seeing changes in drug use. obviously, we're concerned with the uptick in prescription drugs, legal drugs, but we have been able to change the use, drug use. we've also been able to change availability of drugs on the street. especially cocaine. and since 2006, since partnering with the -- calderon administration in mexico, we actually have had sustained increases in the price of cocaine and we've seen the purity plummet. >> well, this goes contrary, your statement, which is, i'm happy to hear it, and, of course, you know, you're coming back before us, so i'll have a chance to check what you're

telling me against information that i have not validated yet. but the -- the statement that bothered me here was that the drug addiction rates at currently 1.3% in this country are the same ratio as in 1971, and that we've spent over $1 trillion in appropriations fighting this war and it's pretty stagnated. are we just citing different pieces of information to support our positions, or is there some

correctness in the citation that i just gave you? >> the figures that i am using are from the monitoring the future study, which has been used to look at and to track trends in teen drug use. it also comes from the statistics from quest on qua workplace drug testsan, and if you're using 1971 and comparing to this year, you have to remember that the highest rates of drug use, those years were '74-75 and '76. they spiked significantly after 1971. it's undisputed that we actually are having the lowest rate of cocaine use in this country in 30 years. >> all right.

>> gentleman's time has expired. >> thank you. >> the gentleman from -- >> mr. chairman, can i just -- point out that i want to continue this discussion outside of the hearing room between now and the next time we have the distinguished witness here? >> okay. statement will be in the record. the gentleman from puerto rico, mr. pierre louisy. >> good morning, administrator. thank you again for meeting with me in february to go over the public safety crisis we're facing in puerto rico and the u.s. virgin islands. you, as much as any other federal official, have an intimate understanding of how serious this problem is. the number of drug-related homicide in puerto rico in recent years would be considered a national emergency if it were occurring in any state. that's not just my opinion. that's what senator rubio also stated during a hearing in december.

since our meeting, there have been several important developments. first, the house approved a bill federal efforts along the southwest border have affected trafficking routes and crime rates in the caribbean, and that directs the attorney general to address these trends by allocated necessary resources to u.s. jurisdictions in the caribbean and reporting back on specific steps taken. second, about two weeks ago attorney general holder was sitting where you are now. i asked him why he would not be appropriate for doj to increase the resources if he goes to puerto rico, even if only a temporary surge, just as the federal government did wlp there was a spiking on the u.s. side of the southwest border. i acknowledged budget restraints but said this is a priority matter arpd making sure they're

being allocated to the u.s. jurisdictions where the need is the greatest. the aeg responded that they're starting to braze this surge project, injecting resources into what he called hot spots. that is, areas that have seen a rise in violent crime. the ag, the attorney general said puerto rico would certainly be a candidate for such a surge, because of the islands violent crime rate. i just hope that action follows those words. third, the homeland security committee just approved a bill basically saying, this was that we should have a counternarcotic strategy for the caribbean border, just along the same lines as the ones we have for the south west and the northern

border areas. that's great. i've been fighting for that, and it's about to happen. they will told to do it and within 180 daps from the time this appropriations bill becomes law. now, your men and women in puerto rico are doing terrific work, administrator. you know several weeks ago that you had your -- your agency led an flation resulted in the arrests of dozens of workers in puerto rico who were struggling drugs on flights to the mainland and u.s. however, despite the recent staffing that you briefed me on when we met, i remain absolutely convinced that the dea does not have enough agents in puerto rico. according to data provided to my office, there are nearly three times as many agents assigned to the miami field office as there are to puerto rico. even though the islands'

population is 7.5 times greater than metropolitan miami's and our drug related violence is off the charts. i want to be clear. i'm not saying miami doesn't have significant problems that you need to deal with. i'm just providing this comparison, because it brings into sharp -- you realize how under resourced port reek so when you see the stats. so i would like to hear your view in terms of what you can do or not in staffing our office in puerto rico and the v.i. >> thank you, sir. we have met, and you know that the whole caribbean region is of concern to the dea. when we moved resources in 2002 from our other field divisions down at the southwest border, we left the caribbean region alone, because we knew if we were

successful on the southwest border, that we would start seeing impact in the caribbean. so san juan, the surrounding, that field division that's been very important to us, and i actually have increased the resources there. so let me talk about those increases. in 2009, there were 83 agents assigned to san juan and ponce. i increased it to 95. in fact, i've done what we can to make sure that agents graduating from the academy and senior agents rotating in from foreign offices are assigned there. we will continue to try to get as many resources to puerto rico as possible. on the surge, before your discussion with the attorney general about surges, that dea actually was surging in puerto

rico. a couple years back when you needed help with housing projects, on the drug trafficking, the murder rate and the violence there, we responded by sending agents from met teams from around the country into puerto rico for periods of time to help with that, and we will continue, even though we no longer have the met program. we will look for ways to assist our agents in our fellow law enforcement officers in puerto rico with additional resources. >> thank you. >> gentleman's time is expired. gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlack. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ms. leonhart, welcome. i wanted to ask you about reports that dea field agents in southern arizona were aware of

the gun walking being done by atf? colson, the dea agent in charge during "fast and furious" said that many dea field agents knew that the atf was walking guns to mexico but their supervisors told them to back off when they objected. have you investigated who within the dea knew what about "fast and furious" and why they did so little to stop gun walking to mexico? >> thank you, sir. as i mentioned earlier, those statements, as i understand it from mr. colson, were actually recanted. he -- said he was misquoted and he's recanted that. we are very excited and -- we are waiting on these results from the oig, because prior to

mr. colson's statements, we were not aware that -- that dea was aware -- that dea agents in ars were aware of the tactics that atf was using. so the investigation is being done by o ig. that should answer. we've made all of our people available. that should answer the question about who knew what from my agency. >> did mr. colson reply why he made the statements in the first place if he later recanted them? >> i have not had any conversations with mr. colson. i just know that right after there was a reporting of what he had said. he called our headquarters to say he did not say those things, and that he recanted his

statements. >> so he denied saying them? he didn't say them and then take them back, is what you -- >> i heard both. but hopefully, the oig is going to interview him. >> so you're relyingen 0 the office of the inspector general to investigate his statements and whether or not it's true that agents working under him were aware of the fact that gun running was taking place? because, in fact, we know was taking place. so it's not all that surprising that some dea agents might know what was going on with regard to atf activity, it was in the same reason, but at the same time, our greater concern is, why supervisors might have told the agents to "back off" when they raised concerns about the wisdom of sending guns to drug dealers and others in mexico that ultimately resulted in the death of a border patrol agent?

so you will report back to this committee once you flare the oig, and let us know what actions have been taken to make sure that when people find out that wrongdoing is taking place, that they're freely able to report it to their superiors, and then have some inner agency discussions between atf and dea to say, hey, guys, what are you doing here? giving guns to people that we're trying to stop from smuggling drugs into the united states is not a good idea. >> the oig report will answer the questions about what our folks knew. the oig was given the unilateral authority to invoeft gate. >> we will welcome that. my last minute here, i want to get into the another area of interest. what assistance does the dea give to state and local law enforcement to combat synthetic drugs?

>> thank you for that question, since synthetic drugs is a new emerging, very troubling problem. i personally have been working with the chiefs and sheriffs, both of the national sheriff's association, but also of the i.e. cp. they're the ones that first brought it to my attention that synthetics was problem. and so we have given them considerable assistance both in training classes. we've also offered our chemists -- >> what additional tools do you need that would make the dea better able to combat synthetic drug awus? abuse? >> actually, this committee just helped, and that was the schedules of so many of those chemicals. that was number one. number two, you have given us, you know, the support, our funding. our agent workforce.

that has allowed us to teach our agent workforce about this new and emerging trend. it's also allowed us to teach our state and local counterparts. -- about the emerging trend. and we've been able to expand our investigations now internationally to go after the sources of supply that are actually supplying the chemicals, showing up in our neighborhoods and then eventually being sold as spice and nk-2. >> thank you very much. >> the gentleman's time is expired. the gentleman from tennessee, mr. cohen. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ms. -- is it leonhart? >> it's leonhart. think of the o being silent. >> thank you. what's your budget? >> well, currently -- >> approximately. >> $2 million. >> $2 million? >> i'm sorry. $2 billion. >> yes. >> is --

>> about $2 billion. >> expenses and then additional, with a fee account for our diversion program. so total budget is about -- >> over $2 billion. >> yes. >> do you get money from con if a kagss? >> i'm sorry? >> do you get any money from confiscations of monies and properties? >> you're talking about asset forfeiture? >> yes. >> there is money that the department of justice gives us from the asset for fitch cher -- >> how many money do you get particular that? >> i would have to -- >> do you haved in yt at all. >> if you give me a moment? >> i'd rather not take the time to research your files. you don't know. thank you. one of your staff meshes can give it to you. what is your number one drug you're fighting? what's your priority? >> well, our priority right now is pharmaceutical drugs. >> all right. what's your second priority? >> we don't prioritize specific drugs, because the organizations that we are going after are polydrug.

>> you're not going after the drugs for the harm they do. you're going after the drugs because of the effect it has on these organizations and you're going after the organizations? is that right? >> we're going after the organizations that are having the most impact on our communities. >> right. >> supplying the most drugs ablgd the most violence. >> right. >> so you're going after -- it's the fact that -- meth or crack or heroin is causing the most damage to individuals, if that's not the number one choice, in the crime syndicate, it's not your number one choice? yours is the crime syndicate, not gt if a that heroin and meth and crack are destroying people's lives? >> no. not correct. the organizations now have, they're polydrugged. so the -- for instance, the colombian cartels which are a priority. >> right. they have all the drugs. >> are the primary source for methamphetamine, cocaine, and a good amount of the heroin on the streets. >> right. >> they're a priority. >> that's your number one priority, is going after that

cartel? >> going after, our number one priority is going after those that most impact the united states. >> and do most of those cartels -- what are the drugs they emphasize in their arsenal? >> the mexican cartel, polydrug. it's cocaine, meth, heroin, marijuana. >> right. marijuana's four. would you agree that marijuana kaurzs less harm to individuals than meth, crack, cocaine and heroin? >> as a former police officer, as a 32-year dea agent, i can tell you that i think marijuana is an insidious drug. >> that it's not the question. sdp it cause less damage to american society, than meth, crack, cocaine and heroin? does it make people have to kill to get their fix? >> i can tell you that more teens enter treatment -- >> can you answer my question? answer my question, please. >> i'm trying to.

it causes harm, because it's young people that are using it. if you're talking about the -- >> it's not just young people. you're trying to answer the question like i'm jeff sessions. i'm not senator sessions. i'm asking you a question. does meth, does crack heroin cause more damage to society -- does meth and heroin cause more deaths than marijuana? >> all drug trafficking causes deaths. i don't have a breakdown of how many -- >> aspirin? does aspirin cause deaths? >> i'm talking about the illegal drugs. i don't have a breakdown for you of how many deaths are caused by cocaine and how many are -- >> have you ever seen a meaner had cancer and used marijuana to help them eat or to aleve their condition of some, someone suffering from terminal cancer? >> no, i have not. >> and if you had, and i have, and stheen it helps with their appetite and makes them smile,

would you agree that it has some benefit to society for somebody who's dying, maybe a navy s.e.a.l. who spent his life working and defending this work country and marijuana is the only thing that makes him eat and smile according to his 80-year-old mother? is that not a situation there? >> that's between him and his doctor. >> between him and his doctor, why does the dea take a position that medical marijuana is wrong? you have taken the position it's not between him and his doctor. you have a publication that on page six of your publication and 2011 has the most insane paragraph. the legalization movement is not simply a harmless academic exercise. >> gentlemen, time has expired. the gentle woman from california. >> thank you, mr. chair. i represent a district in los angeles county where three years ago a young rising star, an

elected official in my district was murdered by the mexican drug cartel when he was visiting relatives there. this tragedy is why my colleague and i worked on legislation to allow law enforcement to more easily freeze the elicit proceeds of the criminal organizations in u.s. financial institutions in hopes of preserving the assets for future seizure. it corrected the situation where they can freeze assets of those engaged in criminal activity when the situation was being made and our legislation was signed into law allowed u.s. courts to freeze assets when there was evidence of criminal activity. so what role has this lobby preserving for forfeiture act played in assisting the de a's financial investigations and

getting them and laundering operations. >> let me thank you for bringing us that legislation. it has helped already. i'm aware that more than $50 million has been frozen because of that. we want to thank you for it. know that with dea especially on the international investigations that regularly are conducted, it's essential to our efforts that we have a way to freeze those assets in the middle of the investigation and during an investigation. we must be able to freeze the money for the foreign countries. this allowed us to do it. >> thank you for that. i wanted to follow-up on your statement that cooperation between the united states and mexico is at an all time high and that in particular the dea

is grateful for the extradition relationship that you have with mexico because it's an important tool that criminals are brought to justice in this country. i wanted to know what you mean by the relationship is at an all time high and also the extradition and you talked about the extradition of and 93 individuals from mexico in 2010 and 2011 respectively. i wanted to know what the status is of those who have been extradited. >> the relationship with mexico is at an all time high. i say that because we now are working investigations jointly and we are able to develop partners in mexico that we can share intelligence with. they can actually take action on that. and vice-versa. they develop intelligence and are sharing it with us. we have representatives from the

mexican federal police, the ssp and the pgr that are even sitting in the el paso intelligence center. that's a true partnership. especially working the violators and the cartel heads that are most important in mexico, working with them, we have doubled the number of high value targets that they have been able to arrest in mexico by sharing this intelligence. on the extraditions, a number of these extraditions, the folks have already been prosecute and are serving sentences in the united states. many significant sentences. the other thing that mexico has done by extraditing them to us is those that cooperate after being incarcerated are giving us a clear picture as to how the mexican cartel s are operating.

that helped us and mexico because we share that information and determine the best way to go after the cartel and it is traffickers. >> how many have been convicted and sentenced? >> i can get you those numbers. i don't know. many have pled guilty. a good number of them have pled guilty and many have been convicted. >> how is it impacted the drug trafficking and violence along the border. >> especially of the high value targets or the heads or lieutenants of the cartel s that we have been able to incarcerate. it helped mexico because they have been able to take the people that have been able to have the power to corrupt mexican officials. they now are in jail cells in the united states. no longer able to run their

operations. it affected the drug supply as well. we have done together such damage to the cartel s that that is why you see these drops in availability of cocaine on the streets of the united states and the price appears to be down. >> the gentlemen's time has expired. the gentlemen from colorado. >> thank you, mr. chair. i like to begin by following up. i wanted to try to get a clear answer to make sure that the drug administration enforcement is aware of some of the evidence. is crack worse for a person than marijuana? >> i believe all illegal drugs are bad. >> is methamphetamine worse for somebody's health than marijuana? >> i don't think any illegal

drug -- >> is heroin worse for someone's health than marijuana? >> again, all -- >> yes, no, or i don't know. if you don't know, you can look this up. you should know this for the chief administrator. you should know this. is heroin worse for someone's health than marijuana? >> all illegal drugs are bad. >> does this mean you don't know? >> heroin causes an addiction. it causes many problems and it's very hard to kick. >> does that mean that the health impact of heroin is worse than marijuana. is that what you are telling me? >> you are asking a subjective question. >> it's objective. this is your area of expertise. i'm a lay person, but i read the studies and i'm aware of it. i'm asking you as an expert. is heroin worse for someone's health than marijuana. >> i'm answering as a police officer and dea agent that these

drugs are illegal because they are dangerous, because they are addictive. they do hurt a person's health. >> heroin is more addictive than marijuana in your experience? >> generally the properties of heroin, yes, they are more addictive. >> is methamphetamine more addictive than marijuana? >> both are addictive. >> is methamphetamine more highly addictive than marijuana? >> i think some people become addicted to marijuana and some people become addicted to methamphetamine. >> you mentioned your top priority you indicate side abuse of prescription drugs. is one of the main classifications pain killers that you are concerned about? >> that's correct. >> are those pain killers addictive? >> yes, they are. very addictive. >> are the pain killers more addictive than marijuana? >> all illegal drugs are in

schedule one are addictive. >> again, this is a health-based question and you know you are in a law enforcement background. given your position with the science, i'm asking that you know, clearly you established prescription drugs as a top priority. is that an indication that they are more addictive than marijuana? >> all illegal drugs are addictive. >> your agency established prescription drugs as top priority. does that mean that abuse of prescription drugs is a greater threat to the public health than marijuana? >> because it's an emerging threat, because people are turning to prescription drugs faster than any other drug, that is why we prioritize it. >> well, in many states including