Mexican national juvenile is sent back to Mexico with no record virtually except that he entered the country illegally and there is no prosecution on the case because it is not going to be prosecuted because it is below the threshold in U.S. courts and it is not going to be prosecuted through the State court in San Diego County because there is no nexus to San Diego County at all, so San Diego County would be paying the burden of prosecution on the case. The drug dealers know how things operate in the courts, it does not take them long to do it. When big loads were easy to get through, they brought big loads. Now they shot gun it with numerous cars carrying smaller amounts in a different fashion. They are not stupid, they have the cell phones, they have better technology a lot of times than we have in law enforcement, and they react to how we go about interdiction and prosecution. Mr. Schneewind. I would like to comment from a small county perspective. If you look at San Diego and then you look East along the Southwest border, there is not much there. You know, they talk about the thin blue line or the thin green line or whatever. The U.S. Border Patrol and your local sheriff's departments are what is out there. Imperial County is, dollar- wise, the lowest per capita income in the State, the population is--unemployment rate is the highest in the State. You go on into Arizona all the way into Texas and you are faced with the problem that if you back away from the partnerships or you back away from supporting the partnerships we have, you are leaving my deputy sheriff driving around out there in the middle of the night to interdict these problems. We are right back where we started a number of years ago on the Southwest border in Imperial and San Diego Counties, of saying the Federal Government does not care about it. My people still drive into the middle of people unloading dope out of the back of cars and it is a dangerous thing to happen. I would like to comment about something else that was said here earlier and that is that--I was reading I believe in the San Diego UNION about the arrogance of the cartel members. They held I guess a little get-together down in Mexico where all the heads of the Mexican trafficking folks got together in concert with the government, the Mexican Government, and had a meeting about let us do away with the bloodshed, let us plan for the coming year, let us see what we can do about doing business so it does not cost us any more and we can make more money. We are sitting here talking about or discussing cutting meager funding along the Southwest border while they are talking about banking in Zurich. Mr. Horn. Well, some of what I am going to ask will relate to that. We are in now my 10 minutes and we have a lot of questions here. So let me ask Mr. Veal, the Chief Patrol Agent in the San Diego Sector, one of the things that bothers a lot of Americans is every time there is a show like ``60 Minutes'' or something, you see, I think it is Douglas, AZ where they are coming in by several thousand and obviously those of us that look at that show say good heavens, if they can find it with their cameras, where is the Border Patrol. Could you tell us what that situation is in Arizona? Mr. Veal. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman, I can. Thank you for asking the question. The same footage that you will see taken in Douglas, AZ a few months ago would have been the footage you would have seen taken here in San Diego 10 years ago. As I said, 10 years ago, we had no plan, we had no infrastructure. We are not in that position any more. For the 20 years from 1970 to--25 years, from 1970 to about 1995, one half of all of the illegal entries that occurred on the United States/Mexico border occurred in San Diego County. And 50 percent of those, occurred in the first 5 miles of border. That is, from the Pacific Ocean to the San Ysidro Port of Entry, it is 5 miles--25 percent of all the illegal entries that occurred in the United States occurred in that 5 mile stretch. This was the most heavily trafficked corridor in our Nation. And that trend persisted for 25 years. That is why I say, folks said, ``Do not even try; you cannot do anything about it.'' I think if you have the opportunity to come and see that stretch of border today as we have systematically applied our Border Patrol strategy, we have built that infrastructure. There is now a viable fence on the border, there are lights on the border so that people do not have the cover of darkness. There are roads, all-weather roads, that enable Border Patrol agents to patrol the border. We tackled San Diego first. It was absolutely the worst place in the country. We demonstrated that you can control the border in the United States if you put the right mix of technology and resources to it. San Diego is currently the template for what was then achieved in El Paso, TX, where I also had the pleasure of serving as the chief. Again, that was the second worst place in our country. That is now static. Mr. Horn. I held a hearing here in 1996, a Presidential election year where a lot of things were going on, to try to prove at last just exactly what you said, so they poured some money in so that the Republican Convention could not make a major issue of it. But what I did note was when we had the ranchers come at the end of that hearing, that they are still flowing through the mountains to the East of us. I did not even know there were mountains except the Sierra Nevadas, I had never been in that part of San Diego. But the testimony was unbelievable, including a squad of the Mexican Army who lost their compass or something. I just wonder if that is where the flow is still coming from. Mr. Veal. I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, we were not able to achieve border control here overnight. It took us 5 years before we turned that corner. They are still in the process there, but I will tell you this, we are halfway through our fiscal year right now. For the first time since Operation Gatekeeper began, across the border, from Brownsville, TX to San Diego, CA, we have got a 24 percent reduction in the number of people attempting to enter our country illegally, and the Tucson Sector, which is the area of Douglas that you are talking about, has also seen that reduction. Mr. Horn. You mean they are reducing the forces, or the reduction of the immigrants? Mr. Veal. No, no, sir, the reduction has come in the number of people who are being arrested, the people who are attempting to enter. They do not have the degree of control in Douglas that we have here and it's going to take them awhile, but I think again, the fact that they were able to turn those numbers down is a sign of success. And it is not going to be overnight. Mr. Horn. Do they not have the help of the local people in Arizona, or what is the problem? I mean this has been going on now for 3 years that I know of, where they just pour into Douglas, they have taken over the town and we are not doing anything. And that bothers me. So what is the Border Patrol's budget and what-not and can that not be moved from some other place where they do not have people pouring in? Mr. Veal. Yes, sir, we currently have 200 of our officers from here assigned outside the Sector, principally to work over in Douglas. And that does not just include officers. That includes some of our pilots, some of our aircraft, a significant number of our vehicles. So we do have that flexibility in our strategy to address those issues. Mr. Horn. Let me move to another question that would relate to the Border Patrol, and that is, I learned somewhere again, a few weeks ago where the people that are bringing in drugs and everything else through our San Ysidro entry and there is some tall building there and apparently the drug lords or their stooges are sitting there with bifocals--binoculars and they are talking in their cell phone, oh, gee, you do not want to go through that gate, let us move over here into that lane. What have we done with that? A relative of mine said why do we not use a cruise missile on that building to start with. That is how people feel, and I do not blame them. You are trying to do a wonderful job, but if somebody is up there doing that, there all to be all hell broke loose on that building. What are we doing on it? Mr. Veal. Mr. Chairman, I will address your question to the extent I can, given that the Border Patrol has no responsibility at our ports of entry. Our responsibility is for those folks who try to enter our country at places other than the ports of entry, but we suffer the same effects. Our officers are surveilled; to the extent that we are aware of that, we engage in counter-surveillance. We know that they attempt to monitor our movements, our radio frequencies. There is a limited degree of cooperation with the Mexican Government on a number of those issues. It has always been quirky; however, I have seen an improvement in the last few years. And I think with the commitment, I believe Mr. Fox is sincere in wanting to improve the situation in Mexico and we are seeing efforts being done on their side. Mr. Horn. So you get the feeling that they are being supporting of the new President there, that something will happen. Mr. Veal. It is certainly not like working with Canada, Mr. Chairman. I mean we do not have that--there is not that inter- governmental relationship. But we do have--we are seeing, and I think the Mexicans are sincere in attempting to restore order to the border. Mr. Horn. I was at a dinner that meets once a month in Congress on--and we had officials from the Mexican Embassy and officials from the Colombian Embassy, and my question to them was you move all of that stuff through your country heading for the United States where the money is there, etc. Now, are any of your children being hurt by what is going through and they said yes, as a matter of fact, we regard it as the most serious national security problem we have because it is not just keep moving to the Yankees to the North, it is dropping off a piece here and there and it is affecting their own children. So I think there will be a little change in some of what they are trying to do in parts of Colombia and parts of Mexico, but we all know that there is so much corruption in both those governments, we all wish President Fox the best because he is the first breath of fresh air there in 100 years. So let me move to infrastructure, and this includes Customs obviously and the Border Patrol. What is it you need that you do not have--when they are dropping it out of planes from Colombia, dropping the drugs right at the border practically and out in the ocean and all the rest of it, what do you need that you do not have now? Mr. Veal. I think, as I said earlier, Mr. Chairman, the Border Patrol has a strategy, we call it the Southwest Border Initiative. It applies for systematically growing the organization to meet the need that we feel we have. San Diego is attempting, what we are trying to do now is we are about halfway through that strategy. San Diego was the worst place, El Paso was the second worst place. That is no longer the case. We have demonstrated that if you want to control--if we want to control our border, we can do it. And I think we are in the process now of growing the organization and replicating what has been achieved here and what has been achieved in El Paso, at the remaining trouble spots on the border. Currently, the focus is Douglas, AZ and that is where we are concentrating our efforts currently. Again, I think we have got a plan that is working and we just need to stick with the plan. Mr. Horn. Well, I am thinking of either building fast small little boats or ships or whatever where they could go out and find what has been floating in the waters from hither to yon, and I just wondered if we have got a plan there. Now I remember when three colleagues, we went to the Panama situation before it was turned over, and it was very clear when you looked at the radar where all those traffickers up in the air was going was Puerto Rico, and I told General McCafferty when I came back, I said, you know, we ought to try to get Customs and Immigration to be checking everybody that is coming in to New York of course from Puerto Rico. But the facts are that politically all hell would have broken out by the Eastern Congressmen, what are you doing to my constituents. But we know you have got so much of that stuff moving into New York right under our eyes--is there ever anything we do to stop some of this stuff? Mr. Veal. The answer, Mr. Chairman, is yes. Just as the smugglers at the ports of entry try to use small--they switch to smaller loads of contraband, they just use common vehicles, here for example, in the harbor of San Diego, about every morning there are about 500 vessels that leave the harbor and then at the end of the day, there is about an equal number of vessels that return into the harbor. Smugglers do the same thing. They realize they have got this traffic, they try to blend in with the normal traffic and our ability--as I said in my earlier testimony, the Coast Guard has been an excellent partner in that effort for us because they have the long sea legs, they can reach out and they can tell us some things that are on the horizon, so we can prepare to deal with them as they get closer. The fact that the Coast Guard is suffering budget shortfalls now has forced them to curtail a lot and that will adversely impact our ability to ferret out the traffic as it gets to the harbor here. Mr. Horn. I also told General McCafferty we had Navy platforms on the East coast, why do we not have some on the West coast, and I was told yeah, that is a good idea. Then I talked to the people on the firing line here last night and I think we are lucky if we had even one Navy platform. I guess my query is, are they all sitting here in San Diego for the tourist to think wonderfully of the Navy or what? It seems to me that if they have got a number of ships here, some of them ought to be used for this purpose. Mr. Chavez. If I may answer that? JIATF West is responsible for the interdiction effort in narcotics coming up from the-- for the cocaine that is coming up from South America. As I mentioned in my presentation, there has been over 102 tons of cocaine that has been seized since late 1998. What they are doing is assisting us at DEA in pursuing our investigations. We have preseizure intelligence that we provide to JIATF West and that is the Coast Guard and DOD. They go to the areas where we suspect that the loads are coming up from Colombia and make the seizure. Then they bring the loads up, if we can, for prosecution here in San Diego, and if not, they take the loads of cocaine to the foreign country. Most often it is Mexico. What they are doing is, first, if they have enough planes-- and this is where there is a shortage of P3s. If they have enough planes to have an overflight in the area--because it is a very large body of water--they can locate the smaller go-fast boats or these refueling boats. Then they will send the word back to us so we can develop the intelligence to assist in finding out which organization is involved. We can use those photographs for prosecutions and we can also assist in debriefings after a seizure is made and talking to the defendants. So there is an awful lot that they can do and will be able to do if they have more support. Mr. Horn. I am going to have to move on so my colleague can get his 10 minutes. You have talked about and showed in your presentation very interesting things about well, we have arrested them. Now the question is did we convict any of them? Mr. Chavez. You are talking--which ones are you talking about? Mr. Horn. I am talking--on your various presentations you have given us certain data that said well, we have got so much money here, we have got arrests here and all the rest of it. I am just curious, does any of that ever happen where they are incarcerated and getting a wonderful little jail term? Mr. Chavez. We have arrested over 1,000 defendants every year since I have been here in San Diego. It has varied from 1,300, 1,100, 1,200; but yes, most of our prosecutions result in convictions, very few are not convicted. Mr. Horn. Would you say it is more than half the arrestees you have to be convicted? Mr. Chavez. No. I would venture to say it would be--90 percent are convicted--and that is a rough figure--of the 1,300 or 1,200 defendants that we have on a yearly basis. Mr. Horn. Well that is very good if you can do that because frankly, we do not do that with bank robbers. I mean, it is amazing the few convictions in some judicial districts. We have got some judicial districts along this border area that might well just let them off, I do not know. What do you feel from your friends from here to Texas? Do they feel they are getting support from the U.S. attorney or what do they feel? Mr. Chavez. There are areas where we do have more defendants than the courts can handle. There is a problem for housing the prisoners, for processing the prisoners and then to take them to court. Yes, there are judicial districts that are more inclined to take a plea. There are other districts who are more inclined to have them return to Mexico with a State conviction. Here in California we have three strikes and you are in for life. So there are different procedures in different jurisdictions, and to paint the picture with one brush I think would be very difficult. Each area has some unique problems. Mr. Horn. At this point in the record we will put a presentation from the administrative arm of the Federal courts and see if we can get the data as to who was arrested and what were the convictions when it got to drugs and see if we cannot tighten the screws a little bit. I am sorry to go over. Mr. Souder. Mr. Schneewind, in your testimony I had a couple of questions on the methamphetamine data that you raised. You have in the testimony here that 75 percent in San Diego tested positive of methamphetamine or admitted methamphetamine use in 1999. But then the following statement you said it is actually down slightly. Mr. Schneewind. Yes, sir. Mr. Souder. To what do you attribute the decline because that is not what we are hearing overall on methamphetamine in the United States. Mr. Schneewind. As I recall, the initial screening was set up in Vista jail, which was a project that was funded under a grant, and they were screening the folks. San Diego County had an extremely high incident of methamphetamine. I do not know whether we have been successful at educating folks or getting the word out that this is something that is--maybe they are selling more of it out of the county instead of in the county. Mr. Souder. It is moving through but not as much used? Mr. Schneewind. Right. Mr. Souder. You mentioned about the 23 children. You did not have it in your written statement, but I heard you say three-quarters of the children tested positive for methamphetamine. Mr. Schneewind. Recently we have done the---- Mr. Souder. Is three-quarters the right number? Mr. Schneewind. Yes, sir, in Imperial County. This was a situation that we certainly just recently came on board focusing on the children at the methamphetamine sites. We went a full--our prior year we went with no methamphetamine labs in Imperial County. We did some training. I started training my field deputies, my uniformed deputies, in recognizing what the precursors--what to look for, what is a lab, what can you develop. Well the genie is out of the bag, they started recognizing what they are and starting developing cases. Our local narcotics task force comes in and assists. We have picked up children at each one of these sites and they have all--the vast majority of them, 75 percent at this point, has tested positive for methamphetamines. Mr. Souder. What is the range? Mr. Schneewind. We are talking infants up to 5 and 6 year- olds. They are crawling around--when you have in mind--you may think about a methamphetamine lab as being some--like your science lab in high school or something but that is not the case. They may be a vermin-infested trailer that has trash and junk all over the floor and crawling amongst that trash and junk on the floor is some infant. They do not have to take the methamphetamine, they are absorbing it. The methamphetamine is just one of the problems. The other chemicals used to make the methamphetamines are probably more dangerous. Some of these young folks are not going to have a long life span if they continue to be exposed to this. Mr. Souder. Mr. Moratto, have you seen this in San Diego? Mr. Moratto. Yes, we have. In fact, it has been such a problem here and in the entire State of California that we have a program called DEC, the Drug Endangered Children. We work very closely with the courts here in San Diego and the juvenile court system has really taken a hard stance on this. We have trained all of our investigators to the point--I have a person assigned to my office now from the county and that is what she does, work with the endangered children. She is a full-time employee and works in my narcotics unit just on that problem. We are taking children out of drug houses and out of laboratories on a regular basis. Mr. Souder. Mr. Staveley, has that been a pattern state- wide that you have seen? Has the law been effective? Has it at least forced them to separate--some of them out of fear of being prosecuted--their children from the location or what? Mr. Staveley. I am not sure that I would make that conclusion. I can say, as these gentlemen indicated, that this program, DEC, began in Butte County a number of years back. I think there are 12 DEC programs in the State, something like that now. Of that number, I would say--and I am not quoting, I am just estimating--that all of the ones that I read about, they are running between 30 and 40 percent, and 75 or 80 percent of the kids have poison in their blood system when they are tested. I do not think we will know what the end result of that is. The deputy sheriff is no doubt right, it is going to dramatically impact them. What most jurisdictions seem to be doing about it is that they will put those kids under direct supervision of the court to make sure they are separated from their moms and dads. As to whether we have impact on kids in the future, I do not--I am not sure. We are having an impact on those kids because those kids are being separated from the environment going into foster homes or mom and dad get fixed up and cleaned up. Then they come back together and reunite as a family. But they are being observed and watched to make sure that they are not exposing those children to those poisons again. Is that responsive? Mr. Souder. Yes. I was up at JIATF West a few weeks ago and the DEA gave me a brief about basically a housing development for producing marijuana. Are you familiar with that? We do not have that in our record. If any of you are familiar here with that--we are going to insert it into the Washington record, but it is a development that they have uncovered and they are starting to prosecute now. What was a phony housing development and they were indoor marijuana development North of San Francisco. It is massive--producing something like 30 or 40 percent of the marijuana for the State. Mr. Staveley. Our colleague from the DEA probably has more management on it but---- Mr. Souder. Presumably medicinal marijuana because signs at the gate said that this was medicine, you know, when they went in. Mr. Staveley. It used to be in the Humboldt area there was Emerald triangle. Mr. Horn. Grandmothers. Mr. Staveley. It used to be almost all outdoor grows and now it is almost all indoor grows and there may actually be a silver lining to our power crisis because they will not be able to get electricity at the prices they have had in the past. Mr. Chavez. I really do not have any information on that. That is in the San Francisco Field Division and so I am really at a loss to explain it. Mr. Moratto. Mr. Souder, I just want to say on the statistics that were quoted about the percentage of people entering our jails here in San Diego County, we have a group here in San Diego called SANDAG, it is the San Diego Association of Governments, and they have an ADAM program and they measure this every year and they have for several years. Those copies of that could be available to you and it might be most helpful in what you see. And they check the population, the men, the women, the juveniles, and they do those surveys in the jail. So that information is available. Mr. Souder. And before giving Mr. Chavez a chance to respond to my earlier question, I want to make a comment with this, because it reflected a frustration that I am having and a number of other people. Understanding that politics is almost like a seasonal thing in the sense of our interest in different issues and the sustainability of public support, and I have been very aggressive on the prevention/treatment side as well. I am probably the most unpopular Congressman on college campuses right now because it is the Souder amendment that says if you get convicted of a drug crime, you lose your student loans, which every whining newspaper editor in every university in the country has called our office. But the goal was to get them into treatment, if they go through a treatment program, they get their loan back. The goal is not to have punishment, the goal is to get people cured. And we cannot say that we are really having prevention/treatment if we are not holding people accountable for their behavior. But we are frustrated. Mr. Horn's question a minute ago about the military, quite frankly, our new Secretary of Defense has some pretty appalling statements on the record about where he sees the drug issues, and hopefully as he comes in, he will start to realize that we need the Defense Department to engage in this. We need a drug czar. Hopefully, by the time this report is printed, we will have a drug czar, but I understand we are in transition and I am a Republican, I am very supportive of this administration, but I am concerned that what you are seeing out of Washington right now is part of this grassroots problem, and what we often hear at our hearings and what the general public hears--I am afraid, as a baby boomer, that it is sounding a little like Vietnam. We get the numbers of the drug busts or we get the numbers of the people that we caught at the border, but the general public says well, they are coming across over here. You know, we got them here, but they just came over here. And then, well, you have got this big bust, but how come if you got this big bust, there are still more drugs in my hometown. And that is the fundamental question that we are having to deal with right now, because we are going to have some really hard budget numbers, because back home they are saying we want prescription drugs in Medicare--where are we going to get that money. We need more money for hospitals, we need more money for Head Start, we need 11 percent increase for education, we do not have the right kind of weapons in the military. I know you are doing everything you can on the front lines, the statistics you gave us today helps, but my question was not asked in an unfriendly way, it is that we have to have this stuff if we are going to engage in the debate and one of the questions is what is their counter-proposal. If we reduce it, what is going to happen at the border, what is going to happen in California if we actually reduce your funding or do not give you the needs, because what you are telling us is you need more and yet that is not what people are telling us. Mr. Chavez, I cut you off earlier. Mr. Chavez. I believe we are going to lose vital intelligence, effective law enforcement programs, we are going to lose the initiatives that are the most productive I think on the Southwest border. If 50 percent of the population on the Southwest border is in this area, we should have enough funds to address our problem because of the population. The intelligence we get is international, we are able to get the technology--I mean get the intelligence through technical intervention such as Title 3 operations, listening to drug traffickers, using informants, paying for information. We are able to multiply our effectiveness by developing programs to share this intelligence with other law enforcement agencies, State and local, get them involved, working with the Border Patrol, trafficking trends. We can send that information to them or we can work with our counterparts in host countries to make the arrests and stop it at the source. All of this altogether--if we do not share the intelligence, if we do not work together, we do not develop these international programs, State and local programs and initiatives, we are going to lose the battle. We are going to have the traffickers who are criminals recognize our weakness and then just fill the void. They are going to come right in with multi-tons of cocaine, multi-tons of marijuana. It is going to be easier for them to cross the border, easier for them to travel to their distribution networks throughout the United States. We are going to see more drugs--methamphetamine, black tar heroin--coming into the United States, more addicts. It is going to multiply the effect all over the United States. Mr. Horn. Let me ask you about the forfeiture of assets and how it is utilized to help both State, Federal, local, county people that have been helping us on that. How do you feel, is it OK the way the law is or should some amendments be made to it? Mr. Chavez. I believe we should amend it. We are suffering, we are not having any kind of effect on the traffickers, they now routinely file to get their property back because there is no real penalty. It is at the expense of the government. And we find ourselves on the defense when we know that there is obviously a violation of law, the traffickers are using the vehicles and conveyances to get the drugs into the United States. We should amend that, it is affecting our operations. Mr. Horn. Why cannot we just do it and keep it right now? I do not get it, what am I missing in the law now? Mr. Chavez. What is happening is that the traffickers get attorneys to file and that puts the U.S. Government on the defensive and we have to then fight to prove that the traffickers did in fact have knowledge there were drugs in the cars or using the property to distribute the narcotics. It does penalize the prosecutor and it makes it more costly for the U.S. Government to fight the issue. Mr. Horn. We have Camp Irving that trains a lot of the U.S. Army. Is it possible that we could dump those cars there and let them use live ammunition? There will not be much of a car to talk about at that point. Mr. Chavez. I think unless we can prove that the traffickers used those cars, that we are going to have to fight the battle and we will not be able to have those cars available to drop any live ammunition on them. It is routine, these defense attorneys just routinely file. Mr. Veal. Mr. Chairman, if I could, the point I was trying to make in my earlier testimony about the impact of the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act [CAFRA] as it is referred to, is that prior to that enactment, most of the agencies had promulgated rules through the Administrative Procedures Act--we were able to forfeit. For example, the Border Patrol, principally what we see are smugglers in cars, whether they are smuggling people or whether they are smuggling drugs, they are in a car. Prior to the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act, whether that person was prosecuted or not, we were able to forfeit that vehicle to the U.S. Government. So at least there was a price to be paid for people who were engaging in that illicit activity. Since the passage of CAFRA, our ability to forfeit vehicles resides in the courts. And as I described to you that we have already overwhelmed the Federal judiciary. Our inability to seize these vehicles and raise the price of being engaged in smuggling has caused a proliferation of small scale people who say, ``You know, I really do not have much to lose for me to get involved in a smuggling venture, so why do I not go ahead and try it?'' Mr. Horn. What do you think? You are the authorizing committee. Do you think we can get something done on that? Mr. Souder. Well, one of my questions, what happens right now? In other words, during the appeal process--in other words, before you could just seize the car, sell it and split the assets, because the doubt went to the side of the government. During the time they are filing it, do they get to keep the car and use the car? Mr. Veal. Sir, the Border Patrol is effectively no longer in the business of seizing vehicles. Mr. Souder. So in effect you just lost it completely. Mr. Veal. Yes, sir. Mr. Souder. Because of the court backup, you do not even bother to--in other words, even if you could seize it and put it in a holding place until you got a court resolution, it would be a deterrence even if they got it back 3 years from now. Mr. Veal. Yes, sir. Mr. Souder. In other words, that would be a potential compromise. Mr. Chavez. But there is a problem, because the U.S. Attorney's Office does not want to get involved because it takes too much of their time and the time of the courts, they would just as soon return the car. Mr. Souder. So that would possibly require a splitting of the--the reason we've gone more to the U.S. attorney is because Federal laws are tougher for prosecution purposes and many times the local law enforcement wants to go to the Federal. But when you do that, the Federal courts, quite frankly--and even if we increase the dollars, they are not going to be able to handle individual car cases. There needs to be--but if somebody in effect has a car tied up for 5 years while they are waiting and the Federal courts do not feel that there is any rush to do it, you de facto do the same thing, do you not? Mr. Chavez. But it is up to the government to pay the attorney should they lose. So the whole process, the government is losing---- Mr. Souder. Wait a second, we do not have a loser pays. We have loser pays for drug dealers but not for anybody else in America? Mr. Chavez. No, we pay for legal fees if they prevail. Mr. Souder. Do we have that in any other area? We do not have loser pays. Mr. Moratto. It also costs money to store cars, to tow the cars and it is a tow contract that is done through the government. So all of that incurs expenses---- Mr. Souder. We need to relook at it, there is no question. Mr. Horn. Boy, I will say. We can be witnesses before your committee. [Laughter.] I hope we get a pleasant reception, I think we will. You are a former U.S. attorney. Let me ask a few questions. Apparently we have to be out of here by 1:30. To the entire panel, why were the problems associated with the combined prosecutions initiative not anticipated? Was there any problem there? And what were the problems? [No response.] Mr. Horn. Was that part of the State of California or was it all Federal in terms of the combined prosecutions initiative? Mr. Chavez. I am at a loss as to which one you are actually talking about. Mr. Horn. Well, let me pass that over then, because we do not have time for digging it out. Give me a summary of what you think is the current threshold for the Federal prosecution of drug cases. Mr. Chavez. That is a very sensitive issue because any comment that we make about the thresholds, the word immediately gets out to the traffickers and they will reduce it by 1 pound if we make reference to it, so it is very serious for us, because we cannot give a number out there and what we do give out there, if the traffickers exceed it, then it overburdens the Federal courts; if it is less, then it overburdens the State courts. It is a very sensitive issue. Mr. Souder. So they should assume it is 1 ounce. Mr. Chavez. Well, it depends on the drug. Mr. Souder. Or 1 gram. Mr. Horn. Mr. Staveley, any comment on that question? Mr. Staveley. You know, I am not as familiar with the San Diego issues as these folks are, but that makes perfectly good sense to me. To keep them guessing, I think that is a good idea. I will bet you could get the answer to your question after the meeting. Mr. Chavez. Probably could, yes. Mr. Horn. Undersheriff, in your testimony, you say ``My final example of Federal/local cooperation is the combined prosecutions initiative which provides funding for cross designated assisted U.S. attorneys and deputy district attorneys and the prosecution of border drug cases in State court. The past 2 years, the San Diego District Attorney's Office handled 3,400 port of entry and other border drug arrests, allowing the U.S. Attorney's Office to concentrate on major violators and conspiracies, while ensuring that lower level violators are prosecuted and a measure of deterrence is maintained. Ironically, the number of cases being handled by the DA's offices has now reached the limits of their capacity.'' Another example of local impact which you spoke of earlier and what was intended to relieve the Federal prosecutor's burden has now severely impacted local prosecutions in both San Diego and Imperial Counties. Mr. Schneewind. Absolutely. And day before yesterday, I spoke with our district attorney in Imperial County and he is at a point where he says I cannot handle any more and I am not going to handle any more, which we call them threshold cases. You reach a threshold and it goes one direction or the other. He has reached a point--again, we are a small county--he has reached a point where either he gets more help, which is a problem because our court system itself at the State level is at its maximum as well, so you start stacking things up and you never get to trial. Mr. Horn. We will send you some questions on this if that would be helpful, because I realize that one way to wreck our judicial and justice system is when they get overwhelmed with a particular aspect and nobody gives them the resources, be it the State or the Federal Government. If they are doing the Federal Government's duty, they ought to get money from the Federal Government and try to somehow--of course, then some attorney will say, ``You are just doing this to get the money, are you not?'' And so forth. Ms. Brown, your testimony notes that the Customs Service is responsible for enforcing 600 Federal laws on behalf of the 60 Federal agencies. How would you grade Custom's success in enforcing all those laws? Ms. Brown. I think that we do as well as we can with the resources we have. It is overwhelming, the amount of things that we have to handle. Trade with NAFTA has increased enormously and we need to facilitate that trade, while at the same time keeping the narcotics and other prohibited items out of the country. Narcotics is right now the priority. I think that we do a very good job on that, but it is a resource issue. There are 700 inspectors at the ports here in San Diego and 200-plus agents to do the followup, and there are 31 million cars a year. The volume is enormous. Mr. Horn. The last 3 years I have held hearings in the Port of New York, hearings in the Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach, and the fact is, you are under-funded, under- resourced in this whole area. Commissioner Kelley swore to me that he would sure change it in a few months, in a few months, etc. And nothing has happened and he is no longer Commissioner Kelley. So what about that system they have got on how you put people in various positions there, based on the load? Ms. Brown. We do have a resource allocation model and we are increasing our staffing here. It is a slow process with the hiring and with the numbers of retirements that we are also suffering. We also have the same kind of experience level, it is very low at the moment. But we are increasing--the San Diego office is continuing to increase, there will be a couple more groups of agents here within the next while. The Customs Services I believe is recognizing some of that and doing some resource allocation. Mr. Horn. Mr. Stavely, what do you think the Federal Government ought to be doing to help the States that go to the front, if you will, of this war? Mr. Staveley. If I have a criticism of the Federal approach, it is one of the things you gentlemen mentioned a few moments ago, and that is throwing the money out and then pulling the money back; throwing it out, pulling it back. Again, it takes 5 to 7 years to make a decent radio car driver--and I know we are not on this subject, but let me just make the point, you eliminate the cops money and all of a sudden how do we find radio car drivers any more, the money is gone. I think the mistake the Federal Government consistently makes is what you talked to, sir, you jump to this issue and then you jump to that. You are just moving the same dollars back and forth. I really think, as an example, if the Custom Service is something you really want to devote resources to, give them the dollars, and I hate to say this, but leave them there 10-15 years. When they keep getting pulled back, that is what disrupts the organization. Mr. Horn. Right. Mr. Staveley. I will speak now for the years I have been involved in it, not the Federal Government. When that funding goes like this, it demoralizes the troops, confuses the vision for what the organization is supposed to be doing, upsets the mission and throws the short and long term goals and objectives into turmoil. And so I think the first thing I would say is make sure you are being steady. The other thing I would say is that I would ask the question if somebody wanted to do a new drug initiative, how does this fit in with the current initiative? I think the HIDTA is a wonderful example, a very positive thing, but when the HIDTA was funded and brought forth, there was not, I do not believe, adequate forethought given to how it would integrate into the RISS system, as an example. And we wound up, only because we have really good people, we wound up with the ability to navigate that, but there was more than a little bit of confusion and there was some bumping of ships in the night as a result of it. So I would ask--the second thing I would say, sir, is that I think the integration of new programs has to be carefully thought through, in addition obviously to more resources. The sixth largest economy in the world here is what we are talking about. You have been here several times and I hope you have had a chance to get down and spend some time on that border. Mr. Horn. Yeah. Mr. Staveley. I have tried to explain it to people and the only way I can explain it to them is drag them down there and have them look at it. It is just an extraordinary, extraordinary place. And if I may just take 1 more second of your time, Imperial County is a place that I have spent a lot of time as of late in this job and I have a lot of interest in it. There are 25 deputy district attorneys and the district attorney in Imperial County. It is small enough that the district attorney actually prosecutes spousal abuses because he has to, that is his caseload. 160,000 people in the county, 100,000-plus a day come across the border legally to do business in Imperial County and go back across. So they are resourced for less than 160,000 people but they have a population that is nearly twice that size. It is just an amazing place to go. And maybe it is not replicated anywhere else in this country, I do not know, but to me it feels like Imperial County is really under-resourced as well. Mr. Horn. Well, I hope I can get there one of these days because it is the only county of the 58 that I have not been in. Mr. Staveley. I would suggest you---- Mr. Schneewind. Make it this time of the year, not July or August. [Laughter.] Mr. Horn. Besides the assets bit that I mentioned, I would just like you to name a Federal or a State law that, if amended, would help each of your organizations perform its functions much more effectively. And what changes would you recommend? Let us just go right down the line. Ms. Brown, do you have anything? Ms. Brown. No, sir. In fact, both in Los Angeles and San Diego, I had no input from anybody saying that there was anything impeding us with working the State and local. Mr. Horn. OK, State law or Federal law. OK. Mr. Veal. Mr. Veal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I could just reiterate, as I said previously, I think there needs to be some reconsideration of the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act. I would also counsel that you look at the anti-augmentation provision. I think that prevents us from availing ourselves of a cadre of volunteers, folks in the community who would like to provide free services to Federal organizations but cannot do so. Mr. Horn. And that is barred by law, you are telling me? Mr. Veal. Sir, our general counsel tells us that the Anti- Augmentation Act prevents us from availing ourselves of volunteer services. Mr. Horn. And you feel the Border Patrol could put them through a reasonable training before they go to the border? Mr. Veal. Sir, I am not advocating that they would actually be doing the work of Border Patrol agents. But we are a large organization and we have officers who are involved sometimes in ancillary duties and those are the functions that I believe volunteers could do, freeing up Border Patrol agents to do our core law enforcement mission. Mr. Horn. I agree with you, let us see what we can do about that, I think you are absolutely right. Mr. Chavez, what would you pick? Mr. Chavez. Well, the drug of choice in San Diego County and Imperial County is methamphetamine. Ecstacy now is becoming one of our major problems because of the RAVE parties. I would like to see stiffer penalties for both methamphetamine and Ecstacy. I do not think there is an appreciation for the seriousness of the effects of the drug and if we can make it known to the public and there is a stiffer penalty, it most certainly would help us. Mr. Horn. Very good. Mr. Schneewind. Mr. Schneewind. On the local issues, I would address a couple of things for Imperial County and one of them deals directly with INS or U.S. Border Patrol. They have a national policy of non-pursuit, which creates a real tragedy in my county inasmuch as Interstate 8 passes very close to the international border out across the desert. I have load vehicles that load up on the border, line up between the two Immigration officers or Border Patrol officers who are standing watch, and at a high rate of speed jet between them, hits Interstate 8 in the Eastbound lane traveling Westbound. They may have 10, 15, 25 people in a vehicle. The Border Patrol says we cannot pursue. Meanwhile I have folks coming down the freeway that are good taxpaying citizens of the United States and probably out of my community that are in danger. I guess this mentality is well if you cut a tree in the forest and there is nobody there to hear when it falls, there is no problem. Well, that does not serve well in as much as we have wrecks all over the freeway with these vehicles, even not running into people, just running off the road and crashing. The California Highway Patrol has not done much better in that they are--I believe their stated policy is if the Border Patrol calls and they are not pursuing, we are not getting involved either, which leaves it to me I guess and my coroner's office to clean up the mess down the freeway when we have families that are smeared all over the roadway. Mr. Horn. This is long before your time I believe, Mr. Staveley, but when did it go where local police could not pick up people that are coming over the border. Mr. Staveley. Actually it was not long before my time, I was actually doing some of that a long time ago. I think it was in Mr. Nixon's term, his attorney general opined I believe--if memory serves, his attorney general opined that it was in fact a Federal law that only Federal law enforcement officers could enforce. And he forbade us from being so involved, absent a local violation. Mr. Horn. Well, that is good to know because I never had that pinned down, so it is an AG ruling for the Federal Government. Mr. Staveley. I believe that is correct, sir. At least that is my rather ancient memory. Mr. Horn. Yeah. Well, that's pretty good memory. Let me thank you all. You did not get a chance, Mr. Moratto. Mr. Moratto. I agree with the Border Patrol, the asset forfeiture would really be a big help. That money that comes back to us helps our resources that we have go directly back into law enforcement activities and help stem the flow. Also, I would like to see the State government and the Federal Government get together on how they look at Schedule 1, 2, 3 drugs and so forth and have the same kind of matrix, so that if somebody is arrested in Boston for having heroin, it would have the same effect in the courts that it would if they are arrested in San Diego. What happens is you get this mix and again, drug dealers are not stupid, if they know that they are not going to get prosecuted for bringing over ketamine into San Diego, they are going to bring it into San Diego. If they know they are going to get prosecuted for it in Florida, they are going to come to San Diego. And it is just that simple. We have loopholes in our laws when it comes to things like Ecstacy and ketamine and some of those other things and we have a differential between how the Federal Government looks at it and how the State governments do and I would really like to see it pulled together. The other area, I would like to see a lot of effort put into what happens with the Ecstacy and the drugs that are used in the culture today for the youth, because we are seeing openly across the United States, and it is here and it is probably going to be our biggest drug problem in San Diego in the coming 2 to 5 years, that is those RAVE drugs, where openly you see 20/20, you see 60 Minutes, you see these people go on and the people line up at tables coming into sponsored parties that are supposed to be closed parties, safe parties. The parents get the flyers, they think their children are going into a safe environment and the kids are lining up to test their Ecstacy to see if it is good Ecstacy before they use it when they go into parties. And the producers of that party have got 1000, to what we had here in Paris in Riverside County, where they had 40,000 people at a RAVE party and they are lining up to test their Ecstacy to make sure it is good Ecstacy before they get in and the producers are making mass amounts of money on these parties, knowing that there is illegal drug stuff going on. We need penalties for that. We need to fix penalties on people that are facilitating these parties and facilitating the effort to get these drugs to our children. Mr. Horn. Now this would be a law that said who is going to get the situation, is it the people that put up the party, is it the people that go to the party? Have any dropped dead yet? Mr. Moratto. Children? Mr. Horn. Quite a bit? Mr. Moratto. Hundreds and thousands. Mr. Horn. Right. Mr. Moratto. For one thing, until about a year and a half ago, most coroners never even tested for some of these RAVE drugs that kids are dying of. And what they do is they go and they will go onto Ecstacy and the next thing they know, they are inhaling helium and some of these other things, nitrous oxide, and they do it en masse. One thing alone may not cause the problem but when they do two or three different drugs in concert and they cocktail this, then they die. And quite often it is put down as a drug overdose or an accidental death or a heart attack, when we do not even know, we have not got a clue nationwide how many kids have died this way. Mr. Horn. Well, that is where I am going next. The Centers for Disease Control in Georgia, they are supposed to keep data on a lot of these things and it seems to me somebody has a record, there is obviously a police record. How about the coroner's record? Mr. Moratto. As I mentioned, a lot of times it was not even tested for in the normal coroner's report and a lot of these drugs disappear from the system after a short period of time. For instance, here in this area, the military, they have random testing, they have mandatory testing in the military, but they know they can go out on a Friday night and they can ingest GHB or they can ingest Ecstacy and they know it is going to be out of their system by the time they report to duty on Monday. If they get tested, they are clean. If you go on the Internet right now, you could probably find 50 companies that have masking chemicals that they sell so if you are going to have a drug test, you ingest the chemicals and you are going to get a clean screen. It is a huge industry that is out there right now around these RAVE drugs and Ecstacy and so forth. Mr. Horn. You have pointed out a major situation we have obviously got to deal with one way or the other. Before I yield to my colleague, it will mean a lot of people are put into your local jails, which are already stuffed and have State prisoners and sometimes Federal prisoners by contract in your local jails in this State. Why can we not do what the sheriff of Maricopa County does, in Arizona, stick them under a tent and put them say in a place like Barstow or Needles in the summer time and see how long people will start doing some of this nonsense and it will not be watching TV and it will not be lifting barbells, which we have found--finally the police said gee, those people have certainly gotten strength when they have been in the Federal prisons. It seems to me we have got to get away from that one so it does not take six deputies to pin them to the floor as they run out the gate. I think that is another area we have to deal with on the corrections side. The gentleman from Indiana. Mr. Souder. Just so you know, each of the last 2 years, we have been increasing both our Federal effort and our oversight on the methamphetamine and you are going to see it accelerate more rapidly. At the Anti-Narcotics International meeting in Santa Cruz, Bolivia, the next conference is going to focus worldwide on the synthetic drugs. Netherlands is a big help because they are claiming because they legalized all drugs, they do not have a problem any more. Yeah, that is because they are shipping it here and everywhere else in the world, with Ecstacy. And we are going to continue to try to focus on that and it has been a definite problem in local law enforcement of not even having testing data. but I think the awareness level is going up, that is going to be one of the primary focuses of our committee over the next 2 years, as well. And we will definitely followup on this question of the different measurements. At the Federal level, There crack and powder differentials on how to compromise this, we are not just going to go down to one or up to the other. There will probably be some kind of compromise. And it is compounded by what you told us here today, which is different districts probably have different thresholds, depending on their caseloads, and unless we can catch the courts and the prisons up in the dollars, we are going to have trouble standardizing but it is still something we ought to focus on. I have a couple of other questions I may submit in writing if I feel it needs to be in the record, but Mr. Veal, I wanted to ask you this to make sure we get this written more on the volunteers question, the anti-augmentation bill. What I would like to have for the record, because we are out of time here this afternoon with the room, is what in particular you would have used this before, how you would have used it before we passed the law, how you would use it currently and how to address the following questions where I am sure the objections are coming. We have run into this in youth homes, we have run into this in our Federal offices, we cannot have volunteers in, partly it is that obviously it could not be somebody who had prison time, it could not be a spouse or a family member of an employee because then it would be under duress potentially or it could be part of a bonus system. Clearly the unions and government employee groups are not going to like this because potentially it replaces employees--as if we were going to hire more anyway, you are all short-staffed. But theoretically it does. So anticipating some of those type of things, how would you exactly use this, how would we amend this to reflect those kind of concerns--coercion, unforced overtime, extended family friends, ways to get bonuses, those types of things. Because we are running into this across our Federal system. I thank you all for your testimony. Mr. Horn. This has been a very interesting day as far as I am concerned. I think you people who are on the firing line, you deserve the appreciation of all of the American people. It is tragic what is going on in this country, that too many people turn a deaf ear to it and say oh, well, you know, this is just some wacky person or something. Well, they are not--when the brains go to pieces and all that we see with the teenagers now, and they do not take any of us parents, one who are parents of a teenager, it is a very tough life. Somebody said you are free once the kids get through college and the dog dies. Pat Leverage, do not write me. I am the humane pet growers No. 1. So we want to thank each of you and we will--Mr. George, the chief of staff, general counsel of the subcommittee that I chair will be sending you some questions and so will Mr. Souder, and we would appreciate you answering them and we will put it in the record at this point. So thank you so much for coming. It is wonderful to see you. [The information referred to follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7056.049 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7056.050 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7056.051 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7056.052 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7056.053 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7056.054 Mr. Horn. Panel two is Roosevelt ``Rosey'' Grier, chairman of the board, Impact Urban America; Estean Hanson Lenyoun III, president, chief executive officer, Impact Urban America and Ken Blanchard, chief spiritual officer, the Blanchard Companies. We will swear in the three witnesses. If you want to raise your right hands. [Witnesses sworn.] Mr. Horn. The clerk will note all three witnesses have assumed the oath and we will start with Mr. Grier. We generally--let me repeat the ground rules--some of you do not have written things, if you want to file them later, please do. If you do not, we will give you about 5 minutes of summary because I guess when are we leaving this room? 1:45. So what we have got here is--we only want fast talkers on this particular operation. Mr. Souder. In a positive way. Mr. Horn. In a positive way. Mr. Souder. We see enough of that in Washington. Mr. Horn. So, Mr. Grier, a rather well-known figure nationwide and we are glad he is in San Diego. I think he is too. STATEMENTS OF ROOSEVELT ``ROSEY'' GRIER, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, IMPACT URBAN AMERICA; ESTEAN HANSON LENYOUN III, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, IMPACT URBAN AMERICA; AND KEN BLANCHARD, CHIEF SPIRITUAL OFFICER, THE BLANCHARD COMPANIES Mr. Grier. Mr. Chairman, distinguished committee members, I am excited about being here this afternoon and I was listening to the other panel that you had here and it is exciting to meet people like yourself who are concerned about the welfare of our communities, because that is basically what we are about. I would say these two gentlemen have made a commitment with their lives to serve the community, to help make it better and since I came from football, I believe in the team concept that nothing can get done by one person. You cannot do it, I cannot do it, but we can. And we all have something to give. When you speak about drugs, I think about why do we have that problem. And then I think do we really have a drug problem or do we really have a people problem. Because why are people on drugs. Of course, I realize that there is a big business going on to make or to grow or to sell drugs and young people realize or think that they cannot find a job, this is the best job they can find. And so we have to change those notions, we have to help and encourage young people to realize that they are very, very important to all of us, they are the ones that are going to make our Nation better and we, the grownups, have to try to live by example, let them see the things that we do to help them. And that is why when I met Estean Lenyoun and Ken Blanchard--I met Estean first--and we began to look at the community to see how we could help. And we started Impact Urban America. The purpose, we saw whole men, we saw them have spiritual needs, mental and physical needs and how could we meet those needs. And as we search more in urban communities, we began to see that there was no way you could change that community unless the people caught the vision themselves and wanted to make a change. And when they went for a job, they did not have the skills and talent, they did not have the background to work. So what would we do about that. So when we met Ken Blanchard, we realized that he had a way of training people that would not only inspire and motivate, so what we figured out was if we join ourselves together, not only with the government, but with the corporate community, with the churches, then we could really effect a change--not individually but as a group working together. And the more people that we could work together, we would find that the way to solve problems is by seeing who is doing what and how we can join ourselves together. The one who found a way of doing it could be the best one to serve. So what we started here in San Diego was a model and that is what we are about here. We figured that if we can get the model working, we would not only help in the drug war, but we could solve many of the other problems and make people feel and know that they are precious and valuable and unique and there is no one in the world like them and that they can win. But we all need to work together to do that. And so we are just here this afternoon to share with you some of the things that we have been doing and to hope and see how we can work together with you because basically we are set out to serve our fellow men and we are here to help you in your efforts as you will help us in our efforts to do the same thing. Mr. Horn. Thank you. That is very moving. And now we have the president and chief executive officer of Impact Urban America, which Mr. Grier is chairman of the board. So Estean Hanson Lenyoun III. Mr. Lenyoun. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. At Impact Urban America, one of the things that we like to say is we take people from dope to hope. We believe that it is a problem that cannot be solved just with economics. We know that the reason that people go to drugs are low self-esteem and as we have set up Impact Urban America, I would like to share a little bit about the organization that took place first, and it was called Rosey Grier's American Neighborhood Enterprises. Being a native San Diegan and seeing the problems and being a part of the problem in the past within our local community and recognizing them very readily, realized that people needed opportunities, so we set up a community in southeast San Diego, one of the roughest areas in southeast San Diego. In fact, they said that it was the roughest. A community of approximately 300 people initially where there was 1,300 violent police calls a year. When we acquired this community, within 18 months we were able to drive the stats down from 1,300 on a norm annual incidents to just 1. We also found this community had in excess of 98 percent, we think, up to 100 percent, drug addictions with the individuals living within the community. Within 18 months, we were able to take that 98 percent infested community to zero, drug free. Also, we were able to provide job opportunities. One of the stats that was very exciting which we got recognition from our Mayor Golding, was that we had 98 percent welfare, 2 percent were working. Within 18 months, we were able to take this community to 93 percent employment. People wanted to know how we can make this work. And what we did is we set up a community called No Compromise Communities, no gangs, no drugs and no violence. Found it to be very successful, it was part of the prototype that led us to Impact Urban America. And this model is a faith-based social entrepreneurial model that we believe can revitalize and we can replicate throughout the inner cities and urban communities of this country. The models are a partnership between church, community, corporation, government. What we are here today to ask you about is how we can be more involved with government to start replicating this model in other parts of San Diego, one; in California; and hopefully nationally. We have had the privilege to be able to put on workshops in the inner cities, targeting not only our unemployed, but our under-employed, and then most recently our youth, so that we do not have a generational concern with our young people not knowing how to deal with these constraints. We started the first faith-based inner city staffing company and we found that it was not difficult to get people to get a job, the hard part was enabling them to keep the job. And as we delved more into this model, we realized we needed a component with job and life training skills. We believe that people go to drugs and get involved in drugs and stay in drugs because they have no hope and they have no way out. We have found that it is tied back to their assumed constraints. We were looking at the best model to be able to implement a program on making people more aware of how to not only stay complacent--to get away from that complacency, how to re-enter the mainstream. And we discovered a gentleman here in town with a national organization and I believe even international, that does self-leadership training and that was the Ken Blanchard Companies. At that point, we were able to put together a relationship and ask Mr. Blanchard to come on our board of directors, which he did, to set up a new model for job and life accountability skills. We find that will drive down the drug dependency, the complacency and give people the opportunity to re-enter the mainstream. Mr. Horn. Thank you very much. Dr. Blanchard. He is the chief spiritual officer at the Blanchard Companies. You might tell us what your company does. Dr. Blanchard. Yes, we are a full service human resource development company. We do training for companies in leadership, team building, customer service, and what Estean is talking about, self-leadership. We created a program for students and young people to try to teach them how they can take initiative when they do not have the power; how do they take initiative when they are not in charge. One of the things that happens with violence with kids is that they think there is only one kind of power in the world and that is position power, and if they do not have it, then a gun maybe would give them position power. A major mantra for our company is people who produce good results feel good about themselves; as Rosey and Estean said, our emphasis is on how do we increase people's self-esteem so that they do not go toward drugs as a way to make them feel good. Because it is obviously a self-esteem problem because people who feel good about themselves do not need any outside forces to do that. When people do not have hope, they think they have no power. The question then becomes how can they take initiative. We have been working for 25 years on developing programs like these. My mission statement is to be a loving teacher and example of simple truths, that helps myself and others to awaken the presence of God in our lives. I say ``God'' because I think the biggest addiction in the world is the human ego. The ego gets played out in bad ways in organizations through false pride, which makes government agencies bureaucratic and everybody is sucking up the hierarchy and the organization serves the people who are elected. And do not serve the customers. So, that is one other aspect of self-esteem. The one we are talking about here though is people who do not think they have any hope and so we have developed a program, which is a combination of teaching people life skills that they need to get in terms of their own personal hygiene, in terms of their dress, in terms of their attitude, their whole thing, and then combine that with focusing all their energy on how can I make a difference to customers, because if they want to take care of themselves and keep jobs, they need to realize that the customer writes their check. And so we are really getting--we just flew over with a group of people that were just hired to see their enthusiasm and the feedback from the employer saying wow, these people, they know more about serving customers than we have ever seen in anybody. And then we are also teaching them self-leadership which is, you know, how do you ask for what you need rather than complaining and acting like the victim. So our part of the puzzle, and there is only one part, so we are not saying that the other parts are not important, is how can we help people to have hope rather than do dope as their solution for life. To get the kind of skills that they need to make a difference in their lives because people who produce good results, who have a job they can keep and making an impact, feel good about themselves and that feeds on itself, feeds on their willingness to maintain their family and all. So the piece of the puzzle that we are in is there, we do not know much about, you know, how you prevent them from coming across the border or all those kinds of things, which are major problems that you have been talking about, but we want to be able to impact the human problem and see if we can deal with that as a way to deal with the drug situation and how do we get people that they just would not be into it because it does not make any sense to them. How do we look at their spiritual needs, how do we get them to get out of their own way and realize that God did not make any junk and that they are important and at the same time, how do we give them the skills that they need. And so we are excited about the potential of teaming up together to create a program where we can go to employers and say here are some under-employed, here are some people whose lives have been at risk in the past, we want you to hire them but here is the kind of training they have been through before they even come to you. You know, these people know about their lives, they know about how to take care of themselves personally, they also know that without taking care of your customers, they are not going to be of any value to you, and they also are going to be people who are willing and able to take initiative and take responsibility and be empowered. And so that is where our excitement is and we do not hear that shouted out too much when we talk about the drug war, but we think that is a piece that ought to be considered. Mr. Horn. That is very moving. How many souls have you saved down there, besides the mayor and the City Council? [Laughter.] Mr. Lenyoun. We are working on them. Mr. Grier. And the church too. Mr. Horn. And the church. Mr. Grier. We have seen a great work on the part of the church because basically we kind of look at it like it that if the inside of the person is not changed, the outside is going to look good but it is going to be messed up inside. So that is where the whole man concept came in. If we can get the church involved in teaching the person about who he really is and that he is not by himself in his struggles and his effort to change his life, but there is a lot of support for him, then we can really see a change when the church is involved. And to sustain that person is not to sustain him on intellect or on philosophy but on the word of God, which does not change. And so that is why we are excited about bringing all these pieces together, because what it really does is let the whole man see the light, that he is an important person. Mr. Lenyoun. And if I may add, it is that the church has a lot of capabilities to provide for a lot of needs that have been dependent upon the government up until now. Things like clothing, things like helping with a shelter, things like helping with childcare. And we are seeing a partnership and a desire on behalf of the churches to want to take back some of the responsibilities that they advocated and to be able to provide another link with accountability too. If we work with the church and we work with a synagog or we work with a Catholic Church or whether it is any denomination, we have another level, whether it is a rabbi, a priest or a pastor that we can go to and say this person has made an accountability contract and they are having a tough time, would you help us with them. And so I think it is very key that the churches are a major resource, especially in the inner cities. They are the power base. It is a place where people can meet, where they have the capabilities to house a large number of people to get the message out, to get the training programs in place. In terms of your numbers, our little organization, the first year, we had estimated that if we could affect 100 lives or so in terms of employment, sustainability types of jobs, that would be wonderful. We did 1,000, we did 1,000 the 1st year. This year we will double that in just this prototype and this is the model with church, community, corporation, government. Corporate America has a tremendous responsibility because they are--we are not asking for a handout, we are asking for them to provide employment opportunities for people to come in and have an opportunity to provide for their families, to be a role model in their communities. The great part too that we figured out was that it can be a weekend type of training program, because the assumed constraints were acquired over a long period of time, decades, if not generations in some cases, so it became very vital that we had to have ongoing training within corporate America. For the first time, we are seeing corporate America take the initiative and have the desire to have an ongoing training program in place to help people overcome those assumed constraints. Mr. Horn. As you know, President Bush has a faith-based program that he is sending to Congress. And based on all of your experiences, it seems to me that you have some great ways to put together a pilot program which would give guidance to large groups or medium groups or just 10 or 15 or 20 groups. They need teaching themselves. They might think because they have been doing good deeds over their lives, giving clothes or all those items you mentioned--it is going to be more difficult than that and then you are going to have the problem, and I wonder your reaction to that, that some group will say hey, we are a church, we are this, we are that, let us get that Federal money. How do you deal with that? Mr. Grier. I think that you have to look at who and what those people are, I mean what is your track record. If you look at me, I have been working in the inner city since 1971. I made a commitment to gang kids that I would spend the rest of my life until I see that community change. Went from the gang kids to the senior citizens. And so it is about how long have you been doing this, what is your track record, those kinds of things. You cannot just give it to anyone who comes. What are you really doing. And there has to be some oversight, you have got to see what they are doing and take a real look at that and see can this group best serve the community. And find the ones that are doing it, even if you want to put them together so that the umbrella, the management of the whole group is key also. Who is overseeing, who is looking at it. Those are the kinds of things that must be in place in order to make sure that these things are doing what they said. I noticed when you were talking about lowering the budget and the lady outside in the meeting room asked me, what do you think about that. I said, one, you have got to see what the money is already doing that you are putting in there. Can it be a higher marshalling of that funds, is it doing what you put it in there to do. And those are ways you monitor and see the effect of it. And we were--Harvard was asking to do a study on what we are doing and we did not say yes yet, because we just want to really take a look at it and see what we are doing and continue to monitor what we are doing to make sure we are being effective, and we think we are. Mr. Lenyoun. May I add, Mr. Chairman, too, I think we have to look at the hearts of the individuals involved and why they are really doing it. If this is something that is financially lucrative for them, I think that has been a problem in the past. I think that when we see partnerships and what we call the vested interest partner, which is why the church is doing what they are doing, is there any type of gain--no. Is corporate America doing this for gain--yeah, they are looking for good employees and they found hidden labor pools in the inner cities, not outside the country any more, it is sitting right there if we can identify those diamonds. I think a classic example has been the relationship with the Ken Blanchard Companies. Very high end managerial expertise, training and development and Fortune 500 types definitely, nothing targeted at the inner city level. When we entered into our relationship, for the first time, Ken took an initiative to come up with a program that was targeted to less fortunate people, inner city, on the street people, which is not going to make them money. And when I talked to Ken about that or when we talked to him about it, it was about to give back to the community. I think it becomes real clear if you have the real high end types of organizations that are willing to put their reputation and some of their own resources on the line to make something like this work. And I think that the moneys that the government gives will help with just the magnitude, helping to get the prototype to a point where it can be replicated in other parts of the city, the State and the Nation. Mr. Horn. My colleague from Indiana. Mr. Souder. When did you say this started? Mr. Lenyoun. This started in November of--Impact Urban America started in November 1998. Rosey and I started with the American Neighborhood Enterprises in the early 1990's. It has been about 10 years since we started initially with the housing model and then we went from housing to staffing to provide jobs and from staffing to training and development. Mr. Souder. And that was also all in San Diego? Mr. Lenyoun. Absolutely, that is correct. Mr. Souder. First, let me say to Mr. Grier, I believe--in an earlier reincarnation of my life I was actually the Republican staff director of the Select Committee on Children, Youth and Families, and I believe you testified in the mid- 1980's, Dan Coats and George Miller were the Members, on alcohol problems and how to reach youth. But what I want to say is that like Chuck Colson, one way you can measure people's lives is whether they have made the statement--and we are really happy for any public figure who jumps in and does that, but when you have done it for 30 years, you know it is a commitment. We really appreciate that and millions of Americans are familiar with you and appreciate your work in different forums and it comes back and different points and in different ways. But I wanted to make sure I got that on record, because we appreciate that very much. Mr. Grier. Thank you. Mr. Souder. Not only your commitment, but you are willing to stick to it decade after decade, which we desperately need. I would encourage you to, in the Harvard or any type of study--I mean I know--make sure that they--we need the data because we have a whole bunch of stories but we do not have the data. And to move to the next level, we need the data. On the other hand--so I encourage you to do that, but make sure they understand and have some sympathy to the complexity of a faith- based mix. Otherwise, if somebody comes in hostile, let us say figures lie and liars figure, that you do not want somebody who is not--you do not want them overly sympathetic so they rig the books your direction; on the other hand, you do not wand them unsympathetic and do it the other direction. We need real data here if we are going to move to the next level. Let me ask you a little bit about your faith-based component. Are you affiliated with particular denominations? I take it that you work with different groups at least. Mr. Lenyoun. The church here in San Diego that was our foundation, that helped us, that supported us with their congregation, which happens to be the largest church in San Diego, is a non-denominational church. And they were fortunate in a suburban area and decided they wanted to help not only all parts of the world, but our problems in our own backyard. And so that is how it came about and they offered all kinds of resources in terms of people within their church that had a heart that wanted to give back, that could not go to other countries, but had a lot of expertise and resources to help here. So it actually started with a non-denominational, it is not about one church or one type of denomination, it is really an open faith-based---- Mr. Souder. What was the name of the church? Mr. Lenyoun. It is called Maranatha Chapel. Mr. Souder. And in the area that you are working in predominantly, I understood you to say initially there were 300---- Mr. Lenyoun. 1,300. Mr. Souder [continuing]. 1,300 families are in that. Has that community taken over ownership of the project at this point? Mr. Lenyoun. Has that community taken over ownership? Mr. Souder. Yeah. In other words, or are still most of the volunteers coming from the Maranatha and other churches? Mr. Lenyoun. No, in fact it has totally reverted to a community organization and we are no longer involved in that. So it is community now. Mr. Souder. One of the things that my friend Bob Woodson has raised over the years that I have thought about attaching to some of our faith-based initiatives questions is a zip code test. Not that everybody who receives the grant has to live in that zip code, but possibly a third do, because I am convinced that a lot of the most effective programs I have seen are people who live in those neighborhoods. Is that something that you would find a problem, or would it be an advantage? Mr. Lenyoun. We certainly would not be, because that is the neighborhoods we are in. In the zip codes, we find that, you know, you have to be where the action is at and so I think that it should be. That money should be targeted, in my opinion, for the problem area, the more mortgage deficient impacted areas, and so I think it makes a tremendous amount of sense that the money is directed right to those zip codes. Mr. Souder. One of my--it is not just the money, the staffers would have to live there. Mr. Lenyoun. Uh-huh. Mr. Souder. In other words, up to one-third would have to live in the community they are serving, because these things are not 9 to 5 jobs. I have heard as I have visited urban areas, it is often beltway bandits that know how to get the grants but they often do not live in the areas. The most effective programs--because the problems do not necessarily come before 5, often they come at 9 p.m. or 1 a.m. And I am just trying to decide how hard to push that. I do not want to hurt programs that could be eligible and effective. At the same time, it seems to me a good idea. Mr. Grier. A long time ago, I used to tell my kids that this is 24 hours, just like you said, a lot of the problems occur at midnight. And I have had kids call me at midnight to come out and help them and I have gotten out of bed and gone out to the community and been in houses where there is a whole assembly of kids angry about something. About something the police have done or someone had done something to them and they wanted to react to it. And so yeah, we realize that it is not a 9 to 5 problem, it is around the clock. And so what we try to do always is try to make sure that our people are always available when the problems occur, to be there. Dr. Blanchard. I think you are really onto something. I would put the funding all responsible and maybe even incremented from maybe the beginning 30 percent to eventually almost 100 percent. I did a session one time in Paris for UNESCO and it just blew my mind. I found out that less than 10 percent of the UNESCO projects set up around the world ever survived 2 years after the funding is dropped. And see, what you are trying to do is move people from dependence to independence, from where they are dependent on external funding and all so that they eventually are doing it themselves because the important thing about being a leader is not what happens when you are there, it is what happens when you are not there. Anybody can get anybody to do anything, you know, when you are there. So I think that is one of the things that we really need to do. One of the things we are also doing---- Mr. Horn. I would just like to put a footnote on your UNESCO thing. When I was a university president, there were a lot of feelings on should we help this group or not. The fact was 60 percent of their high paid executives stayed in Paris, they never went to Africa, they never went to south Asia. Dr. Blanchard. That is right. Mr. Horn. They did not have the slightest idea but they drew a big salary. Dr. Blanchard. Yeah. I mean that is one of the things--I am kind of in a class by myself, I do not know if you have read Bob Beaufort's book ``Half Time,'' but Bob is a good friend of mine and he says we are all in the locker room at our age and we are trying to decide whether we are going to come out and if we are going to come out, how do we move from success to significance, you know. And so when I turned 60, I celebrated for about 6 weeks, because I was really excited about, you know, what I could do the next 35 or 40. I happened to write a book with Norman Vincent Peale and just had a wonderful time, met him when he was 86 years old, but Norman died quietly in his sleep at 95 on Christmas Eve and I said well, that is a pretty good goal, I have got a lot of time. So what I am helping facilitate, it is going to be interesting to see what happens in San Diego, what we are calling the San Diego Leadership Initiative, because I have a dream and now a lot of people are catching the dream, is that in 5 years my dream is that people will be flying in from all over this country to say what is going on in San Diego, this is a servant leadership town, that people operate differently. And what we are trying to go at is rather than take on issues, I want to take on the leadership. I want people to lead differently. What we are realizing is that when you mention the word servant leadership, start thinking you are talking about, you know, the inmates running the prison or trying to please everybody. That is not what is true. When Jesus washed the feet of the disciples, he was not saying to them go out and help people do anything they want, because what we are arguing in San Diego is two parts of leadership; one is the visionary direction part and the second is the implementation. And what I recommend that I do not see in like battles on drugs or anything from government, is if you ever want to be effective at anything, you had better first have a clear vision which is what is our purpose. Why are we in business? What are our operating values? We have got to rank order them because values without rank ordering do not mean anything. Then you have to have a clear image which is what will happen if we are doing--so we have people in the city now starting to meet to talk about in 5 years if people flew in here, what would they see, who would they talk to, what would be happening, what would we be doing? The first year, because it is a 5-year thing, what I am trying to do is get government agencies and businesses and churches and all to get a real clear vision of what business they are in, what they are doing, because servant leadership kicks in after you know where you are going. So one of the things that Estean has helped us with, we started a center for faith-walk leadership, you know, which is to say to people of faith, how do you walk your faith in the marketplace, you know, as a follower of Jesus. He was pretty clear what kind of leadership he wanted, he did not say there was a form B, you know, he said to the gentiles lord power over people. And one of the problems that happens in government and industry and everything is all of the power, energy, money and everything flows up the hierarchy in organizations, both ones dealing on--causes are set up as if the sheep are there for the benefit of the shepherd, rather than what are we there for, the customer; what are we there for, the problem. I think the customer in the drug war is the people whose minds are blown, being blown, and are losing opportunities to make a difference in the world. But I think we have got to start to get some leadership that focuses on that and does not focus on how can I get the government to give me more money so I can pad all the hierarchy that I have built around that. I would blow up all the damned hierarchies and let us get organizations that are really focused on making a difference. And these two guys by themselves and with a small group of people have made an incredible impact. They do not have a hierarchy, they are all team in there and they are not there to serve themselves. They are there to serve others and as a result, they are feeling good about themselves. And that is the kind of stuff that I am really excited about getting in. I am pleased that I am hearing some good things coming from Bush and other people, that maybe they believe a little bit about servant leadership too. Mr. Souder. One thing I would appreciate if, because we are tight on the room here, but as we work through the language, I have carried seven amendments so far on the faith-based stuff that passed the House. We have had two or three become law. But there are real fine lines we are working to here and my question, if you can each give reflection of this and then submit us something in writing of how to work through this. There is a clear question of religious liberty if there is not choice and I as a committed Christian believe that character is a key component to changing lives. And yet at the same time, there is a risk of having the government fund it from two directions. You don't want to get the church sucked into government, nor do we in the reverse situation in an increasingly multi-cultural country, I do not want the only after-school program in my community that my son comes home and says oh, I was in this after-school program and they started with a bowing down to Allah and a little bit later they spent half an hour studying the Koran and they said oh, they did that with the voluntary part of the money. The other part was the government part. If there is not a choice, where are they going to go? Now the question is if you get government money in your program, are there going to be things you can do and cannot do? And I am very concerned that a lot of the organizations do not have that legal separation of what they can and cannot do. Other groups can do it, you can do work part and religious part after or you can incline a heart toward the teachings without actually doing the cloture which can occur in the non-period of time with the government. But these things have to be sorted through and we are going to have the courts much more on us than they have ever been before in trying to sort this in fairness. And we are having a very difficult time in introducing the bills right now and doing the amendments because of the inter-tanglement. And my fundamental question is can you do your program if you had government funding in it without undermining the religious mission that supplements---- Dr. Blanchard. I think the issues from my standpoint, and I hear your comments, is I think the next great movement in religion--we had ritual which we brought all from Europe and then we had a lot of evangelism. I think the next great movement is demonstration. And my feeling is the way we are going at it is we are not leading with faith, we are leading with behavior and if people see us helping as well as teaching other people how to help and then they come and say you guys are amazing. I have been watching what you do, where did you get that. Then we teach them who we follow. I do not think we ought to be leading with trying to convince---- Mr. Souder. You know, a lot of churches do not understand that and yet that is what Wyckliff and New Tribes and international missions understand that, help them with the health, the translation, but domestically, we have never---- Dr. Blanchard. No, I think we get that all confused and I think we need to lead with, you know, if Allah is your guy or Jesus or Buddha, well, you know, how would he behave, and lead with the behavior rather than the faith and let the faith follow. I get really thrilled--you know, I have a company of 285 people here and worldwide, and you know, they know what my faith is, but we want to model stuff, so they say wow, that is really interesting, you know, where do you get that from. Well, I happen to have a pretty good model, he was the best in the world. But I do not need to lead with that because I have got enough trouble with Christians without trying to convert other ones, you know. So I don't want any other ones, I have got enough problems with what we have got. [Laughter.] I had to follow Clinton at a leadership conference. That could be a little aside as we leave here, that was interesting. Mr. Lenyoun. You know, what we found out in the inner city is what we do reveals what we believe, as much as what we say. We have people that we call chameleons and we have a lot of testiphonies. I am actually a pastor at Maranatha Chapel in Rancho Bernardo, but I came from the inner city, my heart is committed to the inner city, and we are supporting actually and helping the technology in the city of Arial and Summaria, Jewish, total Jewish. And that is what we are supposed to do, we are called to be a life. So the way we feel about it is we want to give the love to anyone, we want to help them with their life problems and in the process, if we do our jobs, people want to know why we are a little bit special, is the way we look at it. Mr. Grier. Yeah, I feel that--I had a young man one time, I came past and he saw me and he said, Rosey Grier, he said man, I like you and I said well come on in my office and he was going to a drug treatment place. So I took him in the office and the first thing I said to him, I said man, you need to know Jesus and he looked at me and he said, you know, what, Rosey, you Christians are always saying that, he said you did not ask me if I was hungry. I said man, let us go eat. I really discovered that you have to meet the needs of the person first. You are not concerned about what he believes, what he does not believe. You do not know if he is hungry, if he needs water, whatever he needs. Try to meet those needs first and then who you are will come out. Somewhere along the line you will have an opportunity if it comes up. This is not about preaching, we are followers of Christ, we are Christians. But we just happen to be doing a service to mankind. And anyone who wants to come, they can come and we will serve them. Mr. Horn. Well, let me thank all three of you. This is the most interesting part I have seen of many of our hearings and between the three of you, you might well advise congressional committees in both the Senate and the House as they work their way through this situation. And it is going to take the kind of wisdom you have brought to the table because you have already experienced it, that is important. I thank you all three for being here today. It has been very useful. I remember some of your books, Dr. Blanchard and it is a pleasure to see you. And we all know Rosey and what he has done, and this young man in the middle is the real sort of deputy to get things done. Mr. Grier. He sure is. Mr. Horn. That is impressive. With that, I want to thank the staff that helped put this hearing together, for the Government Efficiency Subcommittee which I chair, Mr. Russell George, to my right, your left, staff director and chief counsel; Dianne Guensberg is the professional staff on loan from the U.S. General Accounting Office; Bonnie Heald, director of communications; Earl Pierce, professional staff; Matthew Ebert, policy advisor; Grant Newman, assistant to the committee; Brian Hom, intern. And for my colleague's subcommittee, we have Sharon Pinkerton, who is the staff director and counsel with the Criminal Justice Subcommittee. And Tatiana Kazavapis is the Office of the Mayor, city of San Diego and Carla Bach, City Council Committee Consultant Secretary, for all they have done to help us in terms of the very nice hearing room. And of course--how he does it, I will never know--but court reporter Bill Warren came out here and has been in all of our last five hearings in the State of California, both for the full committee and my own committee. So thank you very much, Bill, for coming out here. I do not see how you do it, but at least it is your air circulating in the plane and not everybody else it looks like. So there are pluses. With that, we are going to adjourn this--recess this subcommittee over to next week and the Alameda Corridor to look at what a success can be. So with that, we are going to recess until Long Beach. Thank you very much. Mr. Grier. We would like to thank you all for allowing us to come and to share with you and for your work that you are doing to make things better. We sure appreciate your efforts and what you are doing to make our nation a better place. Mr. Horn. Well, thank you. And coming from you, that is an honor. [Whereupon, the subcommittees were adjourned at 2:03 p.m.] -