Table Of Content

S. Hro. 103-83 OVERSIGHT HEARING ON BORDER DRUG INTERDICTION S.HR6. 103-^^ OlINGS BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS FIRST SESSION SPECIAL HEARING Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations '^^'î^;^ / I / ''''0,,, U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 66-655cc WASHINGTON : 1993 ForsalebytheU.S.GovernmentPrintingOffice SuperintendentofDocuments.CongressionalSalesOffice,Washington,DC 20402 ISBN 0-16-041008-8 S. Hrg. 103-83 OVERSIGHT HEARING ON BORDER DRUG INTERDICTION ^H^- 105-^3 OlINGS BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS FIRST SESSION SPECIAL HEARING Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations CiifjJ^ ^^ ''^^î ''^30 tS33 ^ e^*.iî U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE '^ 66-655cc WASHINGTON : 1993 ForsalebytheU.S.GovemmenlPrintingOffice SuperintendentofDocuments,CongressionalSalesOffice.Washington.DC 20402 ISBN 0-16-0A1008-8 COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia, Chairman DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii MARK 0. HATFIELD, Oregon ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South CaroUna TED STEVENS, Alaska J. BENNETT JOHNSTON, Louisiana THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi PATRICKJ. LEAHY, Vermont ALFONSE M. D'AMATO, New York JIM SASSER, Tennessee ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania DENNIS DeCONCINI, Arizona PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico DALE BUMPERS, Arkansas DON NICKLES, Oklahoma FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey PHIL GRAMM, Texas TOM HARKIN, Iowa CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland SLADE GORTON, Washington HARRY REID, Nevada MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky J. ROBERT KERREY, Nebraska CONNIE MACK, Florida HERB KOHL, Wisconsin CONRAD BURNS, Montana PATTY MURRAY, Washington DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California James H. English, StaffDirector Mary S. Dewald, ChiefClerk J. Keith Kennedy, Minority StaffDirector Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government DENNIS DeCONCINI, Arizona, Chairman BARBARAA. MIKULSKI, Maryland CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri J. ROBERT KERREY, Nebraska ALFONSE M. D'AMATO, New York ROBERT C. BYRD, WestVirginia MARK O. HATFIELD, Oregon ex officio ex officio Professional Staff Patty Lynch Chuck Parkinson (Minority) Administrative Support Cybele K. Cobb ^nv- (U) CONTENTS Wednesday, February 24, 1993 Page Opening remarks ofSenator DeConcini 1 Prepared statement ofSenatorD'Amato 3 StatementofMichael Lane, ActingCommissioner, U.S. Customs Service 4 Prepared statement 7 Statement of John E. Hensley, Assistant Commissioner, Office of Enforce- ment, U.S. Customs Service 8 Prepared statement 11 Statement ofHarvey Pothier, Director, Air and Marine Interdiction Program, U.S. Customs Service 13 Prepared statement 14 Statement of Don Shruhan, Special Agent in Charge, Tucson, AZ, U.S. Cus- toms Service 22 StatementofJohn Walters, FormerDeputy Director, Supply Reduction, Office ofNational Drug Control Policy 38 Prepared statement 42 Statement of Robert C. Bonner, Administrator of Drug Enforcement, Drug EnforcementAdministration 50 Prepared statement 54 Statement of Michael S. Williams, Assistant Commissioner, Border Patrol, Immigration andNaturalization Service 57 Prepared statement 58 Statement of Donna Hrinak, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, Inter- AmericanAffairs, DepartmentofState 63 Prepared statement 65 StatementofFrankAult, consultant, International Prowess, Inc 71 Prepared statement 75 StatementofJack Blum 82 Prepared statement 84 Statement ofWilliam Rosenblatt, Special Agent in Charge, Miami, U.S. Cus- toms Service 97 Statement of Ray Mintz, Director, Office ofEnforcement Support, U.S. Cus- toms Service 97 Submitted questions 103 Thursday, February 25, 1993 StatementofSenator DeConcini 119 StatementofSenator Inouye 120 Statement of Mike Wermuth, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Drug Enforce- ment DepartmentofDefense 121 Policy, Prepared statement 125 Statement of Lt. Gen. Martin Brandtner, Director for Operations, The Joint Staff", Department ofDefense 128 Prepared statement 132 Statement ofMaj. Gen. Marvin Ervin, Department ofthe Air Force, Depart- ment ofDefense 134 Prepared statement 137 Statement of Robert Lieberman, Assistant Inspector General for Auditing, DepartmentofDefense 138 Prepared statement 140 Prepared statement ofGen. John L. Piotrowski, USAF (Ret.) 142 Prepared statement ofLt. Gen. R.W. Morton, CanadianAirForce(Ret.) 143 (III) IV Page Statement ofLouis J. Rodrigues, Director, Systems Development and Produc- tionIssues, GeneralAccountingOffice 147 Prepared statement 149 Statement of Drew Valentine, Associate Director, Administration of Justice Issues, General AccountingOffice 152 Submittedquestions 156 StatementofClarenceDupnik, sheriff, Pima County, AZ 159 Preparedstatement 160 Statement of Ray Vinsik, director, Arizona Alliance Planning Committee, Tucson,AZ ^ NM 161 StatementofJackChildress, sheriff, Eddy County, 163 Preparedstatement 164 Statement of Mike Scott, commander, Narcotics Sendee, Texas Department ofPublic Safety 166 StatPermeepnatreofdWsitlaltieammenRtayStorment, sheriff. DonaAna County, NM 116729 OVERSIGHT HEARING ON BORDER DRUG INTERDICTION WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 1993 U.S. Senate, Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service, AND General Government, Committee on Appropriations, Washington, DC. The subcommittee met at 10:03 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Dennis DeConcini (chairman) presid- ing. Present: Senators DeConcini and Bond. PANEL I DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY U.S. Customs Service STATEMENTS OF: MICHAELLANE,ACTING COMMISSIONER JOHN E. HENSLEY, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF EN- FORCEMENT HARVEY POTHIER, DIRECTOR, AIR AND MARINE INTERDICTION PROGRAM DON SHRUHAN, SPECIALAGENT IN CHARGE,TUCSON,AZ OPENING REMARKS OF SENATOR DECONCINI Senator DeConcini. The Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Serv- ice, and Greneral Government will come to order. Today the subcommittee will conduct an oversight hearing on the Nation's border drug interdiction net to determine just how good it is and where the problems are. There has been considerable criticism levied against the Federal program currently under way to interdict the flow of illegal narcotics making their way into this country and onto the streets ofour communities around the Nation. Most of this criticism has been made known to me and this subcommittee through media reports and through their attempt to test the validity of the systems, particularly the aerostat balloons on the border which are operated by the Department ofDefense. In order to determine whether or not the systems are operating as intended, whether or not the systems are operating cost-effec- tively, whether there are feasible alternatives to current tech- nologies and policies, and whether we need to change future policy directions, I called this hearing to have a frank and open discussion (1) of the interdiction and the systems that are involved with the interdiction. I've asked representatives of those agencies which are directly involved in the operations of the program, those which are directly impacted by the success or the failures ofthe systems, and critics ofthe programs to testify today and tomorrow. Most of you in this room here today know that my interest and involvement in the drug area goes back many years to the days when I was county attorney in Pima County, Tucson, AZ. My office was voted the most outstanding district attorney's office 1 year because of the development of a border drug strike force, along with other innovative prosecutorial programs. Since that time, I've de- voted a considerable percentage of my Senate tenure to drug enforcement, interdiction, and demand reduction efforts. Back in early 1980, along with Representative Glenn English of Oklahoma, I worked closely with officials from the U.S. Custom Service and Department oi Defense to give the Federal agencies some basic tools to curtail the unlimited access that drug traffickers had to the United States through general aviation aircraft flights from source countries. That system, which is currently in operation today, called for making use of radar-equipped inflated stationary balloons, known as aerostats, to detect low-flying general aviation aircraft coming into the United States. The Department of Defense had successfully used aerostats in southern Florida for national defense purposes for many years, and they suggested that these systems might be helpful for the Federal law enforcement agencies to interdict suspect aircraft carrying illegal narcotics into the United States. At that time. Customs had lead jurisdiction for air interdiction ofdrug aircraft, but they sorely lacked the tools needed to carry out that role. To be frank, Customs equipment and aircraft was noth- ing more than old, broken-down aircraft with no capability to take on the threat from general aviation aircraft. At that time, the real threat was in southern Florida and the Caribbean. At the urging of myself and Representative Glenn English, stud- ies were conducted and recommendations forwarded on the estab- lishment of a multifaceted air interdiction system, which included an aerostat net across the southern border, drug surveillance aircraft to fill the gaps, and interception and apprehension aircraft to catch those who attempted to penetrate the border. That program has been in operation since 1984, and while some critics will argue that it is a waste of money and effort, it is my current belief that the system has been successful in dramatically curtailing the num- ber ofdrug flights into the United States. No system is perfect; there are going to be technological glitches and holes. I have never said that this system will stop the flow of drugs into the United States, nor has anyone so contended. But, to my knowledge, it is the best that currently exists, and I sit here today ready to be convinced otherwise. I sit here today open to any suggestions and arguments supported by facts which show that there are less costly workable alternatives. For those who say that we can't possibly win the war on drugs, I say we really haven't tried. I agree that we need to do more in the area of prevention and treatment, and I have been a strong supporter of those programs, even directing money out of the for- feiture fund in the drug czar's office to help those kinds of programs. I say we need to utilize the best technology that is currently available to fight this so-called drug war, whether in the area of supply reduction or demand reduction. If not, we should just sur- render. But I have to say that I don't agree that we are waging a war on drugs. We are spending $12 billion this year on total drug control activities at the Federal level. Nobody will deny that's a lot of money. We spent $61 billion on Operation Desert Storm, maybe even more, to wrestle to the ground Saddam Hussein. The United States sent 540,000 troops, and in less than 250 days, we pulled out, claiming total victory. If this Nation expects to wage a true war on drugs, we need to mobilize every resource available to the country and spend whatever it takes until we choke off supply and reduce consumption. That is not what is occurring, unfortunately, nor does it appear that the situation will change under the new leadership in the White House. I'm hopeful I'm wrong, and I'm hopeful the prelimi- nary indications of disbanding the Drug Czar are just because it has been politically misused in the past, that we will see strong leadership from the White House, and I've conveyed that to even the President. I hope and urge the administration to launch a four- prong effort: education, treatment, interdiction, and enforcement. We could win the war ifwe dedicated the necessary resources. I look forward to hearing the testimony of the witnesses today and tomorrow and the discussion of the drug interdiction systems. I hope to have a thorough and complete airing of the pros and cons from the experts and the critics. I want to thank Senator Inouye, the chairman of the Defense Subcommittee, for attending tomorrow when we have members of the Defense Department here to discuss this program. PREPAKED STATEMENT I have a prepared statement from Senator D'Amato. The statement will be made part ofthe record. [The statement follows:] Statementof SenatorD'Amato Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to reviewing with you and the other members of this Subcommittee the status of various drug interdiction and border control programs. While these programs have come in for media criticism recently, much of that criticism is grossly misleading. To illustrate, I would like to submit for the record a one-page report entitled, "Situation Report on Aircraft Smuggling to Canada from Colombia". One reason I cite this is that it involves the New York Customs Air Unit which you and I worked together on, and I am proud ofour work on that. This report shows how the resources ofthe Defense Department, the Drug Intel- ligence Operations Center in Puerto Rico, the Customs Service, Coast Guard, and the Customs New York Air Unit all coordinated their efforts in a successful drug interdiction effort in No—vember. The 10-hour pu—rsuit covered over 2,600 miles. It yielded 3,700 kilograms 8,000 pounds or 4 tons ofcocaine, a Convair 580 aircraft, and 4 arrests. Mr. Chairman, these resources simply would nothave been available withoutyour tireless efforts over theyears. And whatifthere were no aerostats on the Southwest Border? Let me quote Rober Asack in 1988 when he was Deputy Assistant Commissioner forEnforcement in Customs Aviation Operations: "When we measure our capability to detect the low flyer, we presently (1988) have about an 18 percent probability of detection." Ifwe took down the aerostats, wouldn't drug traffickers return to flying drugs directly into tile United States, instead offlyinginto Mexico and smugglingthe drugs intotheU.S. through the ports ofentryoronfootacross theborder? Ourinterdiction and drug enforcement programs—are farfrom perfect, but we can- not let up now. Mr. Cha—irman, all ofthese efforts and all the others being under- taken by these agencies require resources. I look forward to working with you and theothermembers ofthis Subcommittee tomakethoseresources available. SituationReportonAircraftSmugglingto Canadafrom Colombia On November 18, 1992, a Department of Defense (DOD) surface detection platform detected an aircraft departing Colombia proceeding North. The Command, Control, Communications and Intelligence CenterEast (CÎE) was unableto identify the target as a legitimate flight and designated it as suspect. The Drug Intelligence Operations Center(DIOC) in Puerto Rico was briefedon the targetaircraft and sub- sequently launched Caribbean area based U.S. Customs (USCS) tracking aircraft, aU.S. Coast Guard (USCG) intercept aircraft, and requested the assistance ofa De- partmentofDefense airborne detection and monitoring platform to follow the north- bound suspectaircraft. The uses and USCG aircraft leap frogged the target along the route offlight to allow for refueling en route while one tracking aircraft remained with the target. CÊE contacted law enforcement agencies along the route offlight to apprise them ofthe suspect aircraft transiting their area and coordinated landing approvals and refuelingarrangements forthe tracking aircraft. CÎE notified USCG Atlantic Area and USCG Flagplot of the possibility of the chase continuing into Canada and briefed USCS Air Branches along the East coast to launch on the target when it entered their area of operation. The Jacksonville Air Branch was unable to launch due to equipment problems but the New York Air Unit was able to launch a tracking and apprehension aircraft to assist in the chase. CÎE coordinated the handoffofthe suspect aircraft to Canadian AirForce F-18's and coordinated the passengerpick-up ofa Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) Officertoensurejurisdictional authority atthe apprehension. The Canadian F-lS's received the handofffrom the USCG aircraft as the aircraft flew over the Western coast of Nova Scotia and directed the target to land at Frederiction, Canada. The suspect continued along its course into Canada until the F-18'shadto departthe pursuitforfuel. The suspect aircraft was located at Trois-Rivieres airport, Quebec Province, by lawenforcementofficers aboard a CanadianArmyhelicopter. The 10 hour pursuit covering over 2,600 miles yielded 3,700 kilograms ofcocaine, a Convair 580 aircraft, and 4 arrests. A unique factor about the aircraft was that ithadbeenboobytrappedwithexplosive devices. INTRODUCTION OF PANEL I Senator DeConcini. Our first panel this morning will be representatives of the U.S. Customs Service. Testifying on behalf of Customs is Mike Lane, Acting Commissioner; John Hensley, Assist- ant Commissioner for Enforcement; Harvey Pothier, Director ofthe Air and Marine Interdiction Program; and Don Shruhan, Special Agent in Charge, Tucson, AZ. Welcome, gentlemen. We'll start with you, Mr. Lane. STATEMENT OF MICHAEL LANE Mr. Lane. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank the members of this Committee for giving us the opportunity to address the aerostat program and its key role in our integrated border interdiction system. I would like to make a few general comments about the important role of border interdiction in the overall supply reduction strategy. My colleagues, Mr.