[House Hearing, 106 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
RESPONDING TO THE DRUG CRISIS IN NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE,
DRUG POLICY, AND HUMAN RESOURCES
of the
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MARCH 6, 2000
__________
Serial No. 106-156
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house
http://www.house.gov/reform
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
66-900 WASHINGTON : 2000
______
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman
BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland TOM LANTOS, California
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut ROBERT E. WISE, Jr., West Virginia
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
STEPHEN HORN, California PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
JOHN L. MICA, Florida PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii
THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
DAVID M. McINTOSH, Indiana ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington,
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana DC
JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
MARSHALL ``MARK'' SANFORD, South DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
Carolina ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois
BOB BARR, Georgia DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
DAN MILLER, Florida JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas JIM TURNER, Texas
LEE TERRY, Nebraska THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois HAROLD E. FORD, Jr., Tennessee
GREG WALDEN, Oregon JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
DOUG OSE, California ------
PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
HELEN CHENOWETH-HAGE, Idaho (Independent)
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
Kevin Binger, Staff Director
Daniel R. Moll, Deputy Staff Director
David A. Kass, Deputy Counsel and Parliamentarian
Lisa Smith Arafune, Chief Clerk
Phil Schiliro, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources
JOHN L. MICA, Florida, Chairman
BOB BARR, Georgia PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii
BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas JIM TURNER, Texas
DOUG OSE, California JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
Ex Officio
DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
Sharon Pinkerton, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Mason Alinger, Professional Staff Member
Lisa Wandler, Clerk
Cherri Branson, Minority Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on March 6, 2000.................................... 1
Statement of:
Ayala, Dr. Jorge, superintendent, Yolo County Office of
Education.................................................. 10
Bruce, Gilbert, Director, Drug Enforcement Administration,
San Francisco, CA.......................................... 89
Denney, Jim, sheriff, Sutter County, CA...................... 75
Parker, Clay, sheriff, Tehema County, CA..................... 70
Ruppel, Raelyn, El Dorade County resident.................... 8
Ruzzamenti, Bull, director, Central California Valley HIDTA.. 84
Saunders, Larry, tactical commander of the Narcotics and Gang
Division................................................... 47
Scott, McGregor, district attorney, Shasta County............ 63
Seave, Paul, U.S. attorney, Eastern District of California... 106
Shadinger, Gerald, sheriff, Colusa County, CA................ 83
Webber-Brown, Ms., coordinator, Drug-Endangered Children
Program.................................................... 13
Letters, statements, et cetera, submitted for the record by:
Bruce, Gilbert, Director, Drug Enforcement Administration,
San Francisco, CA, prepared statement of................... 93
Denney, Jim, sheriff, Sutter County, CA, prepared statement
of......................................................... 78
Parker, Clay, sheriff, Tehema County, CA, prepared statement
of......................................................... 72
Ruzzamenti, Bull, director, Central California Valley HIDTA,
prepared statement of...................................... 85
Scott, McGregor, district attorney, Shasta County, prepared
statement of............................................... 65
Webber-Brown, Ms., coordinator, Drug-Endangered Children
Program, prepared statement of............................. 16
RESPONDING TO THE DRUG CRISIS IN NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
----------
MONDAY, MARCH 6, 2000
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and
Human Resources,
Committee on Government Reform,
Woodland, CA.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9 a.m., in the
Yolo County Board Chambers, 625 Court Street, room 206,
Woodland, CA, Hon. John L. Mica (chairman of the subcommittee)
presiding.
Present: Representatives Mica and Ose.
Also present: Representative Herger.
Staff present: Sharon Pinkerton, staff director and chief
counsel; and Mason Alinger, professional staff member.
Mr. Mica. I would like to call this hearing of this
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human
Resources to order.
Good morning. I am John Mica, chairman of the subcommittee,
which is a subcommittee within the Government Reform Committee
of the House of Representatives. We are in California today,
and appearing here with this hearing at the request of
Congressman Doug Ose, who is one of the most active members on
our subcommittee and the Government Reform Committee, and has
been a leader in attempting to help us develop a strategic and
effective national drug policy.
I was speaking with one of the supervisors just before we
began started today, and he was telling me that this area has
had significant problems with illegal narcotics, just like the
rest of the country. My area, which is central Florida, has had
a record number of heroin overdose deaths, primarily with the
young people.
In fact, a recent headline in our newspaper proclaimed that
heroin overdose deaths now exceed homicides in central Florida.
And I know this area has been hit by its own unique problems
with illegal narcotics, and hopefully our subcommittee, through
Representatives Ose and others' efforts, can assist us in
responding and working with the local and State officials in
doing a better job with this horrible problem.
This is an investigations and oversight subcommittee of the
U.S. House of Representatives. Our format for this hearing will
follow our Washington format. We will have opening statements
by Members, and they will be recognized. We then will have
today two panels. We will hear from all of the witnesses on the
first panel and then have a round of questions, and then will
go to the second panel and do the same. That will be the order
of business today.
I will start with my opening statement and then yield to
committee members. Our subcommittee is conducting this
oversight field hearing as part of our need to understand fully
our Nation's drug crisis and how it impacts different parts of
our Nation, and what effective drug control efforts are
underway, and which of these should be supported by Congress.
Today, we will learn about the impact of the manufacture,
use and trafficking of illegal drugs in northern California. We
are privileged to have with us today congressional leaders who
strongly support efforts to protect our communities from the
ravages of illegal narcotics. As I said, I know that Mr. Ose,
who invited us to this community, and who is a member of our
subcommittee, has been very active in our subcommittee drug
control oversight and policy issues.
We also are very privileged to have with us Mr. Wally
Herger. I believe he is a member of the Ways and Means and
Budget Committee of the House of Representatives from the
neighboring district just, I believe, north of here. And I want
to thank him for his continued efforts to ensure that the drug
problems of north California are efficiently and effectively
addressed.
I wish to thank all of the Members and participants for
their presence here today. Mr. Souder has come from Indiana. He
is also a member of our subcommittee. I welcome and thank him.
I appreciate your dedication to this issue, which is of
critical importance to our Nation.
We are very honored to have testifying before us today a
number of regional and local officials and citizens who are
actively engaged in responding to the drug crisis and the
terrible consequences of this epidemic on a daily basis. These
individuals serve on the front line. They are preventing drug
abuse in our schools and communities. They are enforcing our
laws and are most in need of our effective and efficient
support in the systems.
This subcommittee is particularly interested in how
communities and regions are dealing with the critical
responsibilities of implementing successfully not just the
Federal, but our national drug control strategy. After all, law
enforcement and drug control are primarily State and local
responsibilities. In Congress, we try to ensure that the
Federal Government is doing everything possible to assist you,
both in reducing the supply of drugs in our communities as well
as the demand for drugs in our communities.
In a recent hearing of the subcommittee, we learned that
the estimates of Americans in need of drug treatment range from
4.4 to 8.9 million. Yet, less than 2 million people have
reportedly received treatment. It is our intention to see that
this gap is addressed. Our subcommittee will continue its
oversight in this area and seek to improve our Federal programs
that support both State and local drug treatment prevention
efforts.
Today, we are focusing on regional challenges and threats
facing northern California. As we will hear, illegal drug
production, use and trafficking pose special dangers and
challenges to schools and communities and law enforcement and
public officials in this area.
This region of California continues to be a primary
manufacturing, distribution and consumption area for
methamphetamine. But in the last several years, this area has
experienced dramatic increases in the number and scale of
clandestine methamphetamine manufacturing labs. These labs are
operated by multi-drug trafficking organizations we know that
are based in Mexico, but which now infest many areas of
California. These organizations tend to locate their labs and
so-called super labs in close proximity to the State's
precursor chemical supply and also closely located to the
companies that produce this on the major interstate highways
including California's Interstate 5 and Highway 99.
Large scale sophisticated methamphetamine labs are set up
long in advance of use, are well concealed, heavily guarded,
and can produce from 20 to 200 pounds of high purity product
per cooking cycle. In response to this growing methamphetamine
problem as well as continuing problems with a host of other
illegal drugs, part of central California has been designated
by the White House National Drug Control Policy as a High
Intensity Drug Trafficking Area, commonly referred to as HIDTA.
Under Federal law and either designation by Federal
legislation, specific legislation, or under a general law, an
area can request and become part of a High Intensity Drug
Traffic Area, which makes it eligible for substantial Federal
assistance and better coordination of antinarcotics efforts.
Our subcommittee is responsible for authorizing and
overseeing the Office of National Drug Control Policy and the
HIDTA Program. Today, we will learn more about the
effectiveness of the neighboring HIDTA, which covers nine
counties, including what progress the HIDTA has made in
combating drugs in this area, and how it may help others in
northern California even more.
I applaud the continuing dedication and professionalism of
our witnesses today, and their willingness to share their ideas
and needs with us. I can assure you that this subcommittee and
your local representatives here today will do everything
possible to assist you in ridding your communities of these
deadly menaces, and in fact doing everything they can to
protect your loved ones.
We all recognize that this drug crisis demands full
utilization of available resources in close cooperation and a
comprehensive regional approach. After all, that is what
HIDTA's are designed to do, and it is our job and
responsibility in Congress to monitor and ensure their success.
If obstacles are identified, then we must move decisively to
overcome them. This community and this region of California and
this Nation cannot afford to wait or delay. The drug crisis
demands promising approaches and decisive action, and the time
to act is now.
I want to thank all of our witnesses for appearing before
us today, particularly again I thank Mr. Ose for requesting
this and for his tremendous service on our subcommittee, not
only as a local and regional leader in this issue, but a
national leader who I have counted on as a close ally as chair
of this subcommittee.
So with those comments, I am pleased now to yield to the
gentleman from California, our host here, Mr. Ose.
Mr. Ose. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First let me express my
appreciation to you for coming out here. I know that you have
probably endless demands on your time, and for you to take the
opportunity to come is something that we all appreciate here in
the 3rd District. Your leadership, as you very briefly covered
in your opening remarks, is remarkable. You picked up where
Danny Hastert had ended his service as chairman of this
committee, and there has been no drop in the intensity or
continuity. I just want to make sure that you understand that
we all appreciate that.
I also want to make note of the hosts here. We have
supervisor, Tom Stollar, who joined us. The Yolo County's Bill
Oden has been very kind in letting us convene here. Mayor
Woodland is also with us and Donald Soya is here. I appreciate
your great hospitality. One of Tom's colleagues is in the back
of the room. She is so quiet, but she gets so much done. That
is Lanelle Pollack in the back. So thank you, all three of you.
I also want to make mention of three other people, a couple of
whom will be testifying. We have three sheriffs with us today.
Clay Parker has come all the way down from Tehema County, in
the back. We have Jim Denney from the Sutter County. And we
have someone from Yolo County and Glenn County in the back
also. Gentlemen, I appreciate you guys coming.
I also want to extend my appreciation to Mr. Souder for
traveling all the way from Indiana. Mark is--you don't see Mark
in the media or in the paper. He just gets stuff done. It is
really a pleasure to work with you. And my good friends from
the north and east, the gentlemen who plays the drum for us.
That is Congressman Herger. You have some folks from Butte
County here, and I appreciate your taking the time to come down
also.
Mr. Chairman, the reason I am focused on this is I am not
quite sure of a more pressing or compelling concern for which
people run for Congress than to try and find some means in
bringing a measure of relief to this issue. Each year, drugs
kill 15,000 Americans. That is not our figures. Those are
figures from Barry McCaffrey of the ONDCP, the Office of
National Drug Control Policy. 15,000 Americans are really dying
of drugs every year. In every community across America, there
are drugs. We need to face up to it. They are destroying our
youth and our communities. They are derailing academic
achievement that we all so desperately want for your children.
They are breaking up families and these drugs are contributing
to crime.
In this region, the largest problem is methamphetamines. It
reflects the excellent transportation corridors we have in the
larger rural areas that are immediately available to some of
the cities. Meth is particularly a dangerous drug with
significant disastrous side effects. Violent crime, domestic
and child abuse, and interestingly marked severe environmental
damage are just a few of the impacts that come from the
production of methamphetamine. Locally or at least in this
area, we have seen the effect of methamphetamines here in the
last few weeks. We had an instance here--I meant to mention
Dale back there, the chief of police here. We had an instance
here in Woodland with a tragic outcome traced largely to drugs.
We have a situation up in Shasta County that I think
Congressman Herger is more familiar with in terms of someone in
a position of respect and trust that may be involved in
distributing methamphetamines. I won't even cite the name
involved.
Today, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses. I know
you all took time out of a busy day to come down and visit with
us. You all have had first hand experience dealing with the
challenges of drugs amongst our youth and in society. I do
appreciate it, because I know how hard it is to come out of
your normal regime to come over here and testify. This is an
important hearing and I appreciate you taking the time. With
that, I will give it back to the chairman.
Mr. Mica. I would like to yield to the gentleman from
Indiana, Mr. Souder, at this time.
Mr. Souder. I thank the chairman for holding this hearing,
one of the most valuable things we do in this committee and
have been doing over the last number of years. And we were
concerned about the lack of focus in Congress and oversight
function on the anti-drug issue. Chairman Mica and I have been
involved in this, both as staffers years ago on the Senate
side, and then since the Republicans took over the House and he
in particular pushed for oversight hearings and getting out
into the field. We have been down in central Florida a number
of times and in Dallas, TX after they had a number of the
heroin overdose problems there. Down in Nogales and Phoenix, on
the border there, and basically around the country as well as
the East and the Midwest. It helps not to just hear and read in
the paper in Washington. Congressman Ose and Congressman Herger
are going to aggressively advocate the California interest. But
to be here and hear firsthand in more detail. Furthermore, we
are not being buzzed to go running to 18 million votes and
hearings, so we can actually sit through and all be here to
listen and appreciate that. Congressman Ose has not only been a
leader in Washington in making sure that California is heard.
He went with the chairman and myself and some others down to
South America to look firsthand at where the cocaine and much
of the heroin and the hardcore marijuana was coming in. But as
he and I well know, in Indiana the interdiction efforts that
have been so destroyed over the last few years, which is why we
saw the surge in cocaine and heroin purity go up and the price
go down--as we get that up, methamphetamines are our grassroots
threat all over this country because it is something that can
be done domestically. Wherever you have national forests or
wherever you have a lot of open land, it is very easy to get
the labs that produce and send to the rest of the country. So
it is good to be here focusing on that.
We also know that wherever you have HIDTA, that while the
focus is intense there, it spreads to the areas around that. In
the Midwest, I have Chicago and Detroit on each side and the
more pressure you put there, the more it squeezes out the
counties around that don't necessarily have the manpower or the
intensity that you would have right in the heart of the HIDTA,
and we have to figure out how to not have it corrupt all the
youth and the communities around it as well. So we are looking
at hearing that impact here.
I also want to pay tribute to Congressman Herger, who
thought I was a little too conservative when I came to
Congress, so he tried to make me a little bit more moderate.
But I really appreciate his conservative Republican leadership
in Washington in making our conference. We work not only on the
anti-drug issue, but a lot of other issues of very much concern
to the West. He has been one of the leaders in our conference
in trying to make us more aware and more sensitive to Western
concerns, and we appreciate that very much.
Mr. Mica. Thank you. Now I would like to recognize a
gentleman who is not a member of our subcommittee, but we are
delighted to have him here today. He has been a leader on this
issue in the Congress and a very good personal friend.
Mr. Herger, you are recognized.
Mr. Herger. Chairman Mica, I want to join in thanking you
for leaving your Florida district and coming out----
Mr. Mica. Where it is much warmer and sunnier.
Mr. Herger. But coming here and having this hearing on this
incredibly and crucially important issue to those of us who
live here in northern California. Congressman Souder, I am not
sure if I ever thought you were too conservative. Actually, I
think you voted just right. But I thank you for your
leadership, and again journeying out here from Indiana. We are
all very grateful to you. And of course to my very good friend
and colleague and my neighbor, Congressman Doug Ose, thank you.
You are, of course, the one who talked to Chairman Mica and
persuaded him to have this important hearing here which is so
important to all of us here in northern California. Thank you
very much.
I, as many of you may know, represent 10 rural counties in
northern California directly north of here that border the
Nevada and Oregon border basically from Marysville, Grass
Valley north. And we would like to think that our beautiful,
pristine communities in northern California did not have a
problem with narcotics or with illegal drugs, and specifically
with methamphetamine, which happens to be the drug of choice in
our area. We wish that were not the case. The fact is that it
is. And one of the most important reasons that it is so
important to be having this hearing, this congressional hearing
here, is to make people aware of just how serious this problem
is even in our own beautiful, rural, pristine communities. This
is not just a problem of the inner city. It is not just a
problem of Los Angeles, New York, Chicago. This is a problem
even here in northern California. So I want to thank each of
you, particularly those who have come out from our counties
here just to the north, to help not only this committee, which
ultimately will give recommendations on hopefully expanding the
HIDTA Program into our other areas here in northern California,
but also to the Congress and also to our own communities of how
serious this challenge is. So that we can all begin more
working together unitedly to take this incredible problem--take
the bull by the horns and begin to turn it around.
So with that, again I thank you, and I look forward to our
witnesses and to the hearing.
Mr. Mica. Thank you for your opening statement and comments
from all of our Members this morning. We are going to turn now
to our first panel of witnesses. The first panel is Ms. Raelyn
Ruppel. She is an El Dorado County resident. Dr. Jorge Ayala,
superintendent of the Yolo County Office of Education. Ms.
Susan Webber-Brown, coordinator of the Drug-Endangered Children
Program. And we have--is it Lieutenant Larry Saunders?
Mr. Saunders. Yes.
Mr. Mica. And he is the tactical commander of the Narcotics
Gang Division. In a minute, I will yield to our members for
introduction of these individuals.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is an investigations and
oversight subcommittee of Congress. In that capacity and for
that responsibility, we do swear in all of our witnesses. So if
you would please stand at this point. Please stand and be
sworn. Raise your right hands.
Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to
give before this subcommittee of Congress is the whole truth
and nothing but the truth?
Witnesses answered in the affirmative.
I might also point out in addition to swearing our
witnesses as an investigative panel, we do have a procedural
method that we follow in conducting these hearings. We allow
you approximately 5 minutes for your oral presentation. Upon
request, we will by unanimous consent submit for the record,
and it will be part of the record in this congressional
hearing, additional lengthy statement and background material
or data that you think is pertinent to the hearing today. So
that is how we will proceed as we begin. We will also suspend
questions until all of you have given your opening 5-minute
verbal testimony to this subcommittee.
At this point, for the purpose of introduction, let me
yield to my colleague, Mr. Ose. I think he is going to have
some comments of introduction on the witnesses. Mr. Ose?
Mr. Ose. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am a little curious
about something. I saw a group of young people come in here. Is
there a high school civics class in the room? Welcome. I saw
some sitting here along the wall. I am very pleased to have you
before our subcommittee today, particularly the students.
Hopefully, this will be a good experience to see how the
government does operate. Thank you for coming.
First of all, I want to introduce Raelyn Ruppel, who is a
former user of some of the material we are going to be talking
about. I want to make sure she understands that we appreciate
the challenge that you faced up to, and we welcome you today.
Dr. Ayala has been a good friend. He is the superintendent
of Yolo County Office of Education. He and I have visited a
couple of schools together and had the opportunity to interact
with young people across this history. He is responsible and
has oversight--it is interesting, everybody has got oversight
here. We have oversight at the national level. Dr. Ayala has
oversight in terms of the county school districts as well as
the--you are involved with the Drug Court Program too, if I am
correct.
Dr. Ayala. To some degree.
Mr. Ose. Ms. Webber-Brown has come down from Butte County,
if I am correct.
Ms. Webber-Brown. That is correct.
Mr. Ose. She is actually a constituent of Wally's. I am
kind of stealing your thunder here, Wally. She has some very
striking testimony, if you will, about the impact of drugs on
young children in particular. You have a video you are going to
share with us?
Ms. Webber-Brown. Hopefully someone has it here.
Mr. Ose. OK. And the program that she runs, the Drug
Endangered Children's Program, provides a comprehensive system
to help children who are basically existing within a drug
environment. She coordinates with law enforcement at both the
State and local level, interacting with District Attorneys and
fire departments and social service agencies. So we certainly
appreciate your coming.
My good friend Lieutenant Saunders from Sacramento. I
cannot say enough--I mean, I want to make sure I explain this
correctly. My interaction with the Sacramento County Sheriff's
Department has been remarkable. These are the people who put
their lives on the line every day. They go into situations to
try and cure a problem that you and I would more than likely
shrink from, and they do it day after day after day. Lieutenant
Saunders and his people in the Narcotics Bureau are just doing
a remarkable job, and I certainly appreciate it. I may have
told you that Sheriff Blanas, who is on his way--I don't see
him in the crowd. When he gets here I want to--if he is able to
join us, I want to make sure I recognize him too. So, Larry,
thank you.
Mr. Saunders. Thank you.
Mr. Ose. With that, Mr. Chairman, I will give it back to
you.
Mr. Mica. Thank you for the introductions. I would now like
to recognize our first witness this morning, and that is Ms.
Raelyn Ruppel, a resident of El Dorado County. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF RAELYN RUPPEL, EL DORADE COUNTY RESIDENT
Ms. Ruppel. Hi. My name is Raelyn Ruppel, and I am 19 years
old. I have been in recovery since February of----
Mr. Mica. Ms. Ruppel, you might pull that microphone just a
little bit in your direction. Thank you so much.
Ms. Ruppel. I have been in recovery since February 1997. I
am 16 months clean and sober. I started drinking in eighth
grade when I was 13 years old. Alcohol was easy to get, because
I stole it either from my parents or from my friends' parents.
I had older friends who would also buy it for me. I could also
buy it from the liquor store off Madison Avenue in Orangevale.
They never asked for ID from anyone.
I got into drugs in my junior year at Oakridge High School
in El Dorado Hills. I smoked pot and did acid a few times. I
could get drugs every day at any time. I bought it at school on
a daily basis from people I knew who dealt. It was incredibly
easy to buy drugs at Oakridge. Just look around the quad, find
the guy, walk over and hand him money, and he slips you a bag.
Smoking weed became an everyday occurrence for me very
quickly.
I started getting in trouble from school authorities and
from my parents on a regular basis. I also started getting
incredibly depressed, to the point of being suicidal. My
parents started sending me to a therapist and they got my
school counselor involved because at this point I was failing
my junior year. I was diagnosed as being clinically depressed.
I was prescribed Prozac and started taking that on top of all
the drugs and alcohol I was already consuming.
I was put into a special program at school for emotionally
disturbed kids, and this enabled me to get rid of a bunch of
detentions and Saturday schools that I had accumulated. I was
able to change my classes into easier ones and erase all of my
failing grades. Being labeled as clinically depressed, I had an
excuse for all of my out-of-control behavior. I never related
what was happening in my life to my drug use. Nobody knew about
my drug use, and they never pushed the issue because we had an
answer to the problem. I had clinical depression.
I kept doing drugs and I kept getting worse. One day, I
tried to commit suicide. A friend called the cops and I was
taken to Heritage Oaks Mental Hospital in Sacramento. There, I
was diagnosed as being bipolar. My parents transferred me from
there to a rehab in San Diego called Vista. It was there that I
was introduced to Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous.
I stayed in that rehab for about 2\1/2\ months. I turned 17
there. I came home and went to AA and 4 months later I
relapsed. I had known some people in AA who had gone to
treatment at this place called the Messenger Clinic. I decided
to go there because I knew I needed something more than just AA
and NA. My parents paid for it, and I went for 2 years from
September 1997 until I graduated in August 1999. I went 4
nights a week for 3 hours a night, Monday through Thursday.
The director of the clinic, Tom Hills, suggested that I
might not be bipolar. He urged me and my parents to get me off
all the medications I had been taking. I got off all the
medications I was taking and I was fine. I was misdiagnosed as
being bipolar. I did not have that disease at all. The bottom
line is I am just a drug addict. I had been taking all sorts of
medications that I never needed. I have seen this a lot in
addicts and alcoholics being diagnosed with mental disorders
that they do not have, all because society would rather have
someone be bipolar or have depression than be addicted to crank
or heroin or marijuana. It is more socially accepted.
I had been at the clinic for 6\1/2\ months when I relapsed
again. I relapsed with a friend of mine that was also attending
the clinic. This time I started doing crank. Crank was also
easy to get. My friend had friends who dealt it. One phone call
and about 30 minutes to an hour later and we would have a sack.
I could get it whenever and as much as I wanted. It was so easy
that one time my friend and I were calling our dealer from a
pay phone in Roseville and this guy overheard us talking about
drugs. He asked us if we were looking for coke, and I said, no,
crank. He told me he knew a house where they sold it and he got
in my car and took us there. I bought $100 worth of crank that
night.
My friend and I ran away that night and went to
Bakersfield. My friend used to live there and she had a few
connections down there. Not knowing the town, I could still
just as easily as if I were at home get drugs. Anything I
wanted from pot to prescription pills to acid to heroin I could
get. I stayed down there for a week and came back home. I got
back into the clinic in recovery.
I relapsed one more time, 6\1/2\ months later. This time I
started doing coke. A friend of mine knew some coke dealers and
we dropped by their house and got hooked up. Coke was as easy
to get as any of the other drugs I had ever done. Another
example of the accessibility teenagers have to get alcohol is
this. One night, my friend and I drove to a bar and my friend
talked to some guy who was totally drunk and told him we would
give him a couple of beers if he would come with us to 7-11 and
buy us alcohol. The guy got in the car, we drove to 7-11 and he
bought us a couple of 12 packs. We gave him two beers and drove
him back to the bar and we were set for the night.
About a week later, I got back in recovery and have been
clean and sober ever since. That was October 24, 1998. I was
able to get treatment for my disease pretty easily. I had
parents who were willing to pay for it. It is not that easy for
a lot of people. I mean, there are quite a few treatment
facilities in the Sacramento area, but only a handful that are
really good. But they all cost a lot of money. If you do not
have money or health insurance that will cover it, you have
only one resource, AA and NA. Don't get me wrong, AA will work.
But the thing is, I am a chronic relapser. I needed more of a
strong foundation and intensive treatment than AA has to offer.
AA is what I do to stay sober now, but the Messenger Clinic is
what gave me my foundation.
Staying in recovery is not always an easy thing. I have had
a pretty difficult life for the last 16 months. I had two
roommates who went back to using while they were living with
me, and I ended up having to kick them out. My mom was
diagnosed with cancer a little over 2 years ago, and 2 months
ago she passed away. I have stayed sober through her being very
sick and her dying. Recovery has been the best thing that has
ever happened to me and the greatest accomplishment. Many
addicts and alcoholics do not make it. They die out there. I
just happen to be one of the chosen ones. Thank you.
Mr. Mica. Thank you for your testimony, Ms. Ruppel. I would
like to now turn to Dr. Jorge Ayala, who is superintendent of
the Yolo County Office of Education. Welcome and you are
recognized.
STATEMENT OF DR. JORGE AYALA, SUPERINTENDENT, YOLO COUNTY
OFFICE OF EDUCATION
Mr. Ayala. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee. Thank you for the opportunity to address this
congressional field hearing on drug trafficking, interdiction
efforts and efforts to reduce drug abuse among teenagers. On
behalf of the Yolo County Office of Education and the Education
System in Yolo County, I want to welcome you to our community
and to thank you for your commitment to and interest in this
subject of primary importance to all of us.
As a lifelong educator, teacher, vice principal and
principal and now superintendent, I will focus my remarks on
drug use among the young. With more than 20 years of experience
in our public schools, I have seen firsthand the damaging
effects of drugs and alcohol abuse among our young people.
Two factors have remained constant. Drug use among youth as
a trend has not significantly diminished despite the good
intentions and funding of any number of programs. If anything,
the problem has become worse. And two, the deleterious impact
on the lives of young people and their families has proven time
and time again to be damaging, destructive and at times deadly.
Studies on domestic violence, teen suicide and juvenile crime
draw parallel conclusions. Ironically and sadly, our Nation
mourns the death of one young first grader in a related
situation in Michigan. One lost her life and the other is
scarred for life.
I will summarize in three sentences what I am going to
speak about. We need to have comprehensive and sustained
programs that address the child's developmental stages, culture
and gender. Programs that are monitored for continuity and
connectivity that incorporate the family. Drug and alcohol
abuse and use are most often symptoms of deeper problems rooted
in a lack of self esteem, dysfunctional family environments,
peer group influence, and inappropriate societal pressures,
including the mass media. Because of the clear relationship
between drug and alcohol abuse and other factors in a child's
life, it is essential to select methods of prevention,
intervention and treatment that are holistic in nature and
provide a child with tools necessary to resist destructive
impulses and behaviors. Part of the selection process should be
to mesh prevention and treatment agencies and strategies with
development stages, culture and gender of a child.
The DARE Program, which is Drug Abuse Resistance Education,
is primarily in the elementary level. Beyond the elementary
level, there is a patchwork of different programs that are
available within Yolo County through the State.
But consider some of the evidence. Teen focus groups in
Yolo County recently identified drug and alcohol abuse as the
greatest problem facing local youth. A local Healthstart grant
survey recently identified drug and alcohol programs for teens
as a primary issue. The California Safe Schools Assessment
recently published by the California Department of Education
demonstrates the correlation between substance abuse and age.
But what about our adolescents? What happens after the
primary grades? We have State of California requirements which
are providing different programs to bring drug awareness to
ninth grade primarily. Beyond that, we have a hodgepodge of
different programs. We have the Friday Night Live Program,
which has suffered from erratic program quality and is now
almost non-existent. We have Every Fifteen Minutes by the
California Highway Patrol which focuses primarily on teenage
drinking and driving.
Youth in Conflict courses at Woodland High School are
voluntary. Woodland Reaching Out and Karing, called WROK
locally, is an excellent program, but it is small in nature,
130 students per year. It does bring in the family, which is
important to any drug rehabilitation. The counselor has found
that when kids suffer severe and direct penalties from their
first offense and subsequent interventions, this can
significantly have positive results reaching nearly a 90
percent success rate. However, the same counselor reports that
increases in drug referrals have been paced by increases in the
tolerance level of such behaviors. Amazingly, much of the
tolerance resides in the child's home atmosphere, where parents
often look the other way as the child indulges in alcohol and
other drug use. This lack of support undermines programs in
schools. Zero tolerance policies at school are often marred
with inconsistencies and lack of alternatives for behavior
changes.
We do have at the Yolo County Office of Education, in
conjunction with the courts here in Yolo County, the Drug Court
Program, in which students are directed to take specific
courses in drug prevention. We have the Yolo Youth Academy,
which is a partnership with the National Guard in which
students participate in a variety of different activities, not
necessarily directed to drug prevention. We are able to connect
with youth.
There is a multitude of remaining programs that exist, a
patchwork in fashion. Tracking their success rate is difficult
because there is no logical interface between them and school,
and there appears to be virtually no outreach that is conducted
in a systematic fashion for teens.
Minority youth are disproportionately the majority in
alternative schools, handed harsher sentences and dealt
different consequences for the same offenses, meaning the
school and community systems are not reaching these youth.
There are community service programs. The Woodland Police
Department has a diversion program which is in place today.
Recommendations. I have 14 listed in my document. I am not
going to go over the 14, but I would like to highlight 3.
Bring into the home prevention strategies and emphasize the
need for everyone in the family to avoid substance abuse. Rely
on comprehensive approaches that recognize the
interrelationship between substance abuse and other issues in
the child's family. Effective methods would include a
combination of information, skill development, community
service, an emphasis on academic progress and achievement,
mentoring, intervention and counseling.
There is a use of overlap of approaches. Universal, those
that reach the general population. Selective, those that
specifically target at-risk kids. Indicated, those that are
designed for youth already engaged in substance abuse or
indulging in risky behavior.
Obviously, any approach or initiative will take a
sustainable commitment of time and dollars to be truly
effective. Where we spend our money dictates our priorities.
Fortunately, in this chaotic sea of modern life, there are many
children who acquire the resiliency characteristics that allow
them to wedge through these complexities into healthy, balanced
and successful adulthood. What are these characteristics and
how can we capitalize on the influence? We do have that
knowledge. Creative, relevant and safe structures are needed to
connect with all youth, especially the high risk children.
Strategies must be flexible and have high and doable
expectations. We must generate results from a small to large
scale. We must apply some intensive services with
differentiated approaches tailored to the child's strengths and
needs.
We know what doesn't work. We have scientific knowledge for
what can work. By working together, we can make real progress
on an issue that should be foremost on our national agenda. If
children are our greatest asset, then why is the funding not
there to save them. I encourage you to act in the interest of
our youth, in the interest of our families, and in the interest
of our Nation.
Thank you.
Mr. Mica. Thank you for your testimony.
Now I would like to recognize Ms. Susan Webber-Brown, the
coordinator for the Drug Endangered Children Program. Welcome
and you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF MS. WEBBER-BROWN, COORDINATOR, DRUG-ENDANGERED
CHILDREN PROGRAM
Ms. Webber-Brown. Thank you. Thank you for inviting me to
speak at this very important hearing. I have been a DA
investigator for 17 years, for the past 9 years on a special
assignment as a detective with the Butte Interagency Narcotics
Task Force. During this time, I have participated in over 200
meth labs investigations and arrested hundreds of persons for
meth related violations. This testimony is a summary of the
detailed statement you have before you.
You have very knowledgeable experts here today who will
each tell you of the methamphetamine plague in the North State.
They will say it is an insidious drug that is taking over the
country. They will state that over 80 percent of the crime rate
involves methamphetamine, and there are thousands of users,
distributors and manufacturers who go undetected or who repeat
a criminal behavior upon release from jail, and they are right.
What I am here to talk to you about are the children, from
newborn to teens, who have been lost in this country's drug
epidemic. In particular, I am speaking of the children that are
found by law enforcement at the scene of a drug house or meth
lab who have never been recognized as the true victims of this
drug war. For years, children have been overlooked as victims
and simply discarded as an inconvenience to deal with.
Generally when law enforcement were at the scene of a drug raid
and children were discovered, they would simply be viewed as a
hindrance by those officer attempting to deal with arresting
and incarcerating their parents. It was and still is to a great
degree easier for the officers to give the children to a
neighbor, relative or friend.
When first assigned to the task force, I would see children
living in homes with drugs and needles and syringes lying
about, no food in the house, dog feces everywhere, and
oftentimes numerous containers of hazardous chemicals used in
the manufacturing of methamphetamine. All over the State,
children who are virtually eating, sleeping and playing in a
meth lab are left unattended with no concern for their medical
or psychological needs. No risk assessment is done.
In 1993, the Butte Interagency Narcotics Task Force took a
bold step forward in dealing with children from drug homes and
labs. As a matter of protocol, we started a program which was
later named the D.E.C. Program for Drug Endangered Children.
This is a multi-agency team to ensure the safety and well-being
of drug-endangered children. Simply, the narcotics unit has a
CPS worker and part-time deputy district attorney assigned to
the team.
In a county where the seizure of meth labs has increased
from 23 labs in 1993 to 45 labs seized in 1999, per capita we
rank each year in the top three counties statewide for lab
seizures. Of the more than 601 children we have detained, 162
of those children were removed from meth labs. In November
1994, we began obtaining urine screens obtained on all children
detained from drug homes; 14 children tested positive for
methamphetamine during an 18-month time period; 8 of those
kids, and the remaining 6 were from secondhand meth smoke.
From the start of the D.E.C. Program, our goals have been
to rescue children from unsafe environments, improve the safety
and health of drug-exposed children by providing appropriate
services, hold parents accountable for their actions, improve
the community response to these children, and establish a
consistent response from law enforcement and Social Services.
With the exception of Butte County, the concept of children as
victims of the methamphetamine epidemic was not addressed until
1997, when the Office of Criminal Justice and Planning issued
grants to four counties to implement the D.E.C. Program modeled
after Butte. In May 1999, three additional counties were funded
for a total of seven funded D.E.C. response teams. They are
Butte, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Diego, San Bernadino
and Shasta. And of particular note, these grant funds enable
one team in each county to work D.E.C. cases, but those funds
are not sufficient to adequately address the problem. And these
grant funds terminate September 30, 2000, this year, with no
anticipated continued funding.
The life of a drug-endangered child, of the 600 children's
names and faces that I have seen, all are different. But each
story is the same. One would think that 9 years later with
hundreds of suspects arrested and countless doors kicked in and
the writing of thousands of reports that I would grow callous.
But upon entering the bad guy's house again and seeing those
small round innocent eyes look up at me saying finally someone
came to save me, I turn to marshmallow. I don't have to make up
stories or use the same photographs or tell the worst of the
worst. They are all bad. The yard is covered with garbage, old
bicycles, toys and rusted car parts. Three or four dogs run
into the house or aggressively approach. Inside, the house is
dark with no electricity. The stench of rotten food, animal
urine and feces and soiled diapers permeate the house. Chemical
odors irritate my nose and eyes. We fumble down hallways and
bedrooms, stepping on filthy clothes and debris. The children
are startled when a flashlight shines their way. They are
sleeping on soiled mattresses with no sheets or blankets. They
slept in their clothes for the third day in a row, haven't had
a bath in days and can't remember when they last ate. They
rarely attend school due to lice infestations, and cockroaches
have become their pets. The children draw pictures for me of
mommy's methamphetamine pipe and show me bruises where mom's
boyfriend hit them. The oldest child comforts the oldest
sibling and is obviously trying to parent. None of the kids cry
or for that matter show any emotion at all. They exhibit a
classic attachment disorder. Methamphetamine packages and small
clear baggies are lying on a corner table next to a
methamphetamine pipe with residue and scales. The oldest girl
asks if she can take a bath and wash her hair when she gets to
a new home. She starts to cry when she asks if her brother and
sisters can all be placed together. Because of their
environment and drug exposure, these children have learning
disabilities, are behind in school, are laughed at and
ridiculed because of their appearances, and they are the school
dropouts, drug and alcohol users, physical abusers, and most
have lifelong problems. This is learned behavior. It will be
repeated behavior and it will produce our future felons if we
don't make a difference in their lives. The problems are
society-based now, but often stem from influences from the
home. Children's struggles in schools often stem from problems
in the home. Where parents spread their criminal conduct into
the lives of their children, the parents conduct must be
addressed as would any other crime. Whether it is use, sales or
manufacturing, methamphetamine destroys children's lives,
future and health. Children living with methamphetamine users
and cooks cannot compete in school, are inhibited socially and
learn criminal behavior. To improve their chances, intervention
must occur. Cooperate efforts from law enforcement, CPS and
prosecution protects the welfare of these children while
ensuring public safety and benefit the community as a whole.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Webber-Brown follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6900.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6900.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6900.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6900.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6900.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6900.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6900.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6900.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6900.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6900.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6900.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6900.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6900.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6900.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6900.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6900.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6900.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6900.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6900.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6900.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6900.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6900.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6900.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6900.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6900.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6900.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6900.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6900.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6900.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6900.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6900.031
Mr. Mica. Thank you for your testimony. I would like to
recognize our last witness on this panel, Lieutenant Larry
Saunders, who is the tactical commander of the Narcotics and
Gang Division.
Welcome, you are recognized, sir.
STATEMENT OF LARRY SAUNDERS, TACTICAL COMMANDER OF THE
NARCOTICS AND GANG DIVISION
Mr. Saunders. Thank you, Chairman. We at the Sacramento
County Sheriff's Department are committed to do whatever is
necessary to reduce the effects illicit drugs have on our
communities. We see on a daily basis that manufacturing and
trafficking in these substances increases crimes in our
communities and pose a great risk to our youth.
I have personally and professionally witnessed the tragic
effects of methamphetamine. As the tactical commander for our
agency, a large percent of our squad and the hostage negotiator
call-outs that we respond to involve the use of drugs, mostly
methamphetamine. Many of the suspects involved in these crises
are in fact under the influence of illicit drugs, mostly
methamphetamine. Many times these call-outs involve children
who are being subjected to violent behavior that the suspects
display during these type of situations. Sometimes the children
are used as hostages as these drug users try to escape capture.
We have seen too many children seriously hurt and killed by
people under the influence of illicit drugs.
It is only through prevention, education and aggressive,
no-tolerance policies in our communities that we can be
successful in our efforts.
The Sheriff's Department is happy to be the lead agency in
a Central Valley HIDTA team. This team named SAINT, for the
Sacramento Area Intelligence Narcotics Task Force, will
concentrate their efforts on identifying methamphetamine and
other drug traffickers and trafficking organizations. They will
then pass along that intelligence in a partnership with other
local investigative teams.
This past weekend, the SAINT HIDTA team did exactly that,
resulting in the disruption of a major methamphetamine
operation in Sacramento County. The results were the
confiscation of 13 pounds of methamphetamine, $55,000 in cash,
numerous weapons and the arrest of at least five suspects. We
are encouraged by this operation and look forward to the HIDTA
Program as a viable method to stem the transportation and
distribution of illicit drugs into the Central Valley. An
expansion of the HIDTA program further north would be an asset
to the Central Valley if additional funding could be
appropriated. I encourage all of you to explore this option.
Along with the HIDTA Program, the Sacramento County
Sheriff's Department and the Board of Supervisors of Sacramento
County has instituted three outstanding and effective programs
in an effort to forge positive ties with our youth in several
areas.
The first program is the School Resource Officers Program.
These officers work on the high school campuses Monday through
Friday in a non-traditional law enforcement method. They mentor
students, form positive relations with staff and school
children.
The second program is the Youth Services Officers that we
have. They are assigned to the patrol districts and work in
concert with the School Resource Officers on matters such as
truancy, child abuse, and other issues that contribute to the
kids' failure to attend school.
Training for both these programs involves at least a 40-
hour comprehensive course with emphasis on interacting with
students.
Our third program that we have that is very effective is
the State Schools Program. The Sacramento Sheriff's Department
has enjoyed a longstanding relationship with the San Juan
Unified School District to provide traditional law enforcement
to all respective campuses in the San Juan District in grades K
through 12. All programs emphasis a ``no tolerance'' policy
involving drugs and alcohol on campus.
We look forward to this cooperative effort to make our
communities a safer place in which to live. Thank you.
Mr. Mica. Thank you. We have a video I think that was going
to be played now by Ms. Webber-Brown. Without objection, we
will play that and also make a transcript of that a part of the
record. So ordered.
Mr. Ose. Mr. Chairman, if I might interrupt here for a
moment. There are a couple of distinguished visitors from----
Mr. Mica. Let me go ahead and play the tape first and then
we will make the introductions.
Mr. Ose. OK. Sure.
Mr. Mica. Thank you.
[Video tape is played.]
Mr. Mica. Thank you. I would like to now recognize Mr.
Herger for the purpose of an introduction.
Mr. Herger. I would like to recognize several that are in
the audience. One that will be on our next panel, our district
attorney from Shasta County, Mr. McGregor Scott, who has been a
leader on working in this area in Shasta County in the northern
area. And also we have a Sheriff from Siskiyou County, which is
up on the Oregon border, Sheriff Charlie Byrd in the far back.
Charlie, if you would raise your hand up real high. Anyway,
thank you both for being here. I am sure there are other
constituents from our district. I am sorry, I am not
recognizing you, but I want to thank all of you for being here
at this very important hearing. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mica. Thank you. I'd like to begin our first round of
questions. I might say again for the witnesses, this is--maybe
you have seen how we operate on C-Span in a congressional
Hearing. But the purpose of this hearing, again, is to come out
into this community and this area of our country and try to
gain from you some insight as to the programs that we have at
the Federal effort, our efforts, and how effective they are and
how they can be improved. So that is the purpose of the
hearing. Then take this back and try as an oversight and
investigations subcommittee of Congress to see that those
positive changes are made.
With that in mind, first of all Congress is now spending
somewhere in the neighborhood of $1 billion on a media
education program. Ms. Ruppel, have you seen any of those ads
that we have on television or radio or newspaper?
Ms. Ruppel. For the methamphetamine abuse?
Mr. Mica. Well, any anti-drug abuse?
Ms. Ruppel. Yes, I have.
Mr. Mica. You have. What is your opinion of them? Be honest
and candid. This is important to us.
Ms. Ruppel. They are striking, but I don't think that
people----
Mr. Mica. Would they make any difference?
Ms. Ruppel. Well, the people that are using drugs, I don't
think that you can scare them out of it. You know? So I don't
know if they are necessarily making a difference to people who
are already using methamphetamines.
Mr. Mica. You testified that you--and I think your words
were that there were a handful of good programs, treatment
programs?
Ms. Ruppel. There are a handful of good treatment programs.
Mr. Mica. How would you determine what is--one of the
things is that we have basically doubled the amount of money in
treatment in the last 6 or 7 years. We are spending more than
$3.2 billion on treatment programs just from the Federal level,
and we are not certain what works and what doesn't. In your
estimation, what works and what doesn't? What are the good
programs that you have seen?
Ms. Ruppel. There are, I believe, in-patient programs, 28-
day to 3-month programs around the area that seem to be helping
people out.
Mr. Mica. Did you experience private and public programs or
just public operated? Both?
Mr. Mica. AA and NA are public, I believe. The outpatient
place I went to is privately owned, but it was a very well run
outpatient program.
Mr. Mica. Which is the most effective for you?
Ms. Ruppel. I needed both. I needed both.
Mr. Mica. And how would you describe any of the programs
that aren't effective?
Ms. Ruppel. I was living in a halfway house kind of
transitional living called the Madison House. It was for people
who were in recovery. A lot of parolees lived there. And this
place didn't have any rules. It didn't have any rules. It
didn't have the funding that it needed to have in place so that
drugs were coming in and out of there on a daily basis. It was
supposed to be the place where I was supposed to live in a safe
environment, and it wasn't. You know, there are a couple of
different transitional living places like that in the
Sacramento area.
Mr. Mica. Thank you. Dr. Ayala, you mentioned the two 6-
year-olds, one a victim, that we read so much about last week.
From the information I have received, that 6-year-old that
found the gun came from a split home. The father, I think, was
in jail. And the living conditions were appalling. It was also,
I guess, the site of a crack house. We just saw a very vivid
portrayal of a 4-year-old being scalded to death through the
violence of a methamphetamine situation. And you testified that
the family--we have to have comprehensive programs for the
family. I know you are a public educator, but how in heaven's
name do we turn this thing around where these young people--
this witness has testified that there were 600 children you
dealt with. In what geographic area is that?
Ms. Webber-Brown. That is just in Butte County. That is
just by seven agents that are assigned to the task force. It
doesn't even encompass the entire county.
Mr. Mica. With those figures for one area, and we see
conditions that these children come out of, how in heaven's
name does a local school district or State government or
Federal Government deal with the deterioration of family to
that degree?
Mr. Ayala. It is a very complex question, and one that I
don't have one answer to. But I do strongly feel the family
needs to be included in any type of drug prevention
rehabilitation program. As Ms. Ruppel said earlier, her family
was involved. I think it is important that when we do create
programs that a unit within those programs is incorporated
dealing with family and educating family, not only on drug
abuse but also how to understand and how to communicate with
their children. You mentioned earlier the TV ads or the media
ads. I think they address adults more than they address
children. Children look at them and see that the adult is not
reacting to the media message that is there and pretty much
ignores it. I think what we need to have is a community-based
program that reaches out to the parents. It is only a beginning
with the DARE program in the elementary schools. But the
stressful situations for children are beyond the elementary
into adolescents when they are trying things out and
experimenting. The support system kind of fades in the
transition from elementary to middle school. And you can see
the trend increasing in drug use as they go up the grades. I
think we should not drop the ball. I think we need to have
programs that do address children at every level. When I say
comprehensive, I don't mean just drug-oriented programs. I also
mean community-based programs where activities that are
diversions to drug use are created. There is a connectivity
with the community. They could be teen centers. They could be
activities that are provided by the community with an emphasis
on having the family and the child communicate.
Mr. Mica. As a superintendent with education
responsibilities, I think you are aware that we have tried to
turn this situation around at the Federal level, where we have
mandated and regulated so much that very little money actually
got to the classrooms and the student and the teacher. We do
have problems, I think, with the new majority in mandating
additional programs. If we gave funds, additional funds, which
is probably the best thing we can do to States; we are trying
to get away from providing a lot of strings attached. What
assurance do we have that this money will ever reach the local
level for these programs that you talk about to avoid the
patchwork approach?
Mr. Ayala. I think there needs to be an agreement to how
the program is to be assessed between the local entity and the
government. And there needs to be some dialog about what the
community consists of and the issues within the community. I
think that needs to be tailored to the community versus a one-
program-fits-all that this government wants to provide.
Accountability is a key factor. Once the agreement is made,
then there needs to be a measurement. What is the results? What
is the impact on the children? What is the impact within the
home and in the community?
Mr. Mica. Ms. Webber-Brown and Lieutenant Saunders, it
appears that this region has a serious meth epidemic. From what
you have described, we are looking at a very serious situation
here, is that correct?
Mr. Saunders. That is correct.
Ms. Webber-Brown. Yes, that is correct.
Mr. Mica. And I am not sure of the geographic area of the
current HIDTA. I know Mr. Herger and Mr. Ose have talked about
expanding that into this area. What do we have, about nine
counties currently in the HIDTA?
Mr. Ose. Mr. Chairman, there are eight or nine counties,
the northern most of which is Sacramental County. There are no
counties north of Sacramento that are presently included in the
Central Valley area.
Mr. Mica. Both of you would support expansion of the HIDTA
to include the areas to the north?
Ms. Webber-Brown. Yes.
Mr. Mica. What type of money does the current HIDTA get?
Lieutenant Saunders, are you aware?
Mr. Saunders. I believe it is between $1.2 and $1.6
million. And I feel that to increase the counties north, which
I definitely support, I think would take more appropriations
than we currently have.
Mr. Mica. I heard someone, and I am not sure--I was trying
to look through my notes--80 percent of the crime is meth-
related. Was that you, Ms. Webber-Brown?
Ms. Webber-Brown. Yes, that is correct.
Mr. Mica. Is that 80 percent of the crime--where, in this
region or country or what?
Ms. Webber-Brown. In Butte County.
Mr. Mica. In one county?
Ms. Webber-Brown. In Butte County. As well 90 percent of
the referrals that come into Children's Services Division in
reference to children with general neglect issues are drug-
related, specifically methamphetamines related.
Mr. Mica. That is an astounding figure.
Ms. Webber-Brown. It is astounding.
Mr. Mica. Well, I have no further questions at this time.
Mr. Ose, you are recognized.
Mr. Ose. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Raelyn, I want to come
back to your testimony. I have two specific questions that I
need to ask from you. As a parent--if we look around this room,
there are a lot of parents here. How do we help our kids when
they are moving from elementary to middle school and from
middle to high school and they are asked, ``Do you want a
joint'' or ``do you want a hit'' or ``do you need blow?'' How
do we help them?
Ms. Ruppel. I think my parents did the best that they
could. But I think more attention needs to be paid toward kids
in that area. Kids are either going to turn to drugs or they
are not. I am not exactly sure how--I think more involvement in
your child's life. More programs that you bring your kids to. I
am not real sure.
Mr. Ose. The other issue I wanted to talk to you about was
the--Judge Mica mentioned it. The programs that are successful,
what differentiates those, in your experience, that are
successful from those that aren't?
Ms. Ruppel. It could be the people that run them. I think
that the outpatient clinic I was in was run very well. The
transition living place I was involved in wasn't run very well
at all. It is mostly who is running it and how they are running
a program.
Mr. Ose. Dr. Ayala, I know that you are going to submit for
the record the 13 recommendations that you mentioned. You
talked about an increased tolerance on everybody's part of
inappropriate behavior. It is not just the public, but people
accepting giving a kid a drink or what have you. Could you
expand on that a little bit as it relates to your experience?
Mr. Ayala. In my experience with high school and the
``continuation''--alternative--high schools, there is a degree
of acceptance of behavior. ``That is the way it is. We can't
help it. There is nothing we can do. It is a family situation,
not a school situation.'' Those types of thinking or those
dimensions of thinking really create or increase the problem.
And when we talk about zero tolerance here, one dimension is
zero tolerance and the other dimension is turn the other way.
When you have zero tolerance, there is also a skeptical belief
that there is nothing to support it. There are no teeth in what
happens with that child once that child is caught. And as one
of the counselors mentioned in my report says, if we can make
sure that that child is thrown the book at and the parent along
with it, 90 percent of the time you will have a chance of
success. Now turning the other way happens at home as well.
When a child comes home stoned or a child comes home under the
influence--stop it or don't do it anymore will not work. There
is a lack of communication happening at the home. The same as
at school. There is a lack of communication if the message is
out there for zero tolerance and stop it, and there is nothing
there to support or there is nothing there to connect with that
student. I think what was said earlier kind of exemplifies it.
It is who is on the other end providing the help that needs to
make that connection and needs to understand the child and
needs to understand the circumstances and provide concrete
measurable types of programs or assistance that will bring that
child in through incremental steps out of the drugs and into
something more productive.
Mr. Ose. When you have a family where you have a child who
is using drugs of this sort and the child comes to school, do
you have any statistical information about the impact in a
classroom of having a child who is under the influence actually
in the classroom, whether it be added costs or added time
requirements? I am going to ask Ms. Brown the next question,
which is if it is manifesting itself in the schools, her
testimony about needing some degree of intervention to be much
more readily available--I am going to segue from your answer to
that question of hers. I tell you why I ask that question, if I
may. It is that I have sat in on some of these truancy hearings
where the child has a pattern of truancy and the law now exists
where the parent can be held accountable for that child not
going to school and actually prosecuted, if you will. And I am
not trying to open the door or lead you in any particular way,
but I wonder whether or not that is a fact that offers some
measure of relief.
Mr. Ayala. If a parent is held accountable for the child's
behavior, as they should, then if there is a program to sustain
that assistance by the parent and by the school system, then I
think it is money well spent. Too often, though, there is only
a program that is very limited. It addresses the issue at the
moment and it looks like it has been solved. But if we take a
look at how long this took for that moment to occur and how
long it takes for us to solve that problem, there is quite a
discrepancy between both moments. I think there needs to be
sustainability, and through that there needs to be a connection
with the child and the child's development.
Mr. Ose. Ms. Brown, what about an intervention? When you
talk about 601 kids and the 8 that tested positive versus the 6
that don't.
Ms. Webber-Brown. Actually, they all tested positive. It is
just that eight came from meth labs and the others came from
the secondhand meth smoke or meth environment. And I add that
scores of kids have tested positive since that time from
various scenarios. With methamphetamine residue on coffee
tables and nightstands, with babies picking up meth pipes and
putting them in their mouths. The intervention part of that for
me is a lot different, coming from a different perspective. In
conducting the criminal investigations, the majority of the
time are because of the parents who are meth users and abusers.
And we are taking these children out of the home as victims.
With the program that we have currently, we are able to handle
those children that we are currently detaining within our task
force, but not county-wide. And that intervention is whereas
before parents would be arrested for the drugs, they are now
being arrested for child endangerment on every single case
where we can prove and we are able to collect enough evidence
of that. And that is where in my opinion as a law enforcement
officer that parents need to be held accountable. So instead of
just arresting them for the narcotics violations or the stolen
car they have in their backyard or the illegal weapons they
have, is to charge them with felony child endangerment. Detain
those children and place them appropriately, hopefully with a
relative. In Butte County, about 50 percent of the children are
placed with relatives and about 50 percent of them are in
foster homes. And then those children remain out of the house
for at least a year. And during that time period, it enables
Children's Services Division and Probation to work together to
try to reunify. Many times that doesn't happen, but the goal is
to reunify. And that is that parents have to drug test clean
once a week. They have to go to parenting classes. They have to
go to Narcotics Anonymous. They have to go to inpatient
counseling, and they have to follow all the rules of the
probation status, which works together with Children's
Services. So the hope is that we return these children to drug-
free families. And if not, then they are in a better place.
Mr. Ose. Butte County operates clearly under State law as
it relates to family reunification.
Ms. Webber-Brown. Correct.
Mr. Ose. Are there things we could do to improve that law?
Obviously, I am a Federal officer, so to speak. But suggestions
that you might make that I could carry to some of my friends
who serve in the State legislature?
Ms. Webber-Brown. Actually, I think the new existing laws
that were just placed with the fast tracking if there is
ongoing criminal behavior, you know lengthy criminal behavior
and they have had prior children detained if the children are
under certain years of age. I don't really think, to me, that
part of the program is working well. The biggest obstacle is
having enough foster homes to place these children in. And then
the other one is in most of the State of California, as well as
across the United States, because I have been to at least five
others doing training on drug-endangered children, is you don't
have a good working relationship between law enforcement and
Children Services Division. And that is primarily because law
enforcement obviously have a completely different background
than Children's Services. There has been a lack of response on
Children's Services part. And because law enforcement is so
strapped for financial dollars to pay overtime and so forth and
just not enough dollars for law enforcement, you now have law
enforcement on the scene of a meth lab or a drug home at 3
a.m., with three officers waiting 2 or 3 hours for a CPS worker
to respond. And that was the whole purpose of assigning
somebody to our team. They paged out when we paged out.
Mr. Ose. Mr. Chairman, you have been very generous with
your time. I want to make sure and compliment Lieutenant
Saunders for the great work that the Sacramento County
Sheriff's Department on this recent meth bust, and I want just
a short yes or no answer. I want to make sure I understand. The
Sacramento County Sheriff's Department supports an expansion of
the HIDTA north if sufficient resources can be found to fund it
properly?
Mr. Saunders. Yes, that is correct.
Mr. Ose. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mica. I recognize the gentleman from Indiana, Mr.
Souder.
Mr. Souder. I have a series of questions as well.
Lieutenant Saunders, could you tell me are most of the labs you
deal with, meth labs, small labs in the homes like were
referred to or large labs?
Mr. Saunders. In Sacramento County at least, most of our
labs--we did over 30 labs this past calendar year--they are of
the smaller variety. Occasionally, we get to the mid-level lab.
I don't think we find all our labs, though. I am sure there are
several large labs out there. This last year we just didn't
find any. But we had over 30 labs and most of them were small.
Mr. Souder. Is a small lab basically self consumption and
small income? What constitutes where you would cross over?
Mr. Saunders. No. When I am talking about small labs, I am
talking about one that in one cook they can make 1 to 2 pounds
of methamphetamine. So it is being distributed at that level.
Mr. Souder. I don't have a concept. Does that mean it is
regional within a section of Sacramento? Can that go beyond?
Another question is how much is consumed within your HIDTA and
how much is exported?
Mr. Saunders. Those smaller labs are being consumed on a
regional basis. This particular case I mentioned earlier was
not involving a lab. That was involving a trafficking
organization probably from Mexico. And we do have a substantial
problem in that area in addition to our lab problem.
Mr. Souder. Could you explain that once? When you say
trafficking, are they trafficking in--are they converting it or
are they just being a distribution point?
Mr. Saunders. They are using it as a distribution point.
And also what we found in this one last weekend with the 13
pounds of meth, that a subsequent search warrant revealed a
location that had extensive packaging material and the cut to
dilute it and then it would be distributed from there. At this
point, we are not exactly sure where all that methamphetamine
was going, but that is what they were doing with that
particular case.
Mr. Souder. Do you know whereabouts it came from Mexico?
Mr. Saunders. From talking to the supervisor on this thing,
we feel it did have Mexican ties, yes.
Mr. Souder. Thanks. Ms. Webber-Brown, on the--how many--you
said parents are--they have a drug testing once a week and
parental counseling and the goal is family reunification. How
many parents successfully do this?
Ms. Webber-Brown. Out of 35 families last year, only 4
families reunified with their children at the end of the year.
Mr. Souder. What is the primary reasons for failure? Is it
the drug testing part or is it the failure to----
Ms. Webber-Brown. That is a big--part of that, and a number
of other things. Their drug is more important than their
children or than reunifying with their children. Many of these
parents had already lost children previous to these kids in
Butte, some in other counties, adjoining counties. The
methamphetamine has a hold on them, and it is just much easier
to continue to find their next bag of dope than to go through
all the steps necessary to reunify.
Mr. Souder. Is there a process where rights become
terminated so it can move to adoption?
Ms. Webber-Brown. That is correct. The majority of our
children are permanently adopted, especially all the children--
I have had a number of children who have been seriously injured
as a result of methamphetamine. They have long term learning
disabilities, and the majority of those children have been
adopted.
Mr. Souder. I mean not likely. I know the answer probably
to my question. But you said some of these parents have had
this occur before where they have lost their children.
Ms. Webber-Brown. That is right.
Mr. Souder. Does Child Protective Services notify a county
when a child checks into school that a parent--they get the
parents address that this is a potential problem coming?
Ms. Webber-Brown. No, that is not happening.
Mr. Souder. Is tracking possible? Is there that
sophisticated a system? I mean after it happens, clearly you've
found out.
Ms. Webber-Brown. That can happen if the parents obtained
the necessary transfer papers for the child when they left that
school district and went to the other school district. Or if
there was a way in which the schools communicated, yes.
Certainly that could be accomplished.
Mr. Souder. I have a few questions. I want to start first
with Ms. Ruppel before I move to the superintendent. We are in
the process within the next 30 to 60 days of moving through the
Education Committee the Safe and Drug Free Schools Bill as part
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. We have been
working on this for a couple of years, and it is very
controversial and very difficult. We had the original Drug-Free
Program, which has had mediocre success. We added it to Safe
and now we may add 21st Century Schools to this as well and
include mental health. The question is, is there any anti-drug
program left? But first, let me ask you, did you ever go
through any anti-drug program at school? Any kind of prevention
programs? Did they have school assemblies? Did they have the
DARE program? Did you do any?
Ms. Ruppel. I went through DARE in sixth grade. That was
the only program that I can remember in school going through.
Mr. Souder. That is the only thing you remember in anti-
drug education?
Ms. Ruppel. Yes.
Mr. Souder. What kind of impact did that have on you?
Obviously you have had problems since then. But do you believe
that would have worked better had you had a junior high and
high school followup? Did it not have much impact at all? Did
you think that is what square kids do?
Ms. Ruppel. I can't say that the DARE program had any
impact at all. The next year is when I started doing drugs and
drinking.
Mr. Souder. Did you get any signals out of your school that
there would be any consequences? One other thing that struck me
is you said you could get drugs every day at any time. Were any
of those from students?
Ms. Ruppel. Yes, that was from students.
Mr. Souder. On school grounds?
Ms. Ruppel. Yes.
Mr. Souder. Had there been a drug testing program at your
school, what do you think you would have done?
Ms. Ruppel. If there had been a drug testing program?
Mr. Souder. Yes, there is--we allowed in the 1989 Safe and
Drug-Free Schools Act an amendment that--at that time, I was
working for Senator Dan Coates and we put that in. And every
single school in the country that has put that in, while it is
not an ultimate solution, has had a dramatic drop in drug use
each year. And I wondered what you would have done had you had
a drug testing program that was random at your school.
Ms. Ruppel. I probably would have gotten caught and
somebody would have found out. There would have been some sort
of interaction between my parents and the school. Because my
parents and the school officials never found out that I was
using drugs until I went into a mental hospital because of it.
Mr. Souder. That was an extraordinary thing because at one
of the high schools in my district, I meet with high school
seniors whenever I can. And the student council president and
vice president were very much against drug testing. Then some
students started speaking out for it. When we got done, the
superintendent and principal told me that every single student
that had spoken up, several who had self-acknowledged that they
had a drug problem and everybody against the drug testing
hadn't had a drug problem. But the kids who had spoken up for
drug testing, one of them got caught in an athletic program and
it changed his life. The problem is that many people who are
against drug testing have never abused drugs. It is one of the
frustrations here. It is not to be mean. It is to try to figure
out who needs the help. Twice you said that you came back after
you had gone through the first treatment program and then you
had--the first time you went away for 3 hours. Let's see, the
first time you fell, you came back. What caused you to come
back?
Ms. Ruppel. My parents intervening.
Mr. Souder. Was that the same thing the time after
Bakersfield?
Ms. Ruppel. Yes.
Mr. Souder. Did you get--when you say your parents
intervened, how did they find out?
Ms. Ruppel. The last time I relapsed and came back, I was
going to get caught in a drug test. Inside, I was dead. So I
knew that I wasn't happy using it and I wasn't happy not using
it. But I was worse using drugs, and I couldn't do it anymore.
I came back on my own, but I also got drug tested that week and
it came up positive for cocaine a day after I had told people
that I had been using.
Mr. Souder. If there hadn't been a drug test, do you think
you would have told them?
Ms. Ruppel. Yes.
Mr. Souder. You were clearly wrestling with this, and you
said now you have actually--that is terrible about your mother
and that is a very moving story and you deserve tremendous
credit for making it through this period. What other things
happened that you haven't relapsed? What is different this
time?
Ms. Ruppel. Yes, it is different. I started becoming
honest. I started doing the things that other people in rehab
suggested.
Mr. Souder. Why?
Ms. Ruppel. Because I was tired of being sick. I was tired
of using drugs. I was tired of relapsing and getting kicked out
of my parents' house and trying to find places to live until I
could move back in. I was tired of getting in trouble. I was
tired of the way that drugs made me feel.
Mr. Souder. Do you think we can actually be successful in
treating until the person is tired and really ready to make a
commitment?
Ms. Ruppel. Sometimes. I think that if you have a teenager
in your house who is using that parents have a lot of different
options that they can take to help steer their child away from
drug use.
Mr. Souder. I thank you. I found your misdiagnosis
extremely depressing myself in how it was used and I may do
some written followup with you. Because as we try to zero in on
this, you have raised so many different questions that
challenge our assumptions of how we do that. If I could yet, I
wanted to ask Mr. Ayala, you made several statements in your--I
read through your written while you were also giving the
verbal. It is something that I have raised for a long time. I
think we do a great job of concentrating for the most part on
anti-drug education when the kids are totally agreeable. Yes, I
won't ever do drugs. And it is before they do junior high. Now
partly we have done that because the junior high and high
school programs weren't working very well. And when you get
these negative stats back, then your funding gets cutoff. But
in fact, I know we do, so this is a leading question--give
schools this option? In other words, we don't say you have to
use it for first to sixth currently. Why don't more schools use
it for junior high and high school? And I grant in my district
that most of it is driven down to junior high or below junior
high.
Mr. Ayala. I think you touched upon it, which is that we
find success there. And also you can prove to some degree that
you have reached students. But again, I think, that that is an
age that would be agreeable anyway, and they are not into it
primarily. They may live within a home that does have drugs,
but the utilization of drugs at that age is not really
happening. It is when they reach the secondary level. The
transition becomes extremely difficult from a self-contained
environment to one where it is fragmented in different
disciplines. Just as a point, I think when those students who
do get caught, that is just the tip of the iceberg. If you
multiply the number who get caught times 1,000, you are
probably more accurate. I think the stats when you survey
students are fairly accurate. You find more students utilizing
drugs at every level, particularly it increases as they go
higher up into education. The zero tolerance you mentioned and
the drug testing, I think it is a great idea. But I think the
parent needs to buy into it. I think drug tests need to be made
available at no cost to parents who wish to help their
children. It is extremely expensive to go through drug testing
every time. Having it at school as a rule is another one of
those one-fits-all systems. I think that the family needs to be
drawn in as a critical component. The family is not in the
school itself. And for the most part, particularly secondary,
there aren't that many family members participating there. The
numbers dwindle once they are beyond elementary.
Mr. Souder. Well, first let me say I actually had a number
of amendments that have become law on family involvement, and I
am really strong for family involvement. What we just heard,
though, is only 4 of the 35 in her case that family members
were really at all interested in the kids versus the
methamphetamines. One of the big problems that we have here is
that while we should encourage that and certainly exhaust it,
the fact is that as the families break down in our society, the
schools become the local parents even more. Schools are very
uncomfortable with that. Your primary goal is education, but it
is tough to educate if the system is broken. And one of the
difficult things--without getting--I want to move to one other
question, so I don't want to get on drug testing heavily here.
But it is random. You can't do uniform drug testing unless it
is random. And in fact then once you have a history of a
problem, you can do the drug testing. One of the most
controversial things happened in Michigan, and you have eluded
to it in about two or three different ways in your testimony.
It is how can you simultaneously target but not discriminate.
Because high risk populations tend to be concentrated in places
where either there is an education level lower or there is a
family composition area that is different or a past criminal
record that is different. Now in different areas, that will mix
out differently as to who that impacts. But it is certainly a
targeting question. In Michigan, they didn't want to label the
child who was the killer. You have a reference in here that in
fact kids are treated differently in court based on minority
background often from those who are of an Anglo background.
Often, quite frankly, because of either sometimes
discrimination, which I will grant, and maybe even more than
sometimes. But other times because of family composition and
income levels, where the parents actually will come and do an
investment. It is not just discrimination. How do you and the
superintendent propose that we try to get into this problem.
Because the buzz word is target, yet targeting means making
decisions that involve the word discrimination. Not necessarily
racial. I am not talking about that. Income, education and so
on. How do we balance how to target without discriminating?
Mr. Ayala. I think when you are dealing with at-risk
families, that when the target is to assist them, that it
becomes a community effort versus one component, which may be
the courts, law enforcement or education and the schools. It
needs to be unified. I know in Yolo County some of the courts
are working on family unity. When they bring in a youth, they
also bring in the family. The family is involved in a variety
of different malfunctions. It is a difficult question you've
asked. I don't have an answer for it. But I think that we need
to truly believe that these families can be helped. And I think
that if we turn the other way, as sometimes happens in schools
and in the family, and say ``that is the way it is'' and ``they
are never going to come out of it, there is no way.'' I think
we are shooting ourselves in the foot when we come to that. The
family unit is an important component, but it is one portion of
it. The other is in the school systems themselves there are
excellent programs run by individuals who have their heart in
the right place. Who have the energy beyond their school day to
do other types of activities for youth, knowing that that is
connecting and that is bringing them in. Even though the family
may be dysfunctional. And these are the programs I think we
need to support and bring to the limelight. I think we need to
unify more readily those types of programs that are there that
are working for individual youth.
Mr. Souder. Thank you very much. And just for the record,
while I propose zero tolerance in the regular school system, I
voted against legislation that results in mandatory expulsion
and just turning these kids on the street. We have to have
alternative schools and alternative solutions. Because putting
them on the street doesn't solve anything.
Mr. Ayala. If I may comment on that. I believe zero
tolerance is the first step. What happens after that is the
most critical part. And I don't think we have enough programs
to sustain zero tolerance. Thank you.
Mr. Mica. I now recognize Mr. Herger for questions.
Mr. Herger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think we are
beginning to get a feel for the magnitude of this problem. It
is a major issue. I served for several years on a then Select
Committee on Narcotics Abuse and Control, and I think it is
becoming more apparent that so much of our challenge is just
trying to get hold of this, trying to determine the scope of
it. Then we need to find out or identify those programs so we
can begin to make a difference. And I think certainly, Dr.
Ayala, you have mentioned several of them that I have noted.
Just connecting and bringing in the family and doing all of
these areas are certainly what we have to go after. And
reminding ourselves, we are never beat until we quit. Again,
this problem seems so overwhelming. It is real easy or
comfortable for us, I think, to try to put it under the carpet
and not think about it. But the fact is we have to be aware of
it and we have to be thinking about it.
So I thank you.
Mr. Ayala. You are welcome.
Mr. Herger. Ms. Webber-Brown, I want to thank you for your
involvement and the time you spend. I believe just a week ago
we spent about an hour in my office in Chico on a Saturday
afternoon, you and your husband. I thank you for sharing with
me at that time. As you mentioned then, really the program that
you are working on, as I understand it, is really just a pilot
program. It is not something that would seem so basic as
working with these children and as horrendous as this filmstrip
that you showed us, the video.
Ms. Webber-Brown. Correct.
Mr. Herger. And the incredible dangers that we see and the
horrendous life of the young children that are living within
these homes is really an aspect that in the past I don't know
if we have been that much aware of and dealing with. It is more
the interdiction as it comes in and treating it when it is here
or education. But the fact of trying to work with these young
children was really an eye opener to me. If you could just tell
me how you feel the success rate has been in this Drug-
Endangered Children program that you work in. If you could tell
us a little bit about that and how it is working and what it
looks like in the future for this program that you are involved
with.
Ms. Webber-Brown. It is extremely successful for rescuing
the children. And that was my whole goal when I started it in
1991 unofficially. And then 1993, it became official and was to
me real simple and something that should have been done across
the country, similar to domestic violence. When domestic
violence became such an issue that it was across the Nation.
The same thing with these children. And we are not really just
talking about children in meth homes but all drug homes who
were easily left behind. And the reason for that in my opinion
was myself as a police officer having tunnel vision. Being
trained to go in and look for drugs and paraphernalia and
assets and evidence and seize those things. And children were a
nuisance initially. And it was easier to pass them off to a
friend or neighbor or relative. And then when realizing that we
would be back there in 6 months or 3 months or 2 weeks and
those kids would be back in the same filthy conditions and the
same environment, and we were doing nothing to help them. So
for Butte County, the program has been extremely successful.
In short, we went to the Office of Criminal Justice and
Planning in 1995 and said Butte County is real small compared
to the rest of the State and we have a small number of meth
labs compared to the rest of the State--L.A., San Bernadino and
a number of other places. There must be thousands of children
left in these homes with nothing being done. And a study was
conducted by the Department of Justice and that in fact was
occurring. And Office of Criminal Justice provided moneys from
their Burn grant funds from OCJP to help participate in funding
these seven counties--four initially and then the other three.
But my concern now is that those moneys go away in September,
and that we are not going to abandon our program certainly, but
we are not going to be able to do what we have been doing with
it because we won't have the resources in order to do that. And
then we are being inundated with requests from other States
that are having huge meth problems as to what to do with their
children that they are finding and how do they implement that
with no resources available.
Mr. Herger. So this program working with the children
within these families where the meth labs are is something that
was pretty much started with Butte County?
Ms. Webber-Brown. Yes, it started in Butte.
Mr. Herger. And I think you mentioned that you have
actually been asked to go to some other States to share the
program with some of them?
Ms. Webber-Brown. Right. Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Utah,
Washington, DC, and several others that I just haven't had the
time to go to.
Mr. Herger. Well, thank you. Something else I was concerned
with when we were visiting was your pointing out that this is a
problem that really we are not that much aware of. That we are
becoming more aware of it, at least to the degree that it is a
problem. And I believe you mentioned that if we had programs
like this in some other areas that we would see how widespread
it perhaps is. I think you used the number of 600.
Ms. Webber-Brown. Right.
Mr. Herger. And was that just for Butte County?
Ms. Webber-Brown. Yes. 601 actually as of last week.
Mr. Herger. Would you think there would be a corresponding
number for adjoining counties if we had a program like this?
Ms. Webber-Brown. I am certain of that. In the adjacent
counties--for instance, Yuba and Sutter Counties just to the
south had 44 labs in 1999, this past year. They have no Drug-
Endangered Children Program in place. They do not have a CPS
worker assigned to their narcotics officers. And they do not
have a protocol in place. And just as an example, a year ago we
had a meth lab in Butte County which led to search warrants in
Yuba County, just over the line. We had 10 kids in two
structures in a meth lab that were not detained and no program
in place in that county in which to deal with those children.
Mr. Herger. And unless there is future funding, this
program will terminate in September.
Ms. Webber-Brown. Or diminish a great deal.
Mr. Herger. Lieutenant Saunders, my colleague and friend,
Congressman Ose, asked a couple of times some questions about
perhaps a need that we have of expanding the program that you
are doing and working so well on and leading in some of the
counties to the south of us perhaps in our northern California
areas. I have a sheriff, Charlie Byrd, who I introduced
earlier. I was just in a meeting with him as a matter of fact
in Yreka here just on Saturday evening. The sheriff made it a
point to come up to me and mention, even though he wasn't
testifying here, of how important this was up in their county.
That he knew of the program going on in Shasta County and
Butte, but that he wanted--he was asking that we not forget
about him and not forget about them and their families and
their problem up there. I am sure that he is speaking for all
our adjoining counties. So I am wondering if--I believe you
mentioned you have a budget of--I forget, $1.6 million or
whatever that you mentioned. Do you have any idea what it would
take to expand it up into Congressman Ose's--I believe he has 8
counties and I have 10 counties up to the north. Any ballpark?
Mr. Saunders. You know, we just started a program within
the last few months, so I would think it would take at least
that much money to go to the next level to the north, and I
certainly support that. Because the drugs--we have seen a lot
of them coming from Mexico and the distribution points are all
over the State. It seems to me in my opinion that if we are
effectively going to fight this problem we have, that we would
have to do it not only statewide, but even up into Oregon and
Washington or north of that. And I would think that it would
take at least as much money to do the next northern counties up
there as we have down here.
Mr. Herger. And again, I am asking the questions. I am sure
you are just getting going in your own program. But just off
the top of your head, would you think maybe an expansion of the
current HIDTA we have or an additional HIDTA for that area? Do
you have any----
Mr. Saunders. I think if you are looking at eight counties,
I think a new HIDTA up there would be fine. If not, an
expansion of the current one down here with the appropriate
funding for that HIDTA would work. And once again, I think our
budget from our HIDTA currently in Sacramento is about $1.2 to
about $1.6 million.
Mr. Herger. Very good. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Mica. I would like to thank each of our witnesses for
appearing on the first panel today and also providing this
insight testimony to our subcommittee. I will yield a second to
Mr. Ose.
Mr. Ose. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to move that
the witnesses written testimony be made a part of the record.
Mr. Mica. Without objection. So ordered.
Mr. Ose. And then also would it be possible to leave the
record open for 2 weeks for additional questions?
Mr. Mica. Without objection. So ordered. And we may be
submitting additional questions to the witnesses or if we have
additional testimony or information that you would like
submitted to the record upon request, that will be so ordered.
I would like to again thank each of the witnesses,
particularly you, Ms. Ruppel. I am sure your mother would be
very proud of you in hoping to take what has been a family
tragedy and turning it into something positive for your future.
And also hopefully today, you helped affect the lives of other
young people who are facing this challenge. So we are very
pleased that you joined us and gave your personal testimony.
Thank you so much and we wish you well.
And to the other witnesses, we thank you for your
information. If there is background you would like to submit
for the record and we may have additional questions and we will
do that. So at this point, I will excuse this panel and call
the second panel.
Staff will go ahead and give out the name tags. The second
panel today consists of Mr. McGregor Scott, the district
attorney at Shasta County. Another witness on that panel is
Sheriff Clay Parker of Tehema County, CA. We also have Sheriff
Jim Denney, sheriff out of Sutter County, CA. Another sheriff
is Gerald Shadinger of Colusa County, CA. A personal witness,
Mr. Bill Ruzzamenti, and he is the director of the California
Central Valley HIDTA. Also testifying is Mr. Gilbert Bruce,
Director of the Drug Enforcement Administration located in San
Francisco, CA, and Mr. Paul Seave, the U.S. attorney for the
Eastern District of California.
As I explained to the other panelists we had in our first
panel, this is an investigations and oversight subcommittee of
Congress, and we do swear in our witnesses. So if I could ask
the witnesses to please stand and raise your right hands. Do
you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give
before this subcommittee of Congress is the whole truth and
nothing but the truth?
Answered in the affirmative.
I would like to welcome each of the witnesses on this
panel. It is a rather large panel. We are asking that you do
limit your oral presentation to the committee to 5 minutes. If
you have additional lengthy statement or documentation you
would like to be made part of the record upon request, it will
be entered into the record.
With that, I am pleased to recognize the first witness
today, Mr. McGregor Scott, who is the district attorney of
Shasta County. Mr. Scott, you are recognized.
Mr. Scott Right here, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mica. Yes, sir. Thank you. Welcome, and you are
recognized.
STATEMENT OF McGREGOR SCOTT, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SHASTA COUNTY
Mr. Scott. Thank you. I want to thank the members of the
subcommittee for coming to the North Valley to hear this
testimony today about the epidemic of methamphetamine in our
communities. I have submitted to you a formal statement with
specific information and statistics. In particular, my formal
statement provides you with details about the Shasta County
Methamphetamine Task Force, a community-based coalition, which
I believe can serve as a model for other communities in the
battle against methamphetamine.
In addition, my formal statement provides you with the
details of the high level of cooperation and teamwork which
exists between local law enforcement agencies and State law
enforcement agencies in the methamphetamine fight.
The points I wish to convey to you today in this brief
opening statement are fourfold. One, we have a tremendous
problem with methamphetamine in the North State. Two, we as law
enforcement are all working aggressively to combat the problem.
Three, we come from communities which are committed to working
together to combat this problem. And four, we need the help of
the Federal Government in this fight.
There are two specific actions which I believe the Federal
Government can take to join in the fight. First, a regional
office of the Drug Enforcement Agency should be opened as soon
as practical in the North State. Second, the Central Valley
HIDTA should undertake an additional initiative to expand into
the North State. I look forward to our dialog here today, the
result of which hopefully will be these two actions.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Scott follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6900.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6900.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6900.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6900.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6900.036
Mr. Mica. Thank you, Mr. Scott.
I now recognize Sheriff Clay Parker of Tehema County, CA.
STATEMENT OF SHERIFF CLAY PARKER, TEHEMA COUNTY, CA
Mr. Parker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I also want to
thank all of you for allowing me to testify here today before
you to discuss a problem that as you can see doesn't just face
northern California. It is a national problem as well. I want
to take this opportunity to provide you with information on the
North State and what we have been doing for the past 20 years
regarding the methamphetamine problem.
I appear before you not only as the sheriff of Tehema
County, but as a past narcotics officer and task force
commander, and I have actively been involved in methamphetamine
investigations for the last 10 years and actually
methamphetamine cases for the last 20 years.
I have seen the adverse effects of persons making, using
and dealing methamphetamine, and what it does to the families
and communities. I do need to make something very clear at this
point, though. And that is that the problem is not limited to a
select few counties in the North State. This is a problem of
the whole North State.
Before I came to you, I thought what we needed to do was
point out what we have done on a local level, and what we have
done is, as you have heard already, we have had DARE programs
and there is curriculum now in the middle schools and high
schools which we are expanding up in our counties already. We
have done undercover operations, childcare programs, reverse
stings, asset forfeiture, and Mr. Scott just mentioned about a
DEA office up in the North State. Right now mainly when we do
asset forfeiture cases on the Federal level, the DEA doesn't
handle it. An IRS agent out of Redding does. And we personally
would like to see a North State office of DEA be added.
On a local issue, in 1990 we didn't have a sustained effort
against methamphetamine and other drugs because none of the
local agencies had the manpower or resources to put it
together. So in 1990, we formed a local task force, which
consisted of the Sheriff's Department, Probation, DA and all
the police departments in the county. As we worked that task
force, we saw that there was a major problem with the kids, and
the kids' access to drugs throughout the community, and we also
saw that a lot of the parents in our communities were ignoring
the problem and in fact saying there was not a drug problem in
our local schools.
Well, in 1995 and the first part of 1996, we did an
undercover buy program in the Red Bluff Union High School
District, and we ended up arresting 52 people that were dealing
and using the kids of our schools with methamphetamine. It was
an extremely successful program and it kind of woke up our
communities. The other thing through that time is that we have
seen that it is just not a local county problem or a North
State problem. We see with Interstate 5 and 99--again, this has
all been brought up--that a lot of these narcotics and
methamphetamine are coming from the major metropolitan areas
such as San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego. And again, it is
more of a regional problem. When I talk regional, I am talking
about this Central Valley HIDTA that needs to be extended into
the North State.
Currently, we have in Tehema and Glenn County what is
called TAGMET, which is the Tehema and Glenn Methamphetamine
Enforcement Team. And what we did was we saw that we couldn't
just do it on our own in counties. We then formed TAGMET, and
now we have the California Department of Justice Bureau of
Narcotics Enforcement, an agent in charge, and then we have the
Sheriff's Department and Probation Departments, DA's from Glenn
and Tehema on this, along with the CHP, California Highway
Patrol from Willows and Red Bluff, and the local police
departments from Red Bluff, Corning, Willows and Orland. And we
have seen that that has been very beneficial. In 1999 alone,
the TAGMET agents seized 27.5 pounds of meth, 4.5 pounds of
cocaine, 48 pounds of marijuana, and 4,300 marijuana plants, 5
grams of heroin, and 124 liters of meth in solution, which
probably would have worked out somewhere between 45 and 85
pounds of finished methamphetamine. The street value of these
substances seized was in excess of over $10 million if it
actually had made it to the street.
The other thing you have to look at when I give you these
stats, compared to larger counties it doesn't sound like much.
But you have to remember that Tehema County is 55,000 is our
population. Glenn County is 27,000. So this per capita, there
is definitely a major problem.
We are constantly in contact with special agent in charge,
Jack Nair, the California Department of Justice Bureau of
Narcotics Enforcement, and Jack is here. He has 10 northern
California counties including Tehema. He has got Lasson,
Modock, Pumas, Glenn, Trinity, and Siskiyou also. He can
validate and talk to you about the problem we have in the North
State and how we need to get Federal intervention to help us.
We believe through our cooperative efforts at this time
that we have done everything possible that we can do on a local
level. And again, what I am requesting and what we are
requesting in the North State is that a DEA office be opened in
the North State, hopefully in Redding. And that at some time
that we also be considered in probably expanding the Central
Valley HIDTA into the North State.
We talked about the education of the youth, and I preach
this every time I go to a school or anything else. And that is
that the youth of today are our leaders of tomorrow. So we need
to do everything in our power today to help them so that they
will become productive members in the future. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Sheriff Parker follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6900.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6900.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6900.039
Mr. Mica. Thank you for your testimony.
We will now recognize Sheriff Jim Denney of Sutter County,
CA. You are recognized, sir.
STATEMENT OF SHERIFF JIM DENNEY, SUTTER COUNTY, CA
Mr. Denney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning. My name
is Jim Denney. I am the sheriff, coroner, and public
administrator of Sutter County. For your information, Sutter
County is a small rural county, probably one of the smallest
counties in the State, located in the heart of the Sacramento
Valley and immediately north of Sacramento County. The county
encompasses 608 square miles and holds nearly 77,000 residents.
The county has an agriculturally based economy and unemployment
runs as high as 18 percent during the non-growing season. Our
county seat is Yuba City, which is located on the west side of
the Feather River, directly across from the city of Marysville,
which is the county seat of Yuba County, population 69,000.
Combined, both cities make up the twin cities for the Sutter/
Yuba County region.
This region shares many services, which includes a two-
county drug enforcement task force known as the Narcotic
Enforcement Team or NET-5. The team is comprised of law
enforcement officers from the two sheriff's departments and two
police departments in the region and is supervised by an agent
from the California Department of Justice, Bureau of Narcotic
Enforcement. NET-5 is one of the oldest DE task forces in the
State of California, and I have two deputies assigned to that
unit.
I am here today to present to you from my perspective the
methamphetamine problem in the Sutter and Yuba County region of
northern California, and what I believe is needed to address
that issue. My expertise in this issue is that of a career law
enforcement officer with 28 years of experience, the last 24\1/
2\ years with the Sutter County Sheriff's Department. From 1987
through 1989, I was assigned as a detective sergeant to the
NET-5 task force as second command of that unit.
The methamphetamine problem has been a longstanding issue
in Sutter and Yuba Counties since early 1980's. Back then it
was manufactured by mostly outlaw motorcycle gangs like the
Hell's Angels and loose knit associates with little or no
organization. Rarely was large quantity manufacturing occurring
on a regular basis, and most seized methamphetamine labs
consisted of quantities measured in ounces.
Today, organized Mexican crime groups have largely taken
over the major manufacturing of methamphetamine, moving
chemicals, finished product and money back and forth across our
border with Mexico. Back in 1988, NET-5 seized a total of five
methamphetamine labs in the Sutter and Yuba County region. Fast
forward 11 years to when NET-5 seized 43 meth labs last year
alone. I might also add that this year, since January 1st, in
the first 2 months of this year we have already seized 16 labs
in the region. At that rate, we will be up close to 100 labs by
the end of the year.
I admit that most of these labs were of the local variety,
commonly known as Beavis and Butthead labs, but an alarming
number of sophisticated laboratories are emerging. Last year,
NET-5 conducted a multi-agency undercover operation known as
Operation Reunited, which targeted the drug activity in the
Sutter and Yuba region. A total of 16 local, State and Federal
law enforcement agencies participated in the 4-month operation.
This intensive operation resulted in 259 arrests, 15
methamphetamine laboratories seized, and over $43,000 in U.S.
currency and two vehicles taken for asset forfeiture. Nearly 8
pounds of methamphetamine and three-quarters of a pound of tar
heroin was seized during this operation including a small
quantity of cocaine and marijuana. The combined street value of
all drugs seized at this time totaled over $270,000.
During this operation, a major methamphetamine laboratory
was established in my county by an organized Mexican crime
group from the San Jose area. This resulted in round-the-clock
surveillance by various agencies involved in Operation Reunited
over a 2-month period. The surveillance would not have been
possible by local resources had Operation Reunited participants
not been in the area. When the lab was seized, in addition to
several pounds of chemicals and various apparatuses, it
included eight 22-liter round bottom flasks, which are
considered to be significant in the manufacturing of the
methamphetamine. This lab was capable of producing 100 pounds
of methamphetamine per cooking operation. The street value of
100 pounds of methamphetamine after being diluted and packaged
for sale on the street would exceed $3 million.
The question is how do we fix this? In my humble opinion,
what we don't need is another task force at the Federal level
to which I would be required to assign personnel from my
existing staff. I presently assign two deputies to the local
drug task force in our area, one of which is funded by the
Federal anti-drug abuse enforcement funds or the Edward Burn
Memorial Fund. The other deputy is funded out of my existing
budget. I do not have the luxury of having another one or two
deputies to send to another task force like a HIDTA unless full
funding for these positions is included. What I need is
additional long-term full funding for increased manpower and
resources to address this problem. I am not talking about a
Cops Fast or a Cops More or any other limited term funding
which pays only a portion of the annual salary and terminates
after 3 years. This leaves the local agency with the option of
covering the full cost of the law enforcement officer or laying
the officer off. What I need is permanent funding that pays the
full salary of the additional personnel and is guaranteed to
continue for a long time to come. I also do not need to send
local law enforcement personnel to work on a regional task
force that involves several counties. I have enough problems to
deal with in my own county and I need all my resources to stay
locally to address that problem.
What I am saying to this honorable committee is that if you
want to address the drug crisis in northern California, then
give us the long-term funding that we need to fund additional
personnel to enhance our current operation and make it more
effective. Additionally, I strongly recommend enhanced funding
for programs supported by the national organizations like Fight
Crime and Invest in Kids, of which I am proud to say that I am
a State advisory panel member. This group advocates increased
support for early childhood and after school intervention
programs for at-risk youth to deter them from criminal activity
later in life. Combined with strong law enforcement, problems
like drug manufacturing and distribution can be impacted. I
thank you for your time and consideration on this issue.
[The prepared statement of Sheriff Denney follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6900.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6900.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6900.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6900.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6900.044
Mr. Mica. Thank you for your testimony. I now recognize
Sheriff Gerald Shadinger with Calusa County, CA. Welcome. You
are recognized.
STATEMENT OF SHERIFF GERALD SHADINGER, COLUSA COUNTY, CA
Mr. Shadinger. Thank you. Honorable Members, good morning.
I appreciate being here. I am largely here to support my
neighboring sheriffs in Sutter today and the Glenn County Task
Force. I come from a little different perspective, and my
perspective is this. I will give a little background. We are a
very small county north of this county along I-5. I have some
things that will be passed up to the Members later, but this is
an example of what is in my evidence room right now. These are
tubs of methamphetamine and cocaine that aren't my problem from
a smaller world perspective. These were taken off of Interstate
5 by our officers, CHP, and the task force itself made the
seizures. But I am stuck with a bill of $200 a pound to dispose
of this stuff and I have got hundreds and hundreds of pounds in
these tubs.
I think largely what should be brought to the attention of
this committee is that the drugs that I do have or that we have
seized are largely an Oregon and Washington problem. North of
here, you have all the freeway systems that come together and
that channel for the next 200 miles to the Oregon border. On
Interstate 5, 80 percent of the arrests that we make are from
Washington residents and Oregon residents.
We have been innovative in the past in supporting the task
force. We have actually gotten people to turn around and we
follow them to Oregon and dealt with the Oregon authorities and
nothing materialized to it on the last two occasions. But
again, we find a lack of effort of coordination. And from a
small county perspective, I have to say that we do need a DEA
presence in the North State. I would like to see the Central
Valley HIDTA extended all the way to the Oregon border for the
purposes of being able to call the folks up when these drugs
are headed to Oregon and Washington.
To me, that would say it all as far as in a context of this
is a Federal interstate problem. It isn't necessarily to us a
regional problem in my county.
I will say that in 1993--and the reason I bring this up is
a preface to my next thing--but 1993, was when a couple of
sheriffs went back and visited with Janet Reno when the Burn
Fund was at risk back in Washington. We have these hearings
periodically and everybody wants to know what is funded and we
get new Congressman and so on. The Burn Fund was at great risk.
We met with the sheriff's throughout the southwest to keep the
Burn Fund intact. That is the only thing that runs my task
force. I am not State funded. I don't have a State officer in
my task force. It is strictly Burn Federal money that keeps me
currently going.
I think in rural counties what you have to realize is we
don't have the resources unless the program is funded largely
by the feds and pass-through money to the State of California
such as OCJP. We would be non-existent in any of our efforts.
So, therefore, I have to reiterate that we are asking for a
coordinated effort to extend the HIDTA to the Oregon border,
and that would be specifically six counties north. Thank you.
Mr. Mica. Thank you for your testimony. We will now hear
from Bill Ruzzamenti.
Mr. Ruzzamenti is the director of the California Central
Valley HIDTA.
STATEMENT OF BULL RUZZAMENTI, DIRECTOR, CENTRAL CALIFORNIA
VALLEY HIDTA
Mr. Ruzzamenti. Mr. Chairman and distinguished committee
members, I too appreciate appearing before you today to talk
about the newest HIDTA, the Central Valley HIDTA in California.
I would also like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the
northern California sheriffs, which were an integral part in
making the Central Valley HIDTA possible. They joined with the
sheriffs from the Central Valley and were very active and
instrumental in assisting us in bringing about the Central
Valley HIDTA, and for that we very much appreciate it.
The Central Valley HIDTA is a methamphetamine HIDTA, which
means its sole narcotic focus is the methamphetamine problem in
the Central Valley. And because of that, there are several
unique characteristics to the HIDTA and requirements to
membership in the HIDTA that are mandated by ONDCP and which we
deal with in operating the Central Valley HIDTA.
Our initial budget was only $800,000. And we have currently
a supplemental budget of $687,000, which looks good for fiscal
year 2000. That is not finalized, but I am very hopeful and it
does look good that we are going to get those funds. However,
that being said, that is still only $1,487,000 to spread
amongst nine counties involved in the HIDTA. We have all the
counties, as was said here before, from Sacramento south to
Kern County and all those that border the 99 and Highway 5
corridor down to Kern County. So the resources we have are
incredibly limited.
ONDCP itself has indicated that their perception of minimal
funding for HIDTA operations is $2.5 million. We are still way
below that, even with the supplemental that we currently have.
I have submitted my testimony and I would be glad to answer
questions when the time is appropriate.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ruzzamenti follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6900.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6900.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6900.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6900.048
Mr. Mica. Thank you.
We will now recognize Mr. Gilbert Bruce, Director of the
Drug Enforcement Administration of San Francisco. Welcome. You
are recognized, sir.
STATEMENT OF GILBERT BRUCE, DIRECTOR, DRUG ENFORCEMENT
ADMINISTRATION, SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Mr. Bruce. Thank you. Chairman Mica, Representative Herger
and Representative Ose and Representative Souder, I too
appreciate the opportunity to speak before you today and
discuss this crisis in northern California.
With the committee's permission, I would like to summarize
my rather lengthy testimony that was submitted for the record.
Mr. Mica. Without objection. All of the complete written
statements will be made part of the record.
Mr. Bruce. Thank you, sir. This crisis stems primarily from
the regions sustained growth in methamphetamine production and
trafficking and the continuing abuse of this illicit drug. But
methamphetamine is not the only illegal drug adversely
affecting California' northern counties. There is a robust
production and trade in marijuana, a resurgent trafficking in
cocaine and crack cocaine, and the persistent market for black
tar heroin. The consequences of the abuse, production and
trafficking of these drugs is enormous. Individuals who abuse
any one of these drugs usually creates havoc within families
and within our communities as we have heard this morning. The
production techniques of drug manufacturers pose immediate
risks for their neighbors' health and to the environment. The
often violent tactics of traffickers endangers the safety of
all of us.
Methamphetamine production, trafficking and abuse pose the
most serious drug threat to northern California. The vast
majority of methamphetamine available in the United States is
produced and trafficked by Mexican groups that operate large
laboratories both in California and in Mexico. However,
domestic production of methamphetamine by U.S. citizens is also
a significant and growing problem. The production level of
these laboratories, often described as mom and pop labs, is
relatively low. However, each represents a safety and
environmental hazard.
Methamphetamine is a very simple drug to produce. A recipe
can be downloaded off the Internet. A user can go to retail
stores and easily purchase the vast majority of these
ingredients necessary to produce it. Precursor chemicals such
as pseudoephedrine can be extracted from common over-the-
counter cold medications. The proliferation of these mom and
pop laboratories has imposed terrible burdens. There is an
increased abuse and trafficking of methamphetamine. There is
also the fact that the highly toxic and flammable chemicals
involved in making these rudimentary laboratories ticking time
bombs requiring specialized and expensive clean-ups.
Each pound of methamphetamine produced in a clandestine
laboratory generates up to 5 pounds of toxic waste. Clandestine
laboratory operators routinely dump these wastes into
backyards, open fields, sewage systems and streams to cover up
the evidence of their illegal operations. The poisonous sludge
from these sites seeps into streams, rivers and drinking water
sources.
Just in the eastern district of California, 486
laboratories were seized in 1999. This total includes 9
laboratories in Shasta County, 14 in Sacramento, 18 in Sutter,
21 in Yuba and 32 in Butte County as reported to the Western
States Information Network.
Both production and trafficking and the abuse of
methamphetamine generate an intolerable amount of violence
within our communities. There are thousands of incidents of
domestic and child abuse prompted by one person's
methamphetamine habit. For instance, advocates for children
remind us that substance abuse and in particular
methamphetamine abuse puts young children in danger constantly.
And for methamphetamine, as for most every other type of
illicit drug, there is the violence propagated by traffickers
as they conduct their illicit business. This happens at all
levels of trafficking, but most noticeably at the street level.
Marijuana cultivation and trafficking is flourishing in
northern California as well. The region is ripe with indoor and
outdoor growths producing high grade cincemia and commercial
grade marijuana. There is also the continuing influx of
marijuana imported from Mexico. This production and trafficking
of marijuana has been propelled in part by passage of the 1996
California Proposition 215. Many marijuana traffickers have
claimed protection from prosecution under this law, despite the
fact that under Federal law where marijuana is listed as a
Schedule 1 drug, there is no basis for distinguishing medical
marijuana trafficking from marijuana trafficking generally.
Marijuana trafficking is a violation of Federal law.
Indoor and outdoor growths of marijuana are found
throughout northern California. DEA helps fund and is a
participant in the Campaign Against Marijuana Planting Program
in California. And in 1999, the CAMP Program eradicated over
3,500 indoor and outdoor marijuana growths and destroyed nearly
1 million marijuana plants.
With the strong soaring popularity of cheaper
methamphetamines, some experts just a few years ago heralded
the demise of cocaine. These predictions were overstated. While
methamphetamine clearly has eclipsed cocaine as the drug of
choice, there has been a recent resurgence in the demand and
supply of cocaine and crack cocaine. Today, cocaine is readily
available in much of California. Cocaine is trafficked
primarily by drug organizations based in Mexico, but there is
some direct involvement by Colombian-based organizations also.
Cocaine is primarily being shipped from Mexico to northern
California via Interstate 5 and Highway 99 from the Los Angeles
Basin.
There is also a persistent market for Mexican black tar
heroin in northern California. Black tar heroin is the dominant
type of heroin trafficked in the region. Southeast Asia,
Southwest Asia and Colombia heroin are rarely encountered in
the area. Black tar heroin is usually trafficked by
organizations based in Mexico. Much of the black tar heroin is
thought to originate in the state of Michoacan, Mexico, where
heroin processing laboratories are believed to exist.
Sacramento and other northern California cities are destination
and trans-shipment points for this heroin as it moves up from
Mexico and southern California.
There is an emerging concern over the import of opium from
Southeast Asia also. Between January 1998 and July 1999, more
than 1 ton of opium in or destined for northern California was
seized. The majority of these seizures were made from parcels
originating in Laos or Thailand and sent to California
addresses in Redding, Madeira, west Sacramento and other
northern California cities.
Other drugs threaten the livelihoods and lives of people
residing in the northern counties. Supplies of LSD are
available in northern California. The increasing popularity of
this drug among youth remains a significant concern. There is
also abuse of MDMA or ecstacy and GHB, gammahydroxybuterate,
especially at grave parties that take place in almost all of
our cities.
DEA's goal is to disrupt and ultimately dismantle the major
drug trafficking organizations operating in northern
California. We focus our energies foremost on the burgeoning
plague posed by methamphetamine while continuing to target
marijuana, cocaine and heroin trafficking organizations. In
pursuing this goal, DEA continues to work closely with other
Federal, State and local law enforcement agencies throughout
northern California through the Organized Crime Drug
Enforcement Task Force, the Central Valley High Intensity Drug
Trafficking Area [HIDTA], and State and local task forces. In
particular, we continue our close cooperation with California's
Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement. DEA continues to pursue
methamphetamine manufacturers and traffickers operating in the
northern counties. Parallel to these efforts, we continue the
aggressive targeting of major road chemical supply houses and
pseudoephedrine suppliers operating in northern California. We
continue to target and investigate indoor and outdoor marijuana
growths throughout the northern counties of California. These
efforts involve close coordination and cooperation with our
State and local counterparts. Our continued efforts to reduce
the threat posed by cocaine and crack cocaine in northern
California involve identifying, targeting and dismantling the
transportation cells moving cocaine throughout the area. We
continue to target and investigate organizations trafficking in
black tar heroin or producing or selling LSD, MDMA and other
dangerous drugs.
DEA specifically targets drug-related violence through our
Mobile Enforcement Team Program. The MET is a special DEA
enforcement group trained to assist local communities in
fighting drug-related violence. DEA has advertised the MET
program to local law enforcement officials in each of
California's northern counties and is prepared to respond to a
community's call for assistance. Already the MET has been
deployed to Yuba County as part of the Operation Reunited that
the Sheriff talked about. This 3-month deployment, which
concluded on July 2, 1999, resulted in the arrest of 26
individuals and seizure of 7\1/2\ pounds of methamphetamine, 25
pounds of processed marijuana and small quantities of cocaine
and heroin and nine weapons.
This concludes my remarks. I would like to thank you for
allowing me to testify today and I would certainly be open for
any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bruce follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6900.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6900.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6900.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6900.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6900.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6900.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6900.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6900.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6900.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6900.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6900.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6900.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6900.061
Mr. Mica. Thank you.
And we will suspend questions until we have heard from our
final witness, which is Mr. Paul Seave. He is the U.S. attorney
in the Eastern District of California. Welcome. We recognize
you.
STATEMENT OF PAUL SEAVE, U.S. ATTORNEY, EASTERN DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA
Mr. Seave. We are the 10th largest by size; we are the 8th
largest by population. And perhaps surprisingly, we have the
17th worst crime rate among the four judicial districts. In
California, we have the worst crime rate among the four in the
State.
I would like to briefly outline the methamphetamine problem
which others have mentioned, and then highlight two of the
various strategies that we are pursuing to respond to the meth
problem here.
Meth poses the primary drug threat in California and almost
every State west of the Mississippi. Historically, as has been
mentioned, meth use was found primarily in California produced
by outlaw motorcycle gangs within the State. Approximately 6
years ago, however, poly drug organizations in Mexico moved
into this market. They possessed the resources to finance and
staff methamphetamine laboratories that could produce
quantities far in excess of the multi-gram and pound
laboratories of the past. These super labs can manufacture 10
pounds, 50 pounds and even 100 pounds of methamphetamine per
production session. It is estimated that well over half,
perhaps as much as 75 percent of the methamphetamine used
nationally is manufactured in California. These super labs are
located primarily in the southern half of this district and the
Los Angeles area.
Not surprisingly, California is now referred to by law
enforcement across the Nation as the source country for
methamphetamine. California's methamphetamine is primarily
manufactured with chemicals purchased domestically from
American businesses. The main precursor chemical is
pseudoephedrine. This chemical, which is also a main ingredient
in over-the-counter allergy and cold tablets is imported from
Europe, India and China by large East Coast companies,
manufactured into pills and then sold to wholesalers across the
United States. These wholesalers in turn sell to retailers such
as small convenience and liquor stores, and these retailers
sell cases of these pills to the operators of the
methamphetamine laboratories. The wholesalers also mail cases
of these pills directly to meth traffickers.
Alarmingly, the quantity of pseudoephedrine imported into
the United States has nearly tripled between 1990 and 1996.
Meaning that unless the citizens of this country are tripling
the incidence of colds and allergies, we have a pretty good
idea that all the pseudoephedrine is going to meth labs and to
meth users in the United States.
I would like to highlight two aspects of our anti-meth
strategy. The first has been to focus on the businesses that
distribute pseudoephedrine and other chemicals to the
manufacturers of meth. Criminal prosecution of these businesses
requires proof of intent. For example, that the defendant knew
or had reasonable cause to believe that the chemicals would be
used to manufacture methamphetamine. Prosecuting these
businesses civilly requires a lesser quantum of proof, such as
that the defendant distributed the chemicals with reckless
disregard for the illegal uses to which they would be put, or
that the defendant failed to report a suspicious transaction,
or that the defendant failed to document the purchaser's
identity. It is important to remember that such enforcement
actions, criminal or civil, can be difficult because those who
sell these legal chemicals for illegal purposes go to great
lengths to enhance their appearance as legitimate business
people. Notwithstanding these difficulties, experience has
convinced us that prosecuting a chemical trafficker reduces
methamphetamine production and distribution to a far greater
degree than the traditional prosecution of those operating
clandestine labs. Indeed, the price of pills containing
pseudoephedrine has skyrocketed since we implemented this
strategy and the purity level of meth has plummeted.
And I might just mention that right now in Federal court in
this district, there are two trials going on. These are the two
most significant cases that we have charged to date in this
area.
A second aspect of our strategy has been to enhance our
capacity to collect drug-related intelligence from the more
than 100 police agencies in this district, to analyze that
information, and to make that information and analysis
available to all agencies. For example, it is critical that law
enforcement comprehensively collect discarded pill bottles from
meth labs and dump sites, determine the distributors of those
bottles, and notify the distributors so that they can take
preventive measures or face future enforcement action. This is
a resource intensive and complex project requiring the
participation and coordination of numerous agencies. We are
well on our way to implementing that strategy.
In conclusion, methamphetamine, unlike most other illegal
drugs, is produced primarily within our borders and primarily
within our State. This means that the so-called legitimate
businesses that supply the chemicals needed by meth
manufacturers are within the reach of U.S. law enforcement. We
are now focusing on these businesses and thus far we have met
with some success. Again, thank you for allowing me to address
you, and I look forward to any questions you may have.
Mr. Mica. Thank you. And we will start with some questions.
First, Mr. Scott, did you have to leave early?
Mr. Scott. I'll have to depart here soon.
Mr. Mica. OK. Well hopefully we will be through by that
time. I just wanted to make certain that we didn't detain you.
I have some questions. First of all, on the expansion of the
HIDTA, you have a current request in for what? $2.5 million for
the existing HIDTA?
Mr. Ruzzamenti. The existing HIDTA, currently the budget
will be $1.487 million for 2000. We have not put in our 2001
request yet. I have been advised by ONDCP though that next
year's funding will be level funding and not to anticipate any
more than we got this year unless there is another enhancement,
in which case we could get more than the $1.4.
Mr. Mica. And you are saying it takes somewhere in the
range of $2.5 million to operate just the HIDTA that you have
now adequately?
Mr. Ruzzamenti. That is ONDCP's estimate.
Mr. Mica. Right. I mean for your side of it. Are you
requesting $1.4 and getting $1.4, or are you requesting more?
Mr. Ruzzamenti. Well, I would anticipate that what--
logistically the way we would do this is we will put in the
request because we have been mandated by ONDCP to request level
funding of $1.4. And then I will do a supplemental requesting
that additional $1 million.
Mr. Mica. Describe for me how you are spending the money
that you are getting. Is there administrative costs and is it
distributed to the different agencies? How is it broken down?
Mr. Ruzzamenti. Currently, we have three enforcement
initiatives. One in Bakersfield, one in Fresno and one in
Modesto. And they are all enforcement methamphetamine task
forces that are involved in complex methamphetamine----
Mr. Mica. Are they getting money?
Mr. Ruzzamenti. They are getting money.
Mr. Mica. How much of the $1.4?
Mr. Ruzzamenti. They get right now roughly $200,000 and
some each. It varies from----
Mr. Mica. OK. That times three is $600,000 or $700,000.
Mr. Ruzzamenti. It is about $750,000.
Mr. Mica. OK. Where is the balance going?
Mr. Ruzzamenti. Then we have the intelligence task force in
Sacramento.
Mr. Mica. How much?
Mr. Ruzzamenti. It is getting about the same, about
$250,000.
Mr. Mica. OK. We are up to $1 million. The balance?
Mr. Ruzzamenti. And then the balance, we are setting up an
intelligence center in Fresno which will coordinate the
intelligence amongst the HIDTA activities going on in the other
initiatives. That is being set up and that again is about
another $250,000 for this year's funding. And then the rest is
administrative and operational funding.
Mr. Mica. Are there any amounts of money going to the
individual sheriff's departments for employing additional
personnel?
Mr. Ruzzamenti. No, not at this time. We have funding going
to the sheriff's departments to pay for overtime.
Mr. Mica. Well, you've heard that Sheriff Denney says that
he just doesn't want to send more folks to another task force
and meetings and deplete what he has now. If we expand this, we
are going to need additional money and we don't want to divide
this up to a lesser amount. Sheriff Shadinger has spoken about
his only help is the Burn Grant.
Mr. Shadinger. The Burn Grant is how we operate. There is
no general fund money in small counties. That is the problem.
Mr. Mica. OK.
Mr. Shadinger. And if I could just make a comment?
Mr. Mica. Go ahead.
Mr. Shadinger. In talking with a couple of Central Valley
sheriffs that are already participating in the Central Valley
HIDTA, they are at a point where they know it is going to cost
them money now out of their budget.
Mr. Mica. To participate in that.
Mr. Shadinger. The $1.4 is not adequate. If I didn't make
it clear before, I don't want to encroach upon that $1.4. We
need additional money for it to be expanded.
Mr. Mica. Mr. Bruce, you described and I have heard
described today that a lot of the trafficking in meth and other
substances is coming out of Mexico. What are we doing to stop
this stuff before it reaches our borders?
Mr. Bruce. Again, a lot of that addresses our situation now
in terms of resources. Because over the last few years, between
the governments Southwest Border Initiative and the Caribbean
Initiative, a great many of our resources at DEA have been
dedicated to those initiatives. And I think we are----
Mr. Mica. Have you remained level in funding and personnel
or increased? Give me a snapshot over the last 4 or 5 years?
Mr. Bruce. Well, DEA has gotten substantial----
Mr. Mica. Your resources here.
Mr. Bruce. Here in the division?
Mr. Mica. Yes.
Mr. Bruce. Virtually been flat. Some increases, very small
increases.
Mr. Mica. So we are going tomorrow to San Diego and do a
border hearing followup to this hearing. So I will be anxious
to see where the resources are. Finally, Mr. Seave, what
priority do you place as far as your district here on the drug
enforcement prosecution? And what are we doing at the Federal
level to curtail the problem that we could be doing better? I
believe we have the role, first of all, of stopping the stuff
before it ever gets to the border and then tough prosecution.
Is prosecution a high priority and what aren't we doing?
Mr. Seave. Yes. Prosecution of meth in particular is
probably the top priority of our office. I know we prosecute
more meth cases than any other U.S. attorneys offices and we
get the highest sentences.
Mr. Mica. What could we do to do a better job at the
Federal level to help bring the situation under control?
Mr. Seave. As far as resources go, I would harken back to
what everyone on the panel has said. We need more DEA agents in
this district, and particularly in northern California. This
district relative to the rest of the country is significantly
underserved if you measure the agents by agents per population
or agents per number of cases brought and so forth. So as far
as resources go, at the Federal level that is what I would like
to see.
From a tactical level, what we are starting to do again is
to go after the people who sell these chemicals.
Mr. Mica. Are the laws adequate in that regard? Federal
law, particularly with some of the precursors or chemicals used
in production of methamphetamine?
Mr. Seave. I believe that the laws are adequate. What we
need more resources or more effort focused on, is tracking the
chemicals when they hit the border or when they hit the East
Coast and where they go from there--how you track them and
where are they going--so we can more effectively focus our
enforcement efforts. Stopping chemicals and drugs coming across
the border is very, very difficult. But the beauty so-called of
meth is that it is being produced here. And that is why going
after the chemical people strikes me as the most effective
strategy. I mean, they are here. And if we can track them more
effectively than we do now, and we are trying to do as good a
job as we can, we can drive up the price even more than we have
now.
Mr. Mica. Thank you. Mr. Ose.
Mr. Ose. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I may diverge for a
moment. I want to make sure I recognize one gentleman who has
already left, but also one who has joined us. Sheriff Blanas
from Sacramento County joined us for a few minutes and
unfortunately he had to go on. Also the District Attorney of
Yolo County is here, Mr. Dave Henderson. Dave, thanks for
joining us.
I wanted to highlight for the record that when the issue of
the Central Valley HIDTA came up, up and down my particular
district and I am sure in Wally's, there was an immediate
response from my sheriffs as to we would like to be included.
And the question became one of funding. And the thing I wanted
to highlight was that without exception from north to south,
every one of my sheriffs said if all we have got is enough
money to set up one in the nine counties, what became the
Central Valley HIDTA, we need to do that. We need to not let
perfect be the enemy of the good. And without exception from
north to south, even those who aren't here, spoke out with
let's get the Central Valley HIDTA set up. So I want to
particularly pay my respects to the gentlemen here because they
were very vocal about that as well as their colleagues.
But I am interested specifically as to what the House of
Representatives in its fiscal capacity can do to assist with
creating or expanding the current Central Valley HIDTA to
address the issue. And my rationale is as follows. As the
Central Valley HIDTA comes into existence and becomes more and
more effective, those who would otherwise traffick in
methamphetamines or other things are going to go to an area
where there is less attention being paid, which naturally would
lead them further north on I-5 or 99 into my area. When they
get here, I want to be ready. I want to deal with it now, but I
don't want to open the door if you will.
So my question again gets back to the fiscal reality we
face. And that is how do we in Congress provide--Mr. Bruce, how
do we provide you the resources to address this? And my
specific question is, I think, as I understand it the current
HIDTA, according to the gentleman McCaffrey, requires $2.5
million to operate and be staffed effectively. Is that
accurate?
Mr. Ruzzamenti. Yes.
Mr. Ose. If we were to expand that current HIDTA, what
would you need in terms of fiscal support from the Federal
Government over and above the $2.5?
Mr. Ruzzamenti. If we in fact got $2.5 for fiscal year
2001, we could do some limited expansion with that. In other
words, we could probably incorporate another initiative if we
got a full $2.5.
Mr. Ose. In addition to the three you have at this time?
Mr. Ruzzamenti. In addition. Realistically, it won't be
anything extravagant. But we could probably support another
initiative if we got the full $2.5 million funding. If you are
talking about all the northern counties, then that would be
significantly more appropriations. I would think just roughly
you are probably looking at least $5 million.
Mr. Ose. From the Federal Government?
Mr. Ruzzamenti. Yes.
Mr. Ose. OK. Mr. Bruce, do you agree with that?
Mr. Bruce. Yes, I do. One thing--and you get into the
conversations of adding on initiatives to the already formed
HIDTA as opposed to--I know that came up earlier as opposed to
a totally separate HIDTA. With that, of course, you have all
the same commensurate administrative set-up and expenses and
things, which take a substantial amount of funding also. But my
understanding is--and I came into the process rather late when
the Central Valley HIDTA was being formed--that from the
initial aspects of it as you mentioned was that they would be
all-inclusive throughout the eastern district at the point it
could be. But funding and resources are always the bottom line.
Whether it is deputies in Sutter County or whether it is DEA
agents or whether it is funding to put initiatives together. It
all gets down to resources, and it is tough. I mean, the
competition right now is very, very tough. Whether it is for
Burn Grants or whether it is the competition I am in with 20
other domestic divisions and the foreign offices for agent
resources in my organization. It is a tough thing.
Mr. Ose. If I may, Mr. Chairman. If I understand your point
earlier, the $1.487 million that you have got now, you've got
some going to setting up an intelligence center and some to
actual intelligence in the field, three initiatives and then
administrative costs. If we expanded the HIDTA, we would not
need a new intelligence center. So that is not going to be a
mirror image. So we wouldn't have that. We would arguably need
the intelligence resources in the field, so we might still have
that quarter remaining. The administrative costs might go up
some, but not on a dollar-for-dollar mirror. Is there
administrative capacity to run an expanded HIDTA in the Central
Valley?
Mr. Ruzzamenti. I wish I could tell you yes. Right now, we
are just setting up. So basically the entire administration of
the HIDTA is sitting here.
Mr. Ose. You are doing fine.
Mr. Ruzzamenti. I just hired an administrative assistant
who starts to work today. So we have got that working. And we
just hired a fiscal person who just started work about a week
ago. So we are building that sort of structure. With the
increase in counties and the increase in the funding for the
projects that we have going on, that is somewhat labor
intensive as far as making sure the money is spent
appropriately and audited appropriately and those kinds of
functions. So there would be additional administrative costs,
but I don't think they would be excessive. Right now, each
initiative compartmentalized, we are looking at about $250,000,
and all that covers--this doesn't cover it all--overtime for
the police officers and the sheriffs department and some moneys
for purchasing evidence and paying informants, but very
minimal, and that is about it. That really is the bulk of where
the money is going. So it is somewhat of a shoestring
operation.
Mr. Ose. I appreciate your comments and I know my good
friend has questions as to who makes the decision as to whether
or not to expand the HIDTA, assuming Congress provides the
resources. But I do not want to get away from your point,
Sheriff Denney, about providing the fiscal support rather than
local resources. We will come back to this, Mr. Chairman, if
you will allow a second round of questions. With that, I will
give it back.
Mr. Mica. Thank you. I yield now to the gentleman from
Indiana, Mr. Souder.
Mr. Souder. First I wanted to say to Sheriff Denney, you
have the most interesting job title I have heard of--sheriff,
coroner and public administrator. I assume if you come to
someone's door, they certainly hope you are coming as a public
administrator.
Sheriff Parker, I had a question. In your data, you start
off with the methamphetamine seizures, but in fact you seize
almost twice that in marijuana as well as other drugs. Is the
percentage of meth increasing? Is that why you stressed that
more? Why is there so much discussion? Because in the other
statistics we heard as well, marijuana is still a greater
problem than methamphetamine.
Mr. Parker. I talked about meth because TAGMET mainly deals
with the meth problem. I didn't even mention the amount of
marijuana that both Glenn County and Tehema County Sheriffs
Department seized.
Mr. Souder. Well, you have in your written statement, at
least, that TAGMET agents seized 27.65 pounds of
methamphetamine and 47.65 pounds of marijuana. Even the TAGMET
interdicted twice as much marijuana.
Mr. Parker. Yes, marijuana is a big problem in the North
State. And like I said, we have our own marijuana eradication
team.
Mr. Souder. In addition to the TAGMET?
Mr. Parker. Oh, yes. And so does Glenn County.
Mr. Souder. And is the marijuana staying the same level
problem vis-a-vis methamphetamines or do you see the ratio
shifting?
Mr. Parker. Actually, I see marijuana has increased in the
last few years, and unfortunately part of that problem is
probably the teen, which has to be addressed sometime. But
still we have a major problem with methamphetamine, and it is
not just being shipped in by I-5. We have a lot of labs in our
own county that is producing it. It is a major problem.
Mr. Souder. Then on behalf of Indiana, I want to say that
your problem in California has unfortunately spread to the rest
of the country by implying it is a health issue, when we could
probably find a health subcomponent of tobacco and we could
probably find a health subcomponent of alcohol and we could
find a health subcomponent of a number of things. By putting
the term medicinal in front of marijuana, we have really
weakened our ability to communicate messages in the schools and
elsewhere.
Mr. Scott, in your testimony, you said that from the Shasta
Interagency Narcotics Task Force that meth arrests accounted
for 76 percent of arrests and that 72 percent of the kids on
probation tested positive for meth. Would marijuana have
similar figures? In your county is it a different mix?
Mr. Scott. Well, with respect to the arrests, our sheriffs
department has the marijuana eradication team which handles the
bulk of the large growths and things of that nature. I don't
want to say exclusively on methamphetamine, but in terms of
cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine, there is no comparison.
There is simply no comparison between the amount of
methamphetamine that it handles in relation to the other ``hard
drugs''.
Mr. Souder. Mr. Ruzzamenti, if the No. 1 problem is
marijuana, why is your HIDTA only focused on methamphetamine?
Mr. Ruzzamenti. Well, the Central Valley HIDTA is focused
on methamphetamine because that is by far and away the No. 1
problem in the nine counties that are overseen by the Central
Valley HIDTA.
Mr. Souder. You are saying that more people use
methamphetamines than marijuana or more arrests in those nine
counties?
Mr. Ruzzamenti. It is a much more insidious drug as far as
the violence incurred and as far as the organization structure
of the organizations that are marketing it and transporting it
through the areas. It has a more significant impact on the
sheriffs departments, both manpower and time as far as lab
clean-up sites and environmental hazards. It is the most
significant drug in those counties from a law enforcement
standpoint.
Mr. Souder. Could you explain that a little more? In other
words, the potency of the meth as opposed to the potency of the
marijuana, cocaine and heroin?
Mr. Ruzzamenti. Well, it is just a totally separate drug.
Methamphetamine is not only being used, but the resulting
problem like the lady was talking about endangered children.
That is a problem for the family. It is just impacting the
areas in a number of different fashions. And that is not saying
that these areas don't have problems with marijuana and they
don't have problems with heroin, because they do. But the most
significant problem is methamphetamine, and that is what the
HIDTA is targeted to go after. We have limited resources and we
had to--decisions had to be made and that was the decision to
take it in that direction.
Mr. Souder. Did you say this is the only HIDTA that is
targeted?
Mr. Ruzzamenti. No. The new HIDTAs that came about in
fiscal year 1999, of those I think two of them were
methamphetamine specific. And then the other ones were general
in nature.
Mr. Souder. If you expanded this HIDTA, would you--do you
know which counties you would propose including?
Mr. Ruzzamenti. No. We would have to sit down with each of
the sheriffs and the law enforcement administrators in the
counties. Sit down with them and see what their problems were
and how we could best----
Mr. Souder. I believe you made an allusion before to the
fact that the way you chose the counties you have in it were
based on the percentage of methamphetamine usage. In other
words, wouldn't that criteria have to be there if you expanded
your HIDTA?
Mr. Ruzzamenti. Not specific usage but the laboratories.
Mr. Souder. The labs.
Mr. Ruzzamenti. The major labs are in those nine counties,
as far as the labs that are the super labs, if you will, that
are producing the 100 pounds of methamphetamine at a time or 50
pounds of methamphetamine at a time. These kinds of super labs
are primarily in and around Fresno and in that area.
Mr. Souder. And that is the kind of criteria you would
apply as you added counties?
Mr. Ruzzamenti. If it was to continue to be methamphetamine
specific, I think you would have to be consistent with that
kind of criteria. You would have to look at the counties
consistently and what is their methamphetamine problem.
Mr. Souder. And if it wasn't methamphetamine specific, you
would have to go up to the $2.5 million base. Part of the
reason you have the $1.487 is because you are specific and not
a broad based HIDTA?
Mr. Ruzzamenti. That is correct.
Mr. Souder. And so then you would have to start with a
different base before you added the other counties.
Mr. Ruzzamenti. Yes. Technically, I don't know how ONDCP
would do that.
Mr. Souder. But you haven't had any discussions at this
point with ONDCP about how to do that?
Mr. Ruzzamenti. I have had preliminary discussions with
ONDCP as far as trying to up the ante on this thing to $2.5
million. And in those preliminary discussions, we have
indicated that there were counties to the northern part of the
State that are interested in joining the HIDTA. And that if
additional funds were available that new initiatives in the
northern counties would be a possibility.
Mr. Souder. Thank you. I know my time is up. Mr. Bruce, I
wanted to thank you for the specifics in your testimony. It was
very helpful and hopefully we can followup.
Mr. Mica. Thank you, gentlemen. I will recognize Mr.
Herger.
Mr. Herger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just as a followup to
this. Mr. Ruzzamenti, if it might be possible in the next
couple of weeks, I believe the chairman indicated that we would
have the record open for questions. And it would help us very
much on the committee and as Members of Congress as far as
budgeting is concerned if it might be possible to perhaps give
us an outline or a skeletal budget of what you feel it might
take to include Congressman Ose's and my districts or the
northern part of the State. It would be very helpful to us in
making recommendations.
Again, I want to thank everyone who is here. The fact that
we have so many sheriffs and so many law enforcement people and
district attorneys not only on the panel but a number who in
fact have shown up and are here in the audience this morning
from throughout our area certainly indicates how incredibly
important this issue is to us.
We are having some questions on perhaps the difference
between methamphetamine and what it does than that of
marijuana, which is also a major concern. District Attorney
Scott, if I could ask you, if I would, if you would relate. I
know you have set up a pilot program or a program that you have
initiated on methamphetamine. What have been some of your
experiences on the clients, if you will--those that you have
run into as far as their disposition, those who are on
methamphetamines.
Mr. Scott. I think the principle thing which distinguishes
methamphetamine from certainly marijuana and the other drugs is
the level of violence which accompanies use of the drug. One of
the statistics I included in my written presentation was that
for a 4-year period of time in Shasta County, 40 percent of our
murders involved some use of methamphetamine. I think that is a
startling statistic when you stop and think about it.
The second aspect of it was spoken to by Ms. Webber-Brown
this morning with respect to the drug becomes all encompassing.
It literally takes over the life of the person who becomes
addicted to it. So that literally their children don't matter
to them as much as the drug does. And those two things really
stand out to me in my experiences with methamphetamine. It is a
startling thing to stand in court at an arraignment of a person
who has been arrested for a methamphetamine related offense and
to literally see the shell of a human being. A person who is
emaciated, sores on their body, scratching and itching
constantly, no concept of where they are or what is going on.
It really is the devil's drug. That is what people call it. The
users call it that and it is a very appropriate title.
Mr. Herger. So it is horrendous, as all these illegal drugs
are. Methamphetamine particularly we are seeing causing
problems. That is quite startling I think of all the murders in
Shasta County that almost half are methamphetamine related. So
it certainly, I think, would indicate a reason why we, if
anything, could use a specific program that has grown so much
here in our area. How much would an expanded HIDTA program help
us in northern California in your County of Shasta and the
adjoining counties that you are familiar with if we were to be
able to do that?
Mr. Scott. I think it would be a tremendous help. I think I
speak for most of the counties, if not all, when I say that we
are literally tapped out in terms of the use of local and State
resources to battle the methamphetamine problem. We have all
applied for grants from the State and we have all gotten grants
from the State and we have gotten the grants that we can from
the Federal Government. And this is really the next step in our
ability to do something about the problem. We have got to have
a coordinated response between all levels of government, not
just the locals and the State governments, but the feds, the
State and the local government.
One of the key things, and there are several, is the I-5
corridor. It has been addressed here before, but one of the
essential problems we have is that we literally are stopping on
a daily basis drug traffickers who are ferrying drugs to the
northwest from the Bay area and lower Central Valley and Los
Angeles. We bear the cost of the investigation, prosecution and
incarceration for those persons who are sent to State prison,
when it is truly an interstate problem that we technically
under the Constitution don't have responsibility for. And so
the expansion of the HIDTA, along with the opening of a branch
regional office of the DEA, preferably in the north state,
Redding, would really go a long ways toward tying division of
the responsibility for that interstate drug trafficking to the
feds as well as the State and locals, and really be the next
step, as I said, in what we are trying to do. We all come from
communities that are seriously devoted to doing something about
this problem, and we need the help from the feds. Because we
have taken it as far as we can and the next level has to come
from your end.
Mr. Herger. Thank you very much for pointing that out. I
know that had been pointed out earlier. But the fact that so
much of the problem we have is really that Interstate 5 is a
major corridor between Mexico, actually international, through
Oregon and Washington into Canada, as well as 99, which passes
up through Marysville and Yuba City, and these corridors do
tend to attract those who would be involved in this.
And I just have to restate again the importance. I want to
thank you. I mentioned earlier just speaking with Sheriff
Charlie Byrd, who is sitting in the back. And every sheriff I
talk to or law enforcement within our counties, this is such a
major problem and really just crying out for assistance and
help to combat this. So, again, thank you very much for your
testimony. And Mr. Chairman and members, thank you very much.
Mr. Mica. Thank you, Mr. Herger. Additional questions, Mr.
Ose?
Mr. Ose. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to come back to
the two questions I have. First, and this falls to you
primarily. I notice in Mr. Ruzzamenti's testimony that you are
the chair of the Executive Committee for the Central Valley
HIDTA. What I am trying to determine is to which executive or
where in the executive branch will the decision be made as to
whether or not to expand the existing Central Valley HIDTA?
Mr. Seave. Within ONDCP.
Mr. Ose. It would be made by General McCaffrey or some
other----
Mr. Seave. Someone working for General McCaffrey. That is
assuming the funding is there.
Mr. Ose. Correct, on that assumption. Is the Executive
Committee of which you are the chair of play a role in that?
Mr. Seave. We play a role in so far as we submit our
requests for here are some initiatives that we have and we need
additional funding. But I can assure you that every HIDTA is
doing the same thing. So the decision, as far as I can tell,
comes from McCaffrey and his staff.
Mr. Ose. OK. From your experience, could you share with us
some of the specific qualifications or requirements that our
counties must establish in order to make an acceptable case for
expanding the current Central Valley HIDTA?
Mr. Seave. One of the factors that McCaffrey and his staff
look at is is this just a local problem or is this a problem
that goes beyond the regional area and beyond the State? Is
there a national impact? As far as that goes, of course you
have heard about I-5. So this is more than simply a local
problem. As a number of people have mentioned, we anticipate
that as we have success in driving the labs out of the southern
part of this district, they are going to move to the northern
part of the district. Just as they are moving now from the Los
Angeles area up to this area. I guess they have been in
business a lot longer than we have and they are having some
success. So I think that is one of the major factors that they
look at.
Mr. Ose. Two final questions. I asked Mr. Ruzzamenti and
Mr. Bruce, I will get to you. The $2.5 million for the current
Central Valley HIDTA, are you comfortable with that for
operations on an annual basis?
Mr. Seave. Yes.
Mr. Ose. What number for an expanded HIDTA that might
include Congressman Herger's and my districts should we keep in
mind?
Mr. Seave. I think Mr. Ruzzamenti mentioned $5 million. But
equally important is the lack of DEA agents in the northern
part of the State. I think they go hand-in-hand.
Mr. Ose. Would that be part of the $5 million or would that
be on top of the $5 million?
Mr. Seave. That is apart from the $5 million.
Mr. Ose. And that would be how much for the DEA
establishment?
Mr. Seave. I would have to ask DEA for that.
Mr. Ose. Mr. Bruce.
Mr. Bruce. I am not sure exactly what the formula is now
per agent cost. But that of course would be a whole separate
appropriation through DEA and DEA's funding for the agents. My
understanding on that process, the last 2 years anyway, is that
our agent increases--I have heard the number 44 this year for
2000. Those were all congressionally mandated. So even as an
agency, I don't think we had any choices there in where those
agents went. They were congressionally mandated for certain
programs. So there is a number of ways Congress deals with
these things. Either straight appropriation to increase the
number of agents for the agency to handle it, or
congressionally mandating where those agents are placed by
virtue of giving the increases.
Mr. Ose. Generally speaking, is that $125,000 an agent or
$60,000 an agent or $200,000 an agent?
Mr. Bruce. I would think $125,000 probably. Because you are
talking about not only obviously salary, but you are talking
about opening an office. Although we have had, even when I was
in Sacramento for 4 years in the late 1980's or early 1990's,
at that point we had invitations for agents in Redding. And I
know a couple of agencies would be more than happy to let us
squat in their facilities even if we had to. I would say, in
talking about cars and guns and everything that goes to equip
an agent, $125,000 per agent is probably a pretty good figure.
Mr. Ose. And that would just be the Federal share, and that
would not affect perhaps the associated costs for the local
agency interacting with DEA? That would just be the Federal per
agent number?
Mr. Bruce. Ordinarily the way this goes--what we just did
in Modesto this last year--ordinarily what DEA does initially
is open what they call a posted duty, which are two agents. Two
agents in a posted duty. And that is the initial step. Many of
those posted duties, like in Medford, OR, for instance, which
is just across the line in Oregon, went from a posted duty and
subsequently became a resident office, which of course gets a
larger facility and more manpower. But the first step would be
a posted duty probably with two agents assigned to--the most
reasonable location, at this point would be Redding.
Mr. Ose. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mica. Do you have some questions, Mr. Souder?
Mr. Souder. I had a couple of quick questions on
methamphetamine itself, probably for Mr. Bruce or Mr.
Ruzzamenti but anybody else. Is this a drug that is more
heavily used by adults than kids at this point in your region?
Or are the adults who are doing the labs selling it to the
kids?
Mr. Bruce. I think from our experience, the age of
methamphetamine abuse just gets younger and younger constantly.
We are seeing it down into the primary grades now.
Mr. Souder. Is it a drug that somebody would start with
marijuana and switch over or is it a separate track? Usually
you hear tobacco, marijuana, cocaine, heroin. How does
methamphetamine fit into this track?
Mr. Bruce. I think it is a matter of opportunity for a lot
of kids, especially given peer pressure and the situation. I
think just the availability creates--I think we saw that in the
Midwest over the last few years. The fact of availability and
an illicit substance becoming available. People are going to
take advantage of it and traffic in it.
Mr. Souder. But users move back and forth between it.
Mr. Bruce. Oh, certainly.
Mr. Souder. In other words, it is not like it is a separate
track. Once you move into looking for artificial stimulants,
you could move in any different direction?
Mr. Bruce. That is certainly the way I see it over 34-some
years in this business. We sometimes facetiously talk about the
drug du jour. But the situation is so dynamic and that is why I
kind of presented a little bit on several of the drugs. There
is no question that methamphetamine is a major problem at this
point. This too shall change.
Mr. Souder. It is storming the Center Plains area, Kansas
City and St. Louis. We are still over in cocaine and heroin
when you move into the Detroit, Chicago and Indiana circle. I
mean, we have more murders related to cocaine than what I have
heard here from methamphetamine. I am from a city that is not
so much larger than anything here.
One last thing. I noticed in your data that the California
marijuana, the THC, you estimate twice the potency of imported
Mexican because it is being watered down or what?
Mr. Bruce. No. Just the way it is produced and grown.
Mr. Souder. So it is not like the ditch weed we would see
in Indiana?
Mr. Bruce. Right. Highly cultivated marijuana uses a
cincemia plant, which is virtually a sterile plant. So
everything goes to the concentration of production of THC. The
potencies now are probably four or five times what they were in
the 1960's or 1970's when both of us came on the job.
Mr. Souder. So we are not talking like the hippie days of
the late 1960's when I was in college.
Mr. Bruce. No, not at all. I am not going to say you were.
Mr. Souder. Not me. I have always been a square.
Mr. Bruce. The price was not $5,000 or $6,000 a pound
either.
Mr. Souder. I not only didn't inhale, I didn't smoke. I
yield back.
Mr. Mica. Thank you, Mr. Herger. I would like to take this
opportunity to thank each of the panelists and witnesses we
have had today that are on the front line of this battle. We
particularly appreciate and salute your efforts. We honestly
try to do the best we can in Washington in trying to address
these problems and see how we can work in a cooperative effort.
As Mr. Scott said--he is gone now, but it does take a concerted
local, State and Federal cooperative effort. Much of the war on
drugs as we know it was closed down between 1993 and 1995. I
inherited the responsibility from the current Speaker, Mr.
Hastert, who is a great ally and was really an initiator in
getting us back to meet our Federal national responsibility to
bring this situation under control. I have worked so closely
with Mr. Souder, who has been on the subcommittee with me for
some years and now joined by Mr. Ose, who has been a tireless
supporter of our efforts, which we appreciate. Because it takes
218 votes to do this in the House of Representatives, I am
pleased with Mr. Herger's interest in expanding the HIDTA and
his support for our efforts along the way. It is very difficult
in trying to get attention focused appropriately and balanced.
I might say that I did have a chance on Friday to visit the
West Coast JATF, Joint Agency Task Force, which operates out of
the San Francisco Bay area. And they did point out that the
West Coast has been neglected in this effort, and we need to
focus through this visit and through the hearing we are doing
here today and then in southern California tomorrow on the
situation here, which appears to be very serious. You have a
unique problem that certainly warrants national attention and
cooperation.
So there being no further business, Mr. Ose has requested
that the record be left open for a period of 2 weeks. And
without objection, that is so ordered. We will be asking
additional questions and we can proceed for those--and I know
this is a limited forum given the constrained time
requirements. In fact, our staff will be leaving in just a few
minutes to prepare for the next hearing in San Diego. But we do
welcome additional comments for the record and will leave it
open. You can contact Mr. Ose, and he will see that it is made
part of the complete record. And everything that has been said
here today and submitted will be part of a permanent record and
used by the committee and Congress hopefully in its future
decisionmaking in a wise fashion.
There being no further business to come before the Criminal
Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources Subcommittee at this
time, this meeting is adjourned.
[Whereupon, the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional information submitted for the hearing record
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6900.062