[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 49 (Thursday, March 16, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4005-S4009]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DRUG TRAFFICKING IN THE UNITED STATES
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, 3 weeks ago, the Senate Judiciary
Committee, of which I am a member, held a very interesting hearing on
drug trafficking and the increase of drug use in the United States. I
would like to say a few words on the subject.
California has now replaced Florida as the major point of importation
of cocaine in the United States. The California Bureau of Narcotics
Enforcement reports that 80 percent of the clandestine methamphetamine
manufacturing labs seized and dismantled in the United States are in
California. More illegal drugs are coming into this Nation today than
ever before. And Federal efforts at stopping the flow of drugs into
this Nation are simply inadequate.
Last week, I met with the head of the Drug Enforcement
Administration, Thomas Constantine, who told me that the DEA knows of
at least forty 727-sized planes controlled by the Cali drug cartel in
Colombia being used to smuggle cocaine into this country--forty 727-
sized planes. Most of these planes are offloaded in northern Mexico,
and drugs are moved across the California border and other Southwest
borders.
Mr. Constantine also indicated to me that the Cali drug cartel's net
profit last year was $7 billion, that the cartel controls the air
traffic control system of Colombia, that they control the phone
company, which allows them to backtrack and tape all phone calls, and
that they are first-rate practitioners of intimidation and violence.
Consider just some of the following, Mr. President. Cocaine smuggled
across the California line accounts for at least 70 percent of the
drugs sent over the entire Southwest border by rings based in Mexico,
making the State the prime staging area for the shipment of cocaine
from cartels in Colombia and other South American countries.
Last year, the amount of cocaine seized coming across the United
States-Mexican border plummeted, and not a single pound of cocaine was
confiscated from the more than two million trucks that passed through
three of the busiest entry points along the Southwest border--Laredo
and El Paso in Texas, and Nogales in Arizona.
According to the Los Angeles Times, only 3.7 percent of laden trucks
are comprehensively inspected at three San Diego-area ports of entry.
The average rate along the entire Southwest border is 11.4 percent.
However, last year, laden trucks crossing the border increased 51
percent, and empty trucks increased 38 percent.
Let me say clearly, I believe current Federal efforts to stop the
entry of illegal drugs are not working.
The Line Release Program
Let me describe one example of the failure of the Federal Government
to stop drug smuggling. It's called the line release program. I believe
this program should be discontinued immediately pending an evaluation
of its effectiveness. Three weeks ago, I wrote to Secretary Robert
Rubin making that recommendation.
The line release program was created in 1986 to expedite commerce
entering the United States from Canada. In recent years, the program
was expanded to the Mexican border as well.
Under the line release program, so-called low-risk United States
companies are permitted to ship goods from Mexican manufacturers
without inspection. But the line release program has had a major
unintended effect. In the single-minded pursuit of increased commerce,
more trucks and commercial vehicles are being waved through border
checkpoints without being inspected. The result: The amount of illegal
drugs coming across the border is higher than ever before.
According to a Los Angeles Times story from February 13, 1995, since
the line release program was implemented, shipments of goods have
increased dramatically at four critical points of entry along the
United States-Mexico border--Laredo and El Paso in Texas, Nogales in
Arizona, and San Diego in California. Yet, even as the number of
shipments increased, the rate of inspections and drug seizures
decreased dramatically.
I ask unanimous consent that this Los Angeles Times story be printed
in the Record following my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
[[Page S4006]] (See exhibit 1.)
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. The same Los Angeles Times story states that not 1
single pound of cocaine was seized at three of the major points of
entry into the United States in 1994. Not 1 pound.
One local official reportedly said:
Obviously, we're in an area of international trade. We're
not in a situation where we can just stop traffic for the
sake of narcotics risk. . . We examined three percent of all
the laden trucks that crossed. That is a lot of trucks.
Right? Wrong.
My view is quite different. Increased commerce does not justify
increased drug smuggling. It is time to close down our border to
illegal immigrants and to illegal drug smuggling. It is unacceptable to
have a Federal program in place that comprehensively checks just 3
percent of the trucks coming across the border where we know the
highest level of drug smuggling occurs.
Let me give you an idea of one incident in California. This past
November, 5 tons of cocaine was headed to a home in Rialto in San
Bernardino County. I am not talking about bags of cocaine. I am not
talking about pounds of cocaine. I am not talking about kilograms of
cocaine. I am talking about tons--5 tons in 1 shipment going to one
house in Rialto, California. That is the level on which drug smuggling
is now taking place.
On February 27, 1995, I sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Rubin
asking the administration to discontinue the line release program in
California pending an immediate evaluation of its capability to seek
out and confiscate drugs coming across the border.
I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this letter be printed in the
Record following my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 2.)
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Recently, I asked the Customs Service, particularly
the Director of Customs, for a complete list of the more than 10,000
individuals and companies that have been approved to participate in
this so-called line release program. I have yet to be provided with
that list.
In addition, this past Friday, I wrote to Secretary Rubin regarding a
March 10 story in the Associated Press.
I ask unanimous consent that this letter and the Associated Press
story be printed in the Record following my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 3.)
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, the Associated Press story to which I
refer cited two particularly alarming items.
First, the owner of a harbor warehouse in Los Angeles who continues
to this day to profit from a Customs Service inspection station located
on his property, even though he is currently under federal indictment
on charges of bribing an immigration agent $10,000 for false documents
for himself and employees.
Second, the Treasury Department inspector general's office has failed
to secure a single indictment of a Federal official in the western
region in the last 5 years, despite numerous allegations of wrongdoing.
The inspector general's office, which is responsible for
investigating criminal offenses at the Customs Service and other
agencies within the Treasury Department, has been successful in other
regions of the country, having obtained 14 felony convictions in the
Northeast region, 8 in the Southern region, and 1 in the Central
Division--but none in the Western region where the problem is the most
serious.
These allegations are very disturbing, and I believe they deserve the
full and immediate attention of the Justice Department.
Operation Hard Line
The Clinton administration recently announced a new Federal
initiative to address the problem of cocaine smuggling across the
southwest border. This effort, termed ``Operation Hard Line,'' will
transfer between 40 and 80 Customs agents to the southwest border,
direct new funds toward needed resources and technology, and focus with
greater intensity on intelligence-gathering and assessment.
It is too early to say if Operation Hard Line will have an impact.
But I am very skeptical. The problems at the border are simply too
great for Band-Aid solutions.
Enforcing the border is a Federal responsibility and the fact is that
the job is not being adequately performed.
The Federal Government must take strong action and make a long-term
commitment to go after drug traffickers. The administration must demand
that Mexico assist the United States in this effort in every way, as
this Nation is assisting Mexico in so many other areas.
Forty 727-size planes constantly land in northern Mexico, offload
tons of cocaine, and move them through our borders. How this happens
and how we are going to stop it is something we must address. We cannot
tolerate corruption at high levels in the Government of Mexico as is
now being written up on the front pages of our newspapers, where a
Mexican official responsible for stopping narcotics has a bank account
of several million dollars. Where do we believe that money came from?
As a member of both the Judiciary and the Foreign Relations
Committees, I intend to take an aggressive oversight role of Federal
efforts to stop drug smuggling across this Nation's borders and will
report regularly to my colleagues in the Senate on the progress.
I will also begin to explore legislation to deny United States
foreign aid to countries such as Colombia, who do not take appropriate
steps to control the flow of contraband out of their own countries.
This administration has just sent $20 billion in loan guarantees to
Mexico, of which $6 billion has already been drawn down. I think the
United States deserves cooperation from the highest levels of the
Mexican Government in what is a major scourge on the relationship
between our two countries, the trafficking of large amounts of cocaine.
Shortly, I hope to see for myself the Customs Service's surveillance
efforts at the border. Recently, it was described in a television
report on NBC's ``Dateline.'' What the story showed was a former
Customs agent pointing out a truck, a huge container truck, going right
through a Customs' checkpoint, and saying, ``This truck is a known drug
smuggler. Watch what happens.'' And the truck went right through under
the ``line release'' program.
I find it hard to accept that the Federal Government is so desperate
to increase commerce that it will allow drugs to freely enter the
United States.
Mr. President, I thank you for providing me with this opportunity to
update my colleagues. I will report further on developments.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Exhibit 1
[From the Los Angeles Times, Feb. 12, 1995]
Border Inspections Eased and Drug Seizures Plunge
(By H.G. Reza)
customs: corruption probes focus on u.s. policy to promote mexico
trade. few trucks are examined.
San Diego.--The amount of cocaine seized from Mexican
trucks and cargo at the border plummeted last year, as U.S.
Customs Service officials pressed on with a program to
promote trade by letting most commercial cargo pass into this
country without inspection.
Not a single pound of cocaine was confiscated from more
than 2 million trucks that passed through three of the
busiest entry points along the Southwest border where federal
officials say most of the drug enters the country.
Of the 62,000 pounds of cocaine that Customs seized from
commercial cargo nationwide, less than a ton was taken from
shipments along the border with Mexico.
One reason for the sharp decline in seizures is that
Customs officials appear to be doing a poor job of
identifying and inspecting those trucks and cargo containers
being used for drug smuggling, according to an internal
report obtained by The Times.
``The target selection methods are * * * critical and
apparently in more need of improvements given the huge number
of examinations without success,'' said the Dec. 13 report by
a Customs analyst.
Officials say liberalized importing procedures have
dramatically increased the number of trucks crossing the
border from Mexico, producing trade benefits for both
countries. And now the Customs Service is considering new
measures to speed up the entry of air and auto travelers into
the United States.
But, according to records and interviews, the facilitation
policy also has become the focal point of wide-ranging
corruption probes at a number of Southwest border crossings
and inspection facilities.
[[Page S4007]] Since last summer, federal authorities have
been looking into allegations that corrupt Customs officials
and inspectors are tipping smugglers that certain shipments
and vehicles have been targeted for narcotics inspections.
Sources said investigators also are examining allegations
that:
Some inspectors and officials in San Diego were bribed by
Mexican drug rings to remove intelligence information from
Customs computers.
Investigators also are focusing on allegations that
smugglers are transporting drugs in the uninspected trucks
that bring cargo from Mexico.
A principal target, sources said, is an inspector who in
1990 attempted to release a propane tanker although drug-
sniffing dogs had sounded the alarm. The tanker later was
found to be carrying four tons of cocaine.
Inspectors and officials in the Long Beach area were bribed
to allow trucks from Mexico and contraband, including AK-47
rifles and ammunition from China, to be smuggled into the
ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles in ship containers.
The investigation is concentrating on private warehouses in
the Long Beach area where cargo containers are examined by
Customs inspectors for contraband, drugs and compliance with
importation laws. The warehouses are customarily paid a fee
for use of their facilities and assisting in the inspections.
But sources said importers allegedly were charged up to
$425 per container for hundreds of examinations that were
never done. Investigators have been told that two Customs
officials received kickbacks.
In interviews, Justice Department officials declined to
confirm or deny the existence of the investigations. ``If
anyone has information regarding corruption within the
Customs Service, we would certainly be interested in
receiving that information,'' said Assistant U.S. Atty.
Michael Flanagan in Los Angeles, who is overseeing some of
the investigations.
Customs officials declined to comment on the
investigations. They also defended their low seizure rates
and the ``facilitation program'' that since the late 1980s
has allowed increasing numbers of trucks and cargo containers
to go uninspected at the border.
Lou Samenfink, Customs cargo control branch chief in
Washington, said he does not know why seizures have fallen
off and pointed out that the Customs Service instituted a new
and improved random system in October for identifying
shipments to be inspected.
``It could just as easily be that [drugs are] not there,''
he said. ``It could certainly mean that our targeting policy
is wrong, or that it's so effective that the smugglers aren't
using commercial cargo to bring drugs in.''
The Drug Enforcement Administration reports that 244,626
pounds of cocaine were seized nationwide by federal law
enforcement agencies in 1993, the most recent year for which
statistics are available. And officials estimate that only
about 10% of the cocaine smuggled into the country is seized.
Joaquin Legarreta, spokesman for the DEA intelligence
center in El Paso, said most cocaine enters the United States
across the Mexican border, and most comes through regular
ports of entry in commercial trucks and passenger vehicles.
In 1986, Customs began a ``facilitation'' policy to speed
up the shipment of cargo from Canada, and the program was
expanded to the Mexican border in recent years.
As part of this policy, ``low-risk'' U.S. importers are
allowed to ship commodities from a Mexican manufacturer
virtually without inspection, after passing a rigorous
background check. Under the so-called ``line release''
program, some importers go months without having their
shipments inspected.
Former Customs Commissioner William Von Raab, who helped
establish the program on the Canadian border, said he was
shocked when it later was used on the Mexico border.
``It's terrible. [This] was developed to be used at a
border with the highest level of integrity and lowest level
of risk,'' Von Raab said. ``I certainly would never have
deployed it at the Mexican border.''
The San Diego district has the lowest inspection rate for
commercial trucks, records show. Only 3.7% of the laden
trucks are inspected at Otay Mesa, Calexico and Tecate in
California and Andrade in Arizona, compared to an average
rate of 11.4% along the entire U.S.-Mexico border.
``Obviously, we're in an area of international trade,''
said Rex Applegate, port director of the San Diego district.
``We're not in a situation where we can just stop traffic for
the sake of narcotics risk. . . .We examined 3% of all the
laden trucks that crossed. That is a lot of trucks. That is a
lot of intrusion.''
Sources said inspections are conducted randomly, once every
500 to 2,500 entries, and certain shipments are targeted
based on intelligence information.
The facilitation program has resulted in increased truck
traffic all along the border, especially last year when
records show that laden trucks increased 51% and empty trucks
increased 38%. In anticipation of the North American Free
Trade Agreement a year ago, U.S. and foreign investors opened
new manufacturing plants on the Mexican side of the border,
triggering an increase in cargo shipments to this country.
Numerous inspectors and agents have told The Times they
believe that the facilitation policy has provided narcotics
smugglers with an easy way of bringing tons of cocaine into
the U.S.
``The smugglers know our system as well or better than
us,'' said Jay Erdmann, an inspector for 25 years who is
retiring next month. ``Why should they smuggle the dope
through the desert when they can use line release?''
San Diego port director Applegate said the importing and
drug targeting procedures are ``very sophisticated.''
``Quite frankly, the line inspector is not aware of this,''
Applegate said. ``These guys are like platoon sergeants
questioning the war strategy.''
But he also said inspectors have a responsibility to target
vehicles, based on behavioral analysis of the drivers.
``This risk assessment * * * depends a lot on the
inspector's own knowledge,'' Applegate said.
A Dec. 13 document entitled ``1994 Port Tracking Report''
said Customs concentrates its drug enforcement efforts on
shipments from 16 ``high-risk'' countries in South and
Central America and the Caribbean.
The report said that, although most ``high-risk containers
pass through the Mexican border, ``substantially less''
cocaine was seized there last year than the previous year.
Nationwide, customs inspectors and agents seized 62,850
pounds of cocaine from commercial land, air and sea haulers
last year--only 2,000 pounds less than in 1993.
But along the Southwest border, 1,765 pounds was
confiscated in 1994--all at Calexico--compared to 7,708
pounds in 1993 and 234 pounds in 1992 when truck traffic was
lighter. Customs statistics show there was a similar decline
in marijuana seizures, from 17,736 pounds in 1993 to 9,459
pounds last year.
Officials were unable to provide statistics for cocaine
seizures in previous years along the entire border.
At the Otay Mesa commercial port--third largest on the
border and located seven miles east of San Diego--there were
no cocaine seizures in the past three years. There also were
no seizures during the period at El Paso, the second largest
commercial border crossing.
Laredo, Tex., the biggest commercial port, had no cocaine
seizures last year. Inspectors there found 5,027 pounds of
drug in 1993 and none in 1992.
Meanwhile, Customs officials have two new proposals to make
it easier for airplane and auto travelers, not just trucks,
to enter the United States, The Times has learned.
One plan under study, called Airport 2000, would require
airline employees to input the names of passport holders into
Customs computers.
Customs inspectors would then check the names for criminal
records or ties to drug smuggling. If the name used by the
traveler does not arouse suspicion, he would be allowed to
leave the airport without having to go through Customs
inspection.
``Airport 2000 is a concept developed here and is passenger
oriented,'' said Dennis Shimkoski, a Customs Service
spokesman in Washington.
A plan being studied in San Diego would make optional the
now-mandatory license plate check of every vehicle entering
this country from Mexico. Like Airport 2000, the
plan was conceived to cut costs and ease entry into the
United States.
Computer checks of license plates have led to the seizure
of hundreds of stolen vehicles and thousands of pounds of
drugs. The computer checks also tell an inspector if the
vehicle is suspected of being used in smuggling and if the
driver has a criminal record.
Applegate dismissed complaints from inspectors and Customs
agents that the plan signals a retreat from the drug war and
invites corruption in the ranks of inspectors.
``The issue is very simple. Our land border traffic is
increasing, and our budget is not,'' Applegate said. ``There
would be a certain number of inspectors who would view this
as the grossest sellout in customs history. [But] how much is
it costing the Customs Service to input all this data and
what are we getting for it?''
Von Raab, the former Customs commissioner, said he believes
that the proposals will weaken enforcement efforts. ``I have
always seen Customs as a regulatory agency to guard borders
and collect tariffs,'' he said.
Customs inspectors and agents have complained for years
about what they call a loophole in the facilitation program.
They alleged in interviews that drug rings are paying
unscrupulous truck drivers and trucking companies to smuggle
cocaine and other drugs--but Customs officials do not subject
drivers and trucking companies to the same background checks
as importers and manufacturers.
A veteran investigator who has worked on several high-
profile drug cases in San Diego said that ``you can have the
biggest drug dealer in Mexico drive a truck through the
compound * * * and the [line-release program's] computer
would never tell you who he was, even if he used his real
name.''
``That's correct,'' said Barry Fleming, who supervises the
line release program in San Diego. ``Right now, I have to
agree with the inspectors. [The problem is] the carriers. How
do we operate in the unknown where we don't know the risk of
the driver, the tractor [truck] or the trucking company?''
When asked why there were no cocaine seizures at the Otay
mesa commercial port between 1992 and 1994, Fleming said:
``Is it [because of faulty] targeting? Probably it is. We
don't have enough intelligence.''
Carolyn Goding, president of the San Diego Brokers Assn.,
agreed that there is ``nothing
[[Page S4008]] to stop an unscrupulous driver from throwing
some cocaine underneath the seat.'' However, she said the
program ``is working well for the honest importer by helping
facilitate the movement of cargo.''
____
Exhibit 2
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC, February 27, 1995.
Hon. Robert Rubin,
Secretary, Department of the Treasury,
Washington, DC.
Dear Secretary Rubin: In an earlier letter, dated February
17, 1995, I requested an investigation and reevaluation of
federal efforts to seize illicit narcotics coming across this
nation's borders. Since then, I've learned a great deal more
and today I am writing to express my strong belief that the
Customs Service's ``line release'' program (as we know it
today) should be discontinued in California pending an
evaluation of its ability to seek out and confiscate illicit
contraband entering this country.
I understand approximately 10,000 companies now participate
in a broad effort to move large trucks across the border with
Mexico, often without inspection of cargo. I have asked the
Customs Service for a full list of the companies approved to
take part in the ``line release'' program but have yet to
receive this information. I would like to re-state my request
for this information.
My strong belief that the ``line release'' program should
be discounted pending further review is based on a number of
factors:
(1) It is known that the Cali Cartel in Columbia is
shipping tons of illegal drugs on planes as large as 727's to
Mexico, and then transporting drugs across the border and
into the continental United States in trucks. Recent press
reports have documented increased incidents of illegal
smuggling since the ``line release'' program began, and a
dramatic decrease of inspection and drug seizures. In fact,
in 1994 not a single pound of cocaine was confiscated from
more than two million trucks that passed through three of the
busiest entry points along the southwest border--Laredo and
El Paso in Texas, and Nogales in Arizona.
(2) Hearings of the Senate Judiciary Committee have
demonstrated that drug smuggling is on the rise and
California has become the major point of cocaine importation
in the United States.
(3) An internal Treasury document recently brought to my
attention, and subsequently printed in a news report this
past Friday, suggests that serious deficiencies in the ``line
release'' program may actually facilitate the flow of illegal
drugs into California.
These developments have served only to increase my
skepticism as to whether the ``line release'' program ever
made sense at all. In 1993, before NAFTA, Customs officials
seized almost four tons of cocaine off trucks crossing the
border; in 1994 it was down to less than a ton. Attached is a
story from yesterday's New York Times which very accurately
reflects the way I feel. I have also attached recent stories
printed in the Los Angeles Times which raise alarming
questions about illegal drug smuggling across this nation's
2,000 mile border with Mexico.
In my opinion, the ``line release'' program only encourages
the continued and increased flow of drug smuggling.
California simply cannot be the testing ground for programs
that are ineffective and which only invite increased drug
smuggling.
I would appreciate a response as soon as possible regarding
this matter. I would also like your views as to whether you
believe Operation Hard Line, the new initiative by the
Customs Service to tackle the problem of cocaine smuggling
into California, adequately addresses the problems raised
about the ``line release'' program.
Thank you, in advance, for your personal attention to this
matter. I look forward to hearing your thoughts.
Sincerely,
Dianne Feinstein,
U.S. Senator.
____
Exhibit 3
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC, March 10, 1995.
Hon. Robert Rubin,
Secretary, Department of the Treasury,
Washington, DC.
Dear Secretary Rubin: Two weeks ago, I wrote to you
regarding my strong belief that the ``line release'' program
currently being administered by the Customs Service should be
discontinued in California pending an evaluation of its
effectiveness to seek out and confiscate illicit contraband
entering the United States. I have not yet received a
response.
I believe strongly that this is a urgent matter which
merits your priority attention. To this end, I am also
enclosing a copy of an Associated Press story from yesterday
which raises additional questions about the situation at the
border, including an alleged 1993 incident in which the then-
District Director of the Customs Service, who was later
promoted, may have prevented investigators from conducting a
surprise inspection of the ``line release'' program at the
southwest border. This investigation was aimed at determining
whether unauthorized trucks, potentially carrying drugs, were
allowed to cross the border without inspection.
As I stated in my February 27 letter, I believe the ``line
release'' program only encourages the continued and increased
flow of drug smuggling across the southwest border.
Again, I urge your priority attention to this matter and
look forward to a response to my original letter as soon as
possible.
Sincerely,
Dianne Feinstein,
U.S. Senator.
____
[From the Associated Press, Mar. 10, 1995]
Customs Fails To Act on Suspension for Indicted Warehouse Operator
(By Michael White)
Los Angeles.--Eight months after a harbor warehouse owner
was indicted on bribery charges, he's still profiting from a
Customs Service inspection station on his property although
investigators urged that it be shut down.
That illustrates a lack of clout that frustrates the U.S.
Treasury Department's Office of the Inspector General in its
role as watchdog over some of the government's biggest
moneymakers, including Customs and the Internal Revenue
Service, according to interviews and government records.
The problem is particularly acute in the agency's Western
region where, unlike the rest of the country, inspector
general's investigators have failed to obtain a single
indictment of a federal official in five years.
``I think that was one of the reasons I was hired two years
ago, was to change the direction, and that doesn't happen
over night,'' said James Cottos, assistant inspector general
for investigations in Washington.
In the case of the harbor warehouse, the inspector
general's auditors recommended last October that National
Distribution Services be suspended from doing business. Its
owner, Steve Moallem, had been indicted on charges he paid an
immigration agent $10,000 for false documents for himself and
employees, records show.
Being picked as the site for an examination station can
mean big profits for a warehouse operator, who charges
importers for storing and unloading cargo to be inspected.
Neither Customs nor the Treasury Department itself has
acted on the recommendation to suspend the company.
``We can't force the (Customs) agency to do anything,''
said Rick Dory, a Treasury Department attorney.
Customs spokeman Mike Flemming said the case is up to
Treasury officials in Washington.
The Inspector General's Office is charged with
investigating criminal offenses by management level employees
at Customs, the IRS, the Secret Service and a variety of
other Treasury agencies.
During Cottos' tenure, Treasury's Northeast Region has
logged 14 felony convictions. The Southern Region has had
eight and the Central Division one. Statistics for the
office's performance before his tenure were not available
because good records were not kept, Cottos said.
In the West, however, things are different.
The inspector general's office was absent last year when
the Justice Department launched a corruption investigation
among Customs officials in Los Angeles and San Diego, said a
source familiar with the investigation.
The unusual move was made at the insistence of witnesses
who doubted the effectiveness of the inspector general's
office, said the source, who spoke only on the condition of
anonymity.
The concern stemmed in part from a 1993 incident in which
the inspector general's office tried to investigate
allegations that cocaine-laden trucks were crossing the
border unimpeded under a Customs program intended to speed
the flow of cargo from Mexico.
In that case, inspector general investigators, accompanied
by Customs narcotics agents trying to make unannounced
inspections of vehicles and records at the Otay Mesa port of
entry near San Diego, were denied entrance by Customs
officials.
Under orders of Custom's San Diego District Director Rudy
Camacho, the investigation team was told to leave, according
to several sources who witnessed the incident.
They returned the next week in a visit arranged with
Camacho's office, but by then word of the operation had
leaked to truckers and import brokers they were targeting,
according to a January 1994 memo by the investigators.
``Rudy Camacho ran them out of San Diego,'' said one
veteran inspector familiar with the incident.
Camacho, later promoted to commissioner of Customs' Western
region, said he told the investigators to leave because they
had, without his authorization, brought Customs inspectors
along. He said he had sole authority over Customs inspectors'
activities and scheduling.
His office later cooperated fully with the investigators,
he said.
Cottos said Treasury agencies often resist his office's
attempts to investigate internal wrongdoing.
``People don't want anybody else to come in and do an
investigation of them,'' he said.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
[[Page S4009]] The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________