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.

SEN. LEAHY: (Sounds gavel.) Good morning. The committee today is going to
consider the nomination of Asa Hutchinson. Mr. Hutchinson is a
distinguished member of the House of Representatives, and he has been
nominated by President Bush to serve as head of the Drug Enforcement
Administration. Many of us on the committee know Representative Hutchinson
well from his service within the House Judiciary Committee, where he has
earned the respect of his peers from both sides of the aisle. Indeed, 14 of
the committee's Democrats will be in support of his nomination, and the
chairman and ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee have strongly
supported his nomination.

The support does not surprise me. I have known Asa Hutchinson for a number
of years. I know him as a man of integrity and intelligence, who is
committed to reducing drug abuse in this country. Representative Hutchinson
has been deeply involved in drug issues as both the United States Attorney
in Arkansas in the 1980s and as a House member.

In addition to serving on the House Judiciary Committee, he is a member of
the Committee on Government Reform Subcommittee for Criminal Justice, Drug
Policy and Human Resources; has served on the speaker's Task Force For A
Drug-Free America. He has reviewed Plan Colombia as a member of the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Representative Hutchinson and I have similar views about some of the drug
issues facing the United States. I am sure we will occasionally have
differing views about others. I will discuss some of the issues that I
believe are important. I look forward to hearing his testimony and his
responses.

Drug abuse has become an increasingly serious problem even in my own state
of Vermont. Indeed though Vermont has historically had one of the lowest
crime rates in the nation, its crime rate rose 5 percent last year as the
national rate held steady. And drug crimes have increased by 6 percent. And
recent estimates show that heroin use in Vermont has doubled in just the
past three years, and the number of people seeking drug treatment has risen
even more rapidly. The average age of a first-time heroin user dropped from
27 to 17 during the 1990s, a very frightening thing to every parent in
Vermont, which signaled the sharp rise in teenage drug abuse.

Earlier this year, to give one example, Crystal Jones, a 16-year- old girl
from Burlington, Vermont, was murdered in New York City. According to the
reports, she was recruited in in Burlington to move to New York and become
part of a prostitution ring to earn money to feed her heroin habit. When
she died, drugs were found in her body. That was not the cause of her
death; murder was. And Crystal Jones' tragedy apparently is not unique. As
many as a dozen Vermont girls may have been involved in this New York ring.
And since her death, others have come forward to say that teenage girls in
Burlington are prostituting themselves to get money to buy heroin.

As we look at the drug problems facing Vermont and all of our states, we
find the same thing. It seems clear there is a shortage of drug treatment.
All of us serving on this committee know that the answer is not just law
enforcement alone, even though that is such a significant and important
part of it. Senator Hatch and I have joined together with a bipartisan
coalition of senators on this committee to introduce S. 304, the Drug Abuse
Education, Prevention and Treatment Act. And both Senator Hatch and I agree
that, as important as law enforcement is in battling drug abuse, it does
not solve our drug problem alone. The bill would provide millions of
dollars for not only my state but all 50 states for programs for treatment
for people addicted to heroin and other drugs, hopefully to prevent them
from using illegal drugs in the first place.

Donnie Marshall, whom Asa Hutchinson would be succeeding as head of the
DEA, testified before this committee in March that treatment and prevention
efforts play a vital role in assisting law enforcement. I hope the new
director will take a similar view.

I have a number of other concerns about our current drug policies. I am
increasingly skeptical about the need for and fairness of mandatory minimum
sentences, and I am pleased that we have not imposed mandatory minimums in
S. 304, and I compliment Senator Hatch for that. I hope we can begin to
look at amending existing law to reduce our use of them. A 1997 study by
the Rand Corporation of mandatory minimum drug sentences found that
mandatory minimums are not justifiable on the basis of cost effectiveness
in reducing cocaine consumption, cocaine expenditures, or drug related
crimes. But despite this study the mounting evidence of prison
overcrowding, legislators continue to propose additional mandatory
minimums. I know that Representative Hutchinson has expressed some
hesitancy about expanding mandatory minimums. I hope we can work together.
He has also expressed concerns about the sentencing disparity between those
convicted of offenses involving crack and powder cocaine. Current federal
sentencing guidelines treat one gram of crack cocaine and 100 grams of
powder cocaine equally for purposes of determining sentences. I don't think
that is justifiable. And unfortunately Congress has not followed the
recommendation of the U.S. Sentencing Commission that has also found it not
justifiable.

And, lastly, I want to see how federal law enforcement will address the
tension between federal power and states' rights in those states that have
adopted laws permitting marijuana to be used for medicinal purposes.

I'll put the rest of my statement in the record, because I know that the
distinguished senior member of the Republican side of this committee has a
conflict with the Finance Committee. So I would yield to Senator Hatch.

SEN. ORRIN HATCH (R-UT): Well, thank you so much, Senator Leahy. I
certainly join with Senator Leahy in welcoming Congressman Hutchinson, his
wife, his family, here today. We're very proud of you. You're good people,
and we're grateful that you are willing to serve in this capacity.

Earlier this year President Bush announced that his administration will
wage an all-out effort to reduce illegal drug use in America. Considering
the growing amount of illicit drugs flooding into America each year, and
the increasing pervasiveness of drug use among our youth, I welcome
President Bush's commitment. And today we will consider the nomination of a
person who as administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration will
help spearhead the president's efforts in this regard.

Now, I want to begin by taking a moment to thank the outgoing DEA
administrator, Donnie Marshall, for his service to this country. In the
course of his distinguished 32-year career with the DEA, he rose from
special agent to the highest position in the agency. Countless times he
made himself available to this committee for hearings. And under his
direction the DEA played a helpful role in our successful effort to pass
meaningful drug legislation. So while I know Mr. Marshall is not here
today, I want him to know how appreciative we are at this service to our
country.

Congressman Hutchinson, in my view, the president has picked the right
person to succeed Administrator Marshall. DEA needs and dynamic,
innovative, and experienced leader, and I am confident that Congressman
Hutchinson your past experience as prosecuting drug crimes as the United
States Attorney and formulating drug policy as a congressman have prepared
you, and prepared you well, to take the helm of the DEA. I applaud
President Bush for focusing intently on this crucial issue and for his
excellent choices of nominees to head America's two most important
anti-drug offices, the DEA and ONDCP.

The epidemic of illegal drug use in this country remains one of our most
urgent priorities. I believe all of us here today will agree we need a
comprehensive strategy embracing both demand and supply reduction in our
struggle against drug abuse. I have said repeatedly that the time has come
to increase the resources we devote to prevent people from using drugs in
the first place, and to breaking the cycle of addiction for those whose
lives are devastated by these circumstances. This is a bipartisan view,
which I am pleased to say is shared by our president and by our chairman of
this committee, Senator Leahy.

To address this deficit in demand reduction earlier this year, I was joined
by Senators Leahy, Biden, DeWine, Thurmond and Feinstein in introducing S.
304, the Drug Abuse Education, Prevention and Treatment Act of 2001. Since
introduction, S. 304 has received strong widespread support from federal
and state law enforcement agencies, prevention and treatment entities and
community groups. What has brought these groups together? The realization
of this legislation will ultimately help to cut supply by reducing the
demand for drugs by preventing our youth from using drugs in the first
place, and by treating those who are the most consistent and addicted
users. However, let there be no misunderstanding of our intent with this
legislation. While we need to shore up the resources dedicated to
prevention and treatment, we remain committed to the necessary and integral
role law enforcement plays in combatting drug use.

Congressman Hutchinson, I know you are acutely aware of the enormity of
this problem, this drug problem that our nation faces. In my opinion the
previous administration lost ground, primarily because it failed to make
the issue of drug use a national priority. All Americans should be
encouraged that this administration will correct this mistake. The
president has taken a fresh look at how to lower drug use in America, and
is ready to employ effective law enforcement strategies supported by
education, prevention and treatment programs that are science-based and
have been proven effective.

Congressman Hutchinson, I know that you share my concerns, and all of our
concerns up here, and I am interested in your thoughts on these issues. I
commend Chairman Leahy for holding this very important confirmation
hearing, and I urge him to schedule in the near future a hearing for John
Walters, the nominee for director of the Office of National Drug Control
Policy. It is important that the DEA and the ONDCP have effective
leadership, especially now that we are heading into this appropriations
season. Once the top positions of both the DEA and ONDCP have been filled,
we can all begin to work together to effect real change that will benefit
all Americans.

Let me just say that I can only be here part of the time because of the
mark-up in the Finance Committee and the reorganization of the Finance
Committee. So I will have to leave, but I will try and get back as much as
I can. But I certainly respect you very, very much. I think we all do. And
we look forward to working closely with you, and helping you in every step
of the way. And I believe you'll make a tremendous difference in this
country, and look forward to working with you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SEN. LEAHY: Thank you. Just so the nominee can hear all of the nice things
that would probably be said at his funeral -- (laughter) -- and for those
who had suggested that's perhaps what this hearing might be, because
Congressman Hutchinson and I were on opposite sides during a major event in
the Congress, the impeachment trial in the Senate, where he named
prosecutor and I was one of the -- for want of a better word, defense
counsel. The two of us handled a number of the depositions together. I
would note for the record throughout that time, notwithstanding the fact
that we were on opposite sides, Congressman Hutchinson's word was gold with
me. He never broke his word. He never showed anything but the highest
integrity and the highest standard of the Congress. But to continue with
the statement, I have to assume that the next person to speak, the senior
senator from Arkansas, is in favor of the nominee -- although I have not
asked him. (Laughter.) So I'd ask Congressman Hutchinson's brother, the
senator from Arkansas, Senator Tim Hutchinson, to speak. Go ahead, sir.

SEN. HUTCHINSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank you for after
our reorganization so expeditiously scheduling the confirmation hearing for
Asa. And thank you for the opportunity to say a few words of introduction.
I know Senator Lincoln and I have during the Clinton administration years
had lots of opportunities to introduce Arkansans who were being nominated
for various positions, and it was always an honor to do that. But this is
very special, to be able to introduce not only a great congressman from
Arkansas, but my brother. And I want to say Senator Biden and Senator
Feingold, I have resisted enormous constituent pressure from Arkansans who
have urged me to put a hold on his nomination -- (laughter) -- and do
everything I could to block it, because they're going to miss him in the
Third District.

It is a great honor and it is a proud day for the state of Arkansas, and an
especially proud day for me.

From the introductory, the opening statements, I know that the committee
is already familiar with Asa professionally. You know his work as United
States Attorney, and he was a distinguished United States Attorney and did
a wonderful job and held the respect of the FBI and the DEA, and all of the
law enforcement agencies with which he worked in that position and his
familiarity with the drug issue in our country and our society because of
his role as United States Attorney. I know you are familiar with his work
in Congress -- not only as a fair impeachment manager, but as somebody who
on the Judiciary Committee in the House has been very, very involved in
this issue, and has shown his concern, not only through legislation but
through his travels, through his work on the task force in the House on
this issue.

So let me just speak a little bit about some of his personal qualities,
things that I know not just as the senior senator from Arkansas, but as
Asa's brother.

I can assure you that he is going to be aggressive and hard- working and
tireless in this job. And in every position Asa has ever held, every
position, every activity he has been involved in he has brought the quality
of aggressiveness, a great work ethic, and just tireless. And I think that
you're going to see that, and I think that's the kind of person that we
need in this position.

May I also say that he brings the quality of being able to unify people,
and that is something that in the effort on the drug issue we desperately
need, because there are so many competing viewpoints, so many varying
ideas. And Asa has always had the capacity to bring those with varying
viewpoints to find common ground, to find common interests, and be able to
bring people in a spirit of cooperation and to get something accomplished
for the common good.

I'd also say that Asa will bring a spirit of fearlessness. In his role as
U.S. Attorney he was very hands on. He was very engaged, and there were a
lot of -- some high profile cases, but he wasn't just somebody who worked
in the courtroom, though he's a great courtroom attorney, but he was out on
the frontlines. And in the role that he is about to assume, the quality of
fearlessness is one that I think is a great attribute.

And finally, I found Asa throughout his life to be someone who is
compassionate and someone who is passionate. And I have been asked
repeatedly by people in Arkansas, why -- why would someone leave a position
in the U.S. House of Representatives to direct the Drug Enforcement
Administration, and oftentimes thankless job? And I think the answer is
that he -- he is compassionate, and he knows the price that America has
paid for illegal drugs, and he knows the impact that it has, not only upon
our country, but upon families and individuals, and he's very passionate
about doing something about it.

And so I am very, very pleased and proud to be able to support, and to
endorse, and to introduce my brother today.

SEN. LEAHY: Thank you very much, Senator Hutchinson. And Senator Lincoln,
we're always glad to have you here. Please go ahead.

SEN. BLANCHE LINCOLN (D-AR): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is certainly with
great pleasure that I am here this morning to introduce my friend and
colleague in Arkansas -- in the Arkansas Congressional delegation --
Congressman Asa Hutchinson. And I certainly don't have the background that
my senior senator from Arkansas, Senator Hutchinson, and I'm not sure, but
if I were Congressman Hutchinson, I'd be a little nervous if three of my
siblings were here, of the incredibly colorful stories they could tell of
our -- of our growing up --

SEN. LEAHY: That's in the confidential and classified part of the hearing
record.

SEN. LINCOLN: -- but I certainly know that Senator Hutchinson has been very
supportive of his brother, and that's a great thing for us to see.

President Bush, obviously, you all know, has nominated Congressman
Hutchinson to head the Drug Enforcement Administration, and I don't believe
that the president could have selected a more qualified individual for this
position. Much of his background has been described, but as a federal
prosecutor, Congressman Hutchinson observed first hand the effects of
federal drug policy in our law enforcement system. And as a member of
Congress, he has continued his commitment to anti-drug efforts, holding
field hearings to address the methamphetamine explosion which has been
devastating our state, in Arkansas, securing funding for local law
enforcement, and supporting measures to stop the flow of drugs into the
United States.

But Congressman Hutchinson is much more than a one-note drug warrior. He
has a keen appreciation of the effects of drug policy on people's lives, as
his brother, Senator Hutchinson, has described, and has a great passion in
wanting to do something about that effect on individual's lives, especially
our young people. He understands that not all drug problems should be
addressed through prosecution and punishment. They are also a concern for
our communities, for our neighborhoods and for our families.

And to that end, Congressman Hutchinson is committed to a balanced approach
to the drug problem that includes education and treatment. He supports drug
courts as an alternative sentencing method for first and second time
non-violent offenders. He has been a strong advocate of community
involvement to educate our children about the dangers of drugs. He has been
one of the foremost advocates of social work research to address the social
dimensions of substance abuse, such as domestic violence, poverty, and
broken families.

As a U.S. senator, I've enjoyed working with Congressman Hutchinson and his
staff on a number of issues important to our state in Arkansas, and I am
confident that he will bring to this position at the Drug Enforcement
Administration the same diligence, foresight, integrity and passion, as was
mentioned before, that he has brought to his service in the United States
Congress.

So, as a fellow Arkansan, I'm very proud to be here, Mr. Chairman, and to
the members of this committee, and I'm happy to support his nomination to
this distinguished position. Thank you for allowing me to share with the
committee this morning.

SEN. LEAHY: Thank you very much. We're also honored and pleased to have
before the committee Congressman John Conyers. Congressman Conyers is the
ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee on which Congressman
Hutchinson serves, and knows him well from the other side of the aisle, and
put together an extraordinary letter signed by him and all Democratic
members of the House Judiciary Committee endorsing Congressman. It's either
the case that they think the world of him, or they want him out of town --
I'm not sure which -- but I suspect it's because they think highly of him.

And Congressman Conyers, you honor us by being here. I appreciate you being
here, sir.

SEN. LINCOLN: Mr. Chairman, excuse me --

SEN. LEAHY: Sure.

SEN. LINCOLN: May I just apologize and excuse myself? I have the same
mark-up in the Finance Committee.

SEN. LEAHY: I understand. And I should mention both you and Senator
Hutchinson have other commitments and please feel free to leave.

SEN. LINCOLN: Thank you.

REP. JOHN CONYERS (D-MI): Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'm
delighted to see all my friends here today -- Senator DeWine, former
chairman Biden, Russ Feingold, and of course, yourself.

And I -- I almost got derailed as I listened to Asa's brother, who raised
the question, why should anyone want to leave Congress? Well, I've got
about 105 reasons why anybody should want to leave Congress with -- without
having any appointment in store. But I digress.

We come here -- I come here representing in an unusual way my colleagues on
the Democratic side of the Judiciary Committee. Just to let you know, as
our letter indicates, that we are unusually -- it's unusual that we'd bring
this level of support to a nominee not from our administration and not from
our party. And I -- I think I know the reason why. This is the case of
another charming Arkansan coming to Washington, making his way. I mean,
here we go again. So -- I mean, I don't know what they drink down there,
but this is -- this is what we're in for. I mean, this is the way it goes
from that state. We all like him a lot. We've fought a lot. But, on the
other hand, he's joined with us on the violence against women issue, on the
questions of juvenile justice, on health care issues we've enjoyed his
support, and on racial profiling legislation, Asa Hutchinson has been there
with us.

And the reason that I want to invest my credibility in his nomination is
that he's going to be able to bring the biggest issue that divides us on
how we fight the scourge of drugs in this country by raising the level of
discussion of whether it's to be increased punishment, mandatory sentences,
lock them up and throw away the key, or whether we'll turn to sane methods
of prevention and treatment. And it's in -- and that hope for that kind of
discussion and leadership, I'm willing to bank on Asa Hutchinson as our
next drug enforcement administrator.

Now, my chief of staff, Julian Epstein, had written pages and pages of
laudatory comments, which I will put in the record, and not -- and let us
all get on with the other issues of the day. But thank you for inviting me
here.

SEN. LEAHY: Thank you. Well, it's always good to have you here, as you
know. And the members of this committee have worked with you over the years
and appreciate you being here. I also understand the House schedule is such
that you're going to have to go back.

REP. CONYERS: I do.

SEN. LEAHY: So, I appreciate your being here.

REP. CONYERS: Thank you.

SEN. LEAHY: And I would -- I would call the nominee forward. I wonder if
the staff could moves these -- don't sit down yet, Asa, we're going to get
- -- do you want to get those other --

Would you raise your right hand? Do you solemnly swear or affirm the truth
- -- that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth?

REP. ASA HUTCHINSON (R-AR): I do.

SEN. LEAHY: Please sit down. And I wonder if you might be kind enough to
introduce any members of the family who are here.

REP. HUTCHINSON: I would be delighted to. I have with me my wonderful wife,
Susan, and then -- go ahead and stand, Susan; my daughter Sarah, who lives
in the Washington, D.C. area and her husband, Dave Wangle (sp). And I might
also say, senator, that I have my son, Asa the third, who is a lawyer in
North Little Rock, and his wife Holly, my grandson, same age as yours, I
think, close to it, Asa the fourth, John Paul and Seth. And I don't want to
neglect any of them.

SEN. LEAHY: Well, this -- you know, the transcript becomes part of also the
family archives, I'm sure, so they should all be mentioned. Go ahead. The
floor is -- the floor is yours.

REP. HUTCHINSON: Thank you, Chairman Leahy, Senator Biden, Senator
Feingold, Senator DeWine -- I thank each of you for the courtesies that
you've extended to me as a committee during the course of this nomination
process. I particularly want to express appreciation to Chairman Leahy and
Senator Hatch for their very generous comments this morning.

Chairman Leahy, if I might, it would have been easy for you to yield to
some of those who expected a critical view of my nomination because of
previous controversies, which found us on different sides. But I want to
thank you personally for taking a different approach and for seeing my
nomination as an opportunity to demonstrate to the American people that
despite any differences that might exist, we can be in harmony on one of
the most critical problems that faces our nation.

I also want to thank Senator Hutchinson, Tim, and Senator Lincoln, Blanche
- -- we go by first names in Arkansas -- for their support and confidence in
my nomination. And I'm gratified that my colleagues in Arkansas are excited
and supportive of this nomination and this challenge that I face. It meant
a great deal to me to have John Conyers, my colleague from the Judiciary
Committee, come over here today, and his colleagues expressing support for
my nomination. Probably one of the most gratifying things that's happened
to me in Congress is when people that you fight with and disagree with
sometimes, but yet you can see through that and see someone's heart. So I'm
grateful for his testimony today.

Now, I want to -- I introduced Susan, but I want to say a special word that
Susan, my wife, has never failed me to join -- with a smile, I might add --
as I seem always to choose a -- the road less traveled by in life. And now,
I believe that we are embarking on a noble crusade for the hearts and minds
of a generation, and it's good to have Susan travel with me on this road.

I will be gratified to have the opportunity to work in a Justice Department
led by John Ashcroft. I think he has set a good example in the department,
and I look forward to working with him, and I am grateful for his support.

Most importantly, it's an honor to be named by President Bush to lead this
effort as the head of the Drug Enforcement Administration, if confirmed.
And I am grateful to the president for the nomination. But more
significantly, I am grateful for what I see as his heartfelt desire to
strengthen the American character by reducing the nation's dependence on
drugs. This is accomplished in part through vigorous enforcement of our
laws, which I hope to be engaged in. But there is more. It's also important
to focus on educating our youth for the best life choices and the
rehabilitation of those who have become addicted to drugs. And I fully
support the president's balanced approach to the problem of drug abuse.

As everyone in this room knows, it's a high privilege for me to serve in
Congress. And it's a distinct honor particularly to represent the people of
the Third District that have sent me to Congress three times. And people
ask me, as Tim mentioned, why I would leave an institution I love in order
to engage in an effort in which success is doubted and progress is hard to
measure. The answer goes back to what I learned as a United States attorney
in the 1980s. I learned that drug abuse destroys individuals, it shatters
families, and it weakens the fabric of a community and a nation. But I also
learned that there is hope, and hope that this nation can offer that we can
be effective in saving lives and rebuilding families and communities.
Surely, from this conclusion I reached in the '80s, this is a noble
purpose, worthy of a great crusade. And I think it explains why I'm willing
to accept this responsibility.

Finally, while I was United States attorney, I learned about the
extraordinary and dedicated men and women of the DEA. They put their lives
on the line to make a positive difference for our nation, and they deserve
the support and praise of the American people for the great work that they
do. I hope to provide leadership that is worthy of such dedication and
sacrifice.

Mr. Chairman, when I came to Congress, I continued my personal commitment
in this arena by serving on the Speaker's Task Force for a Drug-Free
America, and my oversight responsibility on the Judiciary Committee was
very instructive to me. I chaired the oversight hearings on methamphetamine
and club drug abuse in California and other states, and it gave me an
appreciation for the risk our front- line officers take every day. In
California, I was able to see the California drug court system, and drug
courts impressed me as a very useful tool to provide intensive long-term
rehabilitation for non- violent drug-abuse offenders. And I think that
long-term rehabilitation is what it takes, particularly when you're looking
at intensive drugs such as methamphetamine.

And as a result of my work on the front line as a federal prosecutor,
working with our drug agents in the field and my legislative efforts as a
member of Congress, I think I bring experience to this noble cause. But
this experience includes prosecuting scores of drug cases, providing
leadership in the area of cooperation between law enforcement agencies, and
encouraging communities to develop anti-drug coalitions to encourage young
people to make the correct life decisions.

But I think this job is much more than experience. I pledge to bring my
heart to this great crusade. My heart will reflect a passion for the law.
It will reflect a compassion for those families struggling with this
nightmare. It will reflect a devotion to helping young people act upon the
strength and not the weaknesses of their character.

I want to emphasize that the work of this committee is critical to our
anti-drug efforts. Your dedication, your counsel and your leadership are
essential to building an effective federal team. I pledge my cooperation
and availability to this committee. I look forward to working with you.

Charles De Gaulle, the former leader of France, once said that France would
not be true to herself if she was not engaged in some great enterprise.
Well, it's my belief that America cannot be true to its own character
without engaging our young people, our families, our communities and our
leaders in this great, just cause of reducing drug abuse.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll yield to any questions.

SEN. LEAHY: Thank you, Congressman, and I appreciate and applaud your
statement. As you know from our earlier discussions, Senator Hatch and I
introduced S. 304, the Drug Abuse Education, Prevention & Treatment Act.
The bill we've introduced would devote substantial federal funding to
improving drug treatment and other demand-reduction programs, as well as
drug courts for adults and juveniles, drug treatment, testing for prisoners
and other programs. I know, as head of DEA, your primary concern is law
enforcement. But do you believe that improving drug treatment and
prevention programs actually assists law enforcement?

Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman, without any doubt whatsoever. I don't think
there's anyone more than folks in law enforcement that understand. We keep
the finger in the dike and keep the dam from breaking, but it's ultimately
education, prevention and treatment that's going to make ultimately the
biggest difference in our society.

So I applaud you, Chairman Leahy, for this legislation as well as the
others that have introduced this. I think that, you know, if you can find
more money in the budget to put in treatment -- and I noted that trying to
provide treatment for those in prison, I think that's a very important part
of it; more education for our young people. I applaud you for that. And I
know the department is looking at that legislation, and I wish you success
as you try to increase funding for the demand side.

SEN. LEAHY: Thank you. During floor debate in the House last year, you
said, "We should not extraordinarily expand mandatory minimums. I think
that moves us in the wrong direction." I've actually voted for some
mandatory minimums in the past, and some of them I now look at and question
whether I voted the right way. I have severe reservations about the
usefulness and the effects of many of the mandatory minimum sentences
Congress has passed over the past few decades. A lot of federal judges, as
you know, have complained openly about this.

So I might ask you this. Under what circumstances do you think mandatory
minimums are helpful to law enforcement? Are there also mandatory minimum
sentences under current law that we ought to look at, possibly to change?

REP. HUTCHINSON: Well, Mr. Chairman, I think mandatory minimums reflect the
concern of society for a particular problem, primarily directed at the drug
offenses and the gun offenses. And I think that the mandatory minimums have
been helpful in reducing violent crime in our country. I think Congress was
very wise in coming back -- was it in '94? -- in creating the safety valve,
so that under certain circumstances, the judge can revert to the sentencing
guidelines rather than to the mandatory minimum sentence. There's always
those extraordinary circumstances that it's appropriate.

As I stated in the committee and on the floor, I've been reluctant to
expand mandatory minimums because I think they're directed at the serious
problems. You asked about the future, and I think we have to be careful,
recognizing that you don't want to overly tie the hands of judges. But this
is a way that Congress sometimes finds to express the outrage of a community.

Ecstasy, for example, is an extraordinary problem. And if you offered
mandatory minimums for someone who is selling a thousand pills of Ecstasy
at an event that they advertised as alcohol- and drug-free, I think it
would probably be appropriate. I mean, it'd be hard for me to say that's
not an appropriate discouragement for that activity and you have to assess
a firm penalty.

SEN. LEAHY: Do you think that possibly with the number of mandatory
minimums on the books that there'll be a time that Congress would do well
to go back and review them all?

REP. HUTCHINSON: I would have no problem in Congress reviewing the
mandatory minimums. I think that -- and that's not prejudging any outcome,
but I think it's appropriate, whenever you have that type of mandatory
sentence that takes it out of the discretion of the judge, that from time
to time Congress review that. Again, my policy has been trying to be
hesitant about expanding those. I think that in the drug arena and in the
violent-crime arena, they've been very effective. But I would certainly
support a review of it by Congress.

SEN. LEAHY: A number of states, including fairly conservative states like
Arizona, have adopted initiatives in recent years legalizing the use of
marijuana for medical purposes. The Supreme Court recently affirmed the
federal government's power, under the Controlled Substances Act, to
prosecute those who distribute or manufacture marijuana, including those
who distribute it to people who are ill in the states that voted to allow it.

I've not been one supporting the legalization of marijuana. I've not taken
any position on these initiatives that states have passed. It's not
something Vermont has taken up and left that to other states to determine
what they want to do. But I am concerned about the tension between the
state and federal authority in those states. There's a lot of drug cases
that federal agents and prosecutors can bring. And you were a prosecutor,
too, and you understand the discretionary power. Do you think the federal
government should make it a priority to prosecute people distributing
marijuana to ill people in those states that voted to make it legal?

REP. HUTCHINSON: Well, there's a tough tension that is there, Mr. Chairman.
And you phrased the question as tough as it can be phrased. You're clearly
a good former prosecutor. I think that the Supreme Court decision was
correct because it affirmed Congress's discretion in designating marijuana
as a Schedule 1 drug that has no legitimate medical purpose.

I think we have to listen to the scientific and medical community. At this
point they have said that there's not any purpose from a medical standpoint
for marijuana that cannot we satisfied by some other drug. And so I think
we have to -- it's very important that we do not send the wrong signal from
a federal level to the young people, to the people in this state,
California or wherever, that marijuana use is an acceptable practice. It is
still illegal and it is harmful, and there's many potential dangers. And
the scientific community does not support the medical use of it.

And so I think that as far as the enforcement policies, that's something I
want to work with the attorney general on and develop an appropriate policy
there reflecting those points.

SEN. LEAHY: In other words, you can't take a position today.

REP. HUTCHINSON: I'm --

SEN. LEAHY: And that's understandable. But let me urge this -- and my time
is up; I'll wait till the next round. This is something that more states
are going to do this. And I think you and the attorney general should start
having some long talks with the attorneys general of those states who have
done it, because this could create a real problem between state and federal
relations. There are enough areas where you're going to have to cooperate
in the drug war. I'm not suggesting what the outcome should be, but this is
something that I think should be fairly high up on your radar screen.

Senator DeWine is also, like the two of us, a former prosecutor. I'll yield
to Senator DeWine.

SEN. MIKE DEWINE (R-OH): Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Let me ask that
my opening statement be made a part of the record.

SEN. LEAHY: Without objection.

SEN. DEWINE: Senator, I will spare you all the nice things I'm saying about
you. You can read it in the official record.

SEN. LEAHY: (Laughs.)

SEN. DEWINE: We welcome you here today, and I think this is a great
nomination by the president. We're very happy about it.

REP. HUTCHINSON: Thank you, Senator.

SEN. DEWINE: I wonder if you could outline for me what you think DEA's role
in the president's Andean region initiative is going to be and how you see
that part of the world, that very, very important and troubling part of the
world.

REP. HUTCHINSON: Well, as you have, Senator, I have traveled down there,
looked at Colombia, but also the circumstances in Ecuador that are
concerned about a pour-over effect into that country. And I believe that
it's a risk that we have to take in order to support a very old democracy
in South America and make sure that it survives. I think we should not
delude ourselves, but our efforts there hopefully will have some good side
benefit for the drug supply in America. But we have to realize the primary
impact is to support that democracy.

In reference to the DEA's role, one of the probably not-so-
greatly-emphasized portions of the initiative is the criminal-justice
sector. And if we're going to have an impact on the supply of drugs coming
in, we've got to put the major trafficking organizations in jail. That
takes investigation. The DEA will be training, supporting better law
enforcement efforts in Colombia, in Venezuela, in Peru, in the South
American countries, in addition to making sure that they have quality
prosecutors, law enforcement people that can get the job done. So we are
backing them up. We're doing the training there. And that criminal-justice
sector is probably as important as any portion of the Andean initiative.

SEN. DEWINE: Well, I'm delighted to hear you say that, because I think when
we look at this whole battle of preserving democracies -- and certainly
Colombia is not an emerging democracy, but it's true with some of the
emerging democracies, but they certainly do need help as well, and that is
the developing of that criminal-justice system that actually does work and
that gets resolved. And the ability that we have as a country to train, the
ability we have to share our ideas, our expertise, I think, is very, very
valuable. And you have a lot of that expertise at the DEA, and so I'm
delighted to see that you intend to do that.

Another area I would just mention -- and this is not directly under your
portfolio at DEA -- but I just think that as you will become one of the
senior counselors to the president on drugs, that I would just urge you to
always keep the balance that you and I have talked about in the past with
drug treatment, drug education, domestic law enforcement and international
interdiction. I think it's important that every one of us who has any input
into this from the point of view of Congress or, in your case, from the
administration, weigh in heavily and make it clear to the country that this
is what we have to do. It has to be a balanced approach.

REP. HUTCHINSON: I agree completely, Senator DeWine. And you can be assured
that I will support the president's intention to have a very balanced
approach to our anti-drug effort. I've been delighted to know of the
success and energy of the demand-reduction section of the DEA.

I believe that if you're talking about a law enforcement initiative,
there's probably nothing more important than educating folks to obey the
law and what the law is. And the demand-reduction section has been very
effective in the DEA, working with community coalitions, working to educate
schools, administrators, teachers, about the new wave of drugs coming in.
So I think that it's something I intend to make sure is alive and well at
the DEA, as well as our enforcement efforts.

SEN. DEWINE: Let me just close by questioning in regard to Haiti. Last
year, it's estimated that about 15 percent of the drugs destined for the
U.S. passed through Haiti as a transit point. You and I the other day
talked a little bit about this. I would just urge you to keep the few DEA
agents that we do have down there, and I would be interested to get reports
periodically how they're doing.

REP. HUTCHINSON: I'll be happy to. And thank you for that counsel; I
appreciate it.

SEN. DEWINE: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SEN. LEAHY: Thank you. The former chairman of this committee, Senator
Biden, has probably spent more time on the issue of illegal drugs and how
to combat them than any other member of the committee, and I yield to
Senator Biden.

SEN. JOSEPH BIDEN (D-DE): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Congressman,
I'm for you. And I ask unanimous consent that my statement laying down my
reasons why I support your nomination be placed in the record at this time.

SEN. LEAHY: Without objection.

SEN. BIDEN: One of the things that you and I talked about is this notion
about whether or not we are winning or losing in this effort to deal with
the drug problem. We have a semantic disagreement we've not discussed, and
that is, I've never called it a war. And I read your statement about your
not wanting to have it referred to as cancer like the last drug director
did, because you were concerned that it would appear as though we thought
there wasn't a solution.

But the thing that worries me most, after all these years, every single
year writing a national drug strategy -- I'm the guy that wrote the law
that took six years to get it passed setting up the drug director's office.
When I was chairman of this committee, a previous administration wanted to
merge DEA with FBI. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say my opposition
to that played some role in it not being merged.

And my consistent fear has been that we will yield to the frustration that
there's not much we can do about this problem, and therefore, why not
ultimately legalize it? And where I have some concern about the states that
have passed referendum for medical use of marijuana -- I have less concern
about the actual medical use than the message it sends. There are other
substances, there are other drugs that can alleviate the pain for those who
have debilitating and in many cases terminal illnesses. I'm not going to
quarrel about that now. But what I do worry about is I worry about this
notion that this is either, whether it is marijuana or ecstasy, or I point
out initially the club drugs, rohypnol and ketamine, or initially angel
dust -- I mean, I can go down the list. Initially we had tended to embrace
very drug that has come forward as not being as harmful as other drugs. You
may recall, because you were federally prosecuting at the time, the debate
I had with the Carter administration and a gentleman who was the chief
advisor to the Carter administration, a medical doctor, who came up to see
me and asked me why I was, quote, "picking on cocaine." Why was I picking
on cocaine? And, to put it in perspective, the American Medical Association
did not declare cocaine an addictive substance -- did not declare cocaine
an addictive substance until the late '80s. It was a constant battle.

And so the point I want to make is this: There is a frustration in dealing
with this problem. And when we don't come up with the right answers and
reduce the numbers of people who are consuming these drugs, the tendency is
out of frustration well thought out, like former Secretary of State Shulz
- -- very fine man -- William Buckley, others -- leading conservative voices
as well as liberal voices -- Mayor Schmoke, a Rhodes scholar talking about
the legalization of drugs.

And I think we don't focus on the facts here. The facts are we have made
great progress. In 1979 there were 25 million Americans regularly using and
abusing controlled substances in America. That is down to 14.8 million.
Years ago, when I chaired this committee, there were 5.6 million hard-core
addicts. That number is down to 4 million -- still too many -- still too
many. But we have actually made some genuine progress.

And it seems to me we are right at the point -- I'm making the whole
statement, not a question here -- it seems to me the whole point here is
that we don't want to let ourselves get into this mind-set that we can't do
anything about it. And the key to me at this point is treatment. Treatment
works. But it does not work unless we provide the funding for it. In the
city of -- in the United States of America there are tens of thousand --
nearly 769,000 people between the ages of 18 and 25 who need drug
treatment, can't get it. You show up at any municipal organization in the
United States of America, and say, "I'm a drug addict -- I'm out there
committing crimes -- I've committed three felonies in the last four weeks."
By the way, they commit between 90 and 180, depending on what figure you
take, felonies a year to sustain the habit. "Help me." And they'll say come
back in 4, 6, 8, 10 weeks -- six months in most major cities.

So, Asa, it took me four years to get drug courts endorsed. Your
endorsement of them is very helpful. The fellow we are about to bring in as
the head of ONDCP does not share your view, unless he has a conversion at
the moment of his confirmation hearing. Mr. Walters is a fine man. We have
argued for 14 years about treatment. I hope that you will be willing not
only to do the job of managing that vast department -- I realize my time is
up, Mr. Chairman -- that vast department. But I hope you'll weigh in. And
the reason it's important -- you'll be the head of DEA; and, two, you are
viewed as a strong conservative voice. And that's the next stage here. We
have got to move to treatment and availability of treatment on demand.
That's why I didn't give an opening statement. I have no questions for you,
because I asked you all the questions I needed to ask you in our private
meetings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[continued in part 2 at http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n1313/a01.html ]