HEARING OF THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

NOMINATION OF ASA HUTCHINSON TO BE DIRECTOR OF THE DRUG ENFORCEMENT
ADMINISTRATION

Chaired By: Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt)

Witnesses: Senator Tim Hutchinson (R-Ar); Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-Ar);
And Representative John Conyers (D-Mi)

Location: 226 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

[continued from part 1 which is at http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01.n1312.a04.html ]

REP. HUTCHINSON: Mr. Chairman, can I just respond real quickly?

SEN. LEAHY: Of course you can.

REP. HUTCHINSON: -- and just express my appreciation to Senator Biden for
your leadership. I think your leadership has made a difference, and I am
grateful to you, and I am particularly grateful about the hope you
expressed to the American people as to the progress that we have made. And
you know I perhaps could have been wiser in reference to my criticism of
General McCaffrey on not using the word "war," because I didn't mean to get
into a semantical battle. What I believe is important, as you said, that we
send the right signals, that we express intensity. And so the way I express
that intensity is talking about a great crusade. And I think that's good
strong language we need to use.

And you indicated that the key is treatment. I agree that treatment is a
critical element of this. I do believe that the law enforcement community
forces people to treatment many times by making an arrest. And I've had
that expressed to me many, many times. And so it all works together, and I
appreciate again your leadership.

SEN. BIDEN: You ask any law enforcement officer in a rural community
whether or not they'd rather have two more officers or two serious
treatment facilities that rural America can get to, where the use of drugs
is increasing faster than inner cities. And I'll tell you I bet you eight
to one that you'll find them say, Give me the treatment facilities.

SEN. LEAHY: They would in Vermont. I know that.

The senator from Pennsylvania.

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER (R-PA): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Congressman Hutchinson,
I compliment you on your nomination. I know your record in the House of
Representatives, and I think it is an exemplary one, and I appreciated the
opportunity to talk with you when you came by for the informal visit and
the extensive conversation we had at that time.

A couple of points that I would like to make this morning -- really more
for the record -- involve some items we talked about. And it picks up on
what Senator Biden has talked about on rehabilitation. I came in at the
very end of his questioning. But I would renew my request formally to you
at this time, when you have the position officially to make a study as to
the cost effectiveness of the very substantial funds that the federal
government is putting into the war against drugs. I'll use the term "war
against drugs." We have to fight it at many, many levels. We are currently
considering an appropriation for Colombia, close to $900 million, which
would supplement the $1.3 billion from last year. And, as I said to you
privately, and at a hearing of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee, I have
grave doubts about the value of that kind of a federal expenditure.

I am very much concerned about what happens to the government of Colombia
and the people of Colombia. They have had a very, very tough time,
including the attack by the drug war lords on the Supreme Court of
Colombia. But when we make an analysis as to where we ought to put U.S.
dollars, it seems to me that we do not get much for our money. And I would
like your analysis as to the expenditure which we have made in Colombia
before the 1.3 billion, and he efficacy of another large investment.

And then I would also like your analysis as to where we ought to be putting
our money on the supply side versus the so-called demand side. Interdiction
I think is important, but how effective is it? And when we put funding into
limiting the growth of drugs in Colombia, what effect does it have beyond
pushing drugs into Bolivia or Peru? I have made a number of trips into that
area over the past two decades, and still wonder if there is any value to
our putting a lot of money into discouraging people in one country from
growing drugs, when it seems to move right into the next country. And then
the issue comes up on the so-called demand side, where education I believe
has worked, and rehabilitation has a prospect.

Let me give you a chance to respond as to your approach philosophically to
the allocation of federal funds on supply versus demand.

REP. HUTCHINSON: Thank you, Senator Specter. And I did enjoy our discussion
on that issue. I think in reference to Colombia and the investment in that
region I have supported it. I believe that it's important that we do
support that democracy and their struggle there. I think it's certainly
appropriate that Congress continues to look at the effectiveness of the
money that we invest there: Are we getting a good return? Are we having
proper accountability? I feel confident that the DEA role in the criminal
justice sector is -- will work well. I think that's a good investment.

In reference to the supply versus demand side debate, I think we have to be
careful about the debate itself. I think the question should be: Are we
investing what we should be in the supply side, the law enforcement side?
Are we taking care of folks there, protecting them against the dangers of
going up against a methamphetamine group and a search warrant. On the
demand side, are we investing enough in education? In both of them we could
probably invest as much as you could write a check for out of Congress,
because of great need there. But the balance we always should be looking
at. But I think they work together.

I've been impressed with the letters that I've gotten in my initial phase
of confirmation --

SEN. SPECTER: Congressman Hutchinson, I'm going to interrupt you, because
my yellow light went off, and I'm going to be about to be interrupted by
the red light which goes on. So let me raise one other issue here again for
the record and something we discussed. And that is the issue of taking Cuba
up on Castro's offer to cooperate with us on drug interdiction. There was a
day when Castro was a real threat, when he had Soviet missiles in Cuba back
in 1962, or when there was a problem about turning Communism -- Latin
America communistic. But I think those dangers have long since passed. And
I made a trip to Cuba two years ago, had a talk with President Castro about
many items -- human rights and Lee Harvey Oswald and the Cuban missile
crisis and drugs. And it seems to me that we ought to be using every
facility we have as to intelligence and as to drug interdiction without
respect to the kinds of the concerns we had about Castro in the past.

My red light is on, so I'll stop. But that doesn't stop you from responding.

REP. HUTCHINSON: Well, thank you, Senator Specter. And I certainly think
one of the great things about the DEA is that many countries, even when we
have a philosophical difference of viewpoint, is willing to work together
fighting drugs. Certainly whenever you look at the Caribbean, we have a
strong investment there to interdict, to stop the supply coming in. I don't
quite frankly know as much as you do about our relationship with Cuba on
that issue -- that's something that the State Department will weigh in on I
am sure. But I will certainly take your views into consideration there.

SEN. SPECTER: Well, the State Department will weigh in. But the head of
DEA, Drug Enforcement Agency, should weigh a little more on this issue on
that point. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SEN. LEAHY: Thank you, Senator Specter.

Senator Feingold.

SEN. RUSS FEINGOLD (D-WI): Welcome, congressman. I greatly admire your
abilities. I congratulate you, and I know you have a long-standing
commitment both as a congressman and a U.S. Attorney to our nation's fight
against drugs, and I very much look forward to working with you in your new
position. As you know, the role of the DEA in drug interdiction efforts has
been invaluable, and I do think that the thousands of men and women of the
DEA should be proud of their service to our country. But I believe that
drug interdiction should be part of a strong multi-pronged approach to the
fight against drugs. I believe an effective enforcement of our nation's
laws against the production, sale and distribution of drugs is essential.
But I also believe that effective drug prevention and treatment is
essential. In other words, and as almost every senator on this committee
has said, while we use enforcement tools to fight the supply side of the
problem, we must also use prevention and treatment tools to fight demand.

But in the brief time I have, congressman, I would like to ask you about a
somewhat related issue, and that is the issue of racial profiling. As you
and my colleagues know, both President Bush and Attorney General Ashcroft
have strongly expressed their belief that racial profiling is wrong and
should end in America. And, as you know as well, your strong supporter,
Representative Conyers, and I have introduced legislation to end racial
profiling, and we look forward to fruitful discussions with the
administration on our bill. And I am extremely pleased that you too have
spoken out against racial profiling and support of the federal government
taking a leadership role in combatting the practice, and I was delighted
with your presence at our news conference where we introduced our bill. In
fact, I think in this position you will have the opportunity to do just
that, to combat this practice.

As you know, many believe that our nation's so-called war on drugs has
resulted in or encouraged racial profiling by law enforcement officers.
According to the May 1999 ACLU report entitled "Driving While Black: Racial
Profiling On Our Nation's Highways," we know that contrary to popular
belief drug use and distribution are not confined to racial and ethnic
minorities -- indeed, five times as many whites use drugs. Nevertheless,
the war on drugs since its inception has targeted racial and ethnic
minorities. Through a program called Operation Pipeline, the DEA trained
some 27,000 police officers in 48 states to use pretext stops to find drugs
in vehicles, and introduced a racially-biased drug courier profile.

I understand that the DEA fortunately now claims that it no longer teaches
racial profiling in his training courses. So I would ask you, if confirmed,
what steps would you take to ensure that the DEA does not engage in racial
profiling?

REP. HUTCHINSON: Thank you, Senator Feingold. And I appreciate your
leadership on the issue of racial profiling, and I do hope that Congress
will respond to your leadership and to the president's statement that
racial profiling should end.

And I think it's important that the federal law enforcement agencies set
the examples for the states. The DEA has a major role to play in training.
And I think what I will do at the DEA -- I know that we already have a
policy that prohibits racial profiling, and that needs to be -- make sure
that it's enforced, make sure that the training is done in conjunction with
that. And if the Senate does confirm me, I will certainly go over there
with that intent. Training is important. I would want to look at the
training to make sure that as the DEA trains state and local law
enforcement on how to do stops for those who are suspected of drug
trafficking, that there is not race used as a -- racial profiling used in
that context.

SEN. FEINGOLD: Well, I appreciate that, because as we have work carefully
with the state and local law enforcement people on racial profiling they do
point out that the DEA sort of began the concept and the training on it. So
that's a helpful statement. In fact, what steps would you take to address
the fact that agents have trained state and local law enforcement officers
to use racial profiling techniques in the past?

REP. HUTCHINSON: Senator Feingold, I have not studied Operation Pipeline in
detail. I have looked at some of the reports that indicate that there was
not racial profiling that was taught in that context. I know the ACLU has a
different view on that, and I don't know the nuances of it. All I can say
is that as I go over there I want to make sure that it does not happen, and
that not only we set the proper example as a federal agency, but we make
sure our training is consistent with our desire to end racial profiling.

SEN. FEINGOLD: Thank you. And just a couple of other quick questions in
relation to this. In June 1999, President Clinton signed an executive
memorandum ordering all federal agencies to collect data to determine if
racial profiling is occurring. Each federal agency was asked to develop a
system for collecting data. And it is my understanding that the Bush
administration has kept that executive memorandum in place. As DEA
administrator, would you encourage the Bush administration to continue with
the previous administration's executive memorandum to collect data from
federal agencies?

REP. HUTCHINSON: Well, Senator Feingold, that is a major part of the
legislation that you have introduced, along with others. And as a
legislator I supported the need for statistics gathering, because I believe
it's a good management tool. The only concern I had was in how some of
those statistics might be used in litigation. It's a fair debate. I'd be
happy -- I look forward in my new position, if confirmed, to work with the
administration to develop appropriate policies in that regard. And so I
understand the need, and we hope that we can accomplish our common goal to
end that problem.

SEN. FEINGOLD: I appreciate that answer. And finally I would just ask:
Would you support releasing that data that comes in for public review?

REP. HUTCHINSON: The releasing of the data that is used as a management
tool? Well --

SEN. FEINGOLD: That's gathered with regard to the executive memorandum from
President Clinton that so far the Bush administration has not rescinded.

REP. HUTCHINSON: I need to look at the nuances of that. My reaction is
always that we need to have openness in government, but we need to look at
the details of that and the extent of the information that would be released.

SEN. FEINGOLD: I would just ask, Mr. Chairman, if you could get back to me
on that point in a reasonable time I would really appreciate it. And I
congratulate you again, congressman.

REP. HUTCHINSON: Thank you, senator.

SEN. LEAHY: The record of course will be kept open for questions and
answers, and we would ask the nominee to respond to that, but as quickly as
possible.

I would also note just before we go to Senator Sessions -- I would also
note that the committee -- and we have the agreement of the ranking member
for this -- will hold a nomination hearing tomorrow afternoon on James
Ziglar to be the commissioner of INS. We were able to juggle around the
schedule to do that. Otherwise we would run the problem of not getting it
done prior to the August recess.

The senator from Alabama -- and I would note, Congressman Hutchinson, you
are surrounded by former prosecutors. So Senator Sessions.

SEN. JEFF SESSIONS (R-AL): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And it's a delight to
see Congressman Hutchinson here. I have known him for a number of years. I
remember on a Saturday morning at a conference in New Orleans we first met,
I believe, having a cup of coffee there, and my wife and I met with you.
And I've respected you since that time. You've tried over 200 cases. That's
a good experience in itself -- you learn what the legal system is all about
when you litigate. But I was really impressed with your record over the
years. I've watched it with great admiration. I was just delighted that the
president saw fit to pick someone of your integrity and dedication, your
understanding of what America is about, to head the Drug Enforcement
Administration.

I have great affection and admiration for the DEA. They are some of the
finest investigators I know, and they work extremely hard. They often work
nights and weekends when a drug deal is going down. It never seems to be
during the day, 8:00 to 5:00 -- it's always when they plan to be on a
vacation with their family or something like that -- it's very disruptive
- -- and I believe you understand that. And I believe that you will seek to
do all you can to affirm them and for the important work that they do.

Asa, let me ask you this: do you believe that in our effort to reduce drug
use in America that criminal law enforcement plays an important role?

REP. HUTCHINSON: Thank you, Senator Sessions. And absolutely. I believe
that the criminal law enforcement, as I've mentioned before, does a number
of things. It sends the right signal to the nation that certain conduct is
unacceptable, unhealthy, and not consistent with the values of this nation.
That's an important message, and law enforcement sends that signal.

Secondly, we talk about treatment and education. Many times, a law
enforcement action will not result necessarily in jail but many times
results in rehabilitation and treatment. And so it forces someone to
confront their illegal activity, confront their need for help.

And thirdly, what I sort of remarked earlier, a lot of the letters I get
talk about the concern of parents about the easily availability of drugs.
And I think that goes to the supply side, that you have to have the
education and treatment, which is critically important and ultimately the
solution, but you've got to deal with the supply side and the law
enforcement side as well.

SEN. SESSIONS: That's well stated, and I certainly agree with that. And
it's also a -- a part of, I believe, a national statement that drug use is
unacceptable. And at its base, that's a moral argument, that we do not and
will not accept drug use in our society, and we're prepared to punish those
who participate in making that occur. And I think that's very, very important.

One of the things that I have expressed concern about recently in a letter
to DEA and -- I believe we've written DEA and GAO -- is some of the
inaccuracy in reporting from some DEA agents about the number of cases that
have actually been made, investigated and prosecuted. It appears that in
Puerto Rico, for example, some very serious allegations arose that
suggested that they were simply claiming credit for any case investigated
in their neighborhood almost. Are you concerned about that? And will you
make it a priority of yours to make sure you have an accurate
accountability in the statistical information that you received?

REP. HUTCHINSON: I will, Senator, because whenever we have reports of
inaccurate information, then that undermines the public confidence in what
we're doing. It undermines the investment that we make from Congress's
standpoint in law enforcement. So, it -- the statistic gathering, the case
reporting is critical. We only take credit for what we do and are
responsible for. And I will certainly make -- do all that I can to make
sure that it's accurate under my watch.

SEN. SESSIONS: Will it be important for you to evaluate how well your
agents are doing -- but as you know, more and more we're involved in task
forces, and there can be a 40-person task force and one DEA agent assigned,
and one FBI agent assigned, and one Customs agent assigned, and they arrest
ten people, and all three of them claim credit for arresting ten people.
That's not good information to make decision making on, and I hope that you
will see if you can go pierce through all of this, because we want to
encourage task forces and investigative forces, and I hope you'll work on that.

Another matter that I think -- I hope you will wrestle with and will not be
afraid to discuss is your budget as compared to other expenditures of money
for drug interdiction and resistance. For example, your budget runs about a
billion dollars, DEA's budget is about a billion. We're talking about
spending 1.6 billion in Colombia, over a year, two years, to somehow reduce
our drug problem. In my view, there is probably no more effective agency in
the country in reducing drugs than DEA, and I hope that in the inner
circles you will evaluate DEA's contribution and question some of the other
monies that are out there. Do you have any thoughts about that?

REP. HUTCHINSON: Thank you, Senator. And I do. I think that the DEA, as you
mentioned, is our most effective weapon in this effort from a law
enforcement standpoint, that it's a single-focus agency. They are
extraordinarily professional, talented, dedicated men and women of the DEA,
and I think that needs to be recognized. Whenever you look at the problem
that they face, it's enormous. And whenever we look at the budget, I know
that in a number of arenas there hasn't been an increase, and I will be
advocating looking at it carefully as to what is effective, what works, and
where your best investment will be, and I will certainly share that when I
come to those conclusions.

SEN. SESSIONS: Well, I do think, from nearly 15 years working as a federal
prosecutor with DEA agents and other drug agents, that there's no more
effective agency fighting drugs that the Drug Enforcement Administration. I
do believe that sometimes leaders in Washington want to tell them they can
only work some huge, big, big, big case, and as a result of that, they
don't start with mid-size or smaller cases that work their way up into
bigger cases, because with regard to drugs, somebody got it ultimately from
Colombia if it's cocaine. It always goes up to a higher and bigger
organization. And to say you're not going to start at mid-level dealers and
work your way up is really short-sighted and typical of a Washington view.

You were the United States attorney in a middle America district. Do you
have any insight into that mentality of Washington?

REP. HUTCHINSON: I think the goal to be, Senator, that we disrupt the major
trafficking organizations. I mean, that should be the focus. But you're
exactly right that the -- those cases begin at a lower level. One instance
that you would identify with -- I prosecuted a case out of Hot Springs. It
was small quantities of cocaine, relatively speaking. They got that cocaine
from New York City. The person in New York City got it from Colombia. I
mean, it was a two-step process to bring that cocaine to Arkansas, and
you're able to trace that. We have to go after that, but many times it
starts at the lower level of the drug culture.

SEN. SESSIONS: I hope you will also -- just one more -- oh, my time is out
- -- one more --

SEN. LEAHY: No, go ahead. Go ahead.

SEN. SESSIONS: -- comment is that I believe you need to look at convictions
carefully and get good data, and insist that your agents are out making
cases that are prosecutable. Often that's what you're paid to do, and I'm
not sure that the numbers that you're receiving, based on this task force
concept, are as accurate as they were 20 years ago, and we need to make
sure that the taxpayers' money, if you get -- what you get or even more, is
going to be well spent. And I think accurate numbers is going to be key to
that.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SEN. LEAHY: Thank you. Before we go to the distinguished senator from
Illinois, I was -- my memory was jogged when the senator from Alabama
mentioned three different agencies, all taking credit for the same arrest.
Back when I was prosecuting cases, we had a police chief from a small town,
a wonderful person, very popular on the dinner circuit -- spent very little
time doing law enforcement and a great deal of time doing PR -- and we
might be totally on the other side of the county and some major arrest
would be made, we'd be hearing it on the radio, and there was -- off in the
distance we'd hear this siren as he came wheeling around -- usually get
ahead of the TV cameras, and he did a four-wheel slide into it, and he'd
jump out. By then, if the press had -- he said, "Thank God we caught him.
Boy, we worked hard on this one," and off we'd go. So, I know what you -- I
know what you mean. Not that that ever happens in the Congress, I want you
to know.

The senator from Illinois.

SEN. RICHARD DURBIN (D-IL): Congressman Hutchinson, thank you for joining
us, and thank you for meeting with me this morning. I really appreciated it
very much. I recently -- I guess it's been a year ago now, I met with the
director of the Illinois Department of Corrections and we talked about some
of the problems that he is facing. He gave me a statistic which I think is
very important for us to reflect on at this hearing. In my home state of
Illinois, in 1987, we had 500 prisoners in our state corrections system for
the possession of a thimble full of cocaine -- 500, 1987. Currently, we
have 9,000 -- 9,000. The average incarceration period for a drug criminal
in the Illinois prison system is one year, yet during that period of time,
my state offers no drug treatment program to these addicts. They come in
addicted, they leave addicted. But they've sharpened their criminal skills
during their period of incarceration. That, to me, is a hopeless situation,
to allow that to continue.

We take great comfort in arresting people and sending them off to prison,
but if we don't take an honest and realistic view of addiction and how to
deal with it, we are turning these addicts back out on the street, now that
they've hooked up with gangs and hooked up with other criminals, still
addicted, still looking for victims to finance their habit. And that, I
think, is a failure in our society if that becomes the norm, which it has
been for so many years.

I think that the DEA is taking some positive steps with demand reduction in
the last few years. I think there's a lot more that we can do. I know that
Senator Biden and others have already spoken about this. But I hope that we
can invest in treatment. You just don't get the same kind of press
attention to people who are graduating from a drug treatment program, who
now finally have their high school diploma, that you get if you have a raid
and you can stack up all the pounds of heroin, and cocaine and marijuana in
front of you for the cameras, and yet we know, if the Rand study can be
believed, that it's dramatically more effective in reducing drug crime to
deal with the treatment situation. And I hope that as the head of the DEA
you will do that.

One of the other aspects of this, which we discussed this morning, I want
to just focus on very briefly, and that is the whole question of racial
profiling. Attorney General Ashcroft and members of the administration who
have come before this committee have made it clear that they are really
dedicated to eliminating racial profiling, and I applaud them for that.
This shouldn't be a partisan issue. If we are going to have justice blinded
to a person's economic status or racial condition, whatever it happens to
be, then we have to deal with this, I think, in an honest fashion.

I asked General McCaffrey, when he sat in that same chair a few years ago
about this, and I asked him about some statistics I had read and asked him
I they were true. And the statistics I read were these: African-Americans
represent 12 percent of the United States population. They represent 13
percent of its drug users -- keep that number in mind, 13 percent of drug
users. They represent 35 percent of people arrested for drug possession, 55
percent of those convicted of drug possession, and over two-thirds of those
incarcerated in America for drug possession. So, that 13 percent ends up
being over 60 percent.

There is no way that you can read those statistics and believe that we are
doing the right thing here. Filling our prisons with people of color in the
name of drug enforcement may give us some comfort when we look at the
numbers, but they don't give us comfort when we look at the people and
realize that the vast majority of users are not black and brown -- they're
white, and they don't end up being arrested, convicted, or incarcerated.

What would you like to see done when it comes to the DEA and addressing
this racial profiling issue?

REP. HUTCHINSON: Thank you, Senator Durbin. And I appreciate your
thoughtful attention to that issue and your passion with you speak -- speak
about it.

I think it's important, one on racial profiling, that it end. And that,
obviously, has an impact out there. Secondly, I think that when you look at
our enforcement activities and who is targeted, you want to make sure that
there's not any racial bias in the law enforcement procedures, and that is
something that has to be good management, something that comes from the
heart, and I pledge that commitment.

In addition, you mentioned the need for more drug treatment programs in
prisons. And, I share that view. I think that if we're going to send
someone to prison, we have an opportunity there to change their lifestyle.
We ought to take advantage of that opportunity, so I hope that we can do
more in that regard. That's one of the reasons I certainly support a drug
courts because it intensifies the treatment option.

SEN. DURBIN: Let me ask you one other question and then I'll stop -- and
that's on Plan Colombia. I supported it. A number of people on the
Democratic side were kind of surprised that I did. But I went to Colombia,
met with President Pastrana. And they took us out on a helicopter trip with
his army in Colombia to a southern province known as Putamayo. And as we
flew in that helicopter over these lush green fields, the army officers
pointed out all of the coca under cultivation, destined to become cocaine,
destined to come to the United States. I made a rough estimate that in the
province that I visited -- you're familiar, being from Arkansas, of St.
Louis, and the distance between St. Louis and Chicago, which is about 300
miles -- I had estimated that what I saw under coca cultivation that day,
on that trip, was the equivalent of one-mile ribbon of coca production from
St. Louis to Chicago -- 300 miles long, one mile wide -- under cultivation,
headed for the United States.

And so I supported Plan Colombia. I was disappointed that more South
American nations did not. And I'm curious as to whether or not, in
reflection, it was the right vote, and whether we should be continuing
along this line. I think it is foolish for us to ignore production. It is,
I think, foolhardy of us to ignore an administration like President
Pastrana, democratically elected, putting his life and the lives of all of
his cabinet on the line, trying to fight the narco-terrorists on the right
and on the left. But I wonder if we've taken the right approach. If it
comes up again, I'm going to have to look hard at it and see whether or not
it's worked. What's your impression?

REP. HUTCHINSON: Well, like you, Senator Durbin, I supported Plan Colombia
when it came through Congress. And I also believe that when you see
President Pastrana taking some very heroic steps to preserve democracy
there, when you see so many that are putting their lives on the line, that
we need to help them. And so I think that was the heart attitude of
Congress when we supported that plan. I think it's important to look at the
results that come in, that one-mile stretch: What progress will we make in
reducing the coca cultivation there and what impact does that have on the
rebel forces?

What I have emphasized is the small part of the Plan Colombia, the
criminal-justice sector, very important training the Colombian national
police not only to obey human rights but also to properly investigate a
case, to help the court system. And I think that's an important part of it
as well.

SEN. DURBIN: Let me close by saying that I think you're going to do very
well by this committee. I am really encouraged by the fact that so many of
your colleagues, Democrats and Republicans on the House Judiciary
Committee, are standing behind your nomination. I look forward to working
with you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REP. HUTCHINSON: Thank you, Senator.

SEN. LEAHY: Thank you. We are going to be having a vote soon. Normally I
would go -- the rotation would go back to me, but I understand the senator
from Alabama has another question, so I'd yield to him.

SEN. SESSIONS: I appreciated the comment Senator Durbin made about
treatment and really intervention in a person's life who's going astray.
You mentioned, I believe, drug courts. I helped bring Judge Goldstein from
Miami in the mid-80s up to my hometown of Mobile, Alabama to discuss
establishing a drug court, and one has been established. And I think it
works well.

In my view, the key to it is that when a person is arrested for a drug
offense, they're not just released on probation and say, "Behave." They
have to come in on a regular, maybe biweekly basis. They are drug-tested
regularly. They are confronted by a probation officer and a judge, who
watches them. And if they need treatment, they are required to go to
treatment and fulfill the requirements of that.

And when you do it that way, oftentimes you can send a lot fewer people to
prison if they're going to be closely monitored when they're released, as
compared to what we've been doing in the past; just release them, having
them come in once a month and say hello to their probation officer.

Do you favor that? Do you think we could expand our ability to confront
people involved with drugs and effectively intervene and change their life
with a combination of tough love from law enforcement and treatment?

REP. HUTCHINSON: I do. I think it's probably one of the most hopeful
programs that are out there that combines enforcement and intensive
treatment and can make a difference in people's lives. I was impressed when
I went to California and saw a drug court demonstration -- not a
demonstration; it was a real-life episode -- where the defendants, the
people that were subject to the treatment program, came in with their
counselor, with the prosecutor. The judge was there.

They asked the question, how are they doing on their drug test every week?
They're taking it. Are they positive or negative? Are they going to the
rehabilitation classes? Are they staying out of trouble? Are they going to
their job? They're keeping their employment. They're making their child
support; that kind of oversight. And it's a year program. And when you're
looking at methamphetamine that has an intensive, addictive quality to it,
30 days is not enough. And so that is the advantage that drug courts give.
The recidivism rate, the temporary statistics show that it is much improved
with that kind of supervision.

SEN. SESSIONS: We're doing some studies and asking the Department of
Justice to study just how well drug courts work. But we do know that in the
period of time they're in the drug-court supervision, they are certainly
much less likely to commit crimes. Some drift back into crime after they
get out of that supervision. But I think we've got to use those kind of ideas.

And I would just like to remind you that during the period of time that
this nation took very seriously a resistance to drugs, we were able to
reduce, according to the University of Michigan study, drug use by high
school seniors by over 50 percent from 1980 through 1992. And we've shown
some increases since then, and I think some of that was because we were
sending an uncertain message or sounding an uncertain trumpet, that we were
suggesting that "Well, maybe it's okay to inhale. That's kind of cool."

We don't need to be sending that message. And the combination of strong
statements and aggressive law enforcement or intensive supervision of
people who violate the law are the key, I think, to driving those numbers
back down, and we ought to not settle for anything less than a reduction in
the current use of drugs in America. And we can achieve it.

SEN. LEAHY: Thank you. I thank the senator from Alabama. Obviously, whether
it's (drug ?) Colombia or anything else if we can reduce the demand in this
country, we're far ahead of the game. We sometimes make a mistake, I
believe, in blaming Colombia or any other country for all our ills. We're a
nation of over a quarter of a billion people, the wealthiest nation history
has ever known. And there seems to be an almost insatiable demand for drugs.

If the money is there, the production is going to show up somewhere. And we
have got to do a far better job in decreasing demand here through a whole
combination of things, whether it's law enforcement, it's education, it's
rehabilitation, and a pretty positive example of reinforcement by parents
in this country, too.

I want to submit, because we are coming close to the time for our vote --
and I want Senator Biden to have time -- I'm going to submit my questions
for the record. But I do want to raise one issue. I am concerned about the
way our asset-forfeiture laws are working in this country. I'm concerned
that sometimes we have asset forfeiture laws that law enforcement is more
interested in what the asset is that might be forfeited than what the crime
that might be stopped. Somebody with drugs, with an expensive car of their
own, looks a little bit different than somebody who's using a rented,
beat-up -- or a rent-a-wreck.

A number of states have reformed asset forfeiture laws that really were
becoming scandalous. They found that their police can get around the
reforms by turning their seizures over to the federal law enforcement
agencies, agencies who keep 20 percent and give 80 percent back. So even
though the state felt that there was a problem in their own state with the
way the asset forfeiture laws were working and reformed them, police get
around it by getting 80 percent of it anyway back from the federal
agencies. Now, they then avoid the state restrictions that earmark the
forfeiture proceeds to education and treatment instead of going to the
police department. They get around the more stringent proof requirements.

I would hope that as head of the DEA, your voice will be the strongest
voice possible on this, that you will work to develop policies that would
make sure federal agencies are aware of what the states feel and aware
there have been state abuses, so that we're not using the forfeiture laws
in a way that is really abusive, because if they are, you know the way the
pendulum goes. The states will get rid of them and the federal government
will get rid of them. And something that could be a real law enforcement
tool will be gone. So will you please assure us -- I don't expect you to
have all the answers today, but assure us that this is an issue, the
forfeiture issue is one you will look into?

REP. HUTCHINSON: Absolutely. And I believe that asset forfeiture is a very
important tool for fighting the major drug traffickers. I mean, it hits
them where they don't want to be hurt. But we're going to lose that tool,
as you pointed out, Senator, if we do not abide by the constitutional
protections and by the law in taking that asset and proving the case on it.

I think Congress did the right thing by reforming the asset forfeiture
laws, making sure the burden of proof is on the government and not on the
citizen that has that asset to be taken. That was an appropriate reform,
but it still allows this very effective tool to be used in the right cases.
So I'll certainly watch that to make sure that it's used appropriately and
not abused.

SEN. LEAHY: Thank you. Senator Biden.

SEN. BIDEN: Thank you. Plan Colombia; again, sometimes when you get too
close to things, you lose your perspective. But I received a call, I guess,
about 10, 12 days ago from President Pastrana, who periodically, about
every three weeks, calls and gives me his view of what's going on. And as
the record will show -- I'll not take the time now -- his government is
actually doing the hard stuff now, taking on the paramilitaries, and taking
on the paramilitaries up in the northeast, where the ELN is operating.
They've made some real progress. The coca production level is down. But as
you know, it has to get way down for it to have any real impact.

And so, again, I'd be reluctant for us to -- I'm not suggesting you're
doing it -- write off Plan Colombia as not having worked. I mean, he's
doing about everything we're asking him to do. And now the third battalion
is about to be fully trained and in the field. And so I hope you will do an
analysis. But I suspect, I predict you'll find it's more positive than your
critics say it is.

On the drug court issue, put this in perspective. And the reason why you're
going to have to fight for these drug courts is that when that legislation
was written, what finally prompted my colleagues to support it was my
pointing that there were 600,000 people arrested every year out there who
got nothing. Nothing happened to them. They didn't get probation. They
didn't get parole. They didn't get convicted. I mean, they got convicted,
but that was it. They were just released; nothing.

And so this is a lot tougher, a lot tougher than the idea -- it was
originally characterized, you'll recall, as sort of some soft method as
going about this. But as the senator from Alabama points out, as you
pointed out in California, it requires people to show up all the time,
twice a week, et cetera.

One of the reasons I raise it is in my state, we have now initiated
juvenile drug courts, and we have them in all of our -- we only have three
counties; it's easy to say all of our counties. But we have them in our
counties now, and they're really working. I'd like to invite you at some
point -- I mean this sincerely -- to come up and take a look at our drug
courts and the juvenile drug courts to give you a sense, because I think I
can say, without equivocation, the most extensive drug court system in the
nation is in my state. And it's gotten very positive results.

In prison, as you well know, every study shows that somewhere about close
to 80 to 85 percent of the prisoners in prison have some substance abuse
problem and that very, very, very few get any treatment when they're in
prison. And again, in terms of cost, it costs $12,500 a year for
residential treatment for cocaine addiction. That's a lot of money. It
costs $40,000 a year for incarceration. It costs $17,000 a year for an
extensive probation program.

So the irony is, the cheapest of the treatments is residential treatment in
these areas. I mean, there are the numbers. And so I hope that you will be
able to -- again, as it relates to the prison side of it, the National
Center for Addiction & Substance Abuse at Columbia University said 70 to 85
percent of the inmates in state prisons need some level of treatment. You
know what percent gets them? Thirteen percent -- 13 percent.

And so we let out, on the state prisons, roughly 250,000 people a year,
walk out of a state prison, get their $10 and their bus ticket, while
addicted to drugs, as they walk out, because they've gotten the drugs in
the prison, while they walk out, as they walk out the door of state
prisons. And I don't know what you can do federally on that except your
voice will be listened to. So I hope you weigh in in the fight to persuade
our governors as well that there's a need for in- treatment facilities.

My one question is this. Do you think that there is a necessity, based on
your experience in Arkansas, like the senator's experience in Vermont and
mine in Delaware, where we have rural states, do you think there's a
necessity for you to take a look at the distribution of manpower in DEA and
think about according more support to rural areas, where the problem is
growing faster than urban areas?

REP. HUTCHINSON: Well, I do believe that it's a great need, that with the
growth of the Internet, crime could be committed in a rural area just as
easily as going to an urban center. And so, coming from a rural state, I
believe you have to make an investment of resources. Whenever I was United
States attorney in the '80s, we had zero DEA agents in my district. They
were out of Little Rock, stationed there. We now have a DEA office in Fort
Smith and Fayetteville. It's a high- growth area, but it's still a rural
area, but it's made a huge difference.

I've always had the view that we ought to be able to fight the drug
problems in rural areas as well as the urban centers. Now, I don't think
you can necessarily just deplete the urban areas, because there are huge
problems there we've got to make an investment in. But I would certainly
agree that we need to review that, to make sure that -- I want our agents,
our DEA folks, out there making the cases where the crime is.

SEN. BIDEN: Well, I'd like to request that you do take a look at the
allocation of manpower, because the senator from Vermont can tell you, one
of the reasons why drug use is up in Vermont is because of the fact the
cost of doing business in Boston and Albany and other places has gotten too
high. It is easier to crack a market. You know that old expression. They
asked Willie Sutton why he robbed banks, he said, Because that's where the
money is. Why are they going to rural America? Because police departments
are less prepared to deal with it, because the market is wide open, and
because there is little competition. They are not getting -- they're not
shooting each other in a corner to make sure Armingo (ph) Avenue in
Philadelphia, which has been a drug market, open air market for years --
it's dangerous for them to operate there with one another. But when they
move to Harrington, Delaware it's not as dangerous. And so I hope you'll
take a look at it. I'd appreciate it.

REP. HUTCHINSON: I will. And I will certainly love to come here, see the
juvenile drug court in Delaware.

SEN. BIDEN: Well, I'll take you up on that. Thank you very much. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.

SEN. LEAHY: I thank the senator from Delaware. And I -- obviously your
answer is music to the ears for anybody from a rural state. And as chairman
of this committee and as a member of the appropriations subcommittee that
funds the DEA I will follow with you on that. I think that it is extremely
important.

I know you and I both come from rural areas, and we know, as Senator Biden
has said, it's a different world. Everybody knows everybody else. In some
ways it's far more shocking when we see drug abuse coming there, but we
know it is there. And as Senator Biden said, it's where the market is, it's
where the money is, and it goes there.

I will put into the record appropriate letters and statements of other
members, and I thank you very, very much for being here. And this hearing
is recessed. (Sounds gavel.)