Mr. KELLNER. It depends on where the vessel is built. I am not aware of any problems with the cases that come through the office criminally and civilly that we cannot determine where it was built. Mr. HUGHES. Do you endeavor to find out the documentation of the vessel before it is sold, that is, where it was built, where it was documented, and so forth? Mr. KELLNER. Only insofar as it involves the criminal case. Mr. LENCK. I know of the problem particularly as far as registering aircraft or vehicles are concerned, and we either pass it by court decree, which the registration DMV or FAA accept, or a copy of our form 294, a declaration of forfeiture, our administrative decree in effect. We also execute for those DMV's that ask for it a copy of a GSA standard form 97, which is a transfer of title on a piece of Government property to either a purchaser at an auction or the law enforcement agency that we transfer to. So we have in effect for a sharing, we would have the declaration of forfeiture, the DEA letter granting the sharing, and the copy of the GSA title document form 97. Whatever documentation we have for the vessel, particularly a foreign-made vessel which could not be used for hauling passengers and what have you, if we would document that, we don't give them anything better than what was there before. If it is a foreign manufactured vessel, it can't be used for anything else. We haven't enhanced the title. All we have done is pass on our title. Mr. HUGHES. I understand. Have you had any success in trying to trace title with some of these vessels? Mr. LENCK. Some success in trying to―― Mr. HUGHES. That is the question I am asking. Mr. LENCK. Yes. Again, frankly, we don't seize that many vessels to have a problem. Customs may have problems. We don't. Mr. HUGHES. Customs probably is going to be better Mr. LENCK. They can answer that. Mr. HUGHES [continuing]. Can better answer that for us. Why don't we stand in recess. In case any of the Members have any other questions that they want to ask off the record. Thank you very much. You have been very helpful. It is my intent to convene a meeting in Washington in 2 weeks, with a week to review its inventory. I would also ask if you have assets that are fairly old that have particular problems, vessels that have particular problems attached to them, I would hope that you could be prepared to discuss them. They are numerous on these lists of problems and it may be that there are some errors, such as occurred with DEA, in their computer printout. So what I would ask you to do is if you have conveyances and other assets that have been hanging around for, let's say more than 2 years, that you be prepared to discuss those instances with us, and tell us what those particular problem areas are, as well as giving us a rundown of the seized vessels in the last year, including dispositions, use being made of those conveyances, and in particular which are being used in-house, or other equipment, electronic or other equipment, radios and so forth, night goggles, things of that nature, that might be used in-house. Give us some idea of how they are being used. Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman. Mr. HUGHES. The gentleman from Florida. Mr. SHAW. We would also be very interested in knowing what the dockage fees are running on these vessels, how much money we have run up in storage charges, or in dockage, and also, of course, the appraised value. Mr. HUGHES. Yes. Thank you very much. You have been very helpful to us today. It has been good of you to give us so much time. Mr. HUGHES. Our next panel consists of Edward Kwas, Regional Commissioner, U.S. Customs Service, accompanied by Harry Carnes, the Deputy District Director, U.S. Customs Service; Charles Winwood, Assistant Regional Commissioner for Operations; and Richard Friedland, regional counsel for the Southeast region. Welcome, gentlemen. We have your statements. They will be made a part of the record in full. We hope that you can be brief. I think you know from the questions we asked of the first panel the areas that we are particularly interested in. Thank you. It is good to see you back again. STATEMENTS OF EDWARD KWAS, REGIONAL COMMISSIONER, Mr. Kwas. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. I will try to summarize our statements very briefly. One of the results of the U.S. Customs' increasing successful narcotics interdictions in south Florida has been the seizure of large numbers of vessels, vehicles and aircraft. Prior to the enactment of the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, 90 percent of all seized conveyances had to be processed through judicial forfeiture proceedings before they could be disposed of through auction or by intergovernment acquisition. This took an average of 14 months per conveyance, and was inordinately costly in terms of storage fees and deterioration, especially with regard to vessels. Provisions of the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 have allowed Customs to much more effectively deal with the problems of seized conveyance disposal. During fiscal year 1985, under the new legislation, Customs was able to administratively forfeit 66 percent of all seized vessels within an average of 4 to 6 months, thus substantially reducing storage costs and depreciation. To date, 75 percent of all vessels and aircraft and 32 percent of all automobiles seized within the Miami district during fiscal year 1985 have been forfeited or disposed of. An additionl benefit of the speedier disposal of conveyances made possible by legislation is an increase in proceeds from the sales of seized conveyances which go into the Customs forfeiture fund. This fund can be used to purchase equipment needed to fight the war against drug smuggling. About $1.4 million of the 1985 forfeiture fund was used to pay for seizure expenses, and some $3 million went for the purchase of antidrug-smuggling communications and radar equipment. I might add about $4.7 million of the $6 million forfeiture fund for the Customs Service was derived from seizures within the Miami district. That summarizes my statement, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to answer any questions. [The statement of Mr. Kwas follows:] DRAFT STATEMENT OF U.S. CUSTOMS SERVICE IN THE SOUTHEAST REGION NOVEMBER 25, 1985 MY NAME IS EDWARD KWAS, AND I HAVE BEEN REGIONAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS FOR THE MIAMI-HEADQUARTERED U.S. CUSTOMS SOUTHEAST REGION SINCE JUNE 17 OF THIS YEAR. WITH ME ARE HARRY CARNES, DISTRICT DIRECTOR OF THE U.S. CUSTOMS MIAMI DISTRICT, CHARLES WINWOOD, ASSISTANT REGIONAL COMMISSIONER FOR OPERATIONS, AND RICHARD FRIEDLAND, REGIONAL COUNSEL FOR THE SOUTHEAST REGION. WE ARE PLEASED TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS HEARING ON THE STORAGE AND DISPOSITION OF CUSTOMS-SEIZED CONVEYANCES. MR. CHAIRMAN, I KNOW THAT YOU ARE WELL AWARE THAT BY FAR THE LARGEST PORTION OF ILLICIT NARCOTICS SMUGGLED INTO THIS COUNTRY ARRIVE HERE IN SOUTH FLORIDA, AND THAT THE NUMBER ONE ENFORCEMENT PRIORITY OF THE U.S. CUSTOMS SERVICE IS THE INTERDICTION OF SMUGGLED DRUGS. OVER THE YEARS, CUSTOMS, WITH THE BENEFIT OF EXPERIENCE, INCREASED RESOURCES, MORE MANPOWER AND A HIGH LEVEL OF COOPERATION WITH FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES, HAS BECOME INCREASINGLY SUCCESSFUL IN DRUG INTERDICTION EFFORTS IN SOUTH FLORIDA. OUR SUCCESS IN SEIZING SMUGGLED DRUGS HAS RESULTED IN PROPORTIONATE INCREASES IN THE NUMBER OF SMUGGLINGINVOLVED CONVEYANCES SEIZED, ESPECIALLY PRIVATE VESSELS. |