Mr. EVANS. Oh, it is Federal equipment?

Mr. MCGREEVY. Surplus.

Mr. EVANS. It was Federal equipment. So here we go back then, again to really if you are going to deal with the traffickers, with the kind of resources they have, really the Federal Government is the only Government that can put the resources together to really make it possible for you to do everything that you can do.

Mr. MCGREEVY. Yes. And the requirements are greater today than ever before. The days of making big cases through undercover agents who penetrate the criminal organization are on the wane.

Mr. EVANS. Why is that?

Mr. MCGREEVY. For a number of reasons. The sophisticated drugsmuggling, drug-distributing organizations that we are involved with have polygraph examiners on their payrolls. And all new employees are polygraphed. Our agents can't stand a polygraph exam when one of the questions is: Are you now or have you ever been a law enforcement officer?

Mr. EVANS. You are actually saying that the drug smugglers are using polygraph examinations to check out the people?

Mr. MCGREEVY. I am saying that.

Mr. EVANS. And that is the reverse of what we normally think of. The crooks are using the law, the lie examination.

Mr. MCGREEVY. That's quite true. Morgan is in a position to know. Mr. EVANS. Morgan?

Mr. MCGREEVY. Yes. I am saying that. I am saying also, as Mr. Ponder did this morning, that by and large the radio equipment and the radio monitoring equipment that we have found in the hands of smugglers is better than that which we can purchase. And it is as good or better than the equipment DEA has available.

Mr. EVANS. Certainly, they don't have a $60 million budget. If you can get $60 million for one planeload of pot, how can the Government compete with that unless we use the military for which we already have funding in place?

Mr. MCGREEVY. I certainly recommend that strongly. We recommend it strongly. We don't think that would solve the problem, either, Mr. Congressman, but I am certain it would be of tremendous assistance.

Mr. EVANS. Mr. McGreevy, the fact is we are not going to solve the problem with any one or two or three plans or programs. If we don't approach this from 15 or 20 different ways, from everything from working with foreign governments to keep the stuff out, to working with educational programs to make people quit using it, we are not going to ever deal with the drug problem. I think this panel knows that as well as anybody does.

But the point that keeps getting raised to me by those proponents of legalization of marihuana and other drugs is you can't beat it, why don't you give up? Do you think that is where we are? Do you think we are in a position where we can't win this fight against a drug culture in this country, legalized drug culture?

Mr. MCGREEVY. I have heard the same comments, Mr. Congressman, and the statement we can't afford to fight this war.

Mr. EVANS. I would just like to point out that the local paper made that same assertion, and I am wondering are they right? They made the assertion it would cost billions of dollars and, therefore, is it really worth it? What is your opinion?

Mr. MCGREEVY. It is my opinion not only we must be able to afford it, but we must be able to win this war and spend whatever it takes. That is what it is going to have to cost us. The utilization of drugs as a substitute for facing up to the reality of life, good, bad, or indifferent as that reality is, and the toleration and encouragement of the use of drugs and other mind-altering substances for the purpose of avoiding reality are, if we go that route, signs that we haven't got very many more routes to go as a nation. That is not how we came to be what we are as a people and as a nation.

And I am persuaded, that if we go down that road, we have picked the devil's choice. I don't think there is a more important course of action for our country to be following today, or for our State, Bibb County, or the city of Macon to be following, than attempting to do something to develop our individual characters and the characters of our children who are going to be citizens of tomorrow. I don't think dope is the answer to any of our problems.

Mr. EVANS. I certainly appreciate your opinion on that and agree with it. I think that we have to return to what we can do and what you can do to try and deal with the trafficking situation.

And this is addressed to both of you. When we are talking about cooperation and assistance from the Drug Enforcement Administration, do you have the same experience that Mr. Singleton described, or do you have a better relationship with the Drug Enforcement Administration?

Mr. MCGREEVY. We have a very close working relationship with DEA. We have had, for the past several years, a DEA agent assigned with us, working in our diversion unit. We are in daily contact with DEA, both the Atlanta office and the office of Savannah. We work cooperatively on cases. If we have a case and we have the informant, that is if we have the information and we get the thing going, and then we call DEA, DEA will provide us whatever assistance they can in terms of manpower, communications help, or whatever.

Mr. EVANS. Can you get quick answers from them?

Mr. MCGREEVY. Oh, yes. I think the answer we get quickly is frequently "We can't help you." But it is not an unwillingness to help; it is a lack of resources.

Mr. EVANS. OK. So I think we can always use more and better resources, more manpower, in the fight against crime of any nature, and particularly drugs.

Mr. MCGREEVY. There is no question.

Mr. EVANS. So we are well aware that we have that problem.

Mr. Singleton, other than the need for communication or financial assistance from DEA, are there any other areas that you feel that DEA should be in a position, or it would be helpful if they were in a position, to assist?

Major SINGLETON. In intelligence. We have never, you know, had any list of people in our area from them.

Mr. EVANS. What type of list?

Major SINGLETON. Criminals that are in our area that they know about.

Mr. EVANS. You mean you can't call DEA and have somebody check out and get a report back or you don't get a list that is saying, "These are potentially people that you should be watching"? Is that what

you mean?

Major SINGLETON. That's it. We don't get a list of any particular people we should be watching.

Mr. EVANS. Have you requested such a list?

Major SINGLETON. No, sir, we have not.

Mr. EVANS. Well, I reckon you would get one if you requested it. Why don't you try and request it and see if you get one? You might get one after these hearings today.

Well, gentlemen, I appreciate the contribution you have made to the hearings. And we will be available if you have any suggestions or requests that you can address to this committee.

Mr. Coughlin, do you have anything else?

Mr. COUGHLIN. Just a rather brief one.

It is rather remarkable that we can have 4-engine aircraft bring in drugs and not know they are coming. And do you have any idea of what happened to this aircraft, where it is aborted?

Mr. MCGREEVY. Yes; I do, but I am not prepared to say so publicly at this time.

Mr. COUGHLIN. And have you actually apprehended any drugs coming by 4-engine aircraft?

Mr. MCGREEVY. Yes; indeed.

Mr. COUGHLIN. You have?

Mr. MCGREEVY. Oh, yes; many

times.

Mr. EVANS. Have you had any more landing on the mountain like that plane?

Mr. MCGREEVY. No; but we have had one in Dublin, Ga., very recently.

Mr. EVANS. Have you had one in Brunswick or down in that area? Mr. MCGREEVY. Yes; we have had.

Mr. EVANS. Whatever happened to it?

Mr. COUGHLIN. In how many instances have you ever apprehended aircraft?

Mr. MCGREEVY. About 45 aircraft in the State of Georgia.

Mr. EVANS. In what period of time?

Mr. MCGREEVY. Since August 1974.

I would note that we are a single organization with a limited number of people working narcotics full time. But our seizures have gone up. And it isn't because we suddenly are solving the problems of the world; it is because of the increase of traffic. Our seizures have gone up in the past several years from $7.5 million one year. to $15 million the next year, to $31 million the following year, to $62 million the following year. And last year, the year ending June 30, as Mr. Ponder testified this morning, we seized $84 million worth. That is just our organization, the Georgia Bureau of Investigation.

Mr. COUGHLIN. That is not taking into account questions of inflation?

Mr. McGREEVY. It is a little more costly today.
I would like to make one comment, if I might.
Mr. EVANS. Certainly.

Mr. MCGREEVY. This is with reference to the Federal prosecutors in the State of Georgia. We have three Federal U.S. attorneys-a northern district, middle district here, and the southern district in Savannah.

About a year and a half ago, each of them invited the GBI to bring cases to them for prosecution, as Mr. Ponder indicated this morning, if prosecution for one reason or another was not feasible in the superior courts of Georgia. We have done that in very difficult, complex cases that would have strained the capability or capacity, the financial capacity, of local communities to bring those cases to trial. And I cannot commend too highly the U.S. Attorneys in all three districts and their staffs for their assistance, their cooperation, and the feeling that they give us that they care about what is going on and are willing to go the last mile to help us solve problems in Georgia. They make our problems their problems, and we appreciate it.

Mr. EVANS. Thank you, Mr. McGreevy. I know Lee Rampey who just walked in appreciates those remarks, too.

Major Singleton?

Major SINGLETON. I would have to say the same as Mr. McGreevy. Without the local U.S. attorney's office, we couldn't operate here. The FBI and ATF, both those agencies give 110 percent.

Mr. EVANS. We appreciate your testimony and appreciate your contribution. If you come up with anything that you feel needs congressional attention, we might be able to deal with them on a national scale; please contact us.

Mr. MCGREEVY. Thank you.

Mr. EVANS. Thank you.

We are right on schedule, Mr. Rampey, if you will come up.

Our next witness is Lee Rampey, the U.S. attorney for the middle district of Georgia.

Lee, you are familiar with the process, if you don't mind being sworn in.

[Mr. Rampey was sworn by Mr. Evans.]

Mr. EVANS. If you have a prepared statement, we will be glad to have you give that at this time. If you have additional information. the record will be open for submission. And you may proceed.

TESTIMONY OF D. L. RAMPEY, U.S. ATTORNEY, MACON, GA.

Mr. RAMPEY. Thank you. I did have a prepared statement that primarily I wanted to familiarize you with the district that our office serves. I attached a copy of a map which shows the 70 counties we have in the middle district of Georgia, which is almost one-half of the total countries in Georgia. And since I think you are interested in the coordination of local law enforcement, I noted that in our district we overlap 21 State judicial circuits, and we have 7 judicial divisions within our district.

For information purposes, the district includes a number of major educational institutions, too, and two major military installations, Fort Benning and Robins Air Force Base.

Our Federal law enforcement presence in this district presently consists of 15 FBI agents, of which 8 are in Macon. Albany has two; Thomasville, one; Columbus, three. Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms have nine men in Macon; Columbus, four; Valdex, two.

Postal inspectors. There are two in Macon, who actually work Federal crime violations; Secret Service has two resident agents. Albany, primarily, is involved with the Presidential detail in Plains, Ga. We have no DEA enforcement agents residing within the district. Of course, we don't have any Agriculture office in respect to general personnel or labor.

Also, my general observation, having been an assistant in the U.S. attorney's office between 1960 and 1971, is we seem to have a decrease in Federal law enforcement manpower district wide by about onethird over the past 10 years. Some of the agencies appear to be centralizing their men in major metropolitan areas like Atlanta where they work in our district out of a station in Atlanta.

Our U.S. attorney's office, of course, as Congressman Evans knows, is centralized in Macon, and I have a staff of nine assistant U.S. attorneys, of whom three do strictly civil work, including in behalf of the United States, in either prosecuting or defending. I have six assistant U.S. attorneys assigned full time. And as Congressman Evans knows, as an attorney, their duties are to investigate, assist in investigation, evaluation, and prosecution of all Federal violations in this district. Of those six, two are assigned to the Macon division.

I decided when I took office to assign an additional man to the Columbus division. So we have two there, two in Macon, one gentleman has Albany and Athens divisions, and one has Thomasville, Valdez, and Americus.

We keep three grand juries in operation in this district to assist our office, and the investigative agencies in the collection and investigation of Federal crimes.

I have attached to my statement a list of the narcotics violations in our district for the past 3 years. I don't see any need in summarizing those. I think they pretty much set forth what we have been able to do as far as prosecutions are concerned in this district. They evidence a tradition of working closely with the Macon/Bibb County drug squads. And if you will note, there is presently a case pending for trial-in fact, in about a week, involving 30,000 Quaaludes allegedly to be distributed from Florida into Georgia.

The drug squad was also instrumental in the 1977 investigation of the Henry Scott heroin case. This man was a fugitive from two major drug indictments in New Jersey and New York-the New York area. He was prosecuted here for the distribution of brown heroin, and the case was investigated by, I think, an unusual but very effective group of agencies-the Macon/Bibb County drug squad in conjunction with Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms and the New Jersey State Police.

Although there was less than an ounce of heroin involved in the case, Scott received 30 years-a term of 30 years-imprisonment, and his wife, 15 years. They thereafter agreed to testify for the Government in other cases in the southern district of New York, which resulted in the conviction of six other defendants.