<DOC> [106th Congress House Hearings] [From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access] [DOCID: f:71622.wais] DRUG TESTING IN SCHOOLS: AN EFFECTIVE DETERRENT? ======================================================================= 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 __________ MAY 30, 2000 __________ Serial No. 106-211 __________ 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 71-622 WASHINGTON : 2001 _______________________________________________________________________ For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001 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 Ryan McKee, Clerk C O N T E N T S ---------- Page Hearing held on May 30, 2000..................................... 1 Statement of: Cazenavette, George, Special Agent in Charge, New Orleans Field Office, Drug Enforcement Administration; Major Pete Schneider, Counterdrug Coordinator, Louisiana National Guard; David Knight, Director, Gulf Coast HIDTA; and Tony Soto, Deputy Director, Gulf Coast HIDTA.................... 63 Connick, Harry, district attorney, Orleans Parish, New Orleans, LA; Yvonne R. Gelpi, president & principal, De La Salle High School, New Orleans, LA; Aaron Middleberg, former student, De La Salle High School; and Rosemary Mumm, diversionary program director, Office of the District Attorney of New Orleans.................................... 8 Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by: Cazenavette, George, Special Agent in Charge, New Orleans Field Office, Drug Enforcement Administration, prepared statement of............................................... 66 Connick, Harry, district attorney, Orleans Parish, New Orleans, LA, prepared statement of......................... 11 Gelpi, Yvonne R., president & principal, De La Salle High School, New Orleans, LA, prepared statement of............. 18 Knight, David, Director, Gulf Coast HIDTA, prepared statement of......................................................... 83 Mica, Hon. John L., a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida, prepared statement of.................... 5 Middleberg, Aaron, former student, De La Salle High School, prepared statement of...................................... 42 Mumm, Rosemary, diversionary program director, Office of the District Attorney of New Orleans, prepared statement of.... 45 Schneider, Major Pete, Counterdrug Coordinator, Louisiana National Guard, prepared statement of...................... 77 DRUG TESTING IN SCHOOLS: AN EFFECTIVE DETERRENT? ---------- TUESDAY, MAY 30, 2000 House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources, Committee on Government Reform, New Orleans, LA. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., at De La Salle High School, New Orleans, LA, Hon. John L. Mica (chairman of the committee) presiding. Present: Representatives Mica, Vitter, and Jefferson. Staff present: Sharon Pinkerton, staff director and chief counsel; and Ryan McKee, clerk. Mr. Mica. Good morning. I would like to call this hearing of the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources to order. Pleased to be in New Orleans today with my colleague, Mr. Vitter. We are expecting Mr. Jefferson to join us, but I do like to start these hearings on time, and we have a full schedule today. Just for the information of those attending and participating today, this is an investigations and oversight subcommittee of the U.S. House of Representatives, I chair that subcommittee. I am pleased to have Mr. Vitter as a member of that subcommittee. Mr. Vitter has joined our subcommittee which just happens to be one of the larger subcommittees of--I think it is the largest one of the Government Reform Committee of the House of Representatives. And again, we are charged with investigations and oversight of our fraud areas of our Federal Government. In particular, our subcommittee focuses on national drug policy. Additionally, we conduct oversight and investigations over HHS, HUD, Department of Education, international trade issues and the Department of Justice. So we have a full platter. Today's hearing is being conducted at the request of Mr. Vitter, and the order of business today will be, I will start with an opening statement, I will yield to Mr. Vitter, and should we be joined by other Members. Also Mr. Vitter asked unanimous request that the record be left open for a period of 2 weeks. Without objection, so ordered. And we will allow additional testimony, if individuals, organizations would like their statements to be made part of this record, they can request that through the subcommittee, or Mr. Vitter or myself, and we will see that it is made part of the record. We have two panels we will be hearing from. Our topic is the drug threat in schools, is drug testing an effective deterrent. Again, examination of this subject at the request of Congressman Vitter. The order of business again will be that we will hear from the two panels on our witness list. This being an investigations and oversight subcommittee of Congress, for the benefit of the witnesses testifying today, all of the witnesses will be sworn. I will do that in just a minute. Additionally, if you have any lengthy statements or documentation, information, background that you would like to be made part of the official congressional record of this hearing, upon request through the Chair, that will be granted. With that in mind, our first panel today consists of Mr. Harry Connick, district attorney for New Orleans, the State of Louisiana; Yvonne R. Gelpi, president and principal of the De La Salle High School in New Orleans, and I do want to thank you at this point for offering your school facilities for this congressional hearing. Additionally, we have Aaron Middleberg, a former student of De La Salle High School, and Rosemary Mumm, she is in charge of the diversionary program, the Office of the District Attorney of New Orleans. I will now start with my opening statement, and will swear in our witnesses after we have heard from other Members. Our subcommittee today is conducting this oversight field hearing as part of our need to understand fully the Nation's drug crisis, how it impacts different parts of our Nation, and what effect drug control efforts are under way and should be fully supported. Today, we will learn about what kind of drug treatment exists in New Orleans, and specifically will address and examine local efforts to combat this problem in schools through the use of a drug testing program. Since New Orleans is uniquely located in a deep-water port, and the Gulf Coast area has thousands of miles of coastline, drug trafficking organizations use this area as a logical transit point for illegal narcotics coming from Mexico, the Caribbean and South America. We are privileged to have with us today a congressional leader who strongly supports efforts to stop the flow of illegal narcotics into the United States, and also is an activist in protecting our communities from the ravages these illegal drugs cause. I know that Mr. Vitter, who invited us to this congressional district here in beautiful and historic New Orleans, has been very active in helping this region in dealing with issues of drug prevention and treatment, and also addressing national and international drug control. I recognize also that he is a resident expert on the needs and concerns of the citizens throughout this area, and also an important force in fashioning Federal, State and local solutions. I want to thank all the participants for their presence here today, and also for their dedication to this issue which is of critical importance to everyone across America. We are honored to have testifying before us a number of Federal, regional and local officials who are engaged in responding to the drug crisis and its terrible daily consequences. These officials serve, in fact, on the front line. They are apprehending and prosecuting drug producers and traffickers, and also counseling and educating those whose lives have been impacted, or well could be impacted by the use of illegal narcotics. This subcommittee is particularly interested in how this community has designed and implemented the school drug testing program. Since the early 1990's, drug use among our youth has exploded. Clearly youth drug abuse wreaks havoc in our school systems, leading to poor performance, leading to crime, leading to tragedies in families. These children in our educational system are, in fact, the future of our country. We need to use every tool at our disposal to create a safe and drug-free learning environment in our schools. I want to take a moment to commend District Attorney Connick for his years of persistence and innovation in helping create these programs. I personally believe that drug testing can be an effective deterrent to drug use in our schools, and I am also interested in learning more about effective and fair programs that can be replicated and used as models across our country. In Congress, we want to ensure that the Federal Government is doing everything possible to assist you here in your local community, both in reducing the supply of drugs in the community as well as reducing the demand for illegal narcotics. At a recent hearing of our subcommittee, we learned that estimates of Americans in need of drug treatment range from 4.4 to 8.9 million people. And less than 2 million people are reportedly receiving treatment at this time. This gap must be addressed. Our subcommittee will continue its oversight in this area, and also seek to improve our Federal programs that support successful State and local drug treatment, prevention and education, and, in this case, I hope, testing programs. Today, we are focusing on the special challenges and threats facing New Orleans. Drugs pose a threat to our schools, to our law enforcement officials, and also to your health system. Since, again, New Orleans is so strategically located between the southwest border and the eastern seaboard, your community faces a great risk that drug trafficking organizations will operate here to move drugs coming in from Mexico and South America, the Caribbean and to and from other parts of the United States. To help respond to these unique challenges, several counties and parishes in Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi have been designated by the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy [ONDCP], as we refer to, as a high-intensity drug traffic area. And that also as an designation, an acronym we call HIDTA. These HIDTAs, high-intensity drug traffic areas, under Federal law, are defined as regions in the United States with serious drug trafficking problems that have a harmful impact on other areas of the country. The mission of HIDTAs is, according to law, ``to enhance and coordinate America's drug control efforts among Federal, State and local agencies in order to eliminate or reduce drug trafficking, including the production, manufacture, transportation, distribution and chronic use of illegal drugs and money-laundering, and its harmful consequences in the critical regions of the United States.'' Our subcommittee is responsible for authorizing and also for overseeing the Office of National Drug Control Policy, also known as the drug czar's office, and also have oversight authority over all of the Nation's HIDTA programs. Since the Gulf Coast HIDTA was created in 1996, we will learn more today about some of its accomplishments and targeted initiatives in combating illegal drugs in this area. We did have an opportunity yesterday, I know, after Mr. Vitter finished some of his Memorial Day obligations, to meet on a preliminary basis with some of the officials involved in the HIDTA and got some preliminary information. Today, we hope to have additional information on the record of the success and how we can make more effective the HIDTA operating in this region. I applaud the continuing dedication and professionalism of our witnesses who are here today. Some I have had an opportunity to meet before, and many I have had an opportunity to hear about their successes. I am very pleased that they are willing to share their ideas and needs and requirements on how we can all work to better do the job we need to do in this important area. I can assure you that this subcommittee and your representatives who are here today will do everything they can and we can to assist you in protecting your loved ones and also ridding your communities of deadly, illegal narcotics. We all recognize that the drug crisis demands absolute full utilization of all of our available resources and close cooperation in a comprehensive regional and national approach. It is our job in Congress to monitor Federal activities and ensure their success. If obstacles are identified, then we must move decisively to overcome them. New Orleans, and the rest of our country, cannot afford to wait. The drug crisis demands promising approaches and decisive action, and the time to act is now. Again, I want to thank all of the witnesses who will be appearing before us today. I look forward to hearing your testimony on this topic of local, State, regional and national importance. I look forward to working with you. I am pleased at this time to yield to the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Vitter, for the purpose of an opening statement. [The prepared statement of Hon. John L. Mica follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1622.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1622.002 Mr. Vitter. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to begin by thanking you for bringing this subcommittee field hearing to New Orleans to talk about mandatory drug testing, and its effectiveness, particularly in schools. And I really want to point out to everyone here, John Mica, as chairman of the Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources Subcommittee, has done tremendous work in the House, really putting together a multi-faceted approach to the drug problem, both on the supply side and the demand side--both the law enforcement and the treatment and education end. And I think it is clear that is the only way we are going to get a handle on this problem, is address all of those very real needs. As the chairman indicated, law enforcement in this area faces a daunting challenge with the port, with our location with I-10, in terms of the supply side, and we have gotten to visit with many Federal and State and local law enforcement officials. We are going to do more of that later on today. I want to complement all of those folks with HIDTA, DEA, Customs, U.S. Attorney's office, FBI, local law enforcement for doing the work they do. But it is clear to me that a crucial part of addressing this problem is on the demand side. And we need to cut down demand and solve the drug problem in that way as well. And really, that is what this discussion is all about. Today, we are looking at a very innovative approach to the demand side that Harry Connick has put together over the last several years, and which has been implemented in six area high schools. The Louisiana High School Drug Testing Program is currently working, I think, very effectively in those schools to make them drug-free schools and to reach out to kids with problems and get them treatment and turn those lives around at an early age before it is too late. Of course, I am going to leave the task of explaining the program in detail to the panelists, but I do want to make a few comments about it. First of all, I think it is very important that this program targets the members of our community who are most vulnerable and who we need to focus on, getting to them early to address the problem, to get them treatment and to turn their lives around before it is really too late, and before it is much, much more difficult after their habits have formed. I think that is a tremendously important part of this problem. Second, I greatly appreciate the DA's strong conviction that testing has to be coupled with treatment. This is not testing for prosecutorial purposes at all, this is testing to identify kids with a problem and to get them treatment immediately, effectively, aggressively, to turn their lives around. And that is a very, very important component of this program. And third, I want to compliment the DA on putting together a lot of emphasis on documenting the results of this program, because that is the only way we are really going to know how well it works, how it can be fine-tuned, and hopefully how it can be brought to other schools in the area and other schools around the country. That is another very important part of this ongoing developing program. So I look forward to the testimony. I do want to recognize a few people who are not on the panel. Judge Camille Burris and Tim McElroy, first assistant district attorney in the Orleans District Attorney's Office have both been very involved in developing this concept, along with many of our panelists, and I want to compliment them for their work. And I also want to thank the DA's chief investigator, Howard Robertson, and all of the DA investigators who have not only helped with this program but helped with our hearing today, and putting the logistics together. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield, and I look forward to the testimony of both of our panels. Mr. Mica. I thank the gentleman. And we will now turn to our first panel of witnesses. Mr. Connick, Ms. Gelpi, Mr. Middleberg and Ms. Mumm, would you please stand and be sworn? [Witnesses sworn.] Mr. Mica. The witnesses answered in the affirmative. I am pleased to welcome you here today. I guess I ought to thank Principal Gelpi also for having us here today. I guess it is a rather unique occasion to have a congressional hearing in a school, but we commend you on your making this facility available, and also appreciate, again, your hospitality. I am going to first recognize the district attorney of New Orleans, State of Louisiana, Mr. Harry Connick, for his statement. Good morning. STATEMENTS OF HARRY CONNICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ORLEANS PARISH, NEW ORLEANS, LA; YVONNE R. GELPI, PRESIDENT & PRINCIPAL, DE LA SALLE HIGH SCHOOL, NEW ORLEANS, LA; AARON MIDDLEBERG, FORMER STUDENT, DE LA SALLE HIGH SCHOOL; AND ROSEMARY MUMM, DIVERSIONARY PROGRAM DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF NEW ORLEANS Mr. Connick. Good morning. I must begin by thanking you, Congressman Mica, for authorizing and chairing the subcommittee hearing, and Congressman David Vitter for requesting it and making it happen. Thanks are also due to our Congressman William Jefferson and our Senator Mary Landrieu for their interest and support of our high school drug testing efforts. These days, no one seems to be asking the question, are we winning the war on drugs? There was a time, however, when people did ask drug enforcement officials and legislators this question. They asked it with the hope and expectation of a victory. And when this question was put to them, these officials never answered the question directly. They never said yes, they never said, no. They always said that progress was being made and cited various initiatives designed to assure us that progress was, indeed, being made in this so-called war. In my 40 years in the criminal justice system, I have never seen any of these initiatives make a lasting difference. Certainly there have been successes, but we are somehow always left with the same problem, a constant and substantial demand for drugs. We now accept that we are a society that continues to have a serious drug problem, and really do not expect too much to be done to change it. It has been a long time since I have heard anyone ask, are we winning the war on drugs? Attempts to eradicate drug cultivation in this and other countries has never really succeeded. Attempts to interdict drugs illegally entering this country have not done much better, and despite the millions of tax dollars expended, ``Just say no'' did not work and D.A.R.E., HIDTA and other preventions and commendable enforcement efforts have not really diminished the supply of or the demand for drugs. No one can honestly say that we have won or we are winning the war on illegal drugs. The majority of tax dollars being spent to combat illegal drugs are spent trying to reduce the supply side of drug trade. However, there will always be a supply if there is a need. Only relatively recently has serious thought been given to the critical need for testing, treatment and counseling, the best way to reduce drug demand. Fortunately, increased attention is being given to programs that deal with drug users coming into the criminal justice system. Diversion programs and drug courts are beginning to show signs of success. But these efforts are directed to persons who are already a part of the criminal justice system. The question we should now seriously address is, how do we keep people, especially teenagers out of the system? We have learned that there is one method that stands out as the most effective prevention method today, and that is drug testing. In the New Orleans area, we are now using the most effective demand-reduction tool, I believe, that this country has ever known, and that is the testing of a limited number of our high school students in this area. We have learned, through concrete, tangible experience that drug testing is working. In New Orleans alone, there are current three parochial high schools successfully testing all of their students, three more parochial high schools in St. Tammany Parish are doing the same, and three additional parochial high schools in Jefferson Parish will begin testing this fall. These schools utilize drug testing by use of hair analysis, which we have found to be the most effective testing method. Other schools, both public and private, want to implement drug testing programs, but cannot do so because of an absence of funds. Public schools in New Orleans will begin testing the 3- percent of all students engaging in athletic and other extra- curricular activities this fall. Probably the most significant and dramatic event taking place in New Orleans is the planned drug testing of public school students at Frederick A. Douglass High School. Douglass is the first and only public school to adopt such a unique drug testing program, employing both the 3- percent rule and the voluntary testing of students. Mr. Vincent Nzinga is the principal at that school. The Douglass program will begin this fall, and will run for a 2-year period. There are many benefits to drug testing high school students, who incidentally probably will have to be tested anyway after they leave school. First, testing identifies those students using drugs, and is the predicate for early intervention in the form of non-punitive counseling and treatment. It also deters the use of drugs, especially among those students who are beginning to consider experimenting with drugs, and it is a fact that most students refuse to use drugs when they know they are going to be tested. Also students who remain drug-free until their 18th year will probably not use drugs thereafter, and it is certainly less expensive to drug test and treat a person before arrest than after. Parents are overwhelmingly in support of having their children tested. We know drug testing reduces demand, and when you reduce the demand, supply reduction must follow. There is a dire need to expand these successful drug-testing programs, and we are looking to you to lead the way in funding these projects. We thank you for visiting us and urge you to help us in Louisiana to create a model high school drug testing reduction program for the country. Thank you. Mr. Mica. Thank you. And we will withhold questions until we have heard from all of the witnesses. The next witness is the president and principal of the high school here, Yvonne Gelpi. You are recognized. [The prepared statement of Mr. Connick follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1622.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1622.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1622.005 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1622.006 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1622.007 Ms. Gelpi. Good morning, Chairman Mica; welcome back, Congressman David Vitter. We are very proud of David, he was valedictorian of his class of 1979, graduated from De La Salle, and distinguished guests. What if I told you I had a way to reduce detentions for fighting by 85 percent, and detentions for disruptive behavior by 65 percent in your schools? What if I told you you could completely turn around the culture of your schools, reducing stealing and cheating, so that students could focus on getting their educations? If I told you it would cost about $50 a student to accomplish this, would you object? Would any parent object to this additional cost? De La Salle has found a way to accomplish this, and it happens when a school does mandatory drug testing of students, faculty and staff. We are not talking theory here, we are not talking possibilities, we are speaking about hard data, gathered from over 2,500 drug tests over a 3-year period. We did reduce detentions. We did change the culture of our school. But better than that, we gave our students a chance to say no to peer pressure and to avoid experimentation with drugs at a young age. In the Youth Risk Behavior Survey by the Louisiana Office of Addictive Disorders, conducted prior to our implementation of mandatory drug testing, we found that 10 percent of our students reported trying marijuana and 10 percent trying cocaine before the age of 13. Frightening. Thirty percent indicated they had been offered, sold or given illegal drugs on our campus. The purpose of our drug testing program is not intended to be punitive. It is intended to stop an undesirable behavior that is interfering with learning. We warned our students 90 days before the tests began that, if they were experimenting with drugs, they should cease immediately. We wanted to throw out the drugs, not the kids. On the handout on page 2, are some statistics about our program over a 3-year period. Year one, we had 3.4 percent test positive. Year two, positives were down to 2.1. And year three, the latest results, which are not even printed in the booklet yet, the number is fewer than 1 percent. That is 6 students out of 850; 5 of them seniors and 1 junior; 5 boys and 1 girl. The results speak for themselves. Mandatory drug testing works. Why are schools afraid to implement drug testing? In speaking all over the United States, I have found five common concerns, and they are listed on page 1 of the handout. Schools are afraid people will think they have a drug problem. Schools are afraid of a Civil Liberties lawsuit. The Supreme Court has authorized random testing of high school athletes, and the 7th Circuit has allowed drug testing of all students in any extra- curricular activity. Students have a right to an education. I cannot imagine any court in the land ruling that students have a constitutional right to use drugs. False positives are also a major concern. What about second-hand smoke, and the coarseness of African-American hair? The scientific testing methods used by Psychemedics have almost completely eradicated false positives. We have had no incidence in over 2,500 drug tests, and African-American hair is a non- issue. And we have data to prove that. Confidentiality, who is going to know about who tests positive? And mistaken identity. The chain of custody has to be very specific and very clear. We chose to use hair testing because it was more reliable than urine testing. We could not get a positive urine test, even when all indications of drug use were there. Go on the Internet, and you will find 101 ways to beat the urine test. Hair testing by Psychemedics is outstandingly reliable. Since we began in 1998, nine other Catholic schools in the area have followed suit, and they are experiencing similar successful results, and I see some of those principals here. Thanks to District Attorney Harry Connick, drug testing will be implemented in the first public school in our city. There is a commercial on TV about a father losing his son to drug overdose. I believe the actor's name is Carroll O'Connor. It is poignant and heartbreaking. He states at the end, ``Get between your kid and drugs, any way you can.'' I believe that with all my heart. We have a responsibility and a duty to get between our kids and drugs any way we can. Thank you. Mr. Mica. Thank you for your testimony. And we will hear now from Aaron Middleberg. He is a former student of De La Salle High School. You are recognized, sir. [The prepared statement of Ms. Gelpi follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1622.034 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1622.035 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1622.036 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1622.037 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1622.038 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1622.039 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1622.040 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1622.041 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1622.042 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1622.043 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1622.044 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1622.045 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1622.046 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1622.047 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1622.048 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1622.049 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1622.050 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1622.051 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1622.052 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1622.053 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1622.054 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1622.055 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1622.056 Mr. Middleberg. Good morning, Chairman Mica, Congressman Vitter, and guests. My name is Aaron Middleberg, and I am a graduate of De La Salle's class of 1999. I came to De La Salle in 1995 as a freshman. Two years into my high school career, De La Salle introduced the drug testing policies. All students were informed that in 90 days, the entire student body would receive a drug test. This came as a bit of a surprise to several students and parents, but the administration knew the challenges the students faced, and the fact that drugs were readily available in the New Orleans area. And this would be a way to make sure that each student was taking full advantage of the right to learn in a safe and drug- free environment. The administration moved through with their plan and drug tested the entire student body. Barely 2 months after the drug testing began, I was called down to Ms. Gelpi's office. I thought to myself, what have I possibly done now? I knew I had parked in the teachers' lot, as well as probably was tardy, and I just might have cut in the lunch line. But I was wrong. It was not for those reasons. She wanted my opinion on the drug testing. My answer to her was, I think it has been wonderful. The people that would hang around outside of school when the dismissal bell would ring were gone, and the No. 1 thing that made a difference was, every single student in De La Salle had a reason to say no. Every De La Salle student had a reason to say no. One might ask, is it worth the money to drug test everyone, or should we just drug test the kids we suspect? Test every single person, including the staff, and you will have a school that is almost drug-free, and one less peer pressure on a student--one less peer pressure. It worked for me, so let us make it work for everyone. It is not a punishment, it is a privilege to know someone cares that much about you. Thank you. Mr. Mica. Appreciate your testimony. And we will now hear from Rosemary Mumm. She is the diversionary program director for the Office of the District Attorney for New Orleans. You are recognized. [The prepared statement of Mr. Middleberg follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1622.008 Ms. Mumm. Thank you, Congressman Mica, Congressman Vitter, and distinguished guests. One of the major concerns that many have expressed about drug testing of high school students is the intent of the testing. Once persons understand the testing is designed to assist and not punish our youth, the second-most common concern is that of the availability of treatment. In New Orleans, this is a paramount issue to administrators, principals, counselors and parents. As a 19-year substance abuse professional, I am pleased that these issues are raised as it underscores the recognition that a ``Just say no'' policy of addressing persons who abuse and are addicted to drugs is over-simplistic, or that a zero tolerance school policy, in and of itself, is not sufficient to stop drug use. Drug abuse is not just a criminal justice issue. It is one of the major public health issues of the day. According to a 1999 Monitoring the Future Survey, 23 percent of U.S. high school seniors--that is almost 1 in 4--reported use of marijuana in the 30 days prior to the survey. The 12th annual PRIDE survey reported that, of the 25.6 million students in grades 6 to 12, over 4 million are monthly users of illicit drugs. And as a point of reference, this is double the number of people who are incarcerated in our prisons today. In this same study, it was determined that half of those who reported bringing a gun to school also reported daily illicit drug use. In a federally funded needs assessment study in Louisiana, for Orleans and the surrounding parishes of Jefferson and St. Barnard, the number of students, teens, that needed drug treatment or intervention for illicit drug use is 8,500 teens. There is no question that there is a great need for treatment services for our youth, many of whom are unidentified. Not all students who use drugs are dependent or in need of treatment. Drug use varies considerably from initial experimentation to chronic, progressive addiction. If the young person has positive experiences from drug use with little consequence or threat of detection, the chances of additional use are enhanced, particularly if there is little discomfort or dissonance with that person's internal values, including those values inculcated from the school environment. Adolescents can and do become dependent on drugs. Because the young body is still developing, drug use has more physical impact on adolescents than on fully grown adults. It is therefore particularly important to provide incentives to keep our young people from trying drugs in the first place. I have heard addicts report, for example, that within their first few times ingesting cocaine, they felt hooked. The later a person begins drug use, the less likely he or she will develop a problem with it, and the earlier a drug problem can be identified and treated, the more likely a successful outcome. Drug testing provides both the deterrence effect and the means to identify youth in need of services. Our office suggests the following policy approach toward students who test positive. The principal should confidentially meet with the parents and the student to review the results. The family should be given resource options to seek a professional clinical assessment of their child. This interview is necessary to determine where on the continuum of drug involvement that child is, so that any recommendations can be individually tailored. These may range from drug education classes or family counseling to more extensive outpatient and inpatient treatment. Intensive treatment will be necessary for those students abusing or dependent upon drugs, as they may be experiencing alterations in brain chemistry and other organ functioning, along with the mental, the psychological and the social impairments. These young people need the support and tools to change. It is therefore imperative that any schools that undertake a drug testing program collaborate with prevention and treatment specialists in designing their programs. In our efforts here, we are working extensively with the Council on Alcohol and Drug Abuse, and other local treatment providers to assure a comprehensive package of treatment alternatives. We are also seeking funding for additional expansion of treatment services. In summary, drug testing offers vital, effective opportunities to identify and provide needed assistance to children who may otherwise go unattended until more destructive consequences occur. Arrests, suicide attempts or other symptoms that reflect significant impairment to their developmental growth can lead the adolescent to lose sight of their unique talents and potential. These programs are solid investments in our precious human resources. [The prepared statement of Ms. Mumm follows.] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1622.009 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1622.010 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1622.011 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1622.012 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1622.013 Mr. Mica. Thank you for your testimony, and we will begin the round of questions. And I will start with Mr. Connick, the district attorney. To date, Mr. Connick, the Supreme Court has ruled that drug tests are constitutional, but in a limited example. And I believe that is for those involved in athletics or extra- curricular activities. You are expanding this program this fall, I understand, from a private school to a public school. Do you feel that you will be subject to a challenge here with the institution of that from private to public sector, and do you feel that that program can continue or be legal under the guidelines already established by the court? Mr. Connick. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman. The examples set by De La Salle and other schools that are drug testing now established the procedure of how to do to it. Yvonne Gelpi and the other school principals spent a lot of time inviting questions about the program. They spent a lot of time laying the groundwork. And that same policy was adopted by Mr. Vincent Nzinga, who is a principal at one of our largest public high schools in the city. And Ms. Geraldine Walker, who is the principal of the PTA at that school spent a lot of time with the parents over there, and they sent out all kinds of correspondence and had meetings and discussions. And we are told that a substantial number of the parents--which, incidentally, coincides with the data gathered by fact finders regarding the support that exists for this drug testing--most of the parents want it. Some of the students who are going to be tested under the 3-percent testing plan, that has been promulgated by the Orleans Parish School Board, but everyone is going to be voluntarily tested. They will use hair. We have obtained a grant for a 2-year period of testing, approximating $165,000. Mr. Mica. So this is a voluntary---- Mr. Connick. It is going to be voluntary. Mr. Mica. And yours is mandatory, Ms. Gelpi? Ms. Gelpi. Yes. Mr. Mica. So it is a condition of---- Ms. Gelpi. Enrollment. Mr. Mica [continuing]. Enrollment at the private school? Ms. Gelpi. Yes. Mr. Mica. Is there a way to make yours mandatory, or at this time it is strictly voluntary? Mr. Connick. I would hope to think so, but I would really walk softly in that area, to avoid challenges. Mr. Mica. Do you have any type of a release that your students' parents sign, Ms. Gelpi? Ms. Gelpi. It is part of the application process. Mr. Mica. It is? Ms. Gelpi. And it is in the student handbook. Mr. Mica. And are you anticipating a similar type of release or approval from parents or guardians? Mr. Connick. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Permission has to be given to drug test the students. They have to sign--in order to participate in athletic activity, they must sign a consent form. They may be selected randomly to be tested, but everyone else voluntarily will have to sign a release. Parents will have to do it, and students will do it. Mr. Mica. I understand, Ms. Gelpi, here at this school, the parents pay for this, and it costs about $50. Is that correct? Ms. Gelpi. Yes. Mr. Mica. And how would you pay for this public program? Mr. Connick. We, fortunately, have been able to get some money from some private foundations to do it. But we would like to expand it. I do not think it is going to be expanded without your support, without the support of Congress. I know there are some bills in Congress right now advocating drug testing in public schools, but we really need for you to support what we are proposing here today, get behind a project and the cost I think would be minimal. But the funding, I think, would give us a chance, enable us to demonstrate that it can be done, and that it is successful and is, in fact, a deterrent. Mr. Mica. I am not certain of the local school structure. We have, where I come from, a school superintendent, school board, and they would pass approval of institution of any type of a program like this. Do you have a similar structure, and has this come before that board, the public board, and received its approval? Mr. Connick. I think that the approval has to come from the school board. But what I would like to see is some funding made available to us, and let us offer to any school that wants to participate on a voluntary basis in the drug testing program, similar to Douglass, I think you will find an overwhelming response from the parents in this area. Mr. Mica. Well, we can put some caveats on Federal money, we are well-known for that, particularly in the education area. But one possibility would be, if you receive Federal funds, that you institute some type of a drug testing program. What would be your response to a congressional mandate like that, Mr. Connick? Mr. Connick. If I understand you correctly, if we are offered the opportunity to do that? Mr. Mica. No, make it a condition. You receive Federal funds, and you must come up with a program, mandatory. Mr. Connick. Oh, that is done. We already have---- Ms. Gelpi. He is saying if they tied a string to the Federal funds, that you had to drug test. Mr. Connick. Right. I do not know, along educational--would educational--I do not know about that. Mr. Mica. You want the Federal money, but should we have Federal guidelines---- Mr. Connick. I think you should have guidelines, absolutely. Mr. Mica. Ms. Gelpi, have you had any challenges to the program, court challenges? Ms. Gelpi. No. Mr. Mica. No. Now what about those students who are found with positive test results? Are they retested? Ms. Gelpi. Yes. When a student is found positive, there is one person in the school who knows that, and that person contacts the parents and the student, and they come in for a conference with--it happens to be the dean of students in our school. And it is quite often the first time a parent even hears that there is a possibility that the child is using drugs, and generally the parent denies it immediately, and it takes a little while for the process to work. But at the end of the conference, the recommendation is that the family seek some kind of counseling. Some of the schools require it. We just suggest it. We have counseling staff here, 1 per every 200 students, and then there are outside agencies. So the parents are encouraged to get the counseling. In 90 days, the student is retested, and so they have 90 days to clean up their act. Mr. Mica. And what about after the 90 days, if the retest positive? Ms. Gelpi. If they retest positive, we ask them to withdraw from the school. Mr. Mica. Have you had to institute that policy? Ms. Gelpi. Yes. Mr. Mica. You have? Ms. Gelpi. Yes. Mr. Mica. So it has been an effective deterrent in reducing the incidents, and then you have had instances where they have either not sought treatment or counseling or, as you said, cleaned up their act. And are asked to leave. Ms. Gelpi. In our first year, we had 10 percent of those who tested positive retest positive the second time. In the second year, it was only 5 percent. But I have asterisked on the page with the statistics, eight students chose to leave the school after the first positive test, rather than remain in the school and know that, if they kept doing drugs, that they were going to get caught the second time. So that 5 percent is not a valid statistic. Mr. Mica. How would you enforce the public school program? I think you had mentioned that you want to have some type of treatment or counseling. Mr. Connick. Yes. Mr. Mica. Would there be any enforcement mechanism? You are not really going to be able to throw them out of school or ask them to withdraw. Mr. Connick. No, but I think there are sanctions--no, you cannot do that. You are right. But I think sanctions would be available, would be made available to have alternative schools available to those students who regularly use drugs or refuse to stop using drugs. That is being worked on now with Douglass. The school board has a policy of suspending athletes if they test positive. Our proposal for Douglass was to let them continue to play. But there are sanctions that can be included in the program, and hopefully alternatives that will stop and reduce the drug demand. If you have someone who continues to use drugs, I think, you know, that is a basis for expulsion. But that would be something that the Orleans Parish School Board would have to decide. Mr. Mica. Mr. Middleberg--did you want to respond, Ms.---- Ms. Gelpi. Yes, may I add something? When we met here, Harry, you might remember, we had the Orleans Parish School Board and several other groups back in the library when we first proposed to them about the drug testing. And that question did come up. And I am not sure of all the terminology, but in the public schools, there is a disciplinary process, and there are levels. And they felt that it would be easy enough to move the child through already-established levels, where then they would go to alternative schools. It would just fit in with their system, and they would not have to throw them out, so to speak. Thank you. Mr. Mica. Mr. Middleberg, when were you in school here? Mr. Middleberg. I graduated in the class of 1999, which would have been last school year. Mr. Mica. And were you here as--how old is the drug testing program; 3 years? Ms. Gelpi. Three years. Mr. Mica. Three years. Were you in school before the drug testing program? Mr. Middleberg. I was here both before and during. Mr. Mica. How available are drugs in this community to students? Mr. Middleberg. In the community as a whole, drugs are readily available to---- Mr. Mica. What kind of drugs are available? Mr. Middleberg. Most likely, you could probably get your hands on your basic drugs, as marijuana and cocaine would be fairly easy to get your hands on. But other drugs that are tested for are a little less harder to get your hands on. I would not say that everyone had access to drugs, but if you are someone who is interested in drugs, you certainly will not have a problem finding drugs. Mr. Mica. And do you keep up your connections with students in the school? Mr. Middleberg. Yeah, I still have some friends that just graduated this year. Mr. Mica. Are drugs still readily available on the street here? Mr. Middleberg. Drugs are readily available in the community. Drugs are no longer readily available in this school at all, completely. That was stopped immediately when the drug testing program became into effect. Mr. Mica. Well, what was the reason for that? Was it being afraid of being caught? Mr. Middleberg. It was both afraid of being caught, it was the way the school approached the drug testing policy and how serious everything was. And the students that were selling drugs then left and decided that De La Salle was not the place for them, or they would not come around after school knowing that students at De La Salle were no longer available to do drugs, due to the fact that they would get tested and they did not want to leave school. Mr. Mica. I notice that this was part of a total drug program, is that correct? Ms. Gelpi. Yes. We had a program of drug education. Mr. Mica. Did you have, also, monitoring with dogs and things of that sort? Ms. Gelpi. No, we did not do that. We did bring the dogs in for show-and-tell, for our student assembly. It was extremely effective to have those drug-sniffing dogs, and the police came in with them. But we simply did it to make a point, that this was a tool available to us, if we chose to use it. Mr. Mica. So it was a drug education program? MS. Gelpi. Drug education program. Mr. Mica. Maybe you can describe that for the subcommittee. Ms. Gelpi. It is a combination of many different things, that is taught within the counseling department, taught within the religion department, taught in the health classes, in physical education, and also sometimes addressed in the science department in their courses. The thing about it is, kids know drugs are not good for you. They know they are harmful, they know they should not be doing it. But adolescents are risk-behavers, and some of them just want to take the risk, want to experiment, want to push the limits. So drug education was not enough. Mr. Mica. You had cited the statistic that 30 percent of the students were offered drugs. Was that before the program started, and have you done any subsequent assessment? Ms. Gelpi. We have not done a followup study, other than an informal one. We put that together with a doctor from--a social work doctor, a Ph.D. doctor from, I think it was LSU came and did the survey. PRIDE, also--Rosemary told you about PRIDE. The organization PRIDE has a survey. And they came in, this group did, Risk Behavior, came in and tested all the students and asked the questions. It did not only deal with drugs, it dealt with suicide, it dealt with lots of different--alcohol, lots of different possibilities. And then we got the results back, about a year later, when we were well into the program. We did not need the survey to tell us what we knew. We knew we had students experimenting with drugs. Mr. Mica. How big a universe of the students are now involved in this? If we take in the private schools, you have a 600 or 700 student population? Ms. Gelpi. We have 850. Mr. Mica. 850, and there are how many others? Ms. Gelpi. I would say most of the schools would be, let us say 1,000, in round figures. So nine schools next year--six schools this year, say 6,000 students. And then if you add the three more, 9,000 next year. Mr. Mica. I have questions for Ms. Mumm. You are involved in a diversionary program, and you deal also with students and young people who have first-time experience. Is it limited to first-time offenders? Ms. Mumm. Yeah, we started out as a pretty clean first-time offender program. But as we gained success with that, we took in more people with more arrest histories, in some cases with prior convictions, as long as the conviction was for a non- violent offense, and it was some years ago. Mr. Mica. And what is your success rate? Ms. Mumm. We reduced recidivism by 75 percent. We do use urine testing and hair testing, and so we are able to really validate that when someone leaves our program, they have been drug-free. Urine testing, as Yvonne has mentioned is a very fallible system in terms of evasion. So even though we still do random urine testing, we like to have the verification through periodic hair tests that that person is remaining drug free. And I think it is a unique technology to have kind of a 90-day record, if the person has that much hair, to really affirm that that person has been drug-free. That is a unique part of the technology. Mr. Mica. Have you had any of the students that---- Ms. Mumm. Yeah, actually, I have. There was one individual that had tested positive at De La Salle. I think there were some sanctions placed on that person--I do not want to reveal too much, obviously, for confidentiality's sake. He was subsequently arrested on a marijuana possession charge, came into our program and continued to test positive. And we had to terminate him from the program. He had various--well, he had a very extreme level of denial, as his family did, and he was not someone that was responsive, at least at this point in time, to the treatment intervention. Now when we terminate someone unsuccessfully, they go on to court and they are prosecuted. So whatever happened to that case, you know, if he was found guilty or pled guilty, then he would be placed on probation, and the subsequent sanctions would follow him. Mr. Connick. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mica. Mr. Connick. Mr. Connick. Could I tag on to what Yvonne Gelpi said? She mentioned a survey. One of the things we do not know about teenagers and drug use is the effect or the impact of drug testing. PRIDE is presently conducting a survey at Douglass High School, and also at another high school that has volunteered to participate in this survey. We are going to find out, hopefully, what happens in these two schools, and what eventually occurs when testing is implemented at one school and not in another. And the people that we speak to are just so hungry for this kind of information. Yvonne's statistics, I think, are most revealing and most encouraging, but we want to find out more about treatment. And we do not know, we cannot measure precisely the need for treating young people with drug problems. We do not know the nature of that treatment that is needed, we do not know the extent of it. And by initiating this kind of a program, with the survey as part of that program, I think we should be able to identify and answer a lot of heretofore unanswered questions. And that is a vital part, that would be a condition that we would want to see imposed. Mr. Mica. Mr. Connick, a final question. You are involved in the criminal justice system here. Approximately what percentage of the cases coming before local prosecutors and the courts, judicial and law enforcement, are drug-related today? Mr. Connick. I would estimate conservatively 60 percent. Mr. Mica. Sixty percent. Mr. Connick. I might add that 65 to 70 percent of everyone coming into our parish prison, under the Drug Uniform Forecasting System that is in place tests positive, but they use urine. And you are not going to catch everybody. If you used hair to test---- Mr. Mica. So you think it is even higher? Mr. Connick. I think it is, I would say 80 to 85 percent. Mr. Mica. Thank you. No further questions at this time. I yield to Mr. Vitter. Mr. Vitter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to followup on the constitutionality issue with Ms. Mumm and Mr. Connick, perhaps, and just get it clear in my mind. There is no question that a non-public institution like De La Salle can do anything it wants and just make it a pre- condition of enrollment, is that right? Ms. Mumm. Correct. Mr. Vitter. And so the only Constitutional question is in a public school, and the Supreme Court has validated what, exactly, random testing for athletes? Ms. Mumm. Right. In the Vernonia case, athletes, that activity was seen as not a right. It was an activity that people could select to go into, but they were not entitled to. And in that situation, the school, the public school, could require that they participate in a drug testing program. Now with Congressman Mica's earlier question, if I can attend to that in terms of sanctions in a public school, when it is under an athletic situation, then you can use that circumstance to require the athlete to attend treatment in order to remain on the team, or get back on the team. And that is a good use of the course of leverage that a school has to see to it that treatment is enforced, or in place, I guess. And then the 7th Circuit, Indiana case involved extra- curricular activities, so it was broadened beyond the athletic activities. And that encompasses, again, any school involvement that is not a right, but a privilege, I guess, to participate. Mr. Vitter. Right. You happen to remember those two cases. Were those programs involved random or universal for the population, do you remember? Ms. Mumm. Actually, I am not sure about that. Mr. Vitter. I am just thinking out loud, I do not know why it would make any difference in terms of constitutionality. It seems to me, if it would be OK for random, it would be OK for universal. Ms. Mumm. I would think so. Mr. Vitter. And has there ever been a case, for instance, mandating testing in a public school, school-wide, but if it were, say, a magnet school, so therefore entrance to that school was not necessarily a right, and there would be other public school options? Ms. Mumm. That is an excellent question, and I am not clear. I do not know if somebody in---- Mr. Vitter. It probably has not been tested? It has not been tested, that you know of? Ms. Mumm. Not that I know of, but I think it is a good point. Mr. Vitter. I guess the line seems to be that you can tie it to anything, except the right to an education. Ms. Mumm. Right. Correct. Mr. Vitter. You can tie it to athletic involvement, you can tie it to extra-curriculars, maybe you can tie it to going to a particular school when there are other school options available. Ms. Mumm. Right. And I believe another school in a parish nearby is wanting to do it for students who drive to school, that that is, again, a privileged activity and not a right. Mr. Connick. Mr. Vitter and Mr. Chairman, that is a good question. And one of the things that you mentioned yesterday, Mr. Chairman, at the meeting, was that illegal drug use, drug abuse, is a national problem. And it is. And I think that we do a lot of things in the interest of national safety and health and welfare that would perhaps justify the testing of students. A lot of folks who--not a lot, some of the folks, mainly the ACLU who objects to testing students, do not seem to be able to afford an answer when you ask them, well, every time you board a commercial airline, you give up what I consider to be one of the most sacred rights of the American citizen, and that is a right to privacy. The right not to be searched, and the right not to stand with your arms outstretched and have someone go through your pockets, or empty your pockets and give you a pat- down completely. And to me that is more invasive than taking a little bit of hair from somebody's head. So I think if perhaps exploration is deserved and needed in the area to find out what is in the best interest of this country, what is the best interest from a health and welfare standpoint, and a safety standpoint of every student and every citizen in this country? Mr. Vitter. Mr. Connick, I also wanted to followup. I think we mentioned the relatively new Louisiana High School Athletic Association Program. How is that going to be implemented initially, and what direction would you like to see it move in? Mr. Connick. I am not at all impressed. I like the idea the principals of Louisiana, by a very narrow vote about a year and a half ago, voted to have all of the schools come up with a drug testing program, with a policy. Mr. Vitter. For the athletes? Mr. Connick. I am sorry? Mr. Vitter. For the athletes. Mr. Connick. Yeah, for the athletes. And some of the schools came back with the program that--as did our Orleans Parish School Board, that said, we are going to test 3 percent of the students. Well, I think that is insulting to the concept of drug testing, you know. You have 100 percent of De La Salle. The De La Salle students, the athletes over here and everyone engaging in extra-curricular activity, competitive and non- competitive, must be tested. And only 3 percent in our Orleans Parish schools, and in East Baton Rouge Parish. So I am not very impressed with the response that the Louisiana High School Athletic Association got. However, I think that when they see what is happening in those schools where drug testing is taking place, they are going to say, we need this. And I think the parents are going to demand this, that we want the same protection for our children that De La Salle gives, and these other schools give. We want our children off of drugs, and do what you have to do to get it. Mr. Vitter. And has there been much discussion yet in the Jefferson Parish public system? Mr. Connick. Yes. Mr. Vitter. And where is that heading? Mr. Connick. Yes. Paul Connick, Jr., my nephew, we enlisted his support to get going out there. The people in the public school system of Jefferson Parish have told us that, you get us if you get the money for us, we will institute a meaningful drug testing program in Jefferson Parish, where they need it. Mr. Vitter. And so they have the details worked out, in terms of what population would be tested? Would it be all extra curricular students? Mr. Connick. I think they have something in mind that they would test everybody who could possibly be tested, and use a volunteer basis for the rest of it. And we have worked on that for a number of months. Mr. Vitter. OK. And Mr. Middleberg, I want to ask you about a really interesting comment you made was, if I understood it right, that this policy at De La Salle really gave a lot of students a way out, an easy way to say no, and to avoid the issue and to push back the peer pressure. I wanted you to elaborate a little bit on that. Mr. Middleberg. Correct. Basically what I was saying was, if you are in an environment where you have students from other schools or students that are using or under the influence of drugs, you are going to be pressured into the fact that you might end up trying drugs for the first time. And the fact that you are drug tested is going to give you an easy way to just say, no, I cannot, I get drug tested at school, and then it is over with. Opposed to having to say no, and then you are going to have 40 people saying, come on, try it. It is just an easier way to say no, and it kind of just stops there. Mr. Vitter. Do you think there are a lot of students sort of relieved to be given that way out? Mr. Middleberg. I am positive that there are a lot of students that have been given that way out, because there are a lot of students that have problems saying no. But now they have to say no or they are going to hurt themselves even more. So they really have a good reason now. Mr. Vitter. And if you, and perhaps Ms. Gelpi, too, could just explain in a little bit more detail, how do you think it changed the environment at this particular school, or the surrounding neighborhood, or you know, between when it was begun and a year later, what sort of change did you see day-to- day? Mr. Middleberg. As Ms. Gelpi said when she was speaking, just the overall performance of the students, as far as arguments, fighting, disciplinary actions that had to be taken, decreased overall, and you could really tell. After school, there were students that would come around from maybe other schools and pick students up, and those were the ones, maybe, that would be bringing drugs into the area. And that basically was all gone, and everything really calmed down after the drug testing came in, and it was more of a quiet place than a rowdy place. Ms. Gelpi. I would like to comment. Mr. Vitter. Sure. Ms. Gelpi. Congressman, if you do not mind. I want to tell you, first of all, an anecdote from a student who was in a class of mine. And this happened when he was in seventh grade. This is responding to the peer pressure problem. He wore a Band-Aid in seventh grade on his arm to school every single Monday, and he told his peers that his father was drug testing him, and that is why he could not do drugs. I thought that was a real creative way to take an answer to peer pressure. But that is how intense it is. It is really hard. Adolescents have a strong need to belong, and to stand apart from the crowd. I mean, you would not be in the positions you are in if you succumbed to peer pressure, you are able to stand apart. But adolescents very rarely are able to step back and say, no, I will not do that. And this does give them permission to do that. The other response I want to make, I did go to speak to Terrebonne Parish District Attorney Joe Waites. You might want to contact him, because I know that their school board--I spoke to the whole school board, this was probably a year ago. I do not know where they are in their process, but I know they were looking very strongly at implementing it in their schools. Mr. Vitter. Right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mica. Just a followup question for Mr. Connick. We talked briefly about Federal guidelines. It appears that this type of testing might be something that we could take a serious look at funding on a nationwide basis. But you said, we may need some Federal guidelines. What would you suggest, how would you structure this? Mr. Connick. I think you should begin by testing as many students as you can, legally. That would be students engaging in all kinds of extra-curricular activity. I think you would want to solicit volunteers for the program, have the testing done voluntarily. I would use hair. I would test all of those students in that group that I mentioned, and would require a 25 percent followup and a retesting randomly, and a retesting of everybody who tested positive. I would require that there be confidentiality, I think that is vital to the program. I would also require that anyone testing positive, their parents have to be notified, or guardians have to be notified and brought into the discussion. And I would make available and require that there be money for counseling and treatment. I doubt that, if any prolonged treatment would be necessary in the case of students, of that age, but you may need some intensive--some counseling and maybe some in-house. But I would provide for those things and say, this is what is going to happen, if you participate. I would also want some record to be kept. Yvonne Gelpi and the other schools are keeping, I think, remarkably good records on what is happening to the students in the school. Who used before, how many tested positive and what happened. And I think that I would want a survey similar to the PRIDE surveys that are going on here now, would want that included for the future and for treatment purposes, and for you, as a representative of us, to measure the need that we really have in this area. Because I do not think we know, I do not think we have any concept of the reality of that situation, yet. It has just never been done. What do we need to treat our children who have drug problems? How much counseling do they need? How extensive should it be? And those are things that I think we could find out by this. Mr. Mica. Finally, a question of random versus mandatory, and participation for everyone, what would be your recommendation based on your experience, Ms. Gelpi? Ms. Gelpi. I would definitely suggest it be for everyone. And if you would look on page 2, one of the statistics that we found in our first year was that 65 percent of the males who tested positive were not involved in any activity. So therefore, if you test the athletes, and you test those involved in activities, 65 percent of those who tested positive, males, were not involved; 89 percent of the females were not involved in any activity. So I think it is really important. There are a couple of other statistics on that page. A lot of people think that it is the working class people, lower class people, blue-collar people whose children are going to be most likely to take drugs. That is not what is supported in our statistics. It is the children who come from the professional, upper-class families where they have the money and the wherewithal to get the drugs. That was 83 percent of the students who tested positive were from professional families, opposed to 17. And the other statistic that I found very interesting, you always hear about the poor single mom raising her children by herself, and think that maybe those are the kids that might be involved. 59 percent of them came from two- parent family homes, and 41 percent from single-parent homes. But I think the most telling statistic is, we have always known in education, you need to get your children involved in activities, and this statistic supports that. So I would say mandatory, simply because you will catch everybody and put the, you know, burden on every child. Mr. Mica. Mr. Connick, you wanted to comment? Mr. Connick. No, I agree with that. I think the gathering of this information is vital, and I say good morning to Congressman Jefferson. He has been, incidentally, very open and receptive to these appeals that we have made to him, and I want to publicly acknowledge his support for what we are doing. Mr. Jefferson. Thank you, Mr. Connick. Mr. Mica. I am pleased that we have been joined by our colleague, Mr. Jefferson. We have just finished, Mr. Jefferson, questions for this panel. I would be pleased to recognize you at this time, if you had an opening statement or comment. You are recognized, sir. Mr. Jefferson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you and Mr. Vitter for the work you are doing in this area, particularly all of you for taking the time to come down here. I hope we have the chance to extend to you our usual hospitalities before you leave the city. But in any event, I know how important this is to us, and how important it is to you, and what a place this issue takes in your life and in your life's work. I want to congratulate our District Attorney for his continued, sometimes lonely battle in this area, trying to find a way to help families come to grips with trouble that their children are having and they do not have the slightest idea what it is. This whole issue about drugs and the pervasiveness of it escapes us because we sometimes think that it is somebody else's problem. And it really can be in any family at any time, in some family living in a mansion, some family living in some run-down location. They all are subject to the same sorts of risks out there. And parents need to know and be better able to manage these problems with their children. We ought to find the least invasive way that we can to give parents more control over what is happening in their children's lives, and to help their children correct whatever they are experiencing in way of getting involved in illegal drug use, before it is too late to bring them back into mainstream society, before they are lost to us. I know that there is nothing easy about this issue, there are all sorts of implications, constitutional implications and otherwise. But I think what Mr. Connick is doing is trying now to find a way to educate parents and educate the public about how important this is, and how useful it is, and how critical it is, to get parents and families and school personnel all working together to try to find a way in a cooperative spirit to get after this problem, and to help our children. I again applaud our chairman for his interest and Mr. Vitter for his interest, and especially Mr. Connick and those who are at the table for taking the time and the interest to help to get us guided in this way. I hope that we can find some solutions here that will have our community joining in strong partnership with law enforcement and parents and families with their schools, so that we can get at this problem once and for all. As you well know, Harry, unless parents know, they cannot take effective action. But once they are empowered with information, then they can help to control the situation in their homes. This is an effort to give parents information they need to help their children make better decisions, and to help bring families out of crisis. I am proud to be associated with it, and I certainly hope that we can find a way together to think through this thing and to put it in a position where it can be helpful to more families. Mr. Mica. Thank you, Mr. Jefferson. As I said, we had just heard statements by each of the first panelists--Mr. Connick, Ms. Gelpi, Mr. Middleberg, Ms. Mumm--relating to both the drug testing program that is going on in the private sector and also anticipated in the public sector here. And Ms. Mumm described some of the elements of the diversionary program that she directs here with the District Attorney's office. Before I dismiss this panel, based on your knowledge of these programs, did you have any questions for the panelists at this time? Mr. Jefferson. I hate to come at the end and ask a question, because it probably has already been asked, and I end up with some redundancy here. Mr. Mica. Go right ahead. Mr. Jefferson. I just wanted to ask this one thing. How broadly accepted, Mr. Connick, is the effort you are making now in Orleans Parish and, I think, in Jefferson Parish? Are you finding more interest and more acceptance now? I know you have been at this for a good while, and I think it may now bear some fruit. So I just wanted to know if you are making real progress with it? Mr. Connick. A lot of progress with different people, elected officials and judges; 6 or 7 years ago, we had a lot of opposition to it. Thanks to a group called DOTS, Drugs Off The Streets, a group of women, volunteer women, and programs that we have had, conferences and seminars to which all of the principals of every high school in this area were invited. And I think because of what is happening in the schools here now, the acceptance rate by parents of drug testing of their children has risen to--I think CADA just did a study, 78 percent, I think. Is that right, Rosemary? Ms. Mumm. Yeah, close to that. Mr. Connick. It is becoming widely accepted, according to the polls that we are seeing. And Douglass High School, they tell us over there that the parents of those children in Douglass, most of them want it. Mr. Jefferson. I know that our U.S. Attorney is here this morning as well, and people who represent his office to show interest in this subject. One last thing, there has been some discussion--and you and I have had this--about the effectiveness of drug testing as a deterrent, particularly the one that uses the hair-clipping method. I agree with you that, if we can get this program going, some effectiveness is better than no effectiveness. And if you wait for all the answers to be gotten, get everything pinned down, I suppose we may be waiting until the cows come home to get at this problem. But I think there are some disagreements about whether this method of drug testing is effective, or whether there is a better way to do it. Can you respond to those questions? Mr. Connick. I think drug testing by hair analysis is probably the most effective method that we know about. We use urine in our diversion program to complement hair, but the basic approach we use is to use hair. It is reliable, it is clean, less invasive and it works. Mr. Jefferson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mica. Thank you. Good questions. And they had not all been addressed. We appreciate, again, your participating with us this morning. Mr. Vitter, did you have any final questions? Mr. Vitter. No, I have no more. Thank you. Mr. Mica. I have finished. We are going to leave the record open for a period of 2 weeks for possible additional questions to the witnesses, and also for submission of additional testimony by those who wish to have statements made part of the record. So at this juncture, I want to again thank the principal and president of De La Salle High School here, for hosting our subcommittee today and this congressional panel. I want to thank each of our witnesses. This sounds like a very effective program. It sounds like it could provide a model that we could look at, not only for this area, but possibly the country and look toward this program as something the Federal Government could cooperate with State and local governments. I have only chaired this panel for a year and a half, and I am committed to find whatever works and whatever good examples of community-based programs that, again, are effective, that we can institute and model from. So I thank you for providing us with the background and information, and your success and some of the problems you have incurred with this program to date. At this time, I will excuse this panel, and thank you again. The second panel this morning consists of three witnesses, and I think we have a fourth individual who will be available for questions. George Cazenavette, he is a special agent in charge of the New Orleans field office for the Drug Enforcement Administration. Major Pete Schneider, he is the Counterdrug Coordinator for the Louisiana National Guard. Mr. David Knight, he is the director of the Gulf Coast HIDTA, the High-Intensity Drug Traffic Area. And I believe we also have Mr. Tony Soto, who is the Deputy Director of the HIDTA, and with the Jefferson Parish Sheriff's office. Pleased to welcome all of these four witnesses and panelists. As I indicated at the beginning of this hearing today, this is an investigations and oversight subcommittee of Congress. We do swear in our witnesses which I will do in just a second. Also, if you have any lengthy statements, documents, information, data that you would like to be made part of the record, on the unanimous consent request through the chairman, that would be granted. At this time, if you would, please stand and raise your right hands. [Witnesses sworn.] Mr. Mica. The witnesses answered in the affirmative, let the record reflect, and I'm pleased to welcome this panel. We will start out with the special agent in charge of the New Orleans field office of the Drug Enforcement Agency, George Cazenavette. You are welcome and recognized, sir. STATEMENTS OF GEORGE CAZENAVETTE, SPECIAL AGENT IN CHARGE, NEW ORLEANS FIELD OFFICE, DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION; MAJOR PETE SCHNEIDER, COUNTERDRUG COORDINATOR, LOUISIANA NATIONAL GUARD; DAVID KNIGHT, DIRECTOR, GULF COAST HIDTA; AND TONY SOTO, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, GULF COAST HIDTA Mr. Cazenavette. Thank you. Congressman Mica and distinguished members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to have the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the growing dangers and concerns of drug traffic in the New Orleans metropolitan area. I would first like to thank the subcommittee for its continued support of the DEA and overall support of drug law enforcement. As you are all well aware, the alarming spread of illegal drug abuse by our youth is having a profound effect in communities throughout the United States, including the New Orleans metropolitan area. It is fair to say that increasing use of such drugs as Ecstasy and methamphetamine by our youth is quickly becoming one of the most significant law enforcement and social issues facing our Nation today. Between 1998 and 1999, past-year use of Ecstasy rose by a third amongst 10th-graders, and 56 percent amongst 12th graders. I have submitted a more detailed statement for the official record. Mr. Mica. Without objection, that entire statement will be made a part of the record. So ordered. Mr. Cazenavette. Thank you, sir. In carrying out its mission, DEA is responsible for the investigation and prosecution of criminals and drug gangs who perpetrate violence in our communities and terrorize citizens through fear and intimidation. The drug organizations operating today have an unprecedented level of sophistication and are more powerful and influential than any of the organized crime enterprises preceding them. The leaders of these drug trafficking organizations oversee a multi-billion-dollar drug industry that has wreaked havoc on communities throughout the United States. As many of you know, in addition to a rise in heroin use and abuse, New Orleans is experiencing an alarming increase in club and designer drug use by teenagers and young adults in night clubs, rave venues, parties and drinking establishments. No place is this more evident than at the rave functions that have become so popular throughout the New Orleans area. These rave functions, which are parties known for loud techno music and dancing in underground locations regularly host several thousand teenagers and young adults who use MDMA, LSD, GHB, Ketamine and methamphetamine, alone or in various combinations. The age range for raves in the New Orleans is 15 to 24 years, with the mean age range between 18 and 22. This poly drug abuse has been supported by information acquired during interviews with hospital emergency rooms, physicians and local law enforcement officials. Club and designer drugs have become such an integral part of the rave circuit that there no longer appears to be any attempt to conceal their use. Rather, drugs are sold and used openly at these parties. Traditional and non-traditional sources continue to report flagrant and open drug use at raves. Intelligence indicates it has also become commonplace for security at these parties to ignore drug use and sales on the premises. In 1998, several teenagers died in New Orleans from overdoses while attending rave parties. Tragically, many teens do not perceive these drugs as harmful or dangerous. Ecstasy is marketed to teens as a feel-good drug and is widely known at raves as the ``hug drug.'' In fact, misperceptions among teens has led to one local ambulance reporting at least 70 requests for emergency medical assistance in the past 2 years, hospital officials throughout the New Orleans metropolitan area have reported that as GHB has grown in popularity among raves, overdoses have increased significantly. A little over a year ago, three 14-year-old girls in Jefferson Parish used a product containing GBL, and were later admitted to a hospital after being found lying unconscious in a driveway. In 1998, Ketamine, also known as ``Special K,'' was responsible for three deaths in New Orleans. While attempting to direct enforcement efforts to avert such tragedies, the New Orleans field division has recognized that such efforts are different from those required to combat other illicit drugs such as cocaine and heroin. This is largely due to the age of the distributors and the consumers alike, as well as the venue where the drug transactions typically occur. Of particular note, one recent MDMA investigation resulted in the arrest of members of an organization who were transporting MDMA from Houston to be distributed in New Orleans, Miami and New York. Members of this organization were responsible for distributing thousands of dosage unit quantities of MDMA to high school and college students, primarily at rave functions in the New Orleans area. In a post- arrest statement, one member of this organization stated that he was also selling MDMA to students at a local area high school. Another member of the organization stated that he distributed MDMA tablets at rave functions in New Orleans for about $10 to $15 a tablet. This individual further stated that he had distributed about 250,000 MDMA tablets in about 20 trips to New Orleans. In conclusion, DEA is continually working to develop and revise strategies to enhance enforcement effectiveness and aggressively develop investigations to dismantle significant drug trafficking organizations affecting the New Orleans area. We are confident that, with the dedicated and tireless efforts of all our employees, we will continue to successfully address not only existing drug problems, but be proactive in devising strategies to address the emerging trends in drug trafficking. To further complement our enforcement initiatives and in an effort to educate and alert the citizens of New Orleans, DEA frequently conducts drug-related training and workshops throughout the New Orleans metropolitan area. Over the past year alone, the demand reduction program has provided peer leadership in DWI programs in the area schools. Numerous workshops were offered to train teachers, parents, classrooms and youth leaderships, all of which were well received. This past March, 12 youths from the New Orleans metropolitan area attended a national drug leadership conference hosted by the Drug Enforcement Administration, Pensacola, FL. Next month, training is scheduled for coordinators in the Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program. All of these training opportunities and workshops provide the DEA a positive venue to educate the youth about the devastating effects and consequences of drug use and at the same time steer them toward a healthy and successful future. I thank you for providing me the opportunity to address the subcommittee, and look forward to taking any questions you may have on this issue. Mr. Mica. Thank you. And we will withhold questions until we have heard from everyone on the panel. Our second witness is Major Pete Schneider. He is the Counterdrug Coordinator for the Louisiana National Guard. Welcome and you are recognized, sir. [The prepared statement of Mr. Cazenavette follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1622.014 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1622.015 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1622.016 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1622.017 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1622.018 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1622.019 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1622.020 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1622.021 Mr. Schneider. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Congressman Vitter, Congressman Jefferson, good morning. I am Major Peter Schneider, Counterdrug Coordinator for the Louisiana National Guard Counterdrug task force. With me today is Captain John Michael Wells, the Drug Demand Reduction Administrator for the task force. I want to take this time to thank the committee for inviting me to present to you the outstanding programs the Louisiana National Guard is providing in the field of drug education. For over 200 years, the National Guard has been called upon by her country, State and community to assist in all types of emergencies, conflicts and crises. Ten years ago, the Nation once again called upon the National Guard to join the homeland defense in the struggle against the invasion of illegal drugs into our Nation and communities. The Louisiana National Guard answered that call and has been involved in counterdrug support since the beginning. The Guard's counterdrug task force provides soldiers and airmen to Federal, State and local drug law enforcement agencies, community coalitions and numerous other organizations involved in supply and drug demand reduction. Throughout Louisiana, soldiers and airmen of the task force are providing counterdrug support for supply reduction in areas such as intelligence analysts, linguistic support, case support, cargo mail inspection, aerial observation and communication support. In demand reduction, the task force provides support in areas such as mentoring, drug awareness education, coalition development, life skills training and curriculum development. We currently support over 50 Federal, State and local agencies with 120 soldiers and airmen. In fiscal year 1999, the Louisiana National Guard assisted the drug law enforcement agencies in the seizure of over $170 million worth of illegal drugs, to include over 25,000 pounds of marijuana and over 8,500 pounds of cocaine. Although a large portion of our support is provided in the supply reduction efforts, we are moving more and more of our manpower and resources into demand reduction missions. Our supply reduction efforts have been extremely successful, however we realize the ultimate solution to the drug crisis is demand reduction, specifically prevention and education. And the place to start is with our children. Our drug demand reduction missions are currently reaching children and young adults throughout Louisiana. In fiscal year 1999, we reached over 48,000 children and young adults through various programs. In addition to the full-time support of the counterdrug task force, the Adjutant General of Louisiana mandates that each National Guard unit in the State perform at least one drug demand reduction mission per year. The counterdrug task force is responsible for coordinating these missions to validate their purpose. And as a result, many of these units focus their projects on their local schools. Each year the task force receives hundreds of requests from schools, community coalitions and neighborhood groups wanting to participate in one or all of our programs. The most- requested program we have, particularly from schools, is our ropes challenge course. The ropes course is a series of low and high-element obstacles that are sequenced in order of complexity to bring out specific learning objectives. Children from 9 years old to 18, in groups of 12 to 30, participate in this day-long adventure. Teamwork, communication and ingenuity are just a few of the skills the ropes course emphasizes. Trained Guardsmen facilitate the training and provide constant guidance and encouragement. The facilitators bring out the learning from the experiences by relating the lessons learned to real-life problems the young people will have to overcome. We currently have three ropes courses located throughout Louisiana with a fourth to be built by the end of this fiscal year. Of the four courses, two will have been built with assets seized from drug cases. Another program we are heavily involved in is Drug Education for Youth [DEFY], funded by the Department of Justice's executive office for Weed and Seed and sponsored by the Louisiana National Guard. DEFY reaches out to elementary and middle school children; 40 children ages 9 to 12, participate in a 5-day residential drug prevention camp. During the camp, students participate in a curriculum that centers around building self-esteem and positive attitudes. Guest speakers who are community role models are brought in to reinforce the message of drug prevention. After the residential portion, a 9-month mentoring phase with each child begins. Student and mentors participate in at least one activity per month for 9 months. The Guard provides the facilities, manpower, coordination, personnel and transportation. For 2 years, we have hosted the camp on Jackson Barracks. The Guard continues to partner with successful organizations in an effort to maximize our efforts. One successful organization is the New Orleans Council on Alcohol and Drug Abuse [CADA]. Our efforts with CADA are reaching middle school students in the New Orleans area. Through a 12- week module, 1 hour per week, our Guardsmen team up with CADA personnel go into middle schools and present on topics such as self-esteem, peer pressure, gangs and violence, conflict resolution, decisionmaking and responsible behavior. We also discuss specific drug facts. An integral part of this program is pre- and post-testing. This testing allows us to measure knowledge, attitudes and behavior related to drug use and violence. The testing results are showing this program is making a successful impact on the awareness on drugs. Students are telling us at the end of the 12-week module they feel confident that they will be able to make better decisions due to the knowledge they have gained from this program. Another successful organization is Rapides Safe and Drug- Free Schools in Rapides Parish. Our Guardsmen are concentrating here on fifth and sixth-graders. Once again, we are going into the classroom in order to conduct drug awareness training. In addition to student training, we are also coordinating an effort here to conduct teacher in-service training on drug awareness and how to spot the signs of troubled students. In 1999, our Guardsmen coordinated and participated in the first sixth-grade conference on respect geared toward reducing violence in schools. Our newest initiative is the high school drug awareness program. This intense 5-hour curriculum focuses on 11th and 12th graders. The unique aspect of this program is that Army National Guard recruiters teach the course. After recruiters receive training on how to conduct this program, they go into the classroom and teach on topics such as alcohol, tobacco, cocaine, self-esteem and responsible decisionmaking. Post- testing is also used to determine knowledge, behavior and attitudes toward drugs. Over 90 percent of the students in this program have found the course valuable. Our task force is approaching our drug demand reduction mission with science in mind. No longer can we afford to just show up in school in uniform, make a presentation and then leave. We are promoting programs with fact-based results. Through pre- and post-testing, surveying and interviewing, we are able to determine whether the programs we are using are having the desired outcome. We believe, and the statistics seem to support, the programs mentioned here are becoming effective tools in drug prevention education in schools. The National Guard Counterdrug Program has, for 10 years, been a tremendously successful program. Statistics have shown the impact the Guard has had on supply and addiction and drug demand reduction. However, with all of our successes, we still face a budget process that limits our ability to consistently offer successful programs to our communities. The President's No. 1 goal in the national drug control strategy is to educate and enable America's youth to reject illegal drugs as well as alcohol and tobacco. However, each year the President submits a budget that does not fully fund the National Guard's counterdrug programs. Full funding of the National Guard's program requires $192 million for fiscal year 2001. The President's budget request for fiscal year 2001 is $152 million. The impact of a fluctuating budget each year is we are faced with taking Guardsmen off counterdrug duty because of insufficient funding. The solution to this instability is for the President and Congress to fund the National Guard's counterdrug State plans at the law authorization of 4,000 troops in fiscal year 2001. This would require a $40 million increase over the President's proposed budget. Major General Landreneau, the Adjutant General of Louisiana is committed to the Guard's mission in drug prevention and interdiction. Through the full-time support of the counterdrug task force and the missions performed by the Louisiana National Guard, we will be able to eliminate this problem. Once again, thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today, and I will be happy to answer any questions that you may have. Mr. Mica. Thank you. And I will recognize next Mr. David Knight, and he is the Director of Gulf Coast HIDTA, High- Intensity Drug Traffic area. Welcome sir, and you are recognized. [The prepared statement of Major Schneider follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1622.022 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1622.023 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1622.024 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1622.025 Mr. Knight. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vitter and Mr. Jefferson. Thank you for inviting me to testify today before this important subcommittee. I am here on behalf of the more than 280 officers, agents and Guardsmen from more than 50 law enforcement agencies, and the National Guard that participate in the Gulf Coast High- Intensity Drug Trafficking Area program. We are aware of your work on these very important issues, and we thank you for your support. I also have submitted a lengthy statement. Mr. Mica. Without objection, your entire statement will made part of the record. Proceed. Mr. Knight. And I will summarize that statement briefly here. In many ways, the Gulf Coast represents the United States in microcosm. If something is happening in New York or Los Angeles, it will probably happen here as well, only on a different scale. And unlike some of the other HIDTA that can focus on one or two drugs at a time or one or two trafficking modalities, the Gulf Coast HIDTA is faced with the entire gamut of drugs and drug trafficking. We have a smuggling threat, we are a staging and transit zone, we face a drug distribution problem that affects other parts of the country as well as our own. Methamphetamine manufacture and trafficking is increasing dramatically, and marijuana production is a continuing issue. Cash businesses such as the casino industry help make us attractive to money launderers. We have national and local gangs, not just in the cities, but in the small towns as well, and the violence that goes with them. Cocaine and its derivative crack, remain our major problem. Marijuana imported and homegrown is easily found, and a continuing problem. Heroin use is on the rise, which to an old narc like me is particularly frightening. So-called club drugs as Mr. Cazenavette mentioned, things like Ecstasy, LSD, GHB are readily available at raves and on the street. And law enforcement authorities tell me that we are about to be overrun with methamphetamine. Just 3 or 4 years ago, we would hear of three or four clandestine methamphetamine labs in a year's time. Now we are hearing reports of hundreds. In 1999, Gulf Coast HIDTA initiatives participated in the dismantling of 44 clandestine labs, methamphetamine labs, and that just represents a fraction of the total. In Alabama, a non-HIDTA case began with the controlled delivery of some marijuana. Authorities there seized what I am told was the largest methamphetamine lab ever found East of the Mississippi, and 84 pounds of methamphetamine. Law enforcement agencies' commitment to attempt to deal with these problems is high. The resources available to them are not. Most of the agencies that participate in the HIDTA are under-staffed, under-funded and under-trained. Gulf Coast HIDTA is one of several programs designed primarily to help State and local agencies, but the task is great. Our program balances much-needed support for operational matters, with funding for operational infrastructure that is not normally available in agency budgets. When possible, the agencies build on existing structures or task forces. If necessary, they build new ones. As you know, the Gulf Coast HIDTA is composed of 12 counties or parishes in Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi. Fourteen initiatives house 22 collocated task forces that are designed to address specific parts of the threat. They have made significant accomplishments over the past 3 years. Unfortunately, the changing drug threat leaves important parishes and counties uncovered by the HIDTA program. Too often we have been unable to respond to the changing drug threat in a timely manner. I am concerned that that will be the case on the Gulf Coast, and I am very pleased to have the opportunity to bring these matters to your attention. Thank you very much for having me testify this morning, and thank you very much for your very important work. [The prepared statement of Mr. Knight follows.] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1622.026 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1622.027 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1622.028 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1622.029 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1622.030 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1622.031 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1622.032 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1622.033 Mr. Mica. We appreciate your testimony and I will recognize next Mr. Tony Soto. Did you have a statement? Mr. Soto. No, sir, I was just here to answer any type of local perspective you might need. Mr. Mica. All right. Well then, we have heard from all of these witnesses, and I will start with some opening questions here. We heard from our DEA field office Director, Mr. Cazenavette, that we are seeing a rash of designer drugs and methamphetamine coming into this area. A particular problem, I guess, with the young people, the designer drugs you spoke about, the rave clubs. Where are these drugs coming from? Mr. Cazenavette. Most of the designer drugs are manufactured clandestinely. Mr. Mica. Locally or are they being transported internationally or domestically? Mr. Cazenavette. We have Ecstasy coming in internationally, but most of the methamphetamine---- Mr. Mica. How is that transported into this area? Mr. Cazenavette. It is usually body-carried in. Methamphetamine is manufactured here. We have been getting methamphetamine out of Mexico, but we are seeing the larger labs, we are seeing some of them being operated by Mexican nationals here. Mr. Mica. Where are they getting the precursor chemicals? Mr. Cazenavette. The precursor chemicals, most of those are coming from outside of the United States. We have some chemical controls that we--new legislation and what have you, and the majority of the chemicals are coming from outside. Mr. Mica. Where? Mr. Cazenavette. What countries are they coming from? Mr. Mica. Yeah, where is the precursor chemical coming from for methamphetamine? Mr. Cazenavette. I would have to get you that answer, I am not sure. Mr. Mica. The influx of the designer drugs that we see coming in, is that an organized, or is this a combination of small dealers? Mr. Cazenavette. The ones that we are seeing is a combination of small dealers. The one organization that I mentioned was significant in just the volume, the amount of drugs that they were moving, 250,000 of them over a couple of years, that is quite a bit, on 20 trips actually the individual said he took. But as in methamphetamine, we are seeing just literally hundreds and hundreds of labs that are actually operated by individuals. We call them mom and pop labs, they are making 3, 4 ounces at a time and selling it. They get other chemicals. The chemicals for these are mainly coming from--you can go buy them at supermarkets, Sam's, and what have you. Mr. Mica. The meth problem seems like it has hit pretty hard in the rural areas. And is that spreading now to the suburban and urban areas? Mr. Cazenavette. We are seeing that; the majority of the methamphetamine in the New Orleans division is produced in Arkansas. But we have seen it now moving over to northern Louisiana, northern Alabama, northern Mississippi. And we are seeing it more and more filtered down. So I think it is just coming, it will be here. Mr. Mica. Mr. Knight said that the structure of the HIDTA which was set up in 1996 was limited to some counties that had particularly harsh problems in 1996, but cited inflexibility as a problem with keeping up with current trends. Do you find that to be the case, as far as the effectiveness of this HIDTA, and do we need to revisit that configuration? Mr. Cazenavette. Yes, sir. We are trying, we would like to see it be extended into northern Alabama. We would like to see it go over to the western part of Louisiana. We are seeing more and more of our smaller communities, Monroe which is northern Louisiana, Lake Charles, Lafayette, we are seeing quite a bit of drug activity there, and we would like to have these HIDTAs extended out. Mr. Mica. There has been an operational budget of around $6 million, and I think Mr. Vitter and others are requesting additional funding for the HIDTA. Is this a worthwhile expenditure, and are we getting results? And is this HIDTA effectively operating, in your estimation? Mr. Cazenavette. I believe that it is. The $6 million, we have been very conscious about the programs that we are putting into this HIDTA, and I have worked very closely with Mr. Knight and his staff, so we are making the dollars stretch. But you can only do so much with them. And when we want to get into other areas and expand the HIDTA itself, the only way you can do that is by gorging someone else's ox, and people, you know, they are not going to go for that. Mr. Mica. How would you describe the cooperation and participation in the HIDTA? Is it pretty broad and everyone participating on a successful basis? Is there some improvement needed? Mr. Cazenavette. No, sir. And I will speak to this area here---- Mr. Mica. So it is not working well? Mr. Cazenavette. It is working fine. It is working fine. In fact, you have Chief Pennington and Chief Kenjemmi in the audience who supply personnel to this HIDTA and we work very good with all the agencies. Mr. Mica. And all the agencies are cooperating? Mr. Cazenavette. Yes, sir. Mr. Mica. All right. I asked that because, as we have gone around the country, we find that we have varying degrees of participation. And what about hard assets and equipment, and do you see the need for anything specifically that we should pay attention to? Mr. Cazenavette. Any type of technical equipment is always useful. Always useful. It helps our agents, it makes our manpower stretch a lot further, we can do more with this type of equipment than you can with just the agent personnel itself. Mr. Mica. What about the inability for local, State and Federal enforcement agencies to communicate because of different frequencies or different types of technical communications equipment? Mr. Cazenavette. That has always been a problem, and a problem for us for the last 31 years that I have been doing it. If we have an operation, normally, everybody passes out radios so we can all talk to each other. But if there was a system that everybody could use, obviously it would benefit everyone. Mr. Mica. And full cooperation in investigative efforts with other agencies, including FBI? Mr. Cazenavette. That is correct. Mr. Mica. Would you describe the level of prosecution, Federal prosecution for narcotics and offenses here? Mr. Cazenavette. We get very good cooperation from our U.S. Attorney. All of our investigations, DEA's plus the DEA-led HIDTA initiatives, we go to our U.S. Attorney and we get responses. Mr. Mica. There has been pressure on Congress to do away with minimum mandatory sentencing. For the record, could you state your opinion? Mr. Cazenavette. I think they should stay just like they are. It is a deterrent. Mr. Mica. Mr. Knight, would you comment for the record about minimum mandatory? Mr. Knight. Keep them. Mr. Mica. Mr. Soto, since you are here? Mr. Soto. Yes, sir, likewise. I have seen that---- Mr. Mica. You are with the sheriff's office with the parish here? Mr. Soto. Yes, I am employed by Jefferson Parish, assigned to the HIDTA as a deputy director. Mr. Mica. What do you think about Federal minimum mandatory? Mr. Soto. I have seen great benefits, taking a lot of hardened criminals off the street that normally were in the State system over and over again. And then we go ahead and switch it over to the Federal side and get these guys off the street for a while. So I have seen its effect and it has done very well. Mr. Mica. Thank you. Mr. Vitter. Mr. Vitter. I really have no questions. I did want to take an opportunity to recognize several folks in our audience, distinguished members of the law enforcement community. Eddie Jordan, the U.S. Attorney from the Eastern District of Louisiana, we appreciate your being here. Also, Richard Pennington, Chief of Police with the city of New Orleans and Nick Kenjemmi, chief of police of the city of Kenner. And we are going to have a less formal discussion after this hearing, and you all are certainly invited. We look forward to your input about how the Federal assets can work very jointly, in a cooperative spirit with local and State government on all of these drug issues. So we appreciate your participation. I also want to recognize Peggy Wilson, formerly the city council and with De La Salle High School, we appreciate your being here and helping host us at De La Salle. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mica. Mr. Jefferson. Mr. Jefferson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to get to this drug testing issue. Mr. Schneider talked about the various programs that he has and he mentioned a number of them. And he talked about pre- and post-testing of young folks involved in at least one or several of your programs. Could you tell me what this testing consists of and how this testing program is going forward and how effective you think it is? Mr. Schneider. It is basically a surveying and questionnaire of students before we present the program to them. And then after we present the program to them, it is another questionnaire of did you learn anything, what have you learned? You know, do you think that you are better educated and you are better aware to make better decisions as these objectives are thrown at you? And it also tells us whether we are presenting the right information, or do we need to shift gears and bring out new topics? Methamphetamine, does that need to be a bigger topic? So as we find out what they are needing, we are adjusting our pre- and post-testing to figure out if we are answering the questions that they really have. Mr. Jefferson. So it is not a test that involves hair testing or urinalysis or anything such thing as that? Mr. Schneider. No. No, sir. Mr. Jefferson. How do you choose the children who participate in the program? Mr. Schneider. We rely on the agencies that we support to target the different schools, and we are a matter of supporting those counselors that go into it. But we do not select the schools, we let the agencies that we support do that. Mr. Jefferson. There are lots of programs out here that are really working very hard and doing a good job within their sphere of operations to help keep young people off drugs, and when they are on it to help straighten them out as best they can. We talked a little bit about coordination between Mr. Pennington's office, the U.S. Attorney's office and Mr. Connick's office and so on, but all this drug testing issue, the question here is whether we can get a set of protocols put together for some cooperation between the various agencies to try and test--have as many young people as we can tested for drug use, because what you are reporting is a substantial drug use in our community, and many drugs the children have no real education about and I suppose part of our problem is getting a good education out there, particularly about these new drugs. Because they have heard a lot about the old ones and they move from that to these so-called less terrible ones, and we find out that they are just as bad as everything else. I mean, that is part of it, I know. But what Mr. Connick is trying to focus on, and I think what I would like to see us pay some attention to this morning is, how we can work together as a law enforcement community to focus on one way to deal with testing as many of our children as possible for drug use, because we know it is going on. We do not know who among them is out there using it, and their parents do not know, and the school may know some but the teachers do not necessarily know. But it is happening. Once we are able to find out that they are using it then we can do something about it, and it does not have to be that they get thrown out of school or not given a chance to complete their school work or whatever, it means that they can get the help they need to try to restore them to a path that is going to lead to a better, more successful future. So can we reach some agreement, do you think, if we sat down about it, about whether the non-invasive, or relatively non-invasive--for me it is not invasive, I have very little hair to test. But for those folks that do have it, can we agree that we ought to go forward kind of with an effort that Mr. Connick has been trying to install in this community for a good long time, that when we all preach the same gospel about testing, hair testing for drug use, and try to prosthelytize that throughout our school system, and try and push it at every level to make sure that we have as many people giving it credence and credibility as we possibly can? Would that be a good approach to this, to get at this problem? And do you have any problems with this idea of drug testing through hair sampling? Mr. Cazenavette. From DEA's stance, no, not at all. From my personal stance, I have two sons, and as a parent I would have had no objections whatsoever from anybody drug testing them. I would want to know. I would want to know. And I think from an agency standpoint, we support that effort. We do it by trying to lead the example by drug testing our employees, and I know that other police departments in this area, they also drug test their employees. Mr. Jefferson. The Supreme Court seems to have said that for students involved in certain extra-curricular activities, like sports and so on, you can do all sorts of tests there. For the rest of the children who are not involved in student leadership or whatever, it becomes more difficult. Then you have to have parents volunteering to make sure that it works out any legal problems. And that is where I think if we can focus our efforts on this, just trying to convince parents, going to parents and--going to schools and telling them that this would be a wonderful use of our time and of our coordinated efforts, we can do that. And I just want to urge all of us to work in that direction so that we can--I remember at a meeting the other day, the President was talking about education. And he said that there is something out there that is working, everywhere in the country. There is a program, or two or three, that have worked splendidly everywhere they have been used, but our trouble is replicating the successful things. And so the issue is, we need to focus on one way to get after this drug testing thing, and we preach that thing throughout our community and see if we cannot get people to buy it, parents particularly and schools, to buy it and go in that direction as a way in. So I hope, I just want to encourage--it is not much of a question, Mr. Chairman--I just want to encourage that sort of cooperation here on this issue. The last thing I want to ask, because the chairman asked a policy question. We spend a lot of money trying, not only interdict drugs coming into the country, but also with a whole lot of programs in other countries, trying to ask folks not to grow crops, to stop whatever, the growth of the plants that are used to create these various drugs. And we spend a lot of money on that. A lot of folks in Congress question whether that is the smart thing to do, whether we ought not to spend more money on the treatment issues here at home, on testing, and on other law enforcement issues here, and on treatment programs to bring people back when we found out that they have had some problems with drugs and need to restore them. Do you have any feel about whether, in this universe of spending--and anybody at the table--that we are putting too much emphasis on trying to suppress crop growth in, let us say, in Colombia, as opposed to trying to put treatment centers here in our country, and to do testing in our country, and to give you guys more money to try and stamp out the use in this country? Mr. Cazenavette. I think it is a total effort. You cannot just look at it from one particular perspective. You have to do it, the whole game. You got have to go from the beginning to the end. And should we be focusing our efforts down there to have them reduce crops? Absolutely. But should we do that to the detriment of something else? That would be up to someone that has actually got the purse strings to make that decision. But from an enforcement standpoint, we have to be aggressive, and we have to go at it at the origin, and we have to hit it everywhere between there until the final distribution. Mr. Jefferson. Anybody else? Mr. Cazenavette. Go right ahead. Mr. Knight. Mr. Jefferson, I think where you sit determines where you stand. It troubles me that we are talking about putting $1.6 billion into the government of Colombia for eradication efforts when we have so many problems here at home. But if we do not deal with that, the problems are going to continue. I believe Mr. Connick said earlier that, as long as we have a demand for drugs, they are going to keep coming here. So I second Mr. Cazenavette's comment that it is an issue of balance. We have to deal with the foreign operations, we have to deal with prevention, we have to deal with treatment and we have to deal with law enforcement. And we rely on you folks to make those decisions. Mr. Jefferson. I wish we were all smart enough to do it without talking to you, but we are not, you still need to help us make the right ones. On this issue of the demand, I was in some country or other, the other day, and the government had just democratized about a year ago. And we asked what their priorities were. And they said, we have got so many problems, nothing is a priority. Everything is--and so our conclusion was, when we left there, they are not going to get very much done if they do not make something here a priority. Everything is a priority, everybody is working on all kinds of stuff, and then nothing really gets done. I think in, the way we are doing this thing now, we have a pot of money we are spreading all over the place. If Mr. Connick is right about the demand side of it, if you and I were in our garages, they were packed to the hilt with drugs and we did not use them, the fact that they were there would be irrelevant, because it would be--we would not make any use of it. Somehow or other, on the demand side which includes education and treatment and prevention, is where our most pressing work seems to me to be, and I hope you will help us to think through that. Because if we can do that effectively, all this stuff for interdiction becomes less important because we have people that do not want to use the stuff, or who have been found out about and who we are getting some treatment for. The biggest problem we have is just like recidivism, folks who are on it keep going back on it, and we cannot get them off because we do not have the facilities here. So we need to get some real hard thinking and help from you all about that in the law enforcement community, because, believe it or not, we rely on you as much as you rely on us to help--you are the experts in this area. Help us to make the decisions in this area. We need your help on that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mica. Thank you. Mr. Vitter. Mr. Vitter. And Mr. Chairman, I just quickly wanted to recognize another important player in this struggle who is in the audience. Mr. Jake Hadley. He is the Assistant Secretary with the Office of Alcohol and Drug Abuse for the State of Louisiana. Jake, we appreciate your being here today as well. Mr. Mica. I have a couple of followup questions. I notice there has been a dramatic reduction in deaths in the New Orleans area. I think you were topping some 4 years ago in the 400 range, and it is down to 150-something, in that range, maybe that range. Can you provide the subcommittee with what you think is the reason for that dramatic reduction, and how they have managed to cut at least the murder rate in this community? Mr. Cazenavette. Mr. Cazenavette. Well, we work closely with the local enforcement officers, working closely with our HIDTA, targeting the most violent individuals that we can identify. And we have been doing that now for several years, and have been very successful. We had one organization that we took out that was responsible, I think we solved 16 homicides and the individual that was finally convicted, when asked after the conviction, he said he would do it all over again because he enjoyed it. Mr. Mica. Was that drug related? Mr. Cazenavette. Yes, it was. So we work very closely with Chief Pennington, Chief Kenjemmi, the other chiefs in the area. We have intelligence agents that go out and find out who the most violent are and we target them and go after them. Mr. Mica. What was the percentage of murders--I asked some of the other panelists, I think Mr. Connick, those involved in narcotics offenses, or involved in illegal narcotics in the murder, the high murder rate you had here when you were in the 400 range? Mr. Cazenavette. The exact percent, I---- Mr. Mica. Just if you could give us a guess. Mr. Cazenavette [continuing]. It is over 70 percent. Over 70 percent. Mr. Mica. And with the current murder population that you have seen here, what percentage would you estimate? Mr. Cazenavette. I would say it is still high. It has got to be right in the same range. Mr. Mica. It is? Mr. Cazenavette. They are going down, though. Mr. Mica. The number of deaths. But you attribute that to going after dealers and people involved in crime and violence? Mr. Cazenavette. That is correct. You put them in jail and they cannot kill anyone. Mr. Mica. The National Guard program in Louisiana, do you go into both public and private schools? Mr. Schneider. It depends on if the agency has targeted a program in that school where they need our support. But yes, we do. Mr. Mica. You do go into both. And $40 million was the national increase in budget that you said you were requesting. How much would that be reflected in an increase in the Louisiana State budget? Mr. Schneider. We would ask for approximately $875,000 to maintain the task force at its current strength. Mr. Mica. I notice in testimony that was given this morning that there is an increase in deaths from designer drugs. What is the trend you are seeing there, Mr. Knight? Are these figures up, and what about, do you have any statistics you can provide this subcommittee at this point, where we are in drug- related deaths, and some historic perspective, maybe, the past 2, 3 years? Mr. Knight. That particular testimony came from Mr. Cazenavette. And I have been interested in the heroin overdose situation more than any other particular drug. I can tell you that the drug abuse warning network numbers for New Orleans have been up since the early 1990's. I do not recall the exact percentages. I know that those figures are always a couple of years behind. At one point it was 25 percent, I think in 1995 or 1996 they were up an additional 6 or 7 percent. And anecdotally, I am hearing from the people around New Orleans that that continues to rise. Mr. Mica. Well we have homicides and we have drug overdose deaths. Would you care to comment, Mr. Cazenavette? Mr. Cazenavette. The designer drugs, the deaths that I am aware of, the ones that I mentioned in my testimony, the three individuals that overdosed, I believe it was on GHB, but the thing that I think is significant is that the report from the emergency rooms and people operating ambulances that we have interviewed said that their calls for drug overdoses have increased significantly. One of them commented that it was up 70 calls in a matter of, I believe it was over a 12-month period of time. So I mean, when someone has overdosed, you are only a hair away from dying. So it is the luck of the draw. And when you get that increase in overdose activity, then you are going to have a corresponding increase in drug deaths. Mr. Mica. Some of the HIDTAs have had flexibility in the use of their funds for treatment, for community education, prevention and possibly other programs such as the one we have heard here today, drug testing in schools. What would be your opinion if additional funds were made available to allowing more flexibility in their use for some of these other non- enforcement purposes? Mr. Cazenavette. I believe that the HIDTA should stick with the enforcement. I think there is a lot of programs out there for treatment and prevention, and there are ways you can fund these programs, increase their funding and what have you, have them work along with us. We have systems like the Weed and Seed where we go in on an enforcement operation, and then you want to have treatment and prevention people come in behind you. These organizations that do that, to give them additional funds, I would imagine they would be very appreciative of it. But I am looking at it from an enforcement perspective, there is enforcement initiatives we would like to do, there is the expansion we would like to have. And if additional funds come in, I would like to see those enforcement initiatives and money for the treatment and prevention, use the agencies and the people that are out there doing it. Mr. Mica. What kind of treatment programs are there in this area that are successful, and what percentages of success have you seen? Are you familiar enough to comment for the subcommittee? Mr. Cazenavette. No, sir, I am not. Mr. Mica. Mr. Knight. Mr. Knight. There are a number of very successful programs operating throughout the three States, both in terms of treatment and prevention. Weed and Seed, Mr. Cazenavette mentioned. There is also the drug-free communities program, which is just getting started in the last couple of years. There are three or four communities in the three-State area-- perhaps more, perhaps five, that have received grants of up to $100,000 where the community bands together, develops a drug- control strategy and implements the strategy. And frankly, we tried to do that on a much smaller scale with our operation when we were first starting out. We found out, No. 1, we were duplicating existing programs such as Drug-Free Communities. Drug-Free Communities did not actually exist at that time, but it has since come online. Weed and Seed program has become much more effective. No. 2, we did not have the expertise to oversee those sorts of programs. We thought we could create something that would eliminate some bureaucracy and get communities working much more closely with law enforcement for common crime reduction goals, and we found that we did not have the expertise to implement that sort of program, nor did we have the staff. My executive committee voted to stick strictly with law enforcement matters. There is--and I am sorry, I cannot think of--Rosemary Mumm would be much more familiar with this program than I am, that deals with treatment of prisoners when they have been released from prison, and putting them back into the community, job training, that sort of thing that has been very successful. The State of Alabama does a number of treatment programs in prison where they have also been very successful. But there are a number of people in this room that are more qualified than I am, but there are successes out there, I can tell you. Mr. Mica. Mr. Soto, what about Jefferson Parish? You have successful treatment programs there? Mr. Soto. Yes, sir, we do. Mr. Mica. What kind of success rate? Are you familiar with that? Mr. Soto. I am not familiar with the success rate, but I am familiar with the particular program. Mr. Mica. Public or private or combination? Mr. Soto. Combination. I am familiar with a particular program in Jefferson Parish called Project STAR, and that was initiated by Jefferson Parish Sheriff's office, and it is a combination of enforcement and community policing, and it brings together all those elements into one neat package. And the acronym stands for Survey, Target, Arrest and Rejuvenate. And the program revolves around targeting the 17 most crime- ridden neighborhoods in Jefferson Parish for a specific community policing action, along with coordinated enforcement actions and followup. Mr. Mica. How long does it take for someone in Jefferson County to get access to an inpatient bed for treatment? Are they available? Mr. Soto. They are available, but it is very strained. I could not give you the exact information. Mr. Mica. What about outpatient services? Adequate? Mr. Soto. Outpatient, adequate, could need improvement. Mr. Mica. OK. I am just trying to get a picture of what is going on in different communities. We will have an opportunity to meet with some of the local officials and discuss that, I think, after the hearing, informally. Is there anything else that any of you would like to bring before the subcommittee today, again given our broad area of jurisdiction and oversight? Any recommendations you might have for us to take back to our colleagues or to Congress, something you would like to see done? That is one of the reasons we are here, as Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Vitter said, is to hear from you. Mr. Soto. Mr. Soto. Yes, sir. I would like to mention that, you know, I know with the times now, about cutting back on Federal funding and trying to downsize, I do not think now is the time to try and downsize the fight on drugs, both on the demand side as well as on the enforcement side. Mr. Mica. Mr. Knight. Mr. Knight. I will second Mr. Soto's comments. And again, mention the need for balance in Federal drug control efforts. We have tried emphasis on interdiction, we have tried an emphasis on investigations, all of which are very important. The law enforcement, of course, is the defense, if you will, in the war on drugs. But I think we have proven that, without a balanced approach, we cannot solve the problem. Mr. Mica. Mr. Schneider. Mr. Schneider. Yes, thank you. Mr. Mica. You have already had the budget buster request in front of me. These local folks only asked for $2 million more. Mr. Schneider. Yes. I am speaking nationally, of course. What I would like to mention is that all of the programs that you have heard here, mentioned by all of these other agencies, the Guard is actively participating in, with the exception of treatment, in which we are not involved. But prevention, education, interdiction, the Guard in Louisiana is involved with all of these agencies, and I have Guard in supporting all of them. So just keep that in mind, that the Guard is intricately involved in all of the operations, both on interdiction and demands. Mr. Mica. Mr. Cazenavette. Mr. Cazenavette. Just to emphasize that you need a balanced approach. These individuals, they are business people, the bottom line is everything to them. We had a recent case where we arrested two individuals out of New York that came down with 6 ounces of heroin and was giving it away, looking for a customer base. So you need to keep a very strong enforcement, and you also need to have that balanced approach of treatment and prevention. After 31 years of doing this, I thought we could conquer the world. Well, we cannot, but I liken police officers to zoo keepers, you keep the animals in the cage so the people can enjoy walking around and having a good life. And you take the money away from the police officer and you are going to see a lot more people get hurt. Mr. Mica. Thank you. Mr. Jefferson. Mr. Jefferson. That is all, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. Mr. Mica. Mr. Vitter. All right. Well, I want to take this opportunity to thank each one of these witnesses for their participation in this panel, and for your work and dedication to trying to bring under control a very serious problem that we face, both from an enforcement and an education community standpoint. We appreciate your recommendations also to the subcommittee today, and we will see if we can incorporate some of the suggestions, good experience that we have learned about here in this community, hopefully be able to repeat it and also repeat some of that success. There being no further business then to come before this subcommittee at this time, this hearing is adjourned. Thank you. [Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., this subcommittee was adjourned.]