Document
Information
Date
Description
Folder of documents from the Senator Chic Hecht Political Papers (MS-00003) -- Subject Files -- Judiciary file.
Digital ID
Permalink
Details
Time Period
Place
Resource Type
Material Type
Archival Collection
More Info
Citation
sod2023-064. Senator Chic Hecht Political Papers, 1943-1988. MS-00003. Special Collections and Archives, University Libraries, University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Las Vegas, Nevada. http://n2t.net/ark:/62930/d1k071s10
Rights
Standardized Rights Statement
Digital Provenance
Digital Processing Note
Language
English
Format
Transcription
Report No. 84-200 GOV
FEDERAL LAWS RELATING TO THE CONTROL OF NARCOTICS AND
OTHER DANGEROUS DRUGS, ENACTED 1961-1984: BRIEF SUMMARIES
By
Harry L. Hogan
Specialist in American National Government
Government Division
November 13, 1984
CONGRESSIONAL
RESEARCH
SERVICE
THE LIBRARY
OF CONGRESS
HV 5801 A
The Congressional Research Service works exclusively for
the Congress, conducting research, analyzing legislation, and
providing information at the request of committees. Members,
and their staffs.
The Service makes such research available, without partisan
bias, in many forms including studies, reports, compilations,
digests, and background briefings. Upon request, CRS
assists committees in analyzing legislative proposals and
issues, and in assessing the possible effects of these proposals
and their alternatives. The Service's senior specialists and
subject analysts are also available for personal consultations
in their respective fields of expertise.
ABSTRACT
This report contains sumnaries of enactments, treaties, and reorganization
plans, passed from 1961 through 1984, that have some clearly indicated relationship
either by specific reference or by virtue of legislative history—to the Federal
effort to prevent drug misuse through control of the supply of narcotics and other
dangerous drugs.
CRS-v
CONTENTS
ABSTRACT iii
INTRODUCTION 1
BRIEF SUMMARIES OF PUBLIC LAWS
P.L. 67-228: Use of Interstate or Foreign Commerce for Racketeering
Purposes, Federal Crime 2
P.L. 87-274: Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Offenses Control Act 2
P.L. 88-368: Juvenile Delinquency Act, Extension 2
P.L. 89-74: Drug Abuse Control Amendments of 1965 3
P.L. 89-793: Narcotic Addict Rehabiliation Act of 1966 (NARA) 3
Reorganization Plan No. 1, effective April 8, 1968 3
P.L. 90-351: Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968:
Title 1, Law Enforcement Assistance 3
P.L. 90-639: Increased Penalties for Dangerous Drug Offenses 4
P.L. 91-296: Marihuana and Health Reporting Act 4
P.L. 91-452: Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 4
P.L. 91-508: Financial Recordkeeping and Reporting of Currency
Transactions 6
P.L. 91-513: Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970
(Controlled Substances Act; Controlled Substances Import and Export Act)... 7
P.L. 92-13: Increasing Appropriation Authorizations for the Commission on
Marihuana and Drug Abuse g
P.L. 92-31: Authorizing Certain Activities for Prevention and Control
of Juvenile Delinquency g
P.L. 92-73: Department of Agriculture—Environmental and Consumer
Protection Appropriations Act, 1972 g
P.L. 92-129: Selective Service Act Amendments g
P.L. 92-226: Foreign Assistance Act of 1971 9
P.L. 92-245, 92-246, 92-247: Authorizing U.S. Contributions to the
Asian Development Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank, and the
International Development Association 9
P.L. 92-255: Drug Abuse Office and Treatment Act of 1972 10
P.L. 92-293: Relating to Care for Narcotic Addicts on Probation, Parole
or Mandatory Release u
P.L. 92-381: Juvenile Delinquency Prevention and Control Act, Extension 11
P.L. 92-420: Increased Treatment Options under NARA 11
CRS-vi
P.L. 93-83: Crime Control Act of 1973 II
P.L. 93-87: Federal-Aid Highways Act of 1973 12
P.L. 93-189: Foreign Aseistance Act of 1973 12
P.L. 93-218: Disposal of Opium, National Stockpile 12
P.L. 93-281: Narcotic Addict Treatment Act of 1974 13
P.L. 93-415: Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974........ 13
P.L. 93-481: Controlled Substances Act Appropriation Authorization,
FY 75-77 14
P.L. 93-618: Trade Act of 1974 14
Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1973 15
P.L. 94-237: Drug Abuse Office and Treatment Act of 1972, Amendments.. 15
P.L. 94-329: International Security Assistance and Arms Export Control
Act of 1976 15
P.L. 94-419: Defense Department Appropriations Act, FY 1977 16
P.L. 94-455: Tax Reform Act of 1976 16
P.L. 94-503: Crime Control Act of 1976 17
S. Res. 578 (94th Cong.): Bail for Narcotics Offenders Ig
H. Res. 1350; House Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse and Control,
94th Congress Ig
P.L. 95-92: International Security Assistance and Arms Export Control
Act of 1977 jg
P.L. 95-115: Juvenile Justice Amendments of 1977 19
P.L. 95-137: Extending Appropriations Authorizations for the Enforcement
of the Controlled Substances Act 19
P.L. 95—142: Medicare—Medicaid Anti—Fraud and Abuse Amendments I9
P.L. 95-384: International Security Assistance Act of 1978 19
P.L. 95-410: Customs Procedural Reform and Simplication Act 20
P.L. 95-461: Drug Abuse Prevention and Treatment Amendments of 1978.....*.*.'.*.' 20
P.L. 95—481: Foreign Assistance and Related Programs Appropriation Act,
FY 1978......,......,,,....,,,,,,,.,,,,,,,,,^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 21
P.L. 95-537: Contract Services for Drug Dependent Federal Offenders Act
of 1978 21
P.L. 95-633: Psychotropic Substances Act of 1977 !!*.!!*.!!*.".!!!!!!*.! 21
H. Res. 77: Continuance of House Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse and
Control, 95th Congress 22
H. Con. Res. 265: Endorsing Hermosillo Declaration 22
P.L. 96-43: Speedy Trial Act Amendments of 1979 22
P.L. 96-53: International Development Cooperation Act of 1979 22
P.L. 96-92: International Security Assistance Act of 1979 23
P.L. 96-132: Department of Justice Appropriation Authorization Act.
FY 1980 * 23
P.L. 96-157: Justice System Improvement Act 23
P.L. 96-181: Drug Abuse Prevention, Treatment, and Rehabilitation
Amendments of 1979 ^ 24
P.L. 96-350: Possession or Transfer of a Controlled Substance^"Abroad or ""
on the High Seas, for Import Into the U.S 24
P.L. 96-359: Infant Formula Act of 1980 25
P.L. 96-509: Violent Juvenile Crime Control Act of 1980 25
CRS-vli
P.L. 96-528; Agriculture Appropriations , FY 1981 26
P.L. 96-533: International Security and Development Cooperation Act
of 1980 26
H. Res. 13: Continuance of the House Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse
and Control, 96th Congress 26
P.L. 97-86: Department of Defense Authorization for Appropriations for
FY 1982 27
P.L. 97-113: International Security and Development Cooperation Act
of 1981 27
P.L. 97-116: Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments of 1981 28
P.L. 97-248: Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1983 28
H. Res. 13: Continuance of the House Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse
and Control, 97th Congress 28
P.L. 98-151: Further continuing appropriations, FY 1984 28
P.L. 98-164; Department of State Authorization Act, FY 1984 and FY 1985 29
P.L. 98-236: Amendment to the Contract Services for Drug Dependent
Federal Offenders Act of 1978 29
P.L. 98-305: Controlled Substance Registrant Protection Act of 1984 29
P.L. 98-329: Banning Methaqualone 30
P.L. 98-411: Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary,
and Related Agencies Appropriation Act, 1985 30
P.L. 98-473 (Title II): Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984... 31
P.L. 98-499: Aviation Drug-Trafficking Control Act 35
P.L. 98-573: Trade and Tariff Act of 1984 36
P.L. 98-596: Criminal Fine Enforcement Act of 1984 36
H. Res. 49: Continuance of the House Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse
and Control, 98th Congress 36
BRIEF SUMMARIES OF TREATIES
Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961 37
1972 Protocol Amending the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961 37
Convention on Psychotropic Substances 37
FEDERAL LAWS RELATING TO THE CONTROL OF NARCOTICS AND
OTHER DANGEROUS DRUGS, ENACTED 1961-1984: BRIEF SUMMARIES
INTRODUCTION
During the past twenty-three years, Congress has enacted a large number
of laws intended, in whole or in part, to prevent the misuse of narcotics and
other dangerous drugs. Of these enactments, some are designed to reduce the
demand for such drugs—through treatment, education, and intervention
efforts—and others are aimed at reduction of drug supply—through regulation of
manufacture and distribution, by curbing illicit traffic, and by foreign
assistance for the control of drug production and trafficking abroad.
This compilation provides summaries of enactments, treaties and
reorganization plans, passed from 1961 through 1984, that have some clearly
indicated relationship—either by specific reference or by virtue of legislative
history—to the Federal effort to prevent drug misuse by means of supply
reduction. Measures for the prevention of drug misuse through demand reduction
are not included.
Appropriation laws are included only if they contain provisions bearing
on the substance of the activity or program for which funds are being
appropriated.
It should be noted that many measures of a general nature—such as broadly
directed anti-crime laws or laws authorizing the activities and funding of
general law enforcement agencies (Coast Guard, Customs Service, FBI, etc.)—may
also contribute to the drug control effort.
CRS-2
BRIEF SUMMARIES OF PUBLIC LAWS
P.L, 87-228
Makes it a Federal crime, punishable by a fine of up to $10,000 or 5 years
imprisonment or both, to travel or use communications facilities in interstate
or foreign commerce to carry on or to aid racketeering activity (including any
illegal organized enterprise involving narcotic drugs).
P.L. 87-274; Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Offenses Control Act
Authorizes $10 million for fiscal year 1962 and each of the two succeeding
years to make grants to Federal. State, local and other public or nonprofit
agencies and organizations to pay part of the cost of carrying out projects
demonstrating or developing practices for the prevention, diminution, and
treatment of juvenile delinquency and holding promise of making a substantial
contribution to the solution of juvenile delinquency problems (including the
problem of juvenile drug abuse).
Provides technical assistance services to States, municipalities, and other
agencies—including investigations, reports and short term training.
Directs the Secretary of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare,
in administering the Act, to consult with the President's Committee on Juvenile
Delinquency and Youth Crime on matters of general policy and procedure.
P.L. 88-368; Juvenile Delinquency Act Extension
Extends for an additional 2 years the Juvenile Delinquency and Youth
Offenses Control Act of 1961. with provision for a special demonstration project
for prevention and control of juvenile delinquency in the District of Columbia.
CRS-3
P.L. 69-74; Drug Abuse Control Amendments of 1965
Amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to provide for special
controls over the manufacture and distribution of depressant and stimulant drugsincluding
increased recordkeeping and inspection requirements, control over
intrastate commerce in such drugs as well as interstate—and to make possession
of the drugs (other than by the user) illegal outside of the legitimate channels
of commerce.
P.L. 89-793; Narcotic Addict Rehabilitation Act of 1966
Provides for the possibility of civil commitment, for treatment, of narcotic
addicts charged with Federal law violations; provides for the possibility, under
certain circumstances, of civil commitment to Federal care (for treatment purposes)
of addicts \dio are not charged with any criminal offense; and provides for grants
to States to assist in developing and maintaining specialized services and programs
for addicts. Also, makes Federal marihuana law violators eligible for parole.
P.L. 89-794; Reorganization Plan No. 1, effective April 8, 1968
Merges the Bureau of Narcotics (Treasury Department) and the Bureau of Drug
Abuse Control (Department of Health, Education and Welfare) into a new agency,
the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, in the Department of Justice.
P.L. 90-351; Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968:
Title I, Law Enforcement Assistance
Authorizes a program of formula grants to States for the purpose of improving
and strengthening law enforcement, which may include efforts to treat and
CRS-4
rehabilitate narcotic addicts within State criminal justice systems; and also
authorizes a program of "discretionary" grants to States and localities for
implementation of "special emphasis" law enforcement activities, which also may
include drug abuse control projects.
P.L. 90-639; Increased Penalties for Dangerous Drug Offenses
Provides increased penalties for illegal trafficking in depressant and
stimulant drugs, Including LSD and other hallucinogens, and makes possession
of such drugs illegal (first offense a misdemeanor) unless obtained through a
valid prescription.
P.L. 91-296; Marihuana and Health Reporting Act
(Title V of the Hospital and Medical Facilities Construction and Modernization
Amendments of 1970). Requires the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to
make an annual report to the Congress on the health consequences of marihuana use.
P.L. 91-452; Organized Crime Control Act of 1970
Title I : Provies for the summoning of special grand juries in major
metropolitan areas, for the purpose of investigating organized crime activities,
and authorizes such juries to issue reports upon conclusion of their terms.
Title I I ; Provides that, and prescribes the manner in which, a witness
in a Federal proceeding may be ordered to provide information after asserting
his privilege against self-incrimination, and defines the scope of the iimaunity
to be provided such witness with respect to information provided under an order.
CRS-5
Title III; Codifies previously existing Federal civil contempt procedures
designed to deal with recalcitrant witnesses in grand jury and court proceedings,
authorizing civil contempt commitment until the court order is complied with,
and makes subject to Federal process witnesses who flee State investigative
commissions to avoid giving testimony.
Title IV; Abolishes the "two-witness" and "direct evidence" rules in the
trying of Federal perjury cases, and provides for the prosecution of persons
making contradictory statements under oath, without requiring proof of the
falsity of one of the statements.
Title Vi Authorizes the Attorney General to protect and maintain Federal
or State government witnesses in organized crime proceedings, along with their
families.
Title VI; Authorizes the taking of pretrail depositions of Federal
Government witnesses in criminal cases against persons believed to have
participated in organized crime activity, and the use of such depositions as
evidence in subsequent prosecutions.
Title VII; Provides that in any legal proceeding of the United States, the
consideration of claims that evidence is inadmissable because derived from the
illegal use of electronic, mechanical or other device shall be limited to those
cases where the alleged illegal act has taken place within five years of the
time the claim is made; and limits disclosure of information by the Government
in such cases to only such as is relevant to determination of admissibility of
the evidence and is in the interest of justice.
Title IX: Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO). Amends
title 18, U.S.C., to prohibit infiltration of the management of legitimate
organizations by racketeering activity or by the proceeds of rackeetering
CRS-6
activity where interstate or foreign commerce is affected; provides for criminal
penaltiee (including forfeiture of property to the United States) upon conviction
of violations of the prohibitions; and provides for civil remedies (e.g., courtordered
divestiture of interest) to prevent and restrain violations of the
prohibition provisions.
Title_X: Provides for additional sentences for habitual, professional, or
organized crime offenders convicted of a Federal offense.
Title XII; Establishes a Commission on Individual Rights to conduct a
canprehensive study and review of Federal laws and practices relating to special
grand juries and to special offender sentencing authorized under the Act,
wiretapping and electronic surveillance, bail reform and preventive detention,
no-knock search warrants, and the accumulation of data on individuals by
Federal agencies—to report within 6 years of establishment.
P.L. 91-508
Financial Recordkeeping. Requires the maintenance of records by
banks, businesses and other U.S. financial institutions where such records would
be useful in criminal, tax, or regulatory investigations or proceedings.
Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act. Among other
things, requires any individual involved in exporting or importing monetary
instruments exceeding $5,000 to report such transactions to the Secretary of
the Treasury. Provides for the seizure and forfeiture of monetary instruments
involved in a violation of the reporting requirement. Authorizes the Secretary
of the Treasury to make information from the required reports available to any
other Federal department or agency upon request.
CRS-7
P.L. 91-513; Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970
Title II; Controlled Substances Act. Replaces previous narcotic and
dangerous drug contol laws (except those relating to importation and exportation;
see Title III) with a single statute and makes certain changes in the substance
of these laws, including (1) establishment of five separate schedules for the
classification of all narcotics and other dangerous drugs ("controlled substances")
with the extent of regulation of each drug or substance varying according to its
assigned schedule (but with distinctions between narcotics and non-narcotics in
the two most restrictive schedules); (2) transfer to the Secretary of Health,
Education and Welfare of authority to designate the classification of substances
proposed to be regulated under the Act, in the absence of control required by
treaty in effect upon enactment; (3) extension of existing law's licensing
requirements for narcotics manufacturers to apply to manufacturers of all
controlled drugs and to all distributors of such drugs; (4) a revision of penalties
among which is one making any first-time simple possession offense a misdemeanor,
regardless of the drug involved—and one eliminating all mandatory minimum
sentences, except in cases involving a special class of professional criminal
(one shown to have been involved in a "continuing criminal enterprise");
(5) provision of possibility of expungement of police record, after satisfactory
probation, in the case of a first offender convicted of illegal possession of
a narcotic drug or marihuana (such a possibility already existed for other drug
offenders); (6) provision for possibility of use of "no-knock" search warrants
by law enforcement officers engaged in enforcing the Act; and (7) establishment
of a commission to conduct a study of marihuana, and to make recommendations
regarding its control. For carrying out functions under Title II, authorizes
Justice Department appropriations of $60 million for FY 1972, $70 million
for FY 1973, and $90 million for FY 1974. Separately, authorizes annual
CRS-8
appropriations of $6 million for specific purpose of increasing Federal narcotics
enforcement strength by 300 agents plus support personnel.
Title III;—Controlled Substances Import and Export Act. Replaces with a
single new provision of law the existing statutes relating to importation and
exportation of narcotics and dangerous drugs, conforming to the provisions of
Title II; and repeals other revenue laws relating to narcotics and marihuana.
P.L. 92-13
increases appropriation authorizations for the Commission on Marihuana
and Drug Abuse.
P.L. 92-31
E«.„da tha proviaion, ot tha Juvanlla Dalinquancy Pravantion and Control
Act of 1968 for an additional year, .»i eatabli.haa an rntardapart«ental Counoil
of Juvanlla Dalinquancy to coordinate all Federal delinquency control programs.
Authorizes appropriations of $75 million for FY 1972.
A;p;o":It:on;T"":;;^°^ AgricuUure-Fnvironmental and
Contains a provision barring the payment of Federal subsidies to farmers
who knowingly allow wild marihuana growing on their land to be harvested.
P.L. 92-129; Selective Service Act Amendment
contain, a proviaion dlracting ch. Armad Forcaa: to idantify drug dapandant
aarvicaman and to provid. tham .ith traatmant, to idantify pro.peotiva a.rvicaman
mho are drug ot alcohol dependent, rafua. tham entranoa into tha Armed Forcaa,
CRS-9
and refer them to civilian treatment facilities; and to report to Congress
within 60 days of enactment as to implementation of the provisions and with
recommendations for additional legislative action determined necessary "to
combat effectively drug and alcohol dependence in the Armed Forces and to
treat and rehabilitate effectively any member found to be a drug or alcohol
dependent person.
P.L. 92"226! Foreign Assistance Act of 1971
Among other things, authorizes suspension of foreign assistance to countries
not cooperating in attempts to curb illegal drug traffic to the U.S., and creates
an aasistance program designed to encourage international narcotics control*.
P.L. 92-245. 92-246. 92-247
Authorizes U.S. contributions to and participation in the Asian Development
Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank, and the International Development
Association, respectively. Each contains a provision instructing the U.S.
Executive Director for the relevant institution to vote against any loan (or
other utilization of the institution's funds) to any country with respect to
which the President has made a determination that its government has failed to
take adequate steps to prevent narcotics and other dangerous drugs from entering
the United States unlawfully or from being sold unlawfully to any U.S. Government
personnel or their dependents within the country's jurisdiction.
* Amended by P.L. 92-352 (State Department appropriations authorizations,
1972) to provide for a specific FY 1973 appropriation authorization of $42,500,000
for the assistance program.
CRS-10
P.L. 92-255! Drug Abuse Office and Treatment Act of 1972
Title II; Establishes an office in the Executive Office of the President—
to be called the Special Action Office for Drug Abuse Prevention <SAOI>AP)--to
coordinate and direct Federal drug abuse control efforts related to rehabilitation
of drug-dependent persons, education, training, and research; nakes specific
appropriation* authorizations for the new office. Although "drug traffic
prevention" functions (law enforcement activities, diplomatic negotiations, and
foreign assistance for controlling drug production and traffic) are excluded
from the jurisdiction of the Office, provides that the Director of SAODAP may make
recommendations to the President in connection with any drug traffic prevention
function, and that he shall consult with and be consulted by all agencies involved
in such functions regarding their policies, priorities, and objectives. Also
specifically provides that the Director shall report, in writing to the President,
the conduct of any agency—be It concerned with abuse prevention or traffic
prevention—which "substantially impairs the effective conduct" of any other drug
function. Further provides that the Attorney General must give prior notice to
the SAODAP Director of any scheduling action (addition, removal, or transfer)
under the Controlled Substances Act. Specifies June 30, 1975, as the expiration
date for the Office.
Title III; Directs the President to develop a "comprehensive, coordinated
long-term Federal strategy" for all drug abuse prevention and drug traffic
prevention functions conducted, sponsored, or supported by the Federal Government.
Requires such strategy to be promulgated initially no later than nine months
after enactment of the title. To assist in preparing strategy, directs the
President to establish a Strategy Council, consisting at least of the Director
of SAODAP, the Attorney General, the Secretaries of HEW, State, and Defense,
CRS-11
and the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs. Provides that the strategy must be
reviewed, revised as necessary, and promulgated as revised at least once a year.
P.L. 92-293
Authorizes the Attorney General to provide care for narcotic addicts placed
on probation, released on parole, or mandatorily released (who are not eligible
for handling under the provisions of the Narcotic Addict Rehabiliation Act of
1966).
P.L. 92-381
Extending the Juvenile Delinquency Prevention and Control Act of 1968
for 2 additional years. The Act provides for grants to assist States and
communities (agencies outside the juvenile justice system) in furnishing
diagnostic, treatment, rehabilitative, and preventive services to youths who
are delinquent or in danger of becoming delinquent—which services may include
drug abuse treatment or prevention projects.
P.L. 92-420
Amends the Narcotic Addict Rehabiliation Act of 1966 to increase treatment
options available through judicial disposition of addicts—especially to allow
methadone maintenance.
P.L. 93-83; Crime Control Act of 1973
Funds the law enforcement assistance program under the Omnibus Crime Control
and Safe Streets Act of 1968 for three additional years—authorizing appropriations
of $1 billion for fiscal years 1974 and 1975, and $1.25 billion for FY 1976.
CRS-12
Reduces State-local matching requirements from 25 to 10 percent except for Part C
construction, and increases to 50 percent the local non-Federal share to be paid
by the States for both Part B planning and Part C action grants. Contains a
provision specifically requiring States receiving grants for correctional
programs to provide "necessary arrangements for the development and operation
of narcotic and alcoholism treatment programs in correctional institutions and
facilities and in connection with probation or other supervisory release programs
for all persons, incarcerated or on parole, who are drug addicts, alcoholics,
or alcohol abusers." Further contains a Part C amendment referring specifically
to "centers for treatment of narcotic addicts" as a possible component of a
comprehensive State plan.
P.L. 93-67; Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973
Authorizes, among other changes, funding of research by public or private
agencies, institutions and individuals to explore the relationship between drug
use and highway safety.
P.L. 93-189; Foreign Assistance Act of 1973
Authorizes appropriations of $42.5 million for the international narcotics
control program established under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1971, for each
of fiscal years 1974 and 1975, and contains a requirement that the President
transmit to Congress quarterly and semi-annual reports on all aspects of
U.S. international narcotics control programs and activities.
P.L. 93-218
Authorizes the disposal of opium from the National Stockpile.
CRS-13
P.L. 93-281; Narcotic Addict Treatment Act of 1974
Amends the Controlled Substances Act to provide for the separate registration
of practitioners who use narcotic drugs in the treatment of addicts.
P.L. 93-415; Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974
Replaces and generally expands the programs authorized by the old Juvenile
Delinquency Prevention Act. Establishes an Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention within the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration,
to administer a formula grant and contract program of assistance to States and
localities for the development of delinquency prevention and control programs
.(defined as meaning "any program or activity related to juvenile delinquency
prevention, control, diversion, treatment, rehabilitation, planning, education,
training, and research, including drug and alcohol abuse programs, the improvement
of the juvenile justice system and any program or activity for neglected,
abandoned, or dependent youth and other youth who are in danger of becoming
delinquent"). Authorizes appropriations of $75 million for FY 1975, $125 million
for FY 1976, and $150 million for FY 1977. Creates a Coordinating Council on
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention to coordinate Federal juvenile
delinquency programs, and creates an Advisory Committee for Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention to recommend policy and management of Federal programs.
Establishes a National Institute for Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
to serve as an information clearinghouse and training center. Authorizes the
Secretary of HEW to make grants and provide technical assistance to localities
and nonprofit private agencies for the development of facilities to serve the
CRS-14
needs of runaway youth, outside the justice system—authorizing appropriations
for this purpose of $10 million for fiscal years 1975 through 1977. Extends the
old Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Act for an additional year.
P.L. 93-481
Authorizes appropriations for enforcement of the Controlled Substances
Act by the Drug Enforcement Administration—$105 million for FY 1975, $175
million for FY 1976, and $200 million for FY 1977. Also, repeals the "no-knock"
search warrant provision of the Controlled Substances Act, and extends the
possibility of parole to all persons convicted of a narcotic or dangerous drug
offense under the Federal laws In force prior to enactment of the Controlled
Substances Act.
P.L. 93-618; Trade Act of 1974
Among other things, provides for duty-free treatment of any eligible article
from any "beneficiary developing country" designated by the President, no country
to be so designated if it fails to take adequate steps to cooperate with the U.S.
to prevent the unlawful entry into the U.S. of narcotic drugs and other substances
controlled under the Controlled Substances Act vdiich are produced, processed or
transported in that country. Also requires the President to submit a report at
least once each calendar year listing those foreign countries in *Aich narcotic
drugs and other controlled substances are produced, processed, or transported
for unlawful entry into the U.S., and requires that the report include a
description of the measures taken by these countries to prevent such activities.
CRS-15
Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1973
Consolidates and entrusts to a single new agency within the Justice
Department, to be known as the Drug Enforcement Administration, all Federal
activities relating to the prevention of illicit traffic in narcotics and
dangerous drugs.
P.L. 94-237; Drug Abuse Office and Treatment Act of 1972, Amendments
Among other things, establishes, on a 3-year basis, an Office of Drug
Abuse Policy in the Executive Office of the President, to succeed the defunct
Special Action Office for Drug Abuse Prevention in providing coordination and
policy formulation for Federal efforts to prevent and control drug abuse.
Authorizes $700,000 for FY 1976, $500,000 for the transition, and 2 million
for each of FY 1977 and 1978. Specifically authorizes certain research efforts
by NIDA, including those that relate to the development of non-addictive
substitutes for opium derivatives—with appropriation authorizations of
$7 million annually through FY 1978.
P.L. 94-329; International Security Assistance and Arms Export Control Act
of 1976
In addition to other matters, extends the "International Narcotics Control"
program under the Foreign Assistance Act, for another two years, with appropriation
authorizations of $40 million for FY 1976 and $34 million for FY 1977. Provides
that no part of the FY 1976 money may go to any country where illegal traffic in
opiates has been a significant problem, absent a Presidential determination and
certification to Congress that the country is "signficantly reducing the amount
CRS-16
of illegal opiates entering the international market." Prohibits participation
by any U.S. official in any "direct police arrest action" in a foreign country
with respect to narcotics control efforts. Directs the President to make a
study of methods through which U.S.-funded narcotics control programs in foreign
countries might instead be assisted through international organizations.
P.L. 94-419: Defense Department Appropriations Act, FY 1977
Although the act contains no formal provision, the conference report
calls for an end to the random urinalysis testing programs of the armed services,
intended for the detection of drug abuse, by October 1, 1976, with funds saved
to be redirected to military alcohol abuse programs. The conference committee
also agreed that the Department should take "positive steps to make all commanders
aware of the fact that participating in a drug or alcohol abuse rehabilitation
program is, of itself, not to be considered grounds to deny reenlistment".
Moreover, the coimnittee indicated that treatment of civilian employees by the
military services should be limited to emergencies and to those places where
treatment is unavailable through public and private sources.
P.L. 94-455; Tax Reform Act of 1976
Establishes stricter rules of confidentiality with respect to Federal
income tax returns. Has the effect of limiting the circumstances under which
the Internal Revenue Service may make information available to other Federal
agencies.
CRS-17
P.L. 94-503; Crime Control Act of 1976
Extends the law enforcement assistance program authorized by Che Omnibus
Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 for an additional three years and
authorizes appropriations of $880 million for FY 1977 and $800 million for
each of FY 1978 and 1979 (along with an additional $15 million for each year
for a new community anti-crime program authorized by Sec. 103 of the act).
Provides that Che Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) is
under the policy direction and control of the Attorney General.
Provides for participation by State legislatures in the planning process.
Requires inclusion in the State Planning Agency (SPA) of a minimum of three
judicial members.
Provides for voluntary establishment of judicial planning committees to
develop annual State judicial plans, to be approved by SPAs and incorporated
into State plans.
Requires SPAs to allocate $50 million annually to such committees and
increases Part B planning block grants accordingly. Specifically authorizes
Part C funding for programs for stengthening Che courts, for preventing
crimes against the elderly, for ccnanunicy anti-crime programs, and for early
case assessment programs.
Requires that juvenile delinquency programs be allocated 19.15 percent of
Che total appropriation for LEAA.
Requires specific annual authorizations for Justice Department appropriations
beginning Oct. 1, 1978.
Authorizes the use of Part C funds for the "development of programs to
identify drug-dependent offenders (including alcoholics, drug addicts, and drug
abusers)"; and requires all States to establish "procedures for effective
CRS-18
coordination between State planning agencies and single State agencies designated
under section (409)(e)(l) of the Drug Abuse Office and Treatment Act of 1972 . . .
in responding to the needs" of such offenders.
Requires the Institute of Criminal Justice, in consultation with the
National Institute on Drug Abuse, to give research priority to determining the
relationship between drug abuse and crime and "to evaluate the success of the
various types of drug treatment programs in reducing crime."
Provides for the removal from the Federal civil service system of all
upper—level supervisory personnel in the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).
S. Res. 578 (94th Cong.)
Urges Federal judges to set more realistic bail for major narcotics law
offenders.
H. Res. 1350
Provides for the establishment and funding, during the 94th Congress, of
the House Select Comnittee on Narcotics Abuse and Control, for the purposes of
studying and reviewing the problems of narcotics abuse and control.
P.L. 95-92; International Security Assistance and Arms Export Control Act of 1977
Among other things, extends the appropriation authorisation for the
International Narcotics Control Program under sec. 482 of the Foreign Assistance
Act for one additional year (FY 1978), at the level of $39 million.
CRS-19
P.L, 95~115; Juvenile Justice Amendments of 1977
Extends and expands the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of
1974, authorizing appropriations of $150 million in FY 1978, $175 million in
FY 1979, and $200 million in FY 1980. Relaxes certain stringent requirements
of the Act. Increases appropriation authorizations for the Runaway Youth Act.
P.L. 95-137
Extends appropriation authorizations for the enforcement of the Controlled
Substances Act for two additional years, $188 million for FY 1978 and $215 million
for FY 1979. Repeals the annual $6 million authorization under section 103 of
the Act.
P.L. 95-142; Medicare-Medicaid Anti-Fraud and Abuse Amendments
Contains a number of provisions for the general purpose of preventing
fraud and abuse under the Medicare and Medicaid programs, including: stricter
penalties, requirement of the suspension of practitioners convicted of criminal
offenses, establishment of a uniform reporting system for health facilities,
and incentives for establishment of State Medicaid fraud units.
P.L. 95-384: International Security Assistance Act of 1978
Among other things: authorizes appropriations for the International
Narcotics Control Program (section 482 of the Foreign Assistance Act) for one
additional year (FY 1979), at the level of $40 million. Amends the "Mansfield
Amendment" of 1976 to provide specifically that no U.S. officer or employee
CRS-20
may interrogate or be present at the interrogation of any U.S. person arrested
in any foreign country with respect to narcotics control efforts without the
written consent of that person. Also prohibits the use of any funds authorized
by the section in any program involving the spraying of a herbicide to eradicate
marihuana plants if the use of the herbicide is likely to cause serious harm to
the health of persons who may use or consume the sprayed marihuana, but provides
further that the prohibition does not apply when the herbicide is used in
conjunction with another substance that will provide a clear warning to potential
users. Establishes procedures under which the use of a herbicide in a marihuana
eradication program funded under the section is to be evaluated by the Department
of Agriculture and the Environmental Protection Agency, to ascertain tdiether the
prohibition should be invoked; also requires the Secretary of State to submit
a comprehensive report to Congress each year on efforts taken to ensure compliance
with the requirements of the herbicide provisions and to prevent the spraying
of marihuana with herbicides harmful to humans.
P.L. 95-410; Customs Procedural Reform and Simplication Act
Among other things, amends the Tariff Act of 1930 to increase from $2,500
to $10,000 the maximum value of property (seized in connection with a violation
of U.S. customs laws) that is subject to administrative as opposed to judicial
forfeiture; makes by reference the same change with respect to all seizures
made under the Controlled Substances Act.
P.L. 95-461; Drug Abuse Prevention and Treatment Amendments of 1978
Among other things, extends specific authorization for support of certain
areas of research—including the creation, development, and testing of synthetic
CRS-21
analgesics, antitussives and other drugs which are (A) non-addictive or (B) less
addictive than opium or its derivatives, to replace opium and its derivatives in
medical use.
P.L. 95-481: Foreign Assistance and Related Programs Appropriation Act, FY 1978
Contains a provision placing a $3 million ceiling on U.S. contributions,
during FY 1978, to the United Rations Fund for Drug Abuse Control.
P.L. 95-537; Contract Services for Drug Dependent Federal Offenders Act of 1978
Transfers from the Justice Department to the Administrative Office of the
U.S. Courts the authority to contract for aftercare services for released
Federal offenders trho are drug dependent, thus consolidating responsibilities
for supervisory care for such offenders in a single agency.
P.L. 95-633; Psychotropic Substances Act of 1977
Amends the Controlled Substances Act and other laws to meet obligations
under the Convention on Psychotropic Substances relating to regulatory controls
on the manufacture, distribution, importation, and exportation of psychotropic
substances. Provides for tighter controls on the manufacture and distribution
of the drug phencyclidine (PCP), including increased penalties for illicit
trafficking, and places certain restrictions on commerce in the PCP ingredient
piperidine. Also provides for seizure and forfeiture of moneys and other
negotiable instruments furnished or intended to be furnished in exchange for
illicitly transferred controlled substances.
CRS-22
H. Res, 77
Provides for the continuance, during the 95th Congress, of the House Select
Committee on Narcotics Abuse and Control.
H« Con. Res. 265
Endorses the Hermosillo Declaration ("on Combating Traffic in Drugs at
the International Level", adopted by the seventeenth Mexico-United States
Interparliamentary Conference, May 1977) and urges the President to encourage
other nations to cooperate in an international effort to eradicate narcotics
trafficking and to eliminate illicit production of opium.
P.L. 96-43; Speedy Trial Act Amendments of 1979
Amends the Speedy Trial Act of 1974 to modify a number of requirements,
particularly to extend the period, from the time of arraignment, during which
a trial must commence. Specifically with respect to offenders idio might be
subject to the provisions of the Narcotic Addict Rehabilitation Act of 1966,
extends the periods of delay that are excluded in computing the time limits
for the filing of an information or indictment, and the commencement of trial,
to include delay resulting from any proceeding or deferral or prosecution
pursuant to that act.
P.L. 96-53; International Development Cooperation Act of 1979
Among other things, requires agencies that plan development assistance
programs for countries in which there is illicit narcotics cultivation to
CRS-23
give priority consideration to programs that would reduce such cultivation
by stimulating broader development opportunities.
P.L. 96-92; International Security Assistance Act of 1979
In addition to other provisions, extends the appropriation authorisation
for the International Narcotics Control program under section 482 of the Foreign
Assistance Act. Extends the program through FY 1980, a 1-year extension,
authorising $51.7 million, with $16 million earmarked for the Republic of
Colombia. Provides that contributions for the U.N. Fund for Drug Abuse Control
may not exceed $3 million or 25 percent of total member-nation contributions.
Amends the anti-paraquat provision of 1978 to make clear that it is not
intended to jeopardize programs aimed at reducing narcotics traffic.
P.L. 96-132: Department of Justice Appropriation Authorisation Act.
Year 1980
Authorizes appropriations for the Justice Department for FY 1980. For
the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), authorizes $198.3 million. Amends
the Controlled Substances Act (1) to authorize DEA to pay tort claims arising
in foreign countries in connection with the agency's operations, such payment
to be made in accordance with the Federal Tort Claims Act, and (2) to repeal
the requirement that an award of compensation be made to informers in accordance
with the customs laws.
P.L. 96-157; Justice System Improvement Act
Amends Title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act. Establishes
a National Institute of Justice (NIJ) and a Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS).
CRS-24
TransferB the research operations of the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration
(LEAA) to the new NIJ and its statistics operations to the new BJS. Places all
three entities—LEAA. NIJ, and BJS--under a new Justice Department agency, the
Office of Justice Assistance, Research and Statistics (OJARS). Authorizes $750
million per year for FY 1980 through 1983 for the major assistance activities,
education and training, and administration; $25 million for each of these
fiscal years for research; $25 million for each year for statistical activities;
and S25 million for each year for a community anti-crime program.
P.L. 96-181t Drug Abuse Prevention. Treatment, and Rehabilitation Amendments
of 1979
Among other things, transfers to the President the responsibilities of the
former Office of Drug Abuse Policy. Expands membership of the Strategy Council
on Drug Abuse to include appropriate State and local government officials.
Extends specific authorization for the National Institute on Drug Abuse to
conduct or support research on designated subjects, including the development
of synthetic analgesics, antitussives and other drugs which are non-addictive
or less addictive than opium or its derivatives, to replace opium and its
derivatives in medical use.
P.L. 96-350
Makes it unlawful for any person on board a U.S. vessel or a vessel subject
to U.S. jurisdiction—or for a U.S. citizen on any vessel—to possess, manufacture,
distribute, dispense, or unlawfully import a controlled substance. Also makes it
unlawful for any person anywhere to possess a controlled substance intending or
CRS-25
knowing that it will be unlawfully imported into the United States. Provides for
first offense penalties of up to 15 years imprisonment, or a fine of up to $25,000,
or both, and of double those maximums for a second or subsequent offense.
P.L. 96-359: Infant Formula Act of 1980
Among other things, contains provisions (1) to increase the maximum penalty
for trafficking in marihuana in amounts exceeding 1,000 lbs., to 15 years in
prison, or $125,000, or both (double for a second offense); (2) to extend the
1978 amendments to the Controlled Substances Act relating to the commerce in
the POP constituent piperidine; and (3) to direct the Attorney General to make
available to the States additional information on the extent of, and on trends
in, the abuse of drugs.
P.L. 96-509; Violent Juvenile Crime Control Act of 1980
Amends the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of
1974 to include the finding that the justice system should give additional
attention to violent crimes committed by juveniles, particularly in the areas
of identification, apprehension, speedy adjudication, sentencing, and
rehabilitation. Repeals declarations of purpose relating to the establishment
of training programs and centralized research and information services dealing
with juvenile delinquency.
Title II; Amends the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of
1974, to specify, among other things, that the Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention shall be (1) under the general authority of the Attorney
General and (2) under the direction of an Administrator with final authority
CRS-26
over specified administrative functions. Provides for a 3-year planning cycle
for formula grants. Requires that 5 years after the enactment of the amendments,
States receiving funds may no longer detain juveniles in jails or lockups housing
adult offenders. Provides for an emphasis on removing juveniles from jails and
lockups, on serious juvenile offenders, on the training of personnel to deal
with offenders with learning disabilities, on exemplary activities, and on the
implementation of juvenile justice standards. Authorizes appropriations of
$200 million each year for FY 1981-1984.
P.L. 96-528
Makes appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, and Related Agencies
programs for FY 1981 and for other purposes. Among other things, prohibits the
use of funds appropriated pursuant to the act for making production or other
pa3nnent8 to persons or corporations that harvest—for illegal use—marihuana or
other prohibited drug-producing plants.
P.L. 96-533; International Security and Development Cooperation Act of 1980
Among other things, extends the appropriation authorization for the
International Narcotics Control program under section 482 of the Foreign
Assistance Act. For FY 1981 authorizes $38.6 million. Makes available certain
aircraft, communications equipment and operational support to the Colombian
anit-narcotics enforcement program.
H. Res. 13
Provides for the continuance, in the 96th Congress, of the House Select
Committee on Narcotics Abuse and Control.
CRS-27
P.L. 97-86; Department of Defense Authorization for Appropriations for FY 1982
Among other things, by way of clarifying the Posse Comitatus statute,
authorizes certain kinds of cooperation by the Armed Services with civilian law
enforcement authorities for specified purposes, including enforcement of the
Controlled Substances Act.
P.L. 97-113; International Security and Development Cooperation Act of 1981
Among other things, authorizes appropriations for the International Narcotics
Control program under section 482 of the Foreign Assistance Act: $37.7 million
for each of the fiscal years 1982 and 1983. Repeals the provision of the act
that had prohibited the use of assistance funds for drug crop eradication efforts
using an herbicide shown to be harmful to human health; however, requires the
Secretary of State to inform the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS)
of the use or intended use, by any country or international organization, of
any herbicide to eradicate marihuana under a program receiving assistance.
Further requires the Secretary of HHS to monitor the health impact of the use
of marihuana that has been sprayed by an herbicide and to report to Congress
any evidence of harmful effects. Allows funds earmarked for Colombia under
the FY80 appropriation to be used for marihuana eradication (with paraquat).
Urges the President to spend at least $100,000 to develop a substance that
clearly warns persons who may use or consume marihuana that it has been sprayed
with the herbicide paraquat or other herbicide harmful to the health of such
persons. Requires such a substance, if developed, to be used with the herbicide.
Allows funds earmarked for Colombia under the FY80 appropriation to be
used for marihuana eradication (with paraquat).
Directs the President to make an annual report to Congress on U.S. policy
for establishing an international strategy to prevent narcotics trafficking.
CRS-28
P.L. 97-116! Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments of 1981
Among other things, permits the waiver of simple marihuana possession
offenses, involving 30 grams or less, as grounds for deportation of the alien
spouse, child, or parent or a United States citisen or permanent resident.
P»L. 97-248; Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982
Contains provisions designed to remove impediments to Internal Revenue
Service cooperation with other Federal law enforcement agencies. Specifically,
decentralizes authority to apply for tax disclosure orders, eliminates
"Catch-22" standards for acceptable applications for disclosure orders, and
substitutes the United States for Individual Federal employees in civil damage
actions for unauthorized disclosure of tax information.
H. Res 13
Provides for the continuance, in the 97th Congress, of the House Select
COTsnittee on Narcotics Abuse and Control.
P.L. 98-67 (Title II): Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act
Authorizes the President to proclaim duty-free treatment for all "eligible
articles" from any Caribbean country specifically designated under the act
unless that country fails to meet certain enumerated requirements. One
requirement is that the country must take adequate steps to cooperate with the
United States to prevent narcotic drugs and other controlled substances (as
listed in 21 U.S.C. 812) produced, processed, or transported in such country
froB entering the U.S. unlawfully.
CRS-29
P.L. 98-151; Further continuing appropriations, FY 1984
Contains a prohibition on the provision of assistance, through programs
funded under the Foreign Assistance Appropriations Act as provided for in
P.L. 98-377 and P.L. 98-63 and out of funds appropriated under the act, to any
country during any three-month period (after October 1, 1983) following a
certification by the President to the Congress that the government of such
country is failing to take adequate measures to prevent narcotic drugs or
other controlled substances (cultivated, produced, or processed in that
country, or transported through it) from being sold illegally within the
jurisdiction of such country to U.S. Government personnel or their
dependents or from entering the United States unlawfully.
P.L. 98-164: Department of State Authorization Act, FY 1984 and FY 1985
Contains provisions making U.S. assistance to any country that is a
major producer of opium, coca, or marihauana contingent on reductions by that
country in the levels of such production. Requires the President to submit,
annually, a report on U.S. efforts to establish and encourage an International
strategy to prevent the illicit cultivation and production of, and traffic
in, narcotics and other controlled substances. Specifies that reports shall
identify source countries and determine the "maximum reductions in illicit
drug production which are achievable" In primary source countries; sulxnission
of report is to be followed by consultations between the Administration and
Congress on appropriate steps to be taken with respect to delinquent countries.
CR8-30
P.L. 98-236
Affleads the Contract Services for Drug Dependent Federal Offenders Act of
1978 to extend the authorisation of appropriations, through FY 1986, for
contracts with public or private agencies for the supervision of released drug
offenders.
P»L. 98-305: Controlled Substance Registrant Protection Act of 1984
Makes it a Federal crime to rob or burgle a pharmacy or other dispenser
(registered under the Federal Controlled Substances Act to manufacture,
distribute or dispense the drugs regulated under that statute) of a substance
controlled under the Federal Controlled Substances Act ^ (1) the replacement
cost of the substance is at least $500, (2) the person committing the
offense traveled in interstate or foreign commerce or used any facility in
commerce to facilitate the act, or (3) another person was killed or suffered
significant bodily injury as a result of the offense. Authorizes penalties
of up to 20 years Imprisonment or $25,000, or both; where bodily injury
occurs, up to 25 years or up to $35,000, or both; where death occurs, up
to life imprisonment or $50,000, or both.
P.L. 98-329
Transfers the drug methaqualone from Schedule II to Schedule I under the
Controlled Substances Act, thus banning it except for specifically approved
experimental purposes.
CRS-31
P.L; 98-4U; Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judlclarv. and
Related Agencies Appropriation Act. 1985
In addition to making appropriations for the Justice Department for FY
1985, provides that the authorities contained in P.L. 96-132, "The Department
of Justice Appropriation Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 1980", shall remain
In effect until the termination date of the Act or until the effective date
of a Department of Justice Appropriation Authorization Act (for FY 1985),
whichever is earlier. Also extends exemptions, for the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, from certain restrictions on undercover investigative operations,
and authorizes their application to similar operations of the Drug Enforcement
Administration—requiring from both agencies detailed audits and reports on such
operations.
P.L. 98-473 (Title II); Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984
Chapter I; Bail. Amends the Bail Reform Act to (1) permit Federal
courts to consider the factor of potential danger to the community in
determining whether to release an accused Individual pending trial (or appeal,
if convicted) or, if release is appropriate, in determining the conditions for
release and (2) increase penalties for Jumping bail.
Chapter lit Sentencing Reform. For development of a more uniform and
predictable Federal sentencing system, establishes a sentencing commission to
formuate guidelines for use by the courts when determining sentences.
Eliminates parole and allows only limited "good time" credits. Requires
guidelines to reflect possible effects of sentences on Federal prison
capacities. Specifies that departure from guidelines must be explained in
writing by the court. Repeals Youth Corrections Act.
CRS-32
Chapter III; Forfeiture. Amends both the Controlled Substances Act and
the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). Imposes the
sanction of criminal forfeiture for all felony drug offenses. Expands the
scope of previously authorized criminal forfeiture sanctions under RICO to
Include the forfeiture of racketeering activity proceeds. Raises the ceiling
(to §100,000) on the value of property subject to administrative forfeiture.
Creates two funds from forfeiture proceeds to maintain seized property and to
pay for certain law enforcement expenses and in other ways facilitates
forfeitures in drug-related and racketeering cases. [See also Chapter XXIII,
below.]
Chapter V; Drug Enforcement Admendments.
Part A; Controlled Substance Penalties. Amends both the Controlled
Substances Act (CSA) and the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (CSIEA)
to (1) Increase the maximum prison penalties for trafficking in large amounts
of an opiate, cocaine, phencyclldlne (PCP). or lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD),
(2) increase the level of maximum fines that may be imposed as penalties for
trafficking in any^ controlled substance, (3) Increase prison penalties and fines
for trafficking in any amount of most non-narcotlc substances in CSA Schedules
I or II (such as LSD and PCP), (4) Increase penalties for trafficking in
marihuana In amounts ranging from 50 to 454 kilograms, (5) permit State and
foreign drug convictions to be considered under the enhanced sentencing
provisions applying to repeat drug offenders, and (6) create a new offense under
the Act of distributing a controlled substance in or on, or within a thousand
feet of, the real property comprising a public or private elementary school,"
a first offense being subject to double the maximum penalty for a regular
trafficking offense and a second offense being eubject to a mandatory minimum
of three years Imprisonment and a life-time maximum. [See also Chapter XXIII,
below.]
CRS-33
Part B: Diverson Control Amendments. Amends the Controlled Substances
Act to (1) permit the Attorney General to deny an application for practitioner
registration if he determines that its Issuance would be inconsistent with the
public interest, (2) make it easier to revoke or suspend any registration under
the CSA (manufacturers, importers, distributors, and practitioners), (3)
eliminate some practitioner recordkeeping requirements and tighten others,
(4) simplify practitioner registration requirements (allowing a three-year
life-span if determined appropriate), (5) clarify the control of isomers, (6)
establish new emergency authority for the Attorney General to place under
temporary controls any uncontrolled substance not being marketed in the U.S. for
medical purposes—including registration, recordkeeping, and criminal sanctions
for violation, (7) authorize a program of grants to State and local governments
($6 million a year for FY 1985 and FY 1986) to assist them in suppressing
diversion of controlled substances from legitimate medical, scientific and
commercial channels, and (8) expand Import permit requirements to include the
importation of certain non-narcotlc Schedule III substances.
Chapter VI. Division I: Justice Assistance. Among other things,
provides for Federal funding, through matching block grants to the States, of
State and local law enforcement programs "of proven effectiveness or which
offer a high probability of improving the functions of the criminal justice
system and which focus primarily on violent crime and serious offenders."
Specifically indicates drug trafficking as one of the "critical problems of
crime" that funded projects may address. Authorizes appropriations of §70
million for FY 1985.
CRS-34
Chapter VI. Division II; Amendments to the Juvenile Justice and
Prevention Act of 1974. Reauthorlres a program of assistance to
States for the development of programs to combat juvenile delinquency, and of
alternatives to Incarceration of juveniles.
Chapter IX; Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act Amendments.
Designed principally to prevent the laundering of money by drug traffickers
and organized crime figures, (1) prohibits the attempted transport, out of the
U.S., of monetary instruments exceeding $10,000 (as well as actual transport,
as under previously existing law, the minimum being Increased from the previous
$5,000) absent the prior filing of a report with the Treasury Department, (2)
allows customs officials to search, without a warrant, for unreported amounts
of cash brought Into or carried out of the country, (3) authorizes rewards to
informants providing original Information on a major violation of the Act, and
(4) Increases the penalties and fines for failure to keep the records and
file the reports required under the Act.
Chapter X; Miscellaneous Violent Crime Amendments
Part A; Murder-for-Hire and Violent Crimes In Aid of Racketeering.
Extends previously existing Federal jurisdiction over contract killings and
violence to cover those Involving travel In interstate or foreign commerce or
using a facility of commerce, and also those committed for anything of pecuniary
value received from a "racketeering" enterprise.
Par^. Creates a new offense of soliciting the commission of a violent
Federal felony.
Chapter XI; Serious Non-violent Offenses
Part A. Makes it an offense to warn anyone that he or his property is
about to be searched by Federal authorities.
CRS-35
Part H. Prohibits the possession of certain contraband articles—Including
any narcotic drug—by a Federal prison Inmate.
Chapter XII; Procedural Amendments
Part A. Prosecution of Certain Juveniles as Adults. Provides for Federal
prosecution, as adults, of certain Juvenile defendants charged with serious
Federal drug offenses or crimes of violence.
Part B. Wiretap Amendments. Authorizes emergency wiretaps without a court
order in certain specified situations (Including illegal currency transactions
and offenses related to victim-witness Intimidation).
Chapter XIII. National Narcotics Act
Creates a National Drug Enforcement Policy Board, an Interagency council
to coordinate Federal drug law enforcement activities, under the chairmanship
of the Attorney General. Gives chairman authority to approve budget
reprogramming requests of any agency. If drug law enforcement is Involved, and
allows him to direct the reassignment of personnel, with the concurrence of the
head of the agency affected.
Chapter XXIII
Authorizes an alternative sentence of a fine of up to twice the proceeds
from a violation of the Controlled Substances Act, the Controlled Substances
Import and Export Act, or the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organization
chapter of title 18, U.S. Code. Authorizes the proceeds of forfeited property
to be placed In a fund for the maintenance of seized property, the purchase of
evidence, and the retro-flttlng of seized and forfeited conveyances for law
enforcement purposes.
CRS-36
P»L» 98-499; Aviation Drug-Trafficking Control Act
Amends the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 to (1) require the mandatory
revocation, for up to five years, of the airman certificate of someone convicted
of a violation of a State or Federal law relating to controlled substances,
and (2) provide for additional penalties for the transportation of controlled
substances by aircraft*
P.L. 98-573; Trade and Tariff Act of 1984
Contains amendments to the Tariff Act of 1930 to raise the ceiling (from
$10,000 to $100,000) on the value of property subject to administrative
forfeiture (unless contested) because of its Involvement in a violation of
U.S. customs laws and to remove entirely the ceiling In the case of conveyances
used to import, export, transport, or store any substance covered by the
Controlled Substance Act. Raises (from $250 to $2,500) the amount of the bond
required from a claimant who contests such forfeiture and who seeks a Judicial
hearing and determination. [With the exception of the amount of bond required
in contested cases, the provisions are essentially the same as those of Fart D
of Chapter III of P.L. 98-473, the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984.]
P.L. 98-596t Criminal Fine Enforcement Act of 1984
Amends Che Federal criminal code to improve the collection of fines and to
increase the maximum fine level for certain offenses.
H. Res. 49
Provides for the continuance, in the 98th Congress, of the House Select
Committee on Narcotics Abuse and Control.
CRS-37
BRIEF SUMMARIES OF TREATIES
Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961
[Entered into force for the United States June 24, 1967). Replaces previous
multilateral international treaties for the control of narcotic drug traffic with
a single new instrument, designed to simplify and strengthen the existing machinery
of regulation. [TIAS 6298]
1972 Protocol Amending the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961
Increases the authority of the International Narcotics Control Board.
[26 UST 1439; TIAS 8118]
Convention on Psychotropic Substances
[Entered into force for the United States April 16, 1980]. Provides for the
international control of depressant, stimulant, and hallucinogenic substances not
subject to the Single Connection on Narcotic Drugs. [TIAS 9725]
COORDINATIOK OF FEDERAL EFFORTS TO CONTROL ILLICIT DRUG TRAFFIC
(ARCHIVED—01/10/85)
UPDATED 12/31/84
BY
Harry Hogan
Government Division
Congressional Research Service
0110
CONGRESSIONAL
RESEARCH
SERVICE
THE LIBRARY
OF CONGRESS
CRS- 1 IB83168 UPDATE-12/31/84
ISSUE DEFINITION
How best to coordinate the Federal Government's multi-agency efforts to
curb illicit traffic in dangerous drugs has once again become an issue of
major interest to the Congress. Critics of the current Administration's
anti-drug program contend that it lacks an overall strategy and that it
suffers from the absence of a central mechanism for the formulation of
general policy as well as for the broad direction of operations. A number of
bills pending in the 98th Congress are designed to remedy the perceived
deficiency, through the establishment of an agency with explicit authority
over the development and implementation of all Federal government efforts to
control drug traffic. Frequently described in the press as "drug czar"
proposals, these measures have been generally opposed by the Reagan
Administration on the grounds that such an agency is unnecessary and
potentially disruptive? however, a version enacted during the closing hours
of the 98th Congress was the result of a compromise acceptable to the
President.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY AKALYSIS
I. Immediate Background
II. Historical Perspective
III. Alternatives to a Drug Czar
IV. Summary Discussion
I. Immediate Background
On Jan. 14, 1983, President Reagan exercised a pocket veto on an omnibus
crime control bill passed during the closing hours of the 97th Congress. His
principal objection to the measure was that it contained a provision for a
so-called "drug czar" office, to be known as the "Office of the Director of
National and International Drug Operations and Policy." The agency, the
director and deputy director of which were to be subject to Senate approval,
would have been authorized to ---
(A) develop, review, implement, and enforce U.S.
Government policy with respect to illegal
drugs ;
(B) direct and coordinate all U.S. Government
efforts to halt the flow into, and sale and
use of illegal drugs within the U.S.;
(C) develop in concert with other Federal
entities concerned with drug control the
budgetary priorities and allocations of
those entities with respect to illegal
drugs; and
(D) coordinate the collection and dissemination
of information necessary to implement U.S.
policy with respect to illegal drugs.
In connection with the drug czar provision, the President's memorandum of
disapproval stated:
CRS- 2 1B83168 UPDATE-12/31/84
The creation of another layer of bureaucracy
within the Executive Branch would produce friction,
disrupt effective law enforcement, and could threaten
the integrity of criminal investigations and
prosecutions — the very opposite of what its
proponents apparently intend.
He contended moreover, that "although [the provision's] aim — with which I
am in full agreement — is to promote coordination, this can be and is being
achieved through existing administrative structures."
The President's assertion that coordination is being achieved under the
present system is challenged in a report recently issued by the General
Accounting Office. (Federal Drug Interdiction Efforts Need Strong Central
Oversight; GGD-83-52; June 13, 1983). Focusing on drug interdiction, the GAO
found that, although the level of cooperation among the principal agencies
concerned has been increasing, the fragmentation of authority and
responsibility "has a certain amount of inefficiency and interagency conflict
built in." In particular, the GAO points out, "congressional oversight and
executive branch resource allocation decisions relative to drug interdiction
are difficult under these circumstances." Accordingly, the agency recommended
that the President
— direct the development of a more definitive
Federal drug strategy that stipulates the
roles of the various agencies with drug
enforcement responsibilities and
-- malce a clear delegation of responsibility
to one individual to oversee Federal drug
enforcement programs.
II. Historical Perspective
For close to lOO years the Federal government has been involved in efforts
to curb the non-therapeutic use of dangerous drugs. Beginning in 1887, with
enactment of a law that forbade the importation of opium into the United
States by subjects of the Emperor of China, a long series of statutes has
created a major Federal role in the regulation of drug commerce and in the
enforcement of restrictions designed to prevent the abuse of drugs.
As a matter of course, the responsibility for administering and enforcing
Federal drug control laws has been divided. Since many of the most
restricted drugs enter the country illegally from abroad, the agencies
charged with policing the national borders — the Customs Service, the Coast
Guard, and the Border Patrol — have an important part to play. Regulation
of the domestic drug industry is the province of both the Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA) and the Food and Drug Administration, while in addition
the DEA has authority for the investigation of violations involving dangerous
drugs and for liaison with foreign law enforcement officials in matters
pertaining to dangerous drug control.
Other agencies with drug control responsibilities are: the Federal Bureau
of Investigation (FBI); the Bureau of International Narcotics Matters in the
CRS- 3 IB83168 UPDATE-12/31/84
State Department; the Federal Aviation Agency; the Internal Revenue Service;
the Office of Justice Assistance, Research and Statistics (OJARS); the Agency
for International Development; the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms;
and the Department of Agriculture. Additionally, there is t-he necessary
participation of the Criminal Division of the Justice Department and of U.S.
Attorneys.
Especially during the past 15 years, the level of the Federal commitment
to control of drug abuse has increased substantially. Spending for "law
enforcement" related to this purpose rose from $37 million in FY 1969 to
approximately Si.05 billion in FYSS. The same years saw the initiation, or
significant increase, of Federal programs to reduce the demand for drugs
through treatment, education and primary prevention.
Calls for increased coordination are not a new occurrence. Along with a
number of other approaches, the "overlord" system itself has in fact been
tried — in a structure established, in 1971, by former President Richard
Kixon.
In declaring a "War on Drug Abuse" President Nixon was responsible for a
number of initiatives directed at the problem that causing such a high degree
of public concern at the time. Among them was the creation of the Special
Action Office for Drug Abuse Prevention (SAODAP), headed by a director which
the press at that time labelled "the drug czar." Placed in the Executive
Office of the President, the agency was authorized to supervise and be
responsible for all Federal drug abuse programs involving prevention,
education, treatment, training and research.
In initial discussions at the White House, the Nixon drug czar plan had
envisioned the inclusion of law enforcement functions within the scope of the
office's concerns. however, reportedly it was argued with persuasion -- by
the Justice Department and the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs
that a director who would have the necessary stature in both the law
enforcement and the treatment-prevention communities could not be found. It
was further argued, also with effect, that of these two general areas the
treatment-prevention side was at that time in greater need of central
direction.
In 1972, the year following Presidential establishment of the new agency.
Congress provided a statutory base, for a 3-year period, through the Drug
Abuse Office and Treatment Act. Two key congressional findings noted in the
legislation were as follows:
The effectiveness of efforts by State \nd local
governments and by the Federal Government to
control and treat drug abuse in the United States
has been hampered by a lack of coordination among
the states, between States and localities, and
throughout the Federal establishment.
Control of drug abuse requires the development of
a comprehensive, coordinated long-term Federal
strategy that encompasses both effective law
enforcement against illegal drug traffic and
effective health programs to rehabilitate victims
of drug abuse.
CRS- 4 IB83168 UPDATE-12/31/84
Although finding substantial support for the addition of law enforcement
efforts to the coordinative jurisdiction of SAODAP, a fact reflected in the
above findings, Congress acceded to the Administration view that the office
should have no effective power over drug law enforcement agencies. The
exclusion of such authority continued, during the years of the agency's
operation, to draw criticism.
Despite the existence of SAODAP, conflicts and the lach of a unified
objective continued in evidence, and in 1973 — 2 years after the
coordinating agency had been created -- the National Commission on Marihuana
and Drug Abuse could still find that in SAODAP's designated sphere of
operation "the fragmentation of authority threatens to defeat its attempt to
organize federal and state activities into an integrated response, under
clear and understandable policy guidelines."
The National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, established by an act
of Congress and partially appointed by President Nixon, had been given the
task of conducting two comprehensive studies -- one on the country's
marihuana problem and what to do about it and the second on the problem of
drug abuse in general and the appropriate national response. In its detailed
report on the general drug problem, the Commission described the development,
during the preceding five years, of a "drug abuse industrial complex" --
marked by duplication of effort, uncertainty of direction and a lack of
interagency coordination." Above all, the Commission noted the emergence of
a large Federal drug bureaucracy, "displaying the common propensity of
bureaucratic infrastructures to turn short-term programs into never-ending
projects."
Despite the fact that coordination and a unified policy were still eluding
the government when the National Commission wrote its report, the panel gave
SAODAP credit for making progress in that direction. However, the Commission
recommended a far more radical approach to the coordination problem than any
proposed before or since: the creation of a single agency with responsibility
for all primarily drug-related functions, both for the formulation of policy
and for actual day-to-day operations. The recommendation envisioned that the
agency director would have sub-cabinet rank but would nevertheless report
directly to the President.
Although supporting the concept of a single drug control agency -- with
the suggestion that it be called the Controlled Substances Administration
the National Commission acknowledged two alternatives:
(1) that the system in effect at th.g time might be
continued "in the hope that SAODAP will more
effectively utilize its statutory authority
to bring some order out of administrative
chaos" or
(2) that SAODAP could be retained but given
specifically detailed program authority as
well as the budgetary control it already had.
The 3-year authorization for SAODAP expired in 1975. The Ford
Administration took the position that the agency's duration should not be
extended. The emergency , situation that had called for the extraordinary
measure no longer existed, the Administration maintained, and therefore the
business of directing Federal treatment and prevention efforts should be left
CRS- 5 IB83168 UPDATE-12/31/84
to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, which had been established by the
same statute as SAODAP. General policy concerning all drug matters were to
be developed by several Cabinet committees as well as by the Strategy Council
on Drug Abuse, also created by the SAODAP law.
In spite of the Ford policy, SAODAP never entirely faded away. In 1976,
Congress amended the SAODAP statute to establish a successor agency the
Office of Drug Abuse Policy (ODAP) -- on a scaled-down basis, the new office
being smaller in size than SAODAP and lacking its powerful tool of budget
review.
President Ford, who was defeated in 1976 in his bid for re-election,
declined to implement the ODAP amendment. In March 1977, Ford's successor --
President Jimmy Carter -- filled the vacant ODAP Director position with Dr.
Peter Bourne. Dr. Bourne was confirmed by the Senate in late May and
installed in office in June. A month later. President Carter submitted a plan
for the reorganization of the Executive Office of the President, which
included a provision for the abolition of ODAP. The plan (Reorganization
Plan No. 1, 1977) was not disapproved by Congress, and ODAP went out of
existence in early 1978. In all the successor agency to SAODAP was in
operation for little more than a half-year.
After ODAP's demise, however, Dr. Bourne became a presidential assistant
for international health and drug abuse and, as such, oversaw the operations
of a drug policy unit within the Domestic Policy Staff. After Dr. Bourne's
resignation, in mid-1978, the unit was supervised by the former Deputy
Director of ODAP, Lee Dogoioff. The Reagan Administration has continued
roughly the same arrangement, and in June 1982 the President issued an
Executive order (No. 12368) officially designating the unit the "Drug Abuse
Policy Office", and naming a director (Dr. Carlton Turner) to be "primarily
responsible for assisting the President in formulating policy for, and in
coordinating and overseeing, international as well as domestic drug abuse
functions by all Executive agencies."
III. Alternatives to a Drug Czar
If .we accept the proposition that the various Federal drug law enforcement
efforts, or the drug abuse prevention and treatment efforts, suffer from a
lack of coordinated policies and goals, is a super-agency -- i.e., a drug
czar — the only solution? certainly, other ways of approaching this problem
nave been conceived and tried during the past ten years.
First, the same legislation that established SAODAP also created a
Strategy Council, comprised of the department and agency heads who had the
greatest interest in the drug problem, the SAODAP director, and other
officials "as the President may deem appropriate." The mandate of the
Council is to develop a "comprehensive, coordinated long-term Federal
strategy for all drug abuse prevention functions and all drug traffic
prevention functions" of any agency of the Federal Government. The strategy
is to be reviewed and revised at least once a year. It is intended to cover
both broad policy objectives and operational matters. Certainly the case
could be made that in the policy-making area, the Strategy Council could
perform much of the function of a drug czar. The question is, after a
s.trategy has been framed and promulgated, who will follow up? Those who
support the super-agency idea maintain that continual monitoring is required
to see that a strategy is implemented. (Note; although the legislation
CRS- 6 IB83168 UPDATE-12/31/84
requiring the establishment of the Council has never been repealed, the one*
strategy prepared by the Reagan Adhiinistration, for 1982, . involved
participation by government agencies only, without the members of the public
specified by amendments enacted in 1976).
The second alternative — in the law enforcement field -- is embodied, at
least partially, by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) itself.
Established by Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1973, the agency was intended by
President Nixon to be the final answer to those who were charging that
enforcement was in disarray due to inter-agency rivalries and lack of
cooperation. Absorbing the manpower of three separate organizations, along
with all Customs personnel who specialized in drug law enforcement, DEA was
meant — by embracing the majority of enforcement people within one
organizational structure -- to provide a "unified command" in the
"counteroffensive" against drug abuse. Despite this move, which did not
involve the narcotics control efforts of the state Department or the coast
Guard, the rivalry problems have continued, according to many observers.
Cited most frequently as the biggest trouble area is the relationship between
DEA and Customs. Also, until the recent shift within the Justice .Department
(Jan. 21, 1982) that gave the FBI concurrent jurisdiction with DEA over drug
law enforcement, the former agency was inactive in the field, thus providing
its agents with little incentive to share intelligence or otherwise cooperate
with their DEA brethren.
The third coordinating mechanism that has been tried -- by Presidents
Nixon, Ford, and Reagan — is the inter-agency committee. The Ford
Administration argued against the extension of SAODAP on the grounds that the
agency had achieved its purpose as an emergency measure and that the time had
come to return to normal institutional structure and procedure. in answer to
the contention that a continued White House-level agency was necessary to
give the anti-drug effort the needed "clout," Administration defenders
pointed out that if this line were followed with respect to every important
Federal undertaking, there would be an overwhelming number of White House
agencies. Furthermore, it was held that a more effective and appropriate way
to achieve coordination was the one recommended by a special task force ^of
the President's Domestic Council in the fall of 1975 and subsequently taken
by President Fords creation of a Cabinet Committee on Drug Abuse Prevention
and a Cabinet committee on Drug Law Enforcement. The members of the latter
were the Attorney General and the Secretaries of the Treasury and of
TraxiSportation, with the DEA Administrator acting as Executive Director. The
two committees were modeled on the Cabinet Committee for International
Narcotics control, created by former President Nixon, which the Domestic
Council group evaluated as having been "quite successful."
Growing out of the two cabinet committees created by President Ford was
the so-called "Principals Group," comprised of the chiefs of the operating
agencies having the greatest responsibility for drug abuse control. The
group was at one time given high marks for resolving conflicts and promoting
cooperation, especially among the enforcement agencies. (An expanded version
of the Principals Group is still functioning, under the designation "White
House Oversight Working Group," meeting once a month. A separate entity, the
"Working Group on Drug Supply Reduction" is.concerned with "law enforcement
only.)
Finally, the Reagan Administration has established its own versions of the
cabinet committee: the Cabinet Council on Legal Policy, chaired by the
Attorney General, and -- in connection with the President's new anti-drug
trafficking task force initiative -- a Cabinet Committee on Organized Crime,
CRS- 7
also chaired by the Attorney General.
IB83168 UPDATE-12/31/84
IV. Summary Discussion
The argument over the drug czar proposals reflects a disagreement over the
value and appropriateness of various kinds of government mechanisms. Neither
side denies the need for coordination, both in policy-making and in
operations, although there is disagreement over the degree to which it has
been achieved by the Reagan Administration under the present system.
Essentially, the opponents of the czar concept see it as hostile to the
cabinet system of government. That system allots authority and
responsibility to various departments along reasonably coherent
jurisdictional lines, they argue, and when areas of responsibility overlap —
as frequently happens -- the appropriate mechanism for achieving coordination
is one of an inter-cabinet nature. A special "overlord" agency of any kind
depreciates the system, opponents say.
On the other side, proponents have been dissatisfied with the
inter-cabinet and inter-agency structures tried in the past. While many of
them may agree that the czar solution does violate the logic of the cabinet
system, they make the case that the drug problem is special -- that the
dimensions of the threat and the necessary complexity of the government's
response demand a departure from "business as usual." They hold that only an
entity with direct access to the President -- and one with budget review
authority as well as the power to influence actual agency operations — can
successfully overcome the inherent impediments to coordination of effort
among Federal agencies.
To what extent does past experience offer guidance for judging the above
positions?
Although appraisals made both by Members of Congress and executive branch
officials are available, it is difficult to form a clear idea of the results
of the various approaches taken. In one of the few outsider assessments of
SAODAP, a political scientist — writing in 1981 -- examined the agency from
the aspect of the light it shed on styles of Presidential management. While
noting certain early successes, G. Larry Mays pointed to an eventual failure
in meeting original expectations (The Special Action Office for Drug Abuse
Prevention: Drug Control During the Nixon Administration. International
Journal of Public Administration, v. 3, 1981). The reason he cited was an
apparent loss of confidence in the agency's^director, Dr. Jerome Jaffe, by
influential presidential aides and thus, presumably, also by the President.
Crediting President Nixon with a genuine interest in the drug problem.
Mays noted that Dr. Jaffa's contact man in the Nixon White House was Egil
("Bud") Krogh, a trusted high-level aide who could guarantee that the SAODAP
director would have ready access to the President. However, Mays stated,
"after Jaffee waivered on the matter of replacing Dr. [Bertram] Brown of the
National Institute of Mental Health, Krogh was no longer his contact and he
was relegated to dealing with one of the many junior aides in the White
House." This, Mays concluded, marked "an end to Jaffe's effective contact
with the President and consequently a loss of influence." Under the next
director, Robert DuPont, the agency was moved physically out of the Executive
Office of the President (EOP) and located in Rockville, Maryland, and was
generally perceived as further diminished in terms of its impact on the
CRS- 8 IB83168 UPDATE-12/31/84
process of Presidential decision-maKing.
Professional employees of the agencies directly responsible for dealing
with the drug problem offer varying informal evaluations of SAODAP. While
many appear to welcome any move that highlights the drug problem and that
projects the image of a higher level of priority, others express the doubt
that any formal entity, such as SAODAP or the proposed drug czar office, can
accomplish what is intended. According to the latter, to the extent that
there indeed remain coordination difficulties -- after all of the
consolidating moves of the past 10 years what is needed is not a new
overlord office but rather (1) a definite and sustained interest in the
problem on the part of the President and (2) one high-level Presidential aide
who has access to the President, to monitor the operating agencies and to
bring important conflicts to the President's attention. One veteran
enforcement official has commented privately, "We've already had a drug czar,
the only kind that works, and that was Bud Krogh." (See above.)
Ultimately, in trying to answer the question "Do we need a drug czar?",
the Congress is faced with a series of additional questions, both theoretical
and practical. Is the general principle sound? Does the concept of a
super-agency, which would coordinate and direct a group of operating agencies
having some common function, do violence to the logic of Executive Branch
departmental structure? Is that structure sacrosanct, or does the growth of
the White House Staff and the EOP indicate that in many respects it has
already been found wanting? To solve a coordination problem in any area, is
there a better and more appropriate alternative to creation of a
super-agency, such as the cabinet committee or other similar inter-agency
mechanism? Alternatively, have such arrangements been fruitful in the past?
Assuming that there are indeed exceptional problems that warrant creation of
a super-agency, is drug abuse one of them? Are the present organizations and
arrangements -- the Reagan Administration's Cabinet Council on Legal Policy,
the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force Program, the border
interdiction task force program under the direction of the Vice President,
the Drug Abuse Policy Office in the EOP, and the general lead taken by the
Attorney General in the drug enforcement field — working or not? Have they
been given enough time to demonstrate their potential? Can any office such
as one of those now proposed be successful if the President in office is not
in sympathy with the idea? On the other hand, if it is the responsibility of
Congress to create effective government institutions that will survive the
preferences and style of a particular administration, is a drug czar office
so essential that those preferences should be discounted?
LEGISLATION
H.R. 3326 (Shaw)
Establishes the "Office of the Director of National and International Drug
Operations and Policy" to ensure (1) the development of a national policy
with respect to illegal drugs, (2) the direction and coordination of all
Federal agencies involved in the effort to implement such a policy, and (3)
that a single high-level official, "accountable to the Congress and the
American people," will be charged with the responsibility of coordinating the
overall direction of United States policy, resources, and operations with
respect to the illegal drug problem. Specifies that there shall be both a
Director and a Deputy Director — the Director to be appointed by the
President from among the Vice President and the heads of the executive
departments of the U.S. and the Deputy Director also to be appointed by the
CRS- 9 IB8316B UPDATE-12/31/84
President but with the advice and consent of the Senate. Provision'' is made
specifically for the participation of the Office in the development of
budgetary priorities and allocations of the operative agencies.
H.R. 4028 (Hugnes, Sawyer, Smith of Fla., and Oilman)
Reestablishes an Office of Drug Abuse Policy (ODAP) in the Executive
Office of the President. Amends the Drug Abuse Prevention, Treatment, and
Rehabilitation Act to revise the authority (still contained in the statute)
of ODAP, to provide for a Deputy Director for Drug Abuse Prevention and a
Deputy Director for Drug Enforcement. Sets forth authorities for the
Director of the office, which include the establishment of policy and
priorities for all Federal drug abuse functions and the coordination and
oversight of such functions. Stipulates that the Vice-President may be
appointed Director. Among specific powers provided is review of all annual
budgets of departments and agencies engaged in drug abuse functions.
Authorizes appropriations of $500,000 for FY84 for carrying out the act.
Requires the Director to submit a written report to Congress annually on the
activities conducted under the statute. H.R. 3664 introduced July 26, 1983;
referred jointly to the Committees on the Judiciary and on Energy and
Commerce. H.R. 4028, a clean bill in lieu of H.R. 3664, introduced Sept. 29;
referred to the Committees on Judiciary and on Energy and Commerce. ordered
to be reported (amended) by the Judiciary committee and referred to Committee
on Energy and Commerce, Oct. 4.
S. 1787 (Biden et al.)
National Narcotics Act of 1984. Creates a "National Drug Enforcement
Policy Board," to be chaired by the Attorney General and to be comprised of
various cabinet-level officials and others as may be appointed by the
President. Gives the Board specific authorities aimed at facilitating
coordination of U.S. operations and policy on drug law enforcement
including the authority to review, evaluate, and develop budgetary
priorities. Prohibits interference by the Board with "routine law
enforcement or intelligence decisions of any agency." Introduced Aug. 4,
1983; referred to Judiciary. Reported, without amendment, Aug. 4. written
report filed Oct. 25 (S.Rept. 98-278). (Contents of bill added by floor
amendment on Oct. 26, 1983, to H.R. 3959, a supplemental appropriation bill
that passed the Senate Oct. 27, 1983. Amendment dropped in conference.)
Passed Senate, amended, Feb. 7, 1984. In House, referred jointly to
Committees on the Judiciary and on Energy and commerce, Feb. 9, 1984.
Included as a part of a floor amendment to H.R. 5690, which passed the House
on Oct. 2. Also was included as part of H.J.Res. 648. The conference report
on H.J.Res. 648 was approved by the House and Senate on October 10, and
Signed into law on Oct. 12, 1984 as P.L. 98-473.
HEARINGS
U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Interstate and
Foreign commerce. Subcommittee on Health and the
Environment. Comprehensive Alcohol Abuse and
Alcoholism Prevention, Treatment and Rehabilitation
Act and the Drug Abuse Office and Treatment Act
authorizations. Hearing, 96th Congress, 1st session,
on H.R. 3037. Mar. 27, 1979. Washington,'U.S.
Govt. Print. Off., 1979. 254 p.
CRS-10
«
IB83168 UPDATE-12/31/84
----- Drug Abu-se Office and Treatment Act amendments
of 1975. Hearings, 94tn Congress, 1st session, on
H.R. 7547 and H.R. 4819. June 10 and 11, 1975.
Washington,-U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1975. 214 p.
..... Drug abuse office and treatment amendments of
1978. Hearing, 95th congress, 2d session, on H.R. 11660.
Apr. 10, 1978. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off.,
1978. 220 p.
Subcommittee on Public Health and Environment.
Special Action Office for Drug Abuse Prevention.
Hearings, 92d Congress, 1st sesssion, on H.R. 9264,
and H.R- 9059. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print.
Off., 1971. 4 V.
U.S. Congress. House. Committee on the Judiciary.
Subcommittee on Crime. Merger of the FBI and the
DEA. Joint hearing before the Subcommittee on
Civil and Constitutional Rights and the Subcommittee
on Crime ..., 97th Congress, 2d session.
Mar. 29, 1982. Washington, G.P.O., 1983. 84 p.
U.S. Congress. House. Select Committee on Narcotics
Abuse and Control. DEA/FBI reorganization.
Hearing, 97th Congress, 2d session. Mar. 30, 1982.
Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1982. 38 p.
-—-- Federal drug law enforcement coordination.
Hearing, 97tii Congress, 2d session. Mar. 23, 1982.
Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1982. 87 p.
U.S. Congress. Senate, committee on Government
Operations. Drug abuse prevention and control.
Joint hearings before the Subcommittee on Executive
Reorganization and Government Research and the
Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations...,
92d congress, 1st session, on S. 1945 and S. 2097.
Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1971. 600 p.
U.S. Congress. senate. committee on Government Operations.
Subcommittee on Reorganization, Research, and
International Organizations. Reorganization Plan
No. 2 of 1973. Hearings, 93d Congress, 1st session.
Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off.,"1973-1974.
7 V.
U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Human Resources.
Drug abuse office, prevention, and treatment
amendments of 1978. Hearing, 95th Congress, 2d session,
on S. 2916. Apr. 19, 1978. Washington, U.S. Govt.
Print. Off., 1978. 284 p.
U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Labor and Public
Welfare. Drug abuse prevention and treatme.nt
legislation, 1975. Hearings, 94th Congress, 1st session.
Mar. 24-25, 1975. Washington, U.S. Govt.. Print.
Off. , 1975. 342 p.
CRS-11 1B83168 UPDATE-12/31/84
Drug Abuse Prevention, Treatment, and
Rehabilitation Act of 1979. Hearing, 96th Congress,
1st session, on S. 525. Mar. 2, 1979. Washington,
U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1979. 262 p.
REPORTS AND CONGRESSIONAL DOCUMENTS
U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Government Operations.
Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1977? report together
with additional views to accompany H.Res. 688.
Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off. 1977. 68 p.
U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce. Extension of alcoholism and drug abuse
- prevention and treatment authorities? report
to accompany H.R. 3916. Washington, U.S. Govt.
Print. Off., 1979. 24 p. (96th Congress, 1st session.
House. Report no. 96-193)
Drug Abuse Office and Treatment Act amendments
of 1975? report together with minority views to
accompany H.R. 8150. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print.
Off., 1975. 45 p. (54th Congress, 1st session. House.
Report no. 94-375)
----- Drug abuse prevention and treatment amendments of
1978? report to accompany H.R. 12348 together with
separate views. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off.,
1978. 23 p. (95th Congress, 2d session. House.
Report no. 95-1187)
----- Special Action Office for Drug Abuse Prevention?
report to accompany H.R. 12089. Washington, U.S.
Govt. Print. Off., 1972. 24 p.
U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Government Operations.
Drug Abuse Office and Treatment Act of 1971? report
made by the Subcommittees on Executive Reorganization
and Government Research and Intergovernmental
•Relations, to accompany S. 2097. Washington, U.S.
Govt. Print. Off., 1971. 25 p. (92d Congress, 1st session. •
Senate. Report no. 92-486)
Subcommittee on Executive Reorganization and
Government Research. Reorganization Plan No. 2
of 1973, establishing a Drug Enforcement
Administration in the Department of Justice?
report together with individual views.
Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1973. 58 p.
Subcommittee on Reorganization, Research, and
International Organizations. Reorganization
Plan No. 2 of 1973, establishing a Drug
Enforcement Administration in' the Department
of Justice? report. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print.
Off. , 1973-. 44 p. • -
CRS-12
•
IBS 3168 UPDATE-12/31/84
U.S.. Congress. Senate. committee on Government
Operations. Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.
Federal narcotics enforcement; interim report.
Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1976. 191 p.
(94th Congress, 2d session. Senate. Report no. 94-1039)
U.S. Congress. senate. Committee on Human Resources.
Drug Abuse [office] and Treatment Act -- 1972;
report together with minority views to accompany
S. 525. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1979.
73 p. (96th Congress, 1st session. Senate. Report no. 96-104)
U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Labor and Public
Welfare.' Drug Abuse Office and Treatment Act
amendments of 1975; report to accompany S. 1608.
Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1975. 51 p.
(94th Congress, 1st session. Senate. Report no. 94-218)
Drug Abuse Office, control and Treatment Act of
1971; report to accompany S. 2097. Washington,
U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1971. 29 p.
U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary.
National Narcotics Act of 1983. Report....on S. 1787.
Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1983. 63 p.
(98th Congress, 1st session. Senate. Report no. 98-278)
U.S. President 1965-1969 (Johnson). Reorganization Plan
No. 1 of 1968 -- creating a new Bureau of Narcotics
and Dangerous Drugs. Message from the President of
the United states. Feo. 7, 1968. (90th Congress,
2d session. House Doc. 249).
U.S. President, 1969-1974 (Nixon). Reorganization Plan
No. 2 of 1S73, establishing a Drug Enforcement
Administration. Message from the President of the
United States. Mar. 23, 1973. (93rd Congress,
1st session. House Doc. 93-69).
U.S. President, 1977-1981 (Carter). Reorganization Plan
No. 1 of 1977, to reorganize the Executive Office
of the President. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print.
Off., 1977. (95th Congress, 1st session. House
Doc. 185) •
CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS
10/12/84 -- The President signed H.J.Res. 648 into law
(P.L. 98-473) .
10/10/84 -- The House and Senate both agreed to the conference
report on H.J.Res. 648 (Continuing Appropriations,
FY85), which contained the contents of S. 1787 as
passed by the'Senate and as included by the House
in a bill passed on Oct. 2.
CRS-13 IB83168 UPDATE-12/31/84
10/02/84 — The House passed K.R. 5690, an omnibus crime control
bill that included the provisions of S. 1787
as previously passed by the Senate.
02/07/84 — The Senate passed an amended version of S. 1787,
reflecting a compromise acceptable to the
Reagan Administration.
11/15/83 — The drug "czar" and drug commission provisions
of the Senate-passed supplemental appropriations
bill were dropped by the House-Senate conference
committee.
10/26/83 — The Senate added the contents of S. 1787, a
so-called "drug czar" bill, to H.R. 3959, a supplemental
appropriations bill that was subsequently passed by
the Senate on Oct. 27. Also added was a proposal to
create a "Commission on Drug Interdiction and
Enforcement."
10/04/83 — H.R. 4028 was ordered reported, amended, by
the House Judiciary Committee and referred to
the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
09/15/83 — The House Subcommittee on Crime approved a clean
bill to amend Title II of the Drug Abuse Office
and Treatment Act for the purpose of recreating
the Office of Drug Abuse Policy in the Executive
Office of the President (HOP). Deputy Directors
both for Drug Enforcement and for Drug Abuse
Prevention would be appointed under the bill's
provisions. An amendment accepted in subcommittee
mark-up would allow the President to name the
Vice President as Director. The bill was introduced
Sept. 29 as H.R. 4028.
08/04/83 — A.n altered version of the Administration omnibus
crime control bill was reported by the Senate
Judiciary committee (S. 1762). A separate bill
to establish a "drug czar" office was also
reported (S. 1787).
03/23/83 -- The White House announced the creation of a new
drug interdiction group headed by Vice President
Bush. The National Narcotics Border Interdiction
System (NNBIS) was charged with coordinating the
work of Federal agencies that have responsibilities
for interdiction of sea-borne, air-borne and
across-border importation of narcotics and other
dangerous drugs -- principally the Customs Service,
the Coast Guard, and the armed services.
01/14/83 -- President Reagan withheld his approval of
H.R. 3963 (97th Congress), thus exercising a
pocket veto. He was especially critical of a
provision establishing a "drug czar" office to
coordinate Federal drug law enforcement.
»
CRS-14 IB83168 UPDATE-12/31/84
12/20/82 -- A scalefi-down version of the Violent Crime and Drug '
Enforcement Improvement Act (H.R. 3963, 97th
Congress) was cleared for the President. It
contained provisions for the creation of a so-called
"drug czar" office to coordinate Federal drug
law enforcement.
10/14/82 -- The President announced a major new drive
against illicit drug trafficking. Subsequently
designated the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement
(OCDE) task force program, the initiative
involved creation of 12 regional task forces
for the investigation and prosecution of major
trafficking cases. It was anticipated to
require the hiring of 1,200 new investigators
and prosecutors.
06/24/82 — By Executive Order the President established the
Drug Abuse Policy Office in the Office of Policy
Development (EOP) for the purpose of performing
the duties specified under Title II of the Drug
Abuse Office and Treatment Act. According to the
order, the Director of the Office would be
"primarily responsible for assisting the
President in formulating policy for, and in
coordinating and overseeing, international as
well as domestic drug abuse functions by all
Executive agencies." Dr. Carlton Turner, the
President's senior advisor on drug abuse policy,
was appointed Director.
01/29/82 -- The President announced creation of the Cabinet
Council on Legal Policy, to be chaired by the
Attorney General. The Council was charged with
the review of matters pertaining to
interdepartmental aspects of law enforcement
policy, with an initial emphasis on narcotics
enforcement and immigration and refugee policy.
Subsequently, the Council formed the Working
Group for Drug supply Reduction, under the
chairmanship of the Associate Attorney General.
01/28/82 — President Reagan announced the establishment of
a special task force to combat illicit drug
traffic in South Florida. Composed of officials
from a number of Federal agencies, to work with
State and local authorities, the task force was
placed under the direction of Vice President
Bush.
01/21/82 — The Federal Bureau of Investigation was given
concurrent jurisdiction, with the Drug Enforcement
Administration, over the enforcement of dangerous
drug laws. Under the new arrangement, the DEA is
required to report to the Attorney General through
the FBI Director.
07/00/81 -- Dr. Carlton Turner was appointed as President
*
CRS-15 IB83168 UPDATE-12/31/84
* Reagan's "senior advisor on drug abuse policy."
03/00/78 — The Office of Drug Abuse Policy (ODAP) was
terminated. ODAP Director Peter Bourne was
designated a presidential assistant for
international health and drug abuse and,
as such, supervised the operation of a unit
of the Domestic Policy staff charged with
formulation of policy on matters pertainig to
drug abuse. This arrangement was continued
under his successor, Lee Dcgoloff.
07/15/77 -- President carter submitted Reorganization
Plan No. 1 of 1977 to Congress. The plan proposed
a reorganization of the Executive Office of the
President, one aspect of which was abolition
of the Office of Drug Abuse Policy.
06/00/77 -- Dr. Peter Bourne took office as the director
of ODAP, having been previously confirmed by
the Senate.
03/00/77 -- President Carter announced that ODAP would be
established and that the Federal Drug Abuse
Strategies would be "revitalized."
04/27/76 — A presidential "Drug Abuse Message to the
Congress" announced the creation of the cabinet
Committee on Drug Law Enforcement (CCDLE) and
the Cabinet committee on Drug Abuse Prevention,
Treatment and Rehabilitation (CCDAPTR). Modeled
on the Cabinet Committee on International
Narcotics Control, established by President
Nixon (see below), the two committees were
charged with the development and implementation
of overall Federal strategy and the strengthening
of interagency coordination.
03/19/76 -- Amendments to the Drug Abuse Office and Treatment
Act became law. Among other things, they provided
for the establishment of a successor agency to
SAODAP, to be known as the Office of Drug Abuse
Policy (ODAP), on a scaled-down basis, to be
known as the Office of Drug _Abuse Policy (ODAP) .
Subsequently, President Ford declined to implement
the legislation and proposed a rescission of
appropriations for the proposed agency.
00/00/76 — The House Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse
and Control was established, for the purpose
of studying and reviewing, from a unified
perspective, the problem of narcotics abuse
and its control. The initial panel included
members from all standing committees with
jurisdiction over significant aspects of drug
abuse control.
06/30/75 -- The Special Action Office for Drug Abuse
I
CRS-16 IB83168 UPDATE-12/31/84
Prevention statutory authorization expired. The *
Ford Administration declined to support extension.
00/00/73 — The Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health
Administration (ADAMHA) was established in the
Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare -- comprised of three institutes of equal
status: the National Institute of Mental Health,
the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and
Alcoholism, and the National Institute on Drug
Abuse. The new agency was subsequently authorized
by statute (Title-II of P.L. 93-282).
00/00/73 -- The Drug Enforcement Administration was established
by Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1973. To create
the new Justice Department agency, the Bureau of
Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs was combined with
the Office for Drug Abuse Law Enforcement, the
Office of National Narcotics Intelligence, and all
Customs Service personnel principally involved
in drug law enforcement.
03/21/72 -- The President approved the Drug Abuse Office and
Treatment Act, among the provisions of which were
those (1) providing statutory baching for the
Special Action Office for Drug Abuse Prevention,
With specific authorities and appropriation
authorizations for three fiscal years, at -the end
of which the agency was to be terminated, (2)
establishing a Strategy council, to be appointed
by the President, for formulation and continual
revision of a "comprehensive, coordinated
long-term Federal strategy for all drug abuse
prevention functions and all drug traffic
prevention functions conducted, sponsored, or
supported by any department or agency of the
Federal Government." (3).further expansion of
Federal treatment and prevention grant programs,
including initiation of a program of formula
grants to the States, and (4) establishment of a
National Institute on Drug Abuse, within the
National Institute of Mental Health, to administer
all programs and authorities of the secretary
of Health, Education, and Weifare with respect
to drug abuse prevention functions.
06/00/71 -- President Richard Nixon appointed Dr. Jerome
Jaffe, a psychiatrist, as a special consultant
to the President for narcotics and dangerous -
drugs and in a Message to Congress announced
the establishment of the Special Action Office
for Drug Abuse Prevention, located within the
Executive Office of the President, to
coordinate and broadly direct all Federal
drug-abuse programs concerned with prevention,
education, treatment, rehabilitation, training
and research.
CRS-17 IB83168 UPDATE-12/31/84
10/15/68 — The President signed P.L. 90-574, which contained
amendments to the community Kental Health Centers
Act establishing the first program of Federal
grants specifically for funding the treatment
of narcotic addiction.
00/00/68 -- Under Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1968, the
Bureau of Narcotics (Treasury) and the Bureau
of Drug Abuse Control (FDA) were combined into
the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs
in the Justice Department.
11/00/63 -- The President's Advisory Commission on Narcotic
and Drug Abuse ("Prettyman Commission") issued
its final report. Among recommendations was
one that the President appoint a Special
Assistant for Narcotic and Drug Abuse, from the
White House staff, to provide continuous advice
and assistance in launching a coordinated
attack on drug abuse.
ADDITIONAL REFERENCE SOURCES
Brown, Lawrence S., Jr. Who's on first? Anatomy of the
Federal response to drug abuse. Journal of the
National Hedical Association, v. 73, no. 2, 1981:
145-159.
Mays, G. Larry. The Special Action Office for Drug Abuse
Prevention: drug control during the Nixon Administration.
International journal of public administration, v. 3,
1981: 355-372.
U.S. Comptroller General. Federal drug enforcement:
strong guidance needed (Departments of Justice
and the Treasury). [Washington] 1975. (GQD-76-32)
91 p.
U.S. Comptroller General. Federal drug interdiction
efforts need strong centrai oversight. Report
to the Congress. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print.
Off., June 13 , 1983. 136 p. (GAO/GGD-83-52) .
Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney
General. Annual report of the Organized Crime Drug
Enforcement Task Force Program. Washington,
[Department of Justice] 1984. 132 p.
U.S. Domestic Council Drug Abuse Task Force. White
paper on drug abuse. A report to the President.
Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1975. 116 p.
U.S. Drug Abuse Policy Office. Federal strategy for
prevention of drug abuse and drug trafficking,
1982. Prepared for the President pursuant to
the Drug Abuse Office and Treatment Act of
1972. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off.
CRS-18
«
IB83168 UPDATE-12/31/84-
[1982] 75 p.
U.S. Strategy Council on Drug Abuse.' Federal strategy
for drug abuse and drug traffic prevention.
Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1973-
Published irregularly.
U.S. National Commission on Harihuana and Drug Abuse.
Drug use in America: problem in perspective.
Second report, Washington, U.S. Govt. Print.
Off., 1973. 481 p.
U.S. Office of Drug Abuse Policy. Supply control:
drug law enforcement; an intergency review.
[Washington] 1977. 61 p. plus appendices.
— Border management and interdiction: an
interagency review. [Washington] 1977. 59 p. plus
appendices.
U.S. President's Advisory Commission on Narcotic and
Drug Abuse. Final report. Washington, U.S. Govt.
Print. Off., 1963. 123 p.
Congressional Research Service
The Library of Congress
Washington. D.C. 2(»40
DRUG TRAFFICKING
IP0334D
Hov best to coordinate the Federal Government's multi-*agency efforts to
curb illicit traffic in dangerous drugs has once again become an issue of
major interest to the Congress. A continuing concern of both Congress and
the executive branch is how to secure the cooperation of other countries in
countries in the drug control effort. This Info Pack focuses on the current
Federal strategy to control illicit drug traffic, surveys current laws
relating to narcotics control, and reviews foreign and domestic drug sources.
Information specifically on drug abuse may be found in IP 30D, "Drug
Abuse
Additional information on this topic, primarily in newspapers and periodicals,
may be found in a local library through the use of such periodical indexes
as Readers' Guide to Periodical Literature, Public Affairs Information Service
Bulletin (PAIS), and the New York Times Index. Books on this subject may be
identified through Subject Guide to Books in Print.
Members of Congress desiring additional information on this topic may
contact CRS at 287-5700.
We hope this information will be useful.
Congressional Reference
Division
1.
THE NEW
REPUBLIC
APRIL 1 5 , 1 9 8 5
THE DOPE DILEMMA
The drug trade is out of control. In Colombia last year, police
captured 14 tons of cocaine and washed it down the
Yari river. In the Mexican state of Chihuahua, drug agents
captured 10,000 tons of marijuana and burned it. Together,
the busts destroyed nearly two billion dollars' worth of illegal
merchandise—yet neither one made more than a ripple
in the booming American drug market, which President
Reagan's South Florida Task Force calls a $100-billion-ayear
business. The federal govenunent is currently spending
Sl.2 billion annually in its war on the drug trade; 37
separate agendes and 11 cabinet departments are involved
in the effort. And yet it is still difficult even to estimate the
size of the problem. The Mexican bust alone amounted to
eight times the previous estimate of total Mexican marijuana
production, and roughly equaled the previous estimate
of marijuana entering the United States each year.
The Reagan administration blames the Marxist governments
of Nicaragua and Cuba for consdously subverting
American sodety with drugs. In fact, the international
drug trade encompasses Latin Americans of all political
stripes. Some darlings of the American right are apparently
involved. (See "Inside Dope in El Salvador," page 15.)
The drug industry is the most vidous on earth. TTie Washington
Post recently reported yet another gruesome story; a
baby's body, stuffed with cocaine, sewed shut, and carried
on an airplane as if alive, to smuggle drugs into the United
States. In the past few months two Drug Enforcement
Agency officials were murdered in Mexico, Colombian justice
minister Rodrigo Lara Bonilla was assassinated, and a
$300,000 bounty was proclaimed for the murder of American
narcotics agents. There are other victims as well, from
the 7,000 Mexican peasants who were found doing slave
labor at the Chihuahua marijuana factory to the innocent
bystanders caught in Miami machine-gun battles. To fight
this menace, the Reagan administration has made drug enforcement
a top priority. However, its well-intentioned effort
is likely to consist mainly of strengthening existing
methods of drug control. And for this reason, it is likely to
be both ineffective and hypocritical.
The prevailing strategy for fighting the drug war is ineffective
because it aims enforcement efforts at drug trafficking,
not drug use. It puts money into DEA motorboats and
air patrols, customs inspection equipment, and even satellite
reconnaissance of suspected Latin American drug
fields. It attempts to corral Latin American governments
into grudging cooperation. But these methods will almost
inevitably fail when used against gangsters with effectively
unlimited funds, men who can afford to acquire boats,
airplanes, and landing strips for onetime use, and to buy
government officials by the hundreds. In Colombia over
300 officials—including the president's private secretary—
were recently found to be in the pay of cocaine kingpins.
In Bolivia the 1980 military coup brought to power a group
of officers widely known as the "cocaine colonels."
As long as the demand for drugs remains constant, drug
traffic will defy all attempts at enforcement. The reason is
that the drug trade is a perfect example of unadulterated,
free-market capitalism. Every new DEA seizure pushes up
both the price of drugs and the potential profits reaped
from smuggling them. And the higher the potential profit,
the more ambitious and desperate the criminals.
But illegal drugs are not some mysterious and uncontrollable
plague seeping north from the tropics. They are
commodities that are imported because there is an American
market for them. The surest way to stop the illegal
drug trade is to make that market dry up. This is where the
prevailing drug-control strategy is hypocritical. It exempts
from all blame the one class of people ultimately responsible
for this brutal business; American drug users. Every
time an American lights a joint or does a line of coke, he or
she is directly subsidizing murder across the hemisphere.
It doesn't matter if the user is a legislative aide to a compassionate
congressman or an inner-city pimp. As Colombian
drug lord Roberto Suarez Gomez boasts, his fortune
came entirely from "the depravity of the Yaiiquis."
So how to make the market dry up? The most obvious
way is also the most draconian; go back to the 1950s and
make the use of drugs subject to such severe punishment
that demand decreases. Today the possession of marijuana
has attained a semi-legal status in some parts of the
©1985 The New Republic
Reproduced by the Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service with
1
APRIL 1 5 . 1 9 8 3 7
permission of copyright claimant.
country. Eleven states have decriminalized the drug, and
another 29 have made possession a misdemeanor. Under
decriminalization, the law treats those caught with marijuana
like speeding motorists. The offenders get a ticket,
pay a token fine (in effect a consumption tax), and promise
to be more discreet next time. Some states, like New York,
seem to have decided that even this benign practice isn't
worth enforcing. You can go to a movie in Manhattan and
get high simply by breathing. Yet while possession up to a
specified amount (usually one ounce) is tolerated, the sale
and cultivation of marijuana is still a felony in almost every
state. That's why criminal drug marketers come into play.
In effect, the legal status of marijuana smoking is like
Prohibition, which banned the production and sale of alcohol
while leaving drinkers alone. The result in both
cases is that crime flourishes.
Several states are attempting to curtail other socially
unacceptable practices—drunk driving and the criminal
use of handguns—by imposing mandatory jail sentences
on convicted offenders. If marijuana and cocaine users
drew the same sort of penalty, the demand for the drugs
and their black-market suppliers would almost certainly
decrease. This strategy would cut down drug-related violence,
and it would be less hypocritical than complaining
about that violence while condoning the use of marijuana.
Still, the philosophical drawbacks of such legislation are
obvious. Classical liberal thought puts a primacy on personal
liberty up to the point where an individual's actions
threaten to harm society as a whole. It's easy to contend
that because the drug culture breeds violence, an individual's
freedom to use drugs must be subjugated to the
health of society. But to effectively curtail drug consumption,
the state would have to consistently invade the privacy
of people's homes, where most drug use takes place. Is
it possible to maximize personal liberty while defusing the
drug wars?
That's solution two: legalization of marijuana, and perhaps
even of cocaine. By allowing anyone to grow and sell
marijuana (and removing all penalties for possession), the
black market for this drug, and the violence associated
with it, would be eliminated. A government agency like
the FDA could then regulate the sale of pot, complete with
warnings like those on cigarette packages and a guarantee
that the product isn't laced with potentially lethal drugs
like "angel dust" (an all too frequent reality on the streets).
Revenue from a sales tax on marijuana could finance a
government campaign to educate the public on the dangers
of drug use. Anyone would be free to get high, but
would also be made fully aware of the potential health
hazard. This idea is no more untenable than the current
situation, which boasts both a plague of violence and
widespread drug use.
The real choice to be made in fighting the drug trade,
then, is between crackdown and legalization. Both alternatives
probably seem absurd to comfortable, middleclasfe
Americans whose only connection to the drug trade
is the occasional toke. But they are not at all absurd for the
thousands of American and Latin American victims of
8 THE NEW REPUBtlC
drug-related crime. Neither solution is easy. But if we
honestly want to stop the drug trade, we must decide
what our values are—whether we want drugs or not—and
then make a choice, and enforce it. We cannot conhnue to
have things both ways.
2
INTERNATIONAL
' ^ C o n g r e s s i o n a l
Hesaarcn Service with permission of copynght claimant.
....^7'r..: ^
i - J -w-*". • """
•4 < -1 • • I . mr. t. X. ''>
The agent's body is removed from the hospital: Washington reacted with heated rhetoric but avoided ecommic Sanctions
Drug Wars: Murder in Mexico
The Camarena case exposes corruption and strains relations with Washington.
Abricklayer walking down a road near
the Mexican town of Villahermosa
discovered the two plastic bags half buried
in the dirt. Inside were two bodies decomposed
beyond recognition. It was not until
two days later that a positive identification
could be made. The corpses were those of
U.S. narcotics agent Enrique Camarena Salazar
and Alfredo Zavala Avelar, a Mexican
pilot who had flown occasional missions for
the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration.
Both had been kidnapped a month
earlier in Guadalajara; their brutally tortured
bodies confirmed American law-enforcement
officials' most disheartening
fears. "Now is the time to honor and mourn
our dead," said Attorney General Edwin
Meese in his first public statement since
becoming head of the Justice Department.
"But the drug traffickers who committed
these crimes will have no rest."
A military transport plane brought Camarena's
body back to the North Island
Naval Air Station near San Diego. "It was
a very sad journey," John Gavin, U.S.
ambassador to Mexico, told Geneva Camarena,
who stood by her husband's flag-
2S
draped coffin with her young son. Camarena
had spent five years in the hot drug
wars of Guadalajara. He had been due for
reassignment to the DEA's San Diego field
office this week. Feelings over the case ran
high in Washington. Nancy
Reagan, who has taken a personal
interest in the administration's
war against narcotics,
was distraught. And
Secretary of State George
Shultz told the Senate Appropriations
Committee, "Our
level of tolerance has been exceeded
by these events."
Even so, the administration's
response was diplomatically
calibrated. In most matters,
Mexico officially remains
a good friend to the United
States. And it is very much a friend in need.
The country's economy is still recovering
from the dual blows of declining oil revenues
and the developing world's second highest
foreign debt. Shultz specifically rejected the
notion of using economic sanctions to prod
the Mexicans into a more vigorous attack on
Camarena: Martyr
official corruption and drugs. "What does
bringing down the Mexican economy accomplish?"
asked a State Department official.
"It-just creates a mess."
Instead, the administration turned up the
heat of its rhetoric. Ambassador
Gavin has spoken with increasing
forcefulness on the
subject of official Mexican corruption,
and the State Department
has made no attempt to
censor his remarks. There was
a good cop, bad cop side to
Gavin's approach. Washington
officials have considered
warning American travelers to
^ avoid Mexico and disrupting
s border commerce through increased
cargo searches. But
Gavin argued that it would be
better to threaten such sanctions.through
press leaks and official statements than to
put them into effect.
Meanwhile, the DEA pressed ahead with
us investigation. NEWSWEEK has learned
that U.S. agents are focusing on a reputed
drug dealer and hit man who uses the name
NEWSWEEK/MARCH 18. 1985
Manuel Salcido, but is
known around Guadalajara
as "CochiJoco" (Crazy Pig).
DBA officials have received
reports from several'sources
that before the kidnappings,
Cochiloco had complained
that Camarena, who was investigating
Mexican cocaine
smuggling, had been
harassing his operation. He
allegedly threatened to kill
the DEA agent if the pressure
continued. Cochiloco
is also said to have boasted
that he had murdered a
DEA informant, and officials
in Washington confirmed
that one of Camarena's
informants had been
killed. U.S. officials did not
believe, however, that Cochiloco
had planed the
kidnapping-murder on his
own. According to DEA
sources, he worked for a cocaine
syndicate run by Rafael
Caro Quintero, said by the DEA to be
one of the biggest traffickers in Mexico. The
DEA also suspects the involvement of two
other alleged kingpins: Juan Malta Ballesteros
and Miguel Angel Felix Gallardo.
Snapahott Additional evidence that
top traffickers may have been involved
emerged when Mexican police belatedly
raided Gallardo's ranch a few days a^er
the kidnapping. Gallardo had disappeared
by then, but a photograph of Camarena
was discovered at the ranch. The snapshot
had been taken at the headquarters of the
Mexican Federal Judicial Police (MFJP).
As of last week, Mexican police had not
yet explained how the picture had fallen
into Gallardo's hands.
American officials could point to one
victory in the drug war. DEA agents in
Miami arrested Norman Saunders, chief
minister of the Turks and Caicos islands in
the West Indies, and charged him with conspiring
to provide a "safe
haven" for drug traffickers
in the British territory. If
convicted, Saunders could
become the first head of a
foreign land to be sent to
prison in the United States
on drug charges. The arrest
was the culmination of an
operation that began in January
when a DEA informant
indicated that top island
officials might be involved
in the narcotics business.
Posing as traffickers, undercover
DEA agent Gary Sloboda
and the informant met
with Saunders both in the
islands and in Miami. In
their final, secretly videotaped
meeting, the informant
paid Saunders S20,000,
Marine guards carry the coffin: Fellow agents vowed to settle scores
allegedly for having protected the movement
of cocaine. The men also discussed the
possibility of smuggling 800 kilograms of
cocainea week into the United States. Then
DEA agents moved in for the arrest. Altogether,
Saunders was accused of having
accepted 550,000 to allow drugs to move
freely through the islands.
But American investigators were chiefly
concerned about solving the murder oftheir
agent—and they were deeply disturbed by
the apparent eagerness of the Mexican authorities
to close the case once the two
bodies were found. On the Saturday before
the discovery, Mexican police received an
anonymous letter saying the remains were
located on the ranch of Manuel Bravo Cervantes,
a small-time criminal with a past
record of homicide. When police arrived at
the ranch, gunfire erupted from the small
main house. One policeman was killed, as
were Manuel Bravo, his wife and sons.
NEWSWEEK/MARCH 18,1985
Gavin and his wife with Camarena family: 'It was a very sad journey
4
Three days later, the bodies
were found on the outskirts
of the ranch.
But U.S. officials quickly
rejected the implication
that the Bravo family was
behind the deaths of Camarena
and Zavala. Police had
searched the ranch immediately
after the shoot-out—
and no bodies were found at
the time. They went back
with DEA agents the following
Tuesday, but again
they found no trace of the
victim^ It was only around
6 o'clock that evening that
the young Mexican man
. came upon the suspicious
I bags. He ran to inform the I chief of his village, and, according
to DEA officials,
I when he returned with the
I chief, the bags had been
3 moved a short way. There
was additional evidence
that the bodies had recently
been planted on the site. Ambassador Gavin
noted, for example, that the dirt found
on the bodies did not match the soil of
the ranch. "This thing
smells," said one U.S.
agent involved in the
search. The real killers,
he argued, were trying to
frame the Bravo family.
C<9s: It was not the
first time that an apparent
breakthrough
seemed to have been
manufactured for U.S.
consumption. When the
Americans complained
that Mexico was not doing
enough to root out its
corrupt cops, the MFJP promptly trotted
out former policeman Tomas Morlett Borquez
and announced that he was a "prime
suspect" in-the kidnappings. He was later
released for lack of evidence,
and U.S. officials
now believe his arrest was a
charade. According to confidential
documents, when
Morlett was stopped on
Feb. 24on the Tecate-Tijuana
Highway, he apparently
failed to notice that the
Mexican police were accompanied
by agents of the
DEA. "I thought you were
going to stop me in Tijuana,"
Morlett told his captors.
According to the DEA
officials on the scene, the
MFJP agents apologized
and told Morlett they were
S only carrying out orders
I from Mexico City. Morlett
= reportedly responded by
(Continued on page 32)
Burning pot
29
A G-Man's Anger
Francis (Bud) Mullen is a G-man's G-man: tight-lipped,
courageous and, when he chooses, quietly intimidating. Seven
years ago FBI Director William Webster brought Mullen in
from the field to help de-Hoover the bureau's Washington
headquarters. And when the Drug Enforcement Administration
was being placed under FBI control in 1981, Mullen was
lapped as point man for the Reagan administration's war on
drugs. A 23-year veteran of the FBI, Mullen, 50, was preparing
to retire last month when DEA agent Enrique Camarena Salarar
was kidnapped in Guadalajara. As a private citizen, Mullen
is now free to talk candidly about drug wars that he believes are
being fought valiantly—and against uphill odds.
The Camarena murder darkened Mullen's final days in the
government—but hardened his resolve. He has ignored White
House cautions to temper his criticism and avoid any international
incident. "I'm going to continue to speak out until we
find out what happened to Enrique
Camarena," he says. "I think it's time
to ignore the sensibilities of some individuals
and face the fact we have a
problem down there. This entire incident
is a blot on the nation of Mexico."
Mullen's anger stems not just
from the death of one of his agents,
but from what he sees as the endemic
corruption among Mexican authorities
that he thinks contributed to
Camarena's murder. "We can go on
forever making a seizure here and
there," he says, "but until the Mexicans
themselves root out that corruption,
I don't think we'll ever stop the
flow of drugs from Mexico."
Mullen has always been a realist.
He doesn't believe thai the outgunned
DEA can wipe out the drug
lords on its own. Unless the illequipped
governments of such drugproducing
countries as Peru and
livia find the will and the resources to
clamp down, he says, all that can be
done "is stabilize the problem." But
Mullen is encouraged by a newfound
commitment to law enforcement in
such traditional centers of drug production
and distribution as Colombia. "If every government,"
he argues, "would do what the Colombians, the Europeans or
we're doing, we could eliminate the drug problem." Still, he
believes that the agency's efforts have sent the drug traffickers
backward, and he sees evidence of success in the very desperation
with which the Mexican drug syndicate is now attacking
DEA agents. "It means they are really being hurt," he says.
"[Now] it's a matter of who will cave in first."
Model: Mullen argues that lawmen need to organize their
efforts much more effectively. One of the major problems he sees
is the hodgepodge of federal law-enforcement agencies fighting
for turf. Right now the FBI, DEA, Customs Service and Bureau
of Alcohol, Tobacco and Fireaimsarerivalfiefdoms. "There are
too many people who want to be in charge." says Mullen. To
coordinate efforts better, he thinks one agency head should
direct the government's entire antidrug effort. Mullen is quick to
point out that he is not proposing a one-agency national police
force. "I don't believe that's what people want," he says, "and I
don't believe it should happen. I think it's nice to have a little bit
of friendly competition." His recommendation is based on the
Ex-DEA chief Mullen: 'Who will cave infint?'
CIA-Pentagon model. "I think we should have in the lawenforcement
community [something] similar to what we have in
the intelligence community, [someone] like the director of Central
Intelligence." His choice for the hypothetical top job is his
former FBI boss, William Webster.
Mullen thinks that better utilization of new technology
could also help stymie international drug traffic. However, he
does not support a heavily endorsed congressional proposal to
pump S150 million into the building of a Customs Service air
fleet. The squadron, to be composed of 16 P-3 Orion aircraft
equipped with combat radar, would patrol the East, West,
Gulf and Florida coasts in search of cocaine-carrying small
aircraft. "It's going to be showy," says Mullen, "but 1 don't
think they're going to find anything. It's just too vast an area
out there." He thinks a much better idea would be to utilize
already available military equipment' and manpower. "The
military has [the gear] out there," he contends. "If they're
going to have maneuvers, why not hold them in the border or
trafficking areas? I think that the military really ought to be
doing more in the interdiction area."
Mullen dismisses the notion that this
plan could lead to military abuses.
"There is sufficient ovenight on the
part of Congress and others," he
says, "to deter infringement on individual
liberties."
•amp: There are other pressing
problems besides confusion at home
and corruption abroad. Mullen is
convinced that enemies of the United
States are using their homegrown
drug traffic as a foreign-policy weapon.
"I've never seen any evidence that
said the Soviets had sat down and
plotted this out," headmits, "but I do
believe there are ulterior motives on
the part of some countries who see
[the drug traffic] as undermining our
government and society." He argues
that governments in Nicaragua, Syria,
Bulgaria and Cuba—knowing that
the bulk of cocaine and heroin is ultimately
consumed in America—are
purposely doing nothing to clamp
down on drug producers and movers:
"We know that in the Bekaa Valley
the Syrian Army is facilitating heroin
traffic. The Syrian government could
stop that, but they haven't. The Cuban government could stop
the transiting on their territory, but they haven't. You've
got to know that Fidel Castro sits down there and tokes areat
delight in this."
Ultimately, however, Mullen thinks there will be no victory in
the war on drugs until American attitudes undergo a fundamental
shift. To accomplish that, he envisions a national drugeducation
program aimed at children and adults, coupled with a
closer watch on legal prescriptions and a new emphasis on
alternative physical-fitness cures. He also contends that "bankers
who are laundering money, attorneys who are profiting from
defending traffickers, and professional athletes and the people
in the entertainment industry who are using drugs" are an
integral part of the problem. Indeed, says Mullen, these Americans
"should take some of the credit for the murder of agent
Camarena because they're contributing to the problem as much
as thrae corrupt traffickers down there who are directly responsible."
If the attractions of drugs cannot be destroyed, he says.
drugs will destroy all they attract.
ELAINE SHANNON rn Washington
30
5 o NEWSWEEK/MARCH 18. 1985
INTERNATIONAL
(Continued from page 29)
saying that he hoped what the cops had told
him was true, or else the MFJP agents
would be in a lot of trouble.
NEWSWEEK has learned that Ambassador
Gavin asked the DEA to draw up a list
of everything that is known or suspected
about drug-related corruption in Mexico.
Numerous allegations have already been
compiled. One of the most serious is that
Mexico's opium- and marijuana-eradication
program, which U.S. officials had long
hail^ as a model, may in fact be tainted
with corruption. Among other things, DEA
officials have been told that some Mexican
eradication pilots had substituted water for
the herbicides they were supposed to spray.
"They weren't killing the fields, they were
watering them," says a frustrated U.S. official.
The allegation has yet to be confirmed.
But Mexico's share of the U.S. market for
heroin, marijuana and cocaine is increasing
sharply, leading some American officials to
conclude that the eradication program is
verging on failure.
Sboot^htu And the violence continues
to grow. Last week marijuana traffickers
massacred half the police force of San Fernando,
30 miles from the Texas border.
Four policemen and a civilian were apparently
tailing a suspicious tank truck when
their car was rammed off the road by a
Mercury Grand Marquis. As one officer
radioed for help, the occupants of the Mercury
opened fire with machine guns, shotguns
and pistols. The four officers and the
civilian were killed without firing a shot.
When three more policemen arrived at the
scene they also were shot, but survived.
When still more state policemen arrived,
they discovered 1,700 pounds of marijuana
in the abandoned tank truck. By Mexican
standards it was a relatively insignificant
haul. There was no indication that San Fernando
police had stepped up their drugenforcement
efforts in response to U.S.
pressure. They had just met some unusually
nasty traffickers on a bad day.
The U.S. Customs Service closed nine
isolated border stations after an informant
warned that an inspector would be kidnapped
or kiUed. "The developments in
Mexico emphasize the reality of the
threats," said Charles Conroy, public-affairs
officer for the southwest customs region.
The threats were also being taken
seriously at the DEA, where coldly furious
agents insisted they would continue the
fight. "We are willing to accept our losses,"
said deputy administrator Jack Lawn.
"What we will not accept is terrorism, and
this has only strengthened our resolve."
That was not just bluster. The DEA now
had its martyrs, and despite their previously
comfortable position in Mexico, the traffickers
could expect to be hit hard.
HARRY ANDERSON wiOi ELAINE SHANNON and
ZOFIA SMARDZ in Waahingion. JOSEPH HARMES
in Meaico and bureau reports
32
11985 McGraw-Hill, Inc. Reproduced by the Ubrary of Congress, Congressional
Research Service with permission of copyright claimant.
WHO'S mVOlVED^ HOW IT WORKS, AND WHERE IT'S SPREADING
• n the beginning, the state trooper
Kfrom New Mexico got nothing but
• grief from higher-ups for not writing
more traffic tickets. They complained
that he was wasting too much time
counting c^h confiscated from cars
speeding eastbound along his lonely
stretch of "Cocaine Corridor"—Interstate
40 outside Albuquerque. In one
car, the trooper found $128,000 stuffed
into a spare tire. "I used to have to give
the money back to those crooks," he
grumbles.
Now, however, the trooper has no
^uble convincing anyone that the cash
is important The confiscated loot comes
from drug sales on the West Coast Its
destination: Florida banks serving as
loading bins for a global money laundry
that washes away any connection between
dealers' profits and their drugs.
The trooper, who insists on anonymity
for fear of "Colombians with machine
guns," is no longer giving the money
back.
Instead, after years of unsuccessfully
trying to curb drug dealing, bribery, and
tax evasion, law enforcement officials
are going after money launderers with a
vengeance. Their primary targets are
the incredible $80 billion in cash transactions
generated by the drug trade, and
the highly sophisticated businessmen
who mastermind this shadow world of
front corporations and bank-secrecy havens
{box, page 79).
The nascent crackdown is going to hit
people all over the world, from broker
age houses to Atlantic CiQ- gambling
casinos before it runs its course. Bankers'
lives will change dramatically. Already,
a ranking congressman has introduced
legislation that would make
bankers who deliberately ignore the
laundering of illegal cash proceeds liable
for sentences of up to 10 years. At a
minimum, bankers will have to pay the
price for increased vigilance; higher ad-
FOLLOWING THE
MONEY TRAIL
1. Drug dealer gives iaunderer $250,000 tn
cash from street sales
2< Launderer, working with accomplice, goes
to s^ral banks to purchase 50 money
orders for S5.000 each.
The money orders are deposited in the account
of a P^amanian "frwit" company, perhaps an
import-export firm set up just to handle such
transactions. No report to the government is
necessary because each cash transaction
was under $10,000
*
• a
74 BUSINESS WEEK/MARCH 18,198S
7 COVER STORY
A7.';'> ^' s'jrtv^nje^-a? ,-!!ji'?::veatt .airpr J
-- t;,.
ministrative costs and the loss of some
legitimate business.^
Average citizens will be caught in the
crossfire, too. Government intrusion into
financial privacy will increase with the
Treasury's plan to monitor some overseas
money transfers. And more personal
information could become available as
prized banking havens such as Switzerland
come under renewed pressure to
loosen up on confidentiality.
CASH stiZED. The heat is on because federal,
state, and special joint task forces
have decided that focusing on "the
cash trail" is the best way to hurt organized
crime. "We want to go after the
money," says John M. Walker Jr., Assistant
'Treasury Secretary for enforcement
and operations. Cash, says James D.
Harmon, executive director of the President's
(immission on Organized Crime,
is "the life-support system without
which organized crime cannot exist"
The crackdown is already having some
impact Using a new law that allows the
authorities to confiscate cash hoards,
Treasury has seized some $75 million in
illegal profits in the last four years.
Twenty-one banks have been penalized
for failing to file government forms required
for cash transactions of more
than $10,000. Treasury sources say an
additional 41 financial instituUons are
under investigation for similar offenses.
And scores of other banks could be
caught up in grand jury proceedings involving
money laundering in Boston,
Chicago, San Francisco, Newark, and
New York.
Launderers don't just use banks, either.
In the "pizza connection," named
for the chain of pizza parlors that served
in Uie early 1980s as Mafia drug drops,
launderers made cash deposits of $4.9
million at Merrill Lynch, Kerce, Fenner
& Smith Inc. and $15.6 million at E. F.
Hutton £ Co. before they were caught
The problem extends overseas, too. In
the same pizza connection case, launderers
made large cash deposits in two of
Switzerland's most revered banks, Swiss
Bank Corp. and Credit Suisse. These two
were among nine European banks with
which Bank of Boston Corp. exchanged
more than $1 billion in unreported cash.
And Frankfurt police sources, although
they did not identify any specific banks,
say that Swiss institutions have been
used by German launderers to hide their
profits from heroin they import from
Turkey.
The global reach of organized crime
has forced foreign governments to step
up their efforts to control money laundering.
Information that came out of the
Bank of Boston case led the Irish government
to confiscate nearly $2 million
from a Dublin bank account belonging
to the outlawed Irish Republican Army.
Irish officials believe their actions put a
stop to an imminent arms deal. The Italian
police have also been working closely
with their U. S. counterparts to nail Mafia
investments in Italy made with laundered
money. Thus far, the Guardia di
Finanza has uncovered some $250 million,
including office buildings, a hotel in
Milan, vineyards, and shares in private
Italian banlra.
IN THE MIDDLE. Next month the Council
of Europe, the 21-nation legislative organization
based in Strasbourg, will hold a
major meeting to discuss the "financial
assets of criminal organizations." The
British Parliament is ^cussing proposals
to expand the government's wiretapping
authority to include currency transactions.
And even the Swiss, who
typically defend their secrecy provisions,
are having senior-level discussions with
U. S. authorities in March on how to better
coordinate law enforcement efforts
(l»ge 82).
Authorities are also tugging at the
veil hiding criminals' money in the banksecrecy
havens that seemingly flourish
3. The money is wired to a Panamanian .
bank account. Panamanian bank secrecy
laws prevent U.S. investigators from finding
out who owns the account or
looking at transactions in the
account. Profit from the
drug sales Is either heid in the Panamanian
bank or returned as needed to a U.S. bank
account controlled by the drug dealer,
perhaps anottier front company
4. Some of the $250,000 is transferred from
the Panamanian bank to Coiombia, where
it is converted into pesos to buy the next
shipment of cocaine
>
in any country big enough for an airstrip
and small enough to be tempted by
a bonanza of bank deposits. Interpol, the
agency that coordinates international
law enforcement, is designing model
banking legislation for the Caribbean to
be presented at a meeting in Anguilla,
West Indies, in March. "There is now,
more than ever, a worldwide concern
about illegal money flows," says a senior
offlcial at Interpol.
For the banks caught in the middle of
this law enforcement crusade, the stakes
can be large. The $500,000 fine assessed
against Bank of Boston for failing to
report $1.16 billion in cash shipments to
banks in Switzerland and elsewhere in
Europe may turn out to be the least of
its problems. Rhode Island's attorney
general has asked the state's banking
board to review its approval of the Boston
bank's purchase of a Rhode Island
bank. And several local towns have
pulled their deposits out of the bank.
The loss of business in the wake of laundering
charges can be surprisingly severe.
Deak & Co.'s bankruptcy filing
was precipitated in large part by customers
withdrawing their deposits after the
Commission on Organized Crime linked
the company to money launderers.
Although laundering is primarily assorted
with the drug trade, the business
is far more widespread. Wealthy Latin
Americans who secretly shipped money
out of uihospitable or unstable countries,
have drained as much as $50 billion in
capital from developing countries. U. S.
tax collectors estimate they lose as much
as ^ billion a year because of the laundering
of illegal proceeds. Laundering
has even led federal agents to crack a
prostitution ring that was routing its
proceeds through the Bahamas. Major
U. S. corporations have also be^ involved
with laundering. Prosecutors'
ability to trace $96,500 intended for use
as a bribe through banks in the U.S.
and Canada was vital to the recent conviction
of a Southland Corp. executive
for securities law violations.
Lisa Nosv. But the main target in the
U. S. is the $80 billion-a-year drug trade,
a business that is transacted primarily j)
$20 bills. Without the services of money
launderers, America's drug dealers
would be drowning in cash. At the simplest^
level, laundering turns those $20
bills into something safer and more portable.
A suitcase filled with $1 million
worth of 20s weighs more than 100 lb.
and cannot easily be lugged around.
Laundering typically must also transform
cash into money that cannot be
traced. When the wash-loads were smaller,
and federal agents less nosy, the simplest
way to launder was to fly cash out
of the country and run the monev
through httle-nobc^ b^ks in Panama home free. The clean money can then be
the next cocaine shipdone,
but the cash is bulky and airport ment, to finance the fabulous lifestyle of
officials have grow used to spotting drug kingpins, or to buy real estate in
California. For tlieir efforts, launderers
^xes stuffed with bills. Several years typically earn a 3% commission.
recently, it was not hard to find
Irojas carrying $L43 million crammed bankers who wanted the business, parinto
six Mono^ly boxes out of the coun- ticularly in Miami. "There was so much
last monto, officials in Tex- capital pouring out of Latin America
^ ' and two p^sengers during those days it was easy to conof
a pnv^ jet flying $5.9 million out of vince ourselves that it was legitimate—
the country. or close to it," Admits one South Florida
As the volume of dirty cash ballooned, banker. In the words of one disgusted
launderers incr^ingly turned to large judge, Miami became "the Wall Street of
U.S. banks where huge money flows the drug trade." Until a few years ago
The tnck then is to it was common to see courier^ stanS
avmd havmg Ae bank file the required in bank lines with duffie bags, suitcases
$100^ cardboard boxes, and shopping bags
$10,000. Some take the dirert route and crammed with cash. "We didn^ think
!h2r anything of it." admits a Miami banker
510,000 or buy One Miami-based launderer, Beno Ghidescribed
to a congressional commit-
^ sophisticat- tee how he washed $240 million in eight
no J« accounts in the months, equivalent to $1.5 million each
so^e ^ corporations business day. He kept his office above a
so the forms don t provide any useful branch of Miami's Capital Bank and his
mformation. The really energetic laun- couriers were regulaf deposltora^owS
fo™"hv^ f ^emption from the stairs, although the bank was never acretS
fl any complicity. Ghitis' couriers
accepted that they never gave
i '"Ty their full names and didn't wait ar?und
safely in the bank, launderers can then for the money to be counted
send it by wre transfer into the ac- Ghitis maintained good refations with
counts of shell corporations m offshore his bankers. His lauodering oueration
9*^^ Cay- first paid Capital Bank onfr^ighth of 1%
wii counting, then one-half of 1%, and
local bwk-secrecy laws make it virtually finally a monthly fee of $300 000 At
impossible to trace, and the launderer is leastUl the dclid^ bTncrman- •
76 BUSINESS WEEK/MARCH 18,1985
9 COVER STORY
agers in such cities as Miami saw laundering
as one of the easiest ways to
improve their "cash in" figures and gain
favor with the higher-ups.-"'niere was
competition among br^ches for who
could show the moat 'cash in.' A guy on
his way up would have to be crazy to
say no," explains one Miami banker.
OOWO CORPORATE. In response to the
growth in the laundering business, Congress
last year increased the fines for
violations of currency reporting rules,
and law enforcement agencies made
laundering a top priority. That action
made laundering much more labor-intensive.
"Ghitis managed to launder nearly
a quarter of a billion dollars with just
one partner and a few couriers," says
one Miami-based enforcement official.
"We just convicted a ring that needed 16
employees to launder $10 million." And
laundering has moved farther afield, to
other U. S. cities, such as San FVandsco
(table, page 78) and also to Canada. ([Canadian
officials say $4 billion in drug
profits are already running through
their banks, many of which have a
strong presence in Caribbean havens.
To beat the $10,000 reporting requirement,
many couriers have cleaned up
their acts and gone corporate rather
than flamboyant They use leather briefcases
instead of duffle bags, sport telephone
beepers to keep in contact with
their associates, and constantly change
their addresses to avoid detection.
Because tellers have become more
suspicious of transactions just under
$10,000, the size of the laundereris deposits
is going down steadily, to $7,000
and even $5,000. The smaller the
amounts, the more herculean the task.
But the "smurfs," couriers who rmdte
the deposits, have proved to be remarkably
prolific. "On a good day, working in
teams, they can do 30, even 40 transactions
at $5,000 to $7,000 a shot," says
(3erard Kenna, a former Federal Biu-eau
of Investigation agent who, as president
of Profit Protection Inc., helps train
bankers to spot laundering.
LONQ LMES. The most unlikely people
can be smurfs. One group of grandmothers
on the West Coast laundered more
than $25 million through West Coast
banks before they were caught with the
help of an undercover agent who was
working at Security Pacific (Dorp., one of
the banks the grandmas used. To be
more efficient, smurfs target areas
where several banks are close to each
other and, like most people, they avoid
busy banks. 'There is very little smurfing
in New York City," says Charles
Saphos, an Assistant U. S. Attorney in
Florida, "because the lines are too long."
Until recently, money launderers
thought that they could work with impunity,
as long as they kept their operations
separate from their drug trade A NCW MEXICO STATE TROOVER PATROLS THE "COCAINE CORRIOOR" HEAR ALSUQUERQUI
COVER STORV 10 BUSINESS WEEK/MARCH IS, 1985 77
counterparts. But in the 1983 trial of
money launderer Eduardo Orozco Prada,
two new legal precedents were established.
The Assistant U. S. Attorney
prosecuting the case, Michael Feldberg,
convinced the jury that Orozco was a
Hnancial institution in and of himself
and therefore was required to file currency-
transaction reports.
Feldberg also secured the conviction
of Orozco as a co-conspirator who was
"aiding and abetting" drug traffickers,
even though Orozco had a policy of never
dealing directly with anyone who had
a drug conviction. Federal agents working
with Feldberg traced one of the deposits
in Orozco's ledger and discovered
that the initial deposit was transferred
six days later to a shipyard in Alabama,
where the money was used to pay for a
shrimp trawler. The ship, call^ Northern
Edge, was stopped two months later
in Colombian waters and found to be
carrying 14,000 lb. of marijuana.
A HOfi'si RANCH. By following that convoluted
transaction, the jury came to see
the laundering of money as an adjunct
of the narcotics trade. The same principle
garnered a guilty plea from another
launderer in California last year. "If you
can trace the money, you can make them
a co-conspirator now," says U. S. Customs
agent Dennis R. Fagan. "Ihey
don't have to even lay a hand on an
ounce of heroin."
New statutes have also been put on
the books to help use money laundering
to get at oi^nized crime. In certain
cases, authorities can now confiscate the
proceeds of money laundering. That
helps to defray the cost of the agencies'
expensive investigative operations. In
one recent case in Houston, the authorities
seized, among other things, a 120-
acre horse ranch near Dallas.
Such sustained pressure from federal
authorities, combined with the publici^
from the Bank of Boston incident, is
causing divisions within the banl^g
community. Some institutions have decided
to work hand-in-hand with authorities,
while others believe such cooperation
infringes on a customer's right to
Hnancial privacy.
Some banks are attacking the problem
with forceful new internal policies. Under
the guidance of a former FBI agent
who he^ its corporate securiQ', Sun
Banks of Florida Inc. will sell cashier's
checks only to regular customers. The
South Florida bank has also installed
new computer software that spits out a
daily list of accounts with cash transactions
of more than $10,000.
Sun is not the only bank using antilaundering
tactics. After two bank officers
were convicted as part of a money
laundering scheme in 1977, Chemical
W!;3 iidfili tn TsUio hsv--
• INO eMmS (STAHBINO AT «»HT) AND A
Pltl OF CASH AT A U. S. SiNAH HIARINOl
6HrTIS LAUNPSRID $340 MIUIOM IN nOHT
MONTHS. HtS COURISRS WIRI SO
WIU KNOWN AT TNI BANKS MS USIB THAT
THiT NiVER OAVf THEIR FUU NAMES ANB
UFT BEFORi THE MONET WAS COUNTIB
WHERE MOHEY LAUNDERING
SEEMS HOHEST
If FMeral Reserve Banks receive subsiantiaHy
more currency than they send out to
commercial banks (shown by positive numbers),
authorities suapaci laundering
MUlluis of dollars
City 1980 1984
El Paso S-78 $612
JacksonvfllB 1,157 1,394
Los Angeles -136 374
Miami 4,676 5,263
NBahvllle 297 422
Phlladelphls -102 625
San Antonio 458 645
San Francisco -166 1,172
DATA: FEOEnAL RESERVE BOARD
Bank instituted a strict program with
the help of Rudolph W, Giuliani, now
U. S. Attorney for the Southern District
of New York. Chemical has an extensive
training program for its tellers and routinely
monitors the volume of deposits in
all of the bank's 270 branches for sudden,
unexplained cash inflows.
While almost all bankers endorse the
idea that tellers should be on their toes,
few relish the notion that diey should
have to police suspicious transactions.
Luis Vigdor, vice-president of Manfra,
Tordella & Brookes, a foreign-exchange
and precious-metals concern, says his
company turns away people with paper
bags full of money, but he dislikes having
to make such decisions. "How can
you tell what is dirty money?" he asks.
Many bankers believe that the dollars
they see fleeing Latin America are a
response to domestic hyperinflation and
political instability. "Ihe purchase of
dollars is self-preservation in Latin
America," argues Vigdor. "It's just as
important as food there."
'HO QRAY AREA.' Many bankers see the
government's growing interest in morethan-
routine information as a threat to a
customer's right to privacy. They worry
that supplying information undermines
their responsibility to protect privacy in
cases where customers are not charged
with a crime. "The Bank Secrecy Act
does not impose an obligation upon
banks—or imbue them with the authority—
to investigate the activities of their
customers beyond the normal recording
of account information and verification
of customer identity," argues William L
Brown, chairman of Bank of Boston
Corp. "To go beyond this raises serious
questions about invasion of privacy."
Hjalma E. Johnson, president of
Bank of Pasco County and head of the
Florida Bankers Assn., says that his
bank recently turned over some information
to federal agents after reviewing it
at the most senior level, and getting advice
from lawyers. "But we could have a
lawsuit," he says.
Joseph C. Bail, Sun Bank's security
chief, says that oflicials at his bank do
not hesitate to call the authorities when
they smell something fishy. "All of my
law-abiding customers would want us to
give out the information. Anyway, we're
telling the authorities and not the public,"
he says. Ball thinks some of his
colleagues "may be hiding behind the
privacy issue. They don't want the administrative
costs or the trouble. There
is just no gray area there in my mind."
Harmon, of the Coipmission on Organized
Crime, goes further. He links
bankers who launder money to the drug
dealers themselves. "If they choose not
to help in the efforts to prevent narcot-
7B BUSINESS WEEK/MARCH 18, 1965 11 COVER STORY
ICS trafficking, they should know that
every dose of heroin or cocaine, every
bribe, and every bullet which finds its
way into the bo^es of federal agents, is
paid for by the'cash .which they never
opened their eyes wide enough to see,"
says Harmon. Bankers complain that
Harmon is singling out their profession
unfairly, but he insists he is soon going
to apply the same magnifying glass to
attorneys, who are sometimes used to
set up bank accounts for launderers and
then fall back on the attorney-client privilege
when challenged in court
To remove any question about whether
bankers are entitled to turn over information
about suspicious transactions.
Senator Alfonse D'Amato (R-N. Y.) and
Representative Bill McCollum Jr. (Rfia.)
are trying to push through legislation
that would amend the Right to Financial
Privacy Act Treasury's Walker
says he supports such modification.
In the new assault on money laundering,
the Treasury will soon begin to
monitor selectively the checks and wire
transfers of about 250 of the country's
most internationally oriented banks. 'The
agency wants to focus on transactions
with banks in countries where U. S. officials
believe bank-secrecy laws are being
used to facilitate laundering. Officials
will also be taking a much ha:^er look at
the banks' lists of customers who are
exempt from filing the currency reports.
Already, Ae Treasury has asked to see
tiie lists of 200 of.Florida's banks.
OAnm Hous. In another major tightening-
up effort, beginning May 7, casinos
will have to file the same forms as
banks for cash transactions. Today, federal
enforcement officers say, one of the
easiest ways to wash money is to go to a
casino, ex^ange the dirty money for
chips, hang around the tables for a few
days, and then exchange the chips for
checks and walk out
But even with all these new laws,
there are still gaping holes in the effort
to stem laundering. Although U. S. officials
have won more cooperation recently
from such traditional banking havens
as the Cayman Islands and Switzerland,
authorities in cities like London, Toronto,
Hong Kong, and Frankfurt do not monitor
large cash transactions. And most
international bankers want things to
stay that way. "Top management is less
worried about snuffing out unsavory depositors
and more worried about preserving
Frankfurt's role as an international
financial center," says an officer
at a major West German bank.
Political factors also complicate international
regulatory efforts. The head of
the City of London's fraud squad, Gerald
J. Squires, has to go through diplomatic
channels to gain access to justice
ministers every time his inquiries lead to
the Continent And even though Swiss
IN COLOMBIA, DIRTY NIOKEY PASSES
THROUGH VERY CLEAH HANDS
W!
hen U. S. agents went looking
for money launderers,
they thought they would
find the sort of cutthroats who run the
Colombian drug trade. They found
some Colombians all right But these
Colombians included a PhD candidate,
a soccer-team owner, and a grandson
of a supreme court justice. "These are
not your typical slimy criminal hastai^,"
says Charles Saphos, an Assistant
U. S. Attorney assigned to Miami's
Operation Greenback. "They've
got education and class."
Much to their chagrin, agents have
not had great success establishing a
direct link between the launderers and
the narcotrafieantes. The money launderers
work free-lance, combining their
laundering businesses with—or concealing
them in—import-export firms,
travel agencies, or legitimate currencyexchange
houses. Some examples:
• Roberto Botero was convict^ in the
U. S. of not filhig currency transaction
reports while laundering $57 million
through a Miami bank. He and his
brother Hernan, who will soon stand
trial on similar charges, come from the
cream of Colombian society. Their family-
owned Hotel Nutibara in Medellin is
"sort of the Waldorf-Astoria of Colombia,"
according to Joel Hirschhorn, Roberto's
lawyer. The family's vast holdings
include real estate, grain-trading
companies, and a soccer team.
• ^no Ghitis, who laundered nearly a
quarter of a billion dollars in eight
months, came from Colombia's prosperous
and education-conscious middle
class. Ghitis studied engineering, earning
a master's degree and cr^ta toward
a doctorate, before returning to
the family's travel agency in Call
• Gustavo Ronderos, who entered a
conditional guilty plea last summer to
charges of conspiracy to aid narcotics
trafficking, is the grandson of a justice
on the Colombian Supreme Court His
father, a businessman, was a colonel in
the Colombian army. Ronderos took a
fancy to golf during his school days in
Atlanta and twice won Colombia's amateur
golf championship.
The Boteros, Ghitis, and Ronderos
had more to offer than pedigrees. They
offer^ financial expertise. They of
fered legitimate overseas contacts that
the traffickers sorely lacked. And,
timiugh their travel agencies and money
exchange houses, the launderers
had the pesos the traffickers needed to
run their operations, and had more legitimate
customers for their dollars.
But the narcotrafieantes must launder
hundreds of millions in dollar profits.
Thus the launderers at times must
"lay off" part of their contracts to other
exchangers who can help augment
the peso supply. Even then, there may
not be enough pesos. During the narcotics
boom in the late 1970s, there
were so many , illegal dollars floating
around Colombia that the black-market
price for dollars was actually lower
than the official rate.
•MATiOHAL SMwrr.' Many of the best of
Colombian society saw very little
wrong with laundering money. Accordiug
to Botcro's lawyer, Hirschhorn,
"everyone in Colombia launders money,
not just the drug dealers." The reason
is Colombia's tough currency restrictions.
Colombians cannot legally
keep overseas bank accounts. And
there is a $5,000 annual cap on dollar
purchases for Colombians who wish to
travel overseas.
For years, upstanding Colombians
have turned to gray-market launderers
when they wanted dollars for travel or
for nest eggs that would be safe from
peso inflation. Ghitis said his customers
were coffee exporters trying to
evade taxes. As he explained to a U. S.
Senate subcommittee, "The national
sport in Colombia is to cheat the Colombian
govemmenL"
U. S. agents say that the launderers
they have apprehended have shown remarkable
cool—and little remorse.
"They think because they're not touching
the drugs they're clean," says one
Internal Revenue Service agent. But
that may be changing, and not just
because-of the new vigilance in the
U. S. The Colombian government's decision
this year to extradite Heman Botero,
despite a national campaign
mounted by his family to keep him
home, has raised the money-laundering
stakes. "Ifs becoming less socially acceptable
and a lot more dangerous,"
says the agent.
With time and more pressure, the
traditional money launderers may drop
out of the business and be replaced by
relatives of drug dealers. The dealers
"may get tired of paying commissions,"
says Bonni G. 'Tischler, director
of financial investigations for the U. S.
Customs Service. "And there is nothing
to stop them from sending their
sons to go^ schools, too."
By Carta Anne Bobbins in Miami, witk
FlisabetA Ames in Los Angeles
COVER STORY 12 BUSINESS WEEK/MARCH 18. 19SS 79
•
auttiorities are supposed to be cooperating
with U. S. officials on financial investigations
involving narcotics cases, there
are often lengthy delays. "It can take
years to get records from some of these
countries," says former prosecutor Feldberg,
now with Shea & Gould, 'if
they're any good on the other side, they
can keep two steps ahead."
MIH1M0T. In some South American countries
the hurdles can be even worse.
"Very often," says Representative William
J. Hughes (D-N. J.), chairman of the
House subcommittee on crime, "corruption
goes all the way to the top in some
of those countries." When corruption is
not the problem, there is always the issue
of sovereignty. The Colombian government,
for instance, would not allow
two of its naval officers to testify in
New York at the trial of launderer Oroz-
CO. When prosecutor Feldberg took a
gamble and flew down to Colombia in
May, 1983, to get the testimony, he was
hardly met wi5i open arms. "There was
BT IXTRABITINO BICARDe AMD SAID
MVOH JATTER, CDLOMBIA IMBBOVED
ITS RILATIONS WITH THi U. S.
a mini-riot going on," recalls Feldberg.
"A lot of people there were DEA targets."
Relations have improved somewhat
since President Belisario Betancur
allowed four Colombians, including Ricardo
Pavon Jatter and his brother Said,
to be extradited to the U. S. to face narcotics
and laundering charges. But such
cooperation is still not automatic.
Without effective global enforcement,
money launderers can simply take their
business elsewhere. The New Mexican
state trooper learned that fact when a
map was found in a money smuggler's
car showing routes that could be taken
to avoid the highways cruised by the
aggressive New Mexico state police.
"They've quit 1-40," says the trooper.
"They're taking other routes now."
By Sarah Bartlett and G. David Wallace
in New York, with Carla Anne Bobbins in
Miami, Lois Therrien in Boston, Ronald
Grover and Blanca Riemer in Washington,
John Rossant in Paris, and other bureau
reports
THE lAHG AND GROWING LIST OF HOT-MONEY HAVENS
ome of the world's most desirable
havens for laundering money
cannot be found in a Guide
MickelirL The havens are listed in a
.guide by the U.S. Drug Enforcement
Administration. And if Switzerland,
Panama, Hong Kong, and other fourstar
venues of discreet banking lose
their luster in the crackdown on the
money trade, there will be no shortage
of new accommodations for hot money.
A quick tour of upstart havens
would head south from Miami, to the
Turks & Caicos Islands in the West
Indies. Crossing the Atlantic, a likely
stop would be the Channel Islands off
the coast of France. Half a world away
in the Pacific is Vanuatu in New Hebrides.
From there, it's a relatively short
hop north to Nauru.
Nauru is a recent addition to the
tour. It may be only an 8-sq.-mi. atoH,
but the 8,000 people on what used to be
called Pleasant Island enjoy such amenities
as not paying taxes and receiving
free health care, all thanks to the
island's valuable phosphate exports.
The problem is that the island's phosphate
rock is expected to run out in
about 15 years. So Nauru has set itself
up as a tax and banking haven. A cor>
poration can be charter^ there by mail
in only a few days.
The Naurus of the world explain
why law enforcement authorities sometimes
feel that trying to eliminate money
laundering by going after bank secrecy
havens is like trying to eradicate
the common housefly vrith a rock. But
bank secrecy, by shielding an account's
true owner or transactions, is crucial to
big laundering operations. So law enforcement
officials are pressing their
attack—with mixed success.
Two focal points for U. S. authorities
have been Switzerland and Panama.
John M. Walker Jr., Assistant Secretary
for enforcement at the Treasury
Dept, says the Administration now has
a ^tter relationship with those countries.
But frictions remain.
ATTACK ON SSCRBCV. The Swiss recently
permitted U.S. authorities to get
some secret account information they
said they needed to investigate an insider
trading case involving Santa Fe
Industries Inc. Even so, it took three
years and a tortuous slog through
Swiss courts. That was b^use the
Swiss allow their banks to provide information
only when Swiss law is violated.
And insider trading and tax evasion
are not crimes in Switzerland.
U.S. and Swiss officials plan to meet
again in March to trade gripes.
Panama seems even less cooperative.
Interpol officials say Panama, which
stan<h to get the money scared away
from other havens, refuses to attend a
March meeting, where lawmen want to
draft bank-secrecy guidelines for the
Caribbean. Panama is widely regarded
as the first stop for laundered money,
which is then rerouted to havens in
Europe and Asia for more cleansing.
But secrecy is under attack, even
from within some havens. In Switzerland,
the Socialist Party and Third
World pressure groups want to stop
Swiss banks from acting as a conduit
for capital fleeing from developing
countries. Although the Socialists
failed to get the laws changed, pressure
from them and from other countries
means more openness is likely.
Reducing secrecy in well-established
centers, however, pushes launderers to
other havens. The 1970 Bank Secrecy
Act prompted money runners to switch
their U. S. accounts to the Caribbean.
Now,- says a bank officer in Germany,
where only limited secrecy prevails: "If
we suddenly gave up our confidentiality,
a lot of big depositors—including
some launderers—would pack up and
move their money to Africa, Latin
America, or Hong Kong."
Some money might not move that
far. Austria, which has a secrecy law,
is already angling to grab accounts
from the Swiss. And money laundering
is moving into some areas where Westem
officials see no hope for cooperation.
Bulgaria, say Interpol officials,
has become a new laundering hotbed
for the drug trade, and even such
places as Libya have made known their
interest in handling drug money.
By G. David Wallace in New York, with
John Templeman in Lausanne and bureau
reports
82 BUSINESS WEEK/MARCH 18,1985 COVER STORY
13
© 1985 Newsweek, Inc. Reproduced by the Library of Congress, Congressional
Research Service with permission of copyright claimant.
Newsweek SPECIAL REPORT
U.S. agents become the latest casualties in a vicious
war between lawmen and Latin American drug lords.
Enrique Camarena Salazar bad just left
the U.S. Consulate in Guadalajara to
keep a lunch date with his wife. As he
walked away from the btiilding, the 37*
yearK)ld U.S. dnig^enforcement agent was
intercepted by four gunmen who shoved
him into a getaway car and rapidly drove
Salzad Avianea Jet Arrests are up—end se are suppHea
away. Three hours later, Alfredo Zavala
Avelar, a Mexican pilot who flew occasion*
al missions for the American Drug riiforce*
ment Administration, set off to drive home
from the airport. He, too, was snatched at
gunpoint. Neither man has been seen since.
Camarena had been investigating several
Guadalajara-based drug syndicates. Because
of this investigation, c^e-named Operation
Padrino (Godfather), the DBA had
already seized 3,600 pounds of cocaine and
S20 million—an ! the traffickers were clearly
bent on revenge.
Camarena's wife alerted the DEA office
after her husband failed to return home by
the following morning. But when she and
the senior DEA agent in Guadalajara approached
the local police, they were told
that no search could begin without "official
notification." For three days the locals dawdled.
Only after DEA Administrator Francis
Mullen Jr. flew to Mexico and, according
to an associate, "started banging on
dttks," did the Mexican authorities launch
a full-scale search. Infuriated, Attorney
General William French Smith
drafted a cable to his Mexican
counterpart; it was so sharply
-worded that State Department
officials warned him it could jar
relations with Mexico. "They
can't do this to our agent," he
said, brushing aside the ^plomats.
And he urged Ronald Reagan
to phone Mexico's President
Miguel de la Madrid with a call
for action.
RepercuMii—i In the end,
Reagan chose to send a discreet
note underscoring his personal
concern. But the repercussions
of the twin kidnappings won't
end there. Camarena and Zavala
are only the latest casualties in a
war against the evil empire of
cocaine. Its realm extends from
the coca fields of Peru, Bolivia
and Ecuador to the jungle refineries of Colombia
and Brazil. Its outposts are remote
piers and airstrips in Mexico and the Caribbean;
its ports of entry dot the American
South and Southwest. With profits running
into billions of dollars, the cocaine lords vie
with Third World governments in wealth
and power. The traffickers tried to blow up
the U.S. Embassy in Bogota last November,
and administration officials fear that they
are undermining the fragile political systems
of Bolivia, Peru, Mexico, the Bahamas
and Jamaica. "There is no greater destabilizing
force for democratic government
than the power of the narcotrafico," says
Gustavo Sanchez, Bolivia's under secretary
of the interior.
Until recently, many Latin American
Abandoned refinery In Tranquliandla,Celombia:
Camarena, police Inspect a Colombian stash:
Refining chemicals, Reagan with de la Madrid,
14 14 NEWSWEEK/FEBRUARY 23. 1985
}espit« ma«sl¥« seliures and arrasts, tht fight against the flow of drugs has ortly begun
the American Consulate in Guadalajara: Some hard feelings after two mysterious kidnappings
NEWSWEEK/FEBRUARY 25, 1985 15
countries shrugged off their drug traffickers,
pairtly because they viewed narcotics as
a U.S. problem, and partly because they
were more worried about left-wing terrorists
and guerrillas. That attitude is giving
way to a sense of alarm. "There is hardly an
area of political activity or institutional life
that in some way has not been affected by
drug corruption," says Colombia's Justice
Minister ^rique Parejo Gonzalez. The
drug lords have vowed to kill Colombian
officials from the president on down. And
NEWSWEEK has learned that they've CFF*
fered S3SO,000 to anyone who will kidnap
Mullen or another high DEA official, intelligence
sources report that the kingpins
want to exchange Mullen for the six Colombian
accused traffickers in custody in the
United States and Spain.
The empire grows Uke a poisonous weed.
So great are its profits that every local victory
against the cocaine lords only seems to
open markets in other areas. In many rural
areas, the drug kings are seen as Robin
Hoods, spreading wealth in countries that
are desperately poor. Snowy riches have
corrupted officisds and produced strange
alliances. Colombia's neo-Nazi drug loi^
Carlos Lehder Rivas, has offered to cast his
lot with the leftist M-19 guerrillas, while
peasant coca growers in Peru are tied to
Maoist Shining Path guerrillas. And the
DEAhasproduced limited evidencethatthe
governments of Nicaragua and Cuba wink
at drug dealings that bring in badly needed
Western currency.
Zeah The DEA is fighting back with
courage and energy. At times, however, its
zeal has produced frictions with foreign
governments, which argue that they are
already doing all that they can. Latin American
diplomats point out that the United
States, with its huge appetite for cocaine, is
equally to blame. "Colombia will produce
the crops as long as there are consumers,"
says Guillermo Angulo, Colombia's consul
general in New York. "When there are IK>
consumers, there will be no production."
The consumption only grows. Between
59 and 78 tons of cocaine en tered the United
States in 1983. The State Department reported
last week that coca production had
risen by one-third over the past year alone.
And U.S. Customs agents in Miami discovered
2,500 pounds of cocaine hidden in a
shipment of Valentine flowers on an
Avianca 747 cargo jet from Bogota. The
Reagan administration's south Florida interdiction
program has scored other successes.
But the heat on Florida has led entrepreneurs
to open other points of entry all
across the southern border. Long-range aircraft
are flying cocaine from Colombia into
Louisiana, Mississippi, the Southwest and
the CaroUnas. In the "Deliverance" country
of Georgia, former moonshiners have
turned from white lightning to coke. As
supplies increase, the price drops and the
dope of the rich and famous now threatens
to tap out cokeheads from every social class.
Mexico has become a major stop on
15
SPECIAL REPORT
ConfltciUd plan** In Hemcstsad, Flaj Cocain* ports of tntry dot th* U.S. South and Southw*st
Latin America's cocaine trail. Until the
mid-1970s, Mexico was by far the largest
supplier of American heroin, and it exported
huge quantities of marijuana as well.
But in 1974, the government launched an
extensive eradication program, spraying
growing areas with herbicides. By 1978,
the Mexican share of the U.S. heroin market
bad dropped from 80 percent to just 30
percent, and Mexican traffickers later
turned to cocaine to fill the void. Now as
much as a third of all U.S. cocaine is
smuggled in from south of the border.
According to government records, nearly
2,600 pounds of the powder have been
seized in Mexico since 1982.
The new cocaine traffickers selected
the pretty, tree-lined city of
Guadalajara as their headquarters.
It was close to a number of
clandestine airstrips and two major
fairways to the United States,
and its broming economy and
real-estate market made laundering
money relatively convenient
Most important, however, was its
proximi^ to the marijuana and
poppy fields of northwest Mexico—
and the families who had developed
drug-running experience
in exploiting them.
L«KK TO crimp those families,
the DEA organized Operation Padrino,
the investigation to which
Camarena was assigned. The drug
runners suffered extraordinary
losses. Because of Padrino and
other operations, one ring alone
had lost some $26 million and
6,000 pounds of coke. Last October
a DEA agent's car was sprayed with
machine-gun fire. In recent we^ more
than half a dozen Mexican policemen have
been killed in similar incidents. Last week,
four days after the Guadalajara kidnappings,
a man walked into the U.S. attorney's
office in El Paso brandishing a gun. A secretary
screamed and dropped to the floor. An
FBI agent drew his own pistol and pursued
the intruder, but the gunman got away.
By the time Mexican authorities finally
began searching for the kidnap victizns, every
trafficker known to live in Guadalajara
had already left town. "Every time you hit a
place, it's empty," the frustrated Mullen
A DEA raid in Florida: Fighting back with eeurag* and energy
!6 16
told a Mexican police chief. As the
investigation in Mexico fiTzled,
the Americans began to act on
their own. The U.S. Embassy
posted a $50,000 reward for information
about the kidnappings. In
Washington, DEA officii gathered
in their "war room" to field
leads from all over the United
States and Mexico. Every DEA
office was asked to call informants
for any hint of information. Allpoints
bulletins were issued for
possible suspects, and the Customs
Service began searching every
car that tried to cross the
Mexican border. "I think in Mexico
the problem is far deeper than
the government is willing to acknowledge,"
Mullen told NEWSWEEK.
"The traffickers are virtually
untouchable in many areas. I
think it's out of control."
Sboot-out: Among the suspects
in the kidnappings was the Caro
clan, whose leader, Rafael Caro
Quintero, is estimated to be worth
hundreds of millions of dollars.
According to law-enforcement authorities,
the Caros have launched
acampaign of intimidation against
Mexican police. Lut November, a godson
of Rafael Caro, together with four of bis
friends, shot it out with Guadalajara cops,
blasting away with AK-47 assault rifles
from behind an armor-plated Ford sedan.
Three of the guiunen were killed along with
three policemen. After that incident, say
local sources, a $5,000 bounty for the killing
of any policeman was offer^. Since then,
several cops have been murdered after
responding to complaints about supposed
domestic quarrels. Police are even more
suspicious of the Gallardo family, said to
be the leading drug family in Guadalajara.
U.S. officials have not ruled out the possibility
that the abductions may have
been the work of Colombians or
Mexicans on a Colombian payroll,
but they believe that one of
the Gua^ajara clans was behind
the crimes.
Police corruption has allowed
the drug lords to flourish. Most
Mexican drug agents earn less
than $400 a month, and the temptation
to supplement their salaries
with bribes is enormous. Critics of
the police cite a raid last November
in the northern state of Chihuahua
that netted 10,000 tons of
marijuana plants—equal to nearly
half the tonnage of pot seized in
Mexico over the past 11 years. The
critics believe an operation of that
size could only have been main-
^ tained with the complicity of some
Mexican authorities.
U.S. officials are far more encouraged
by the drug fight in Colombia,
where some 75 percent of
NEWSWEEK/FEBRUARY 25, 1985
the cocaine that reaches the United States
is refined. There is a new awareness
among the countries of Latin America and
the C^bbean that UlegBl drug production
and trafficking are dangerous to their own
societies," says Langhome Motley, assistant
secretary of state for Inter-American
Affairs. Colombians were shocked last
year when a once healthy Bogota bank
collapsed after a narcotraficante reportedly
witb^ew his deposits. The drug gangs also
seemed particularly fond of the national
airline, Avianca. Tlie S600 million bust in
Miami last week marked the 34th time in
five years that Avianca planes had been
found with cocaine aboard. The Colombian
government is fighting back: police
officii estimated last year that their regular
forces were taking one casualty a day.
Colombian officials "see that the money
engendered by the drug trade can be a
destabilizing influence," says Jack Lawn,
deputy administrator of the DEA. "They
know that the money will be used to support
terrorism in Colombia."
The Colombian police say they seized
40,000 pounds of cocaine paste, base and
finished powder last year. They also reported
the destruction of 27.5 million coca
plants and 262 co':aine labs. Altogether,
they claimed to have made more than 1,800
drug-related arrests. The DEA has also organiTMt
Operation Chemcon, a project designed
to track large purchases of ether and
acetone, chemicals essential to refining cocaine.
The DEA has been tracking shipments
of the chemicals and alerting South
American police and customs officials
whenever a large delivery is about to be
made. The price of a S5-gallon drum of
ether, which would cost a U.S. hospital
about SSOO, has now skyrocketed to between
$6,000 and $7,000 on the Colombian
black market
Despite such efforts, the drug lords are
still in business, in a report that warmly
congratulated the Colombian government
the U.S. State Department conceded last
week that coca production had actually fncreased
last year, although by a margind
amount Colombia's President Belisario
Betancur was embarrassed last year to discover
that his own press staff had been
infiltrated. Spanish police had broken up a
smuggling ring which was shippinjg cocaine
in film canisters from the international section
of the press office—in a Colombian
diplomatic pouch. Two weeks ago, police
arrested Roman Medina Bedoya, the head
of the press office, and charg^ him with
complicity.
Strategy: The DEA has set a strategy of
fighting the traffic at its source. That is
easier said than done in the Andes, where
the drug begins its long progress to cocaine
as the lowly coca leaf. The Reagan adminis-
ALONG THE COCAINE TRAIL: MONEY, MURDER AND POLITICS
From leal to paste to refined powder, cocaine makes its way northward from growws
and refiners in South America to dealers and consumers in the United States. The
size and many turrrs in the flow make It extremely iSfficuK for the U.S. Drug
Enforcwnent Agency to stop enterprising and ruthless narcotraHcantes.
.MEXICO
PadScOcem
^Quadal^sni
Mexico Oty
GUATEMALA^
BAHAMAS
NIC/
3From refinirtg hdn in South America,
amalt planes cart't reach the United
States nortst^. To solve the problem, drug
runners have developed many refuellnig and
Iranssfilpping stops, parttcularty in Mexico
and the Bahamaa.
-HONDURAS^
tGUA
PANAMA
CUBA
JAMAICA
CariibeanS^
/Barranqiila
4Drug traffickers smuggle
a kirrg's ransom ^
cocaine into the United States
every day. They penetrate the
borders through major ai^
porta, deserted airstrips and
sleepy ports. Street price; ^
to$l20agram.
AVanScOcom
*
COSTA
RICA
*CatBcas
VENEZUELA
u Medeikn
COLOMBIA
ECUADOR BRAZIL
1Peasant farmers, abetted by comqit
gener^ and polltieim en the right
and rural guerriiiai on the lefL cuithrata
300,000 acres of coca fields in Peru, Bo-
Hvia, Colombia and Ecuador. Last year
tNy harvested an estimated 135^
tens of the raw coca leaf, nrhich told for
about $4 a pound.
2After the farmers precen the
coca leaf Into a dry paste, jungle
labs inCelombia use ether, acetone and
hydrochloric acid to refine the paste
Into cocaine. The drug cartel ships the
powder north by air and sea.
Lima< PERU
Ayacucho
> La Paz
• CSza
NEWSWEEK/FEBRUARY ZS, I98S 17 17
SPECIAL REPORT
tration warned Bolivia last January that if it
did not improve its record in fighting drugs,
Washington might have to hold up a SS8
millinn aid package for drug suppression
and rural development. Since then there
have been a number of vigorous police and
Army raids (page 21). But not a single acre
of coca has been destroyed. The cash crop
still brings in nearly $2 billion a year—three
times the amount of Bolivia's official exports.
Yet the government of President Hernw
Siles Zuazo, a reformer, has been an
improvement over its predecessors. According
to U.S. officials, former President
Luis Garcia Meza and his chief of security,
CoL Luis Arce Gomez, were per^ally
involved wi± the cocaine trade during the
early 1980s. "Siles has managed to get the
Maria, but their efforts are directed exclusively
against the guerrillas. While traders
openly deal in cocaine paste, government
soldiers stand by to maintain law and order.
Smuggling is easy in Peru. Not only does
the country have a long and poorly patrolled
coastline, but iu Amazon valley offers
an open gateway to Colombia. More
and more Colombians are appearing in the
area. "We know they're here," says a U.S.
law-enforcement officer, "because more
dead bodies are turning up." Efforts to curb
them now threaten to divert the traffic to
Brazil. Until last summer police considered
Brazil mostly a transit point for drugs
bound for the United Sutes and Europe.
But during the final six months of 1984
Brazilian police discovered and uprooted 9
million epadu plants, a variety of coca. The
Amazon offers almost limitless potential as
Sandinista government ofNicara^a. Early
last year a DEA informant was hired to fly
3,000 pounds of cocaine from Colombian
kingpin Carlos Lehder to Miami via Managua.
During a change of planes, the informant
claimed, the cargo was unloaded by
Nicaraguan soldiers directed by Frederico
Vaughan, an aide to Tomas Borge, Nicaragua's
minister of the interior. However,
U.S. intelligence analysts concede that
there is no conclusive evidence that the
Nicaraguan government was directly involved.
it is possible, says one, that the
smuggling episode was simply the work of
"lower officials acting for personal profit."
Whatever the possibilities may be, cocaine
profits and corruption now soil the
political fabric of governments in a way that
would once have been thought impossible.
Last December a Bahamian commission of
inquiry issued a scathing report
portraying a country overrun with
drugs, corruption and moral decay.
"Hie commission found that
drug activity had "damaged all
strata of Bahamian society." Although
the commission found no
direct evidence that Prime Minister
Lynden Pindling was involved
in the trafficking, it certainly
raised some doubts. Pindling's
bank account contained some
$230,000 in unexplained deposits,
the commission said, and there
were ethical questions about nearly
$3.5 million received by him
and his wife. In addition, Pindling
bad received more than $500,000
from his former business partner
Everette Bannister, a man the
commission accused of soliciting
thousands of dollars from drug
smugglers. Pindling and Bannister
have denied any wrongdoing.
GBtttR There was a time when
cocaine was seen as ircejlaatuivvewlyj
harmless compared to heroin. No
IC more. The issue is not simply one
of measuring the danger to the
health of individual drug abusers.
Drying coca leaves In Boilwie: The government le out of the bueineea, but Ithae not eradicated the crop
government out of the cocaine business,"
said one State Department officer.
A promising, if still sporadic, eradication
effort in Peru is now tangled in the government's
fight against the Shining Path guerrillas.
Early last year, an elite police unit was
sent to the interior to force local farmers to
join a U.S.-backed crop-substitution program
or lose their land. Peasants enrag^ at
the central government and the United
States for attempting to eliminate the one
crop that promised growers any kind of
return began to took with more favor at the
Shining Path. Last November unidentified
assailants brutally murdered 19 Peruvians
at a coca-eradication center in the upper
Huallaga Valley, and the program was temporarily
halted. It has resumed now, but the
authorities seem to have lost their enthusiasm
for fighting drugs. Today, Army troops
are in fi^ strength in the area of Tingo
18
a drug base. It is vast, impossible to patrol
yet near cities linked closdy to the outside
world. "It's a potential paradise for drug
traffickers," says Arthur Castillo, a government
drug buster in Brasilia.
As cocaine moves northward toward the
United States, Cuba and Nicaragua lie
astride the drug path. Ideolo^cal rightwingers
in the United States have long suspected
Cuba of dabbling in drugs to earn
hard currency and poison Americans. Intelligence
sources say there is evidence that
C^ba regularly gives safe passage to smuggler
a'rcrait of Jamaican registry. Drug runners
can also use Cuban waters to skirt U.S.
sea patrols. But lawmen say there has been
no hard evidence so far that Cuba is producing
or refining cocaine, or that it has been
directly involved in distributing drugs in the
United States.
Another case has been lodged against the
18
but of correcting a threat to the welfare
of entire governments. Self-righteousness
won't help. "How do you tell some starving
farmer in Peru that he has to give up the
money he makes from growing coca," asks
one U.S. diplomat, "when back home the
drug culture is glorified by glittering head
shops on Hollywood Boulevard?" What is
needed is more support for lawmen and
better cooperation between the United
States and Latin America. It is not sensible
to argue or dawdle while the empire of
cocaine grows stronger. "This is a war to the
death," says Colombia's Justice Minister
Parejo. And neither the United States .tor
its neighbors to the south can risk the consequences
of losing.
HARRY ANDERSON with ELAINE SHANNON
ia Waihington, RON MOREAU In Bogota. JOSEPH
CONTRERAS in Cuadalajara. JOSEPH HARMES
in Mexico City, MAC MARCOLIS in La Paz.
MICHAEL SMITH in Lima and bunau reports
NEWSWEEK/FEBRUARY 23. 1983'
Colombia's Kings of Coke
A cartel of ruthless smugglers protects its interests with bribes—and guns.
Carlos Lehder is the reputed narcotrafi*
cante numero uno—« long-haired coke
smuggler who bought an entire island in the
Bahamas and courted women in his private
disco with Beatles. Joan Baez and Rolling
Stones records. Pablo Escobar is "Robin
Hood"tohisneighborsinMedeHin, whereke
built housing/or the poor. Drug-enforcement
agentssay he rose from dealing small bags of
cocaine to amassing a $2 billion forturu,
winning an alternate seat in Colombia's Congress
on the side. Jorge Ochoa, Gilberto
Rodriguez. Neman Botero and Conzalo Rodriguez
are cut from the same cloth—cocky
adventurerswhofiaunttheirmillions.buying
everything from banks and hotels to soccer
teamsandfighting bulls.
Together they have become Colombia's
cocaine overlords—a small, tightknit
clique of smugglers almost as rich and powerful
as the Colombian government itself.
From heavily armed strongholds deep in the
Andes, according to U.S. drug-enforcement
ofBdals, they refine and smuggle S2 billion a
year in coke to the United States and the rest
oftheworld.Toprotecttfaeirextensive interests,
a number have allegedly formed their
own little cartel, buying as many opponents
as they can, murdering some of those they
can't. An all-out manhunt by Colombian
authorities and the U.S. Drug Enforcement
Adininistration has brought a few of them to
justice. But the strongest are still at large.
They remain so powerful that last year they
were able to approach Colombia's attorney
general with a startling offer: if the government
agreed not to extradite them to the
United States, they would help pay off the
country's $13 billion foreign debt.
Lehder (alias "Joe Leather" and "Joe
L^on") is allegedly the biggest of the drug
kings. Hestarted small. Theson ofa German
enpneer who moved to Colombia, he grew
up in the town of Armenia in the department
of Quindio. At 18 he left for the United
States. In 1973 he was arrested in Detroit for
smug^ng stolOT cars from South America.
He skipped bail, but was arrested again in
Miami for possession of200 pounds of marijuana.
He served nearly two years at Danbury
Correctional Institution, then in 1975
was put on a plane to Bogotl
Dnbniiiansr In 1979 the DEA learned
Aat Lehder had purchased Norman's Cay
in the Bahamas. He was listed as the president
of Air Montes, a Bahamian corporation;
but the DEA was convinced that his
real business was ferrying marijuana and
cocaine from Colombia to the United States.
He built a 3,300-foot runway protected by
radar, bodyguards and Doberman attack
dogs. He also commanded a Beet of aircraft—
some bought, according to a DEA
NEWSWEEK/FEBRUARY 25, IMS
informant, through an associate of Bahamas
Prime Minister Lynden Pindling. The
allegation has not been proved, and Pindling
has denied any involvement with Lehder.
While in the Bahamas, Lehder lived in a
sprawling villa. He owned a yacht, 19 cars
and four bicycles. One DEA informant said
he spent his time with fugitive financier
Robm Vesco, wandering around Norman's
Cay shooting automatic weapons at lizards
and coconuts. Another DEA informant said
Lehder threatened to kill one U.S. federal
judge per week ifhe was captured.
in 1981 a U.S. grand jury indicted Lehder
for cocaine smuggling, and about that time
he moved his base of operations back to
Colombia. He bought a farm at La Tebaida,
just outside Armenia. He purchased a local
newspaper, the Quindio Libre, which he
used to make strident attacks on U.S. and
Colombian officials. He also indulged his
taste for wild parties and women. At his
private resort, the Hotel Posada Alemana,
he built a discoteca dedicated to John Lennon;
its centerpiece was a statue of Lennon,
nude except for a helmet and a guitar—with
A bust In the Andes meunta nt: Oeclaring a 'war without quarter' on the cocaine trade
19
19
SPECIAL REPORT
A Colombtan Anny antidrug unit Combing the jungtt with hor$>i, tanks and U.S. chopptrt
abulkt hole through the heart Young women
flocked to his side, attracted by his moviestar
looks and charisma.
Lehder had another bizarre obsession—
Adolf Hitler. He recently called Hitler "the
greatest warrior in history"; he also stated
that all the Jews killed by the Nazis during
World War II had "died only working in the
fields and the factories." To forward his
views he formed a fanatically nationalist
political party, the Movimieiito Civico Latino
Nacional(MCLN). Hundredsofpeople
went to Lebder's "patriotic Saturday" rallies—
drawn, according to some reports, by
SOO- and 1,000-peso notes handed out
at the gate. Lehder is also alleged to
have funded a right-wing paramilitary
group called Death to Kidnappm
(MAS). MAS is charged with
killing dozens of leftists and labor
organizers; it is also said to number
former police and military officials
among its ranks.
Hideout; A^er Colombian President
Belisario Betancur vowed to
begin enforcing a two-year-old extradition
treaty with the United States
last spring, Lehder went underground.
In May police and soldiers
raided a hideout in the Llanos, Colombia'seastem
plains, and found evidence
that Lehder h^ been there;
they also found bulldozers, barracks
and laboratory facilities capable of
processing 6 to 10 tons of cocaine per
month. L^der was next sighted on
May 28, by a drug pilot working undercover
for the DEA in Colombia.
Theinformant said hesaw Lehder and
acrew load more than 3,000 poundsof
cocaine onto a plane bound for Nicaragua.
When that aircraft crashed,
Ochoa provided a Titan plane, ac-
20
cording to the informant The pilot flew the
plane to Managua. There, according to the
informant he handed the cocaine over to
Escobar and Frederico Vaughan, an aide to
Nicaragua's minister of the interior.
Last month Lehder brazenly invited a
Spanish television crew to meet h'f" at a
hideout near the Brazilian border. He was
surrounded by machine gun-toting bodyguards
and looked eerily cool and seU'-confident
in a sleeveless black shirt. He didn't
deny being Colombia's premier drug trafficker,
but he tried to portray himself as a
revolutionary with a vision. He referred to
Embassy bombins victim in Bogota: A eocaina iinfc?
20
cocaine as a "Latin American atom bomb"
that would win respect from imperialists. He
made a vague—and ideologically ambiguous—
threat to join forces either with disgruntled
military officers or with Colombia's
Marxist M-19 guerrilla movement. He
also bragged of escaping a recent government
sweep through the inland.
While Lehder operated out of the Bahamas
and the jungle, DEA authorities say
Escobar play^front man for the coke kings.
In 1976 he and five other men were arrested
in Medellin for selling 39 pounds of cocaine.
They were never convicted: two of the policemen
who apprehended them were assassinated,
and the arrest record disappeared
from thecourthouse. Over the next few years
Escobar grew increasingly wealthy—ostensibly
in the "tourist development" business.
He acquired extensive lanid holdings, built
a huge soccer complex and collected a personal
zoo with 4 giraffes, 2 Indian eleph^ts
and lOhippopotamuses. Heand Lehder also
did what they could to acquire political
influence. Escobar won his alternate seat in
Congress and used it to lobby agairut Colombia's
extradition treaty with the United
States. In 1982 the two men bragged of
having donated SI million to Colombia's
two main political parties, the Liberals and
the Conservatives. They also formed what
came to be known as the "Medellin cartel"—
a wealthy clan that was said by locals
to "own" many of the officials, judges and
policemen in the area.
ffiue JcanB Like Lehder, Escobar went to
ground after Betancur's extradition threat
last spring. U.S. officials had long been after
him. In 1982 he was cited by the DEA as the
source of 1,197 pounds of cocaine seized in
New Iberia, La. When Customs officials in
Miami made the largest U.S. coke seizure
ever—3,800 pounds found in a shipment
of blue jeans on a plane from
Colombia—the DEA again accused
Escobar. Where he was hiding was
unclear. Escobar wasoneofthosewho
met with Colombia's attorney general
, in late May; later he was seen in Nicaragua,
by the DEA informant. It is on
the basis of that Nicaraguan sighting
that the United States finally issued an
extradition request for Escobar.
Another member of the Medellin
cartel was Jorge Ochoa. The Ochoa
family ranch, on the Caribbean coast
between Cartagena and Barranquilla,
features a small airstrip, allegedly for
shipping cocaine, along with several
swimming pool^ a fleet of motor
launches, a vast open-air zoo and a
bullring. Ochoa's father, Fabio, raises
prize fighting bulls; his son has been
charged with smuggling 120 of them
from Spain. In 1977 DEA agents
linked Ochoa to a 60-pound cocaine
shipment seized in Miami. Later they
found evidence that he and his bodyguards
were selling coke in major cities
on the East Cout. Aided by DEA
intelligence, Spanish authorities fi-
0 NEWSWEEK/FEBRUARY 25, 1985
The 'Leopards' Strike
Afitr years of truckling to drug lords, Bolivia is beginning
to fight back. Newsweek's Mac Margolis accompanied government
troops on two recent raids deep in cocaine country.
His report-
It was nearly dusk when 15 Army jeeps roared into the '"ain
square of Oiza, a Quechua Indian >dUage in the remote Vaile
Alto region of Bolivia. The Sunday market was in progress and
the square was jammed with produce stalls, vendors and buyers.
The police convoy pulled up in the marketplace, blocking the
main exit, and 160 camouflage-suited "Leopards," as this antidrug
unit is called, jumped out of their jeeps and began to fire
M-I and M-2 carbines into the air. The villagers scattered,
^bbing their belongings and vanishing
into the web of dirt alleys that
suiTounds the square. The Leopards
collared any peasant carrying a suspicious-
looking bundle In all, the soldiers
confiscated nearly 100 satchels
of coca leaves and 150 pounds of
"paste," the dry, whitish powder that
is made into cocaine.
The Leopards barked orders. Few
of the Quechua Indians understood
the soldiers' Spanish, and few of the
soldiers, who are mostly from highland
Aymara Indian tribes, spoke
Quechua. But a warning round from
a semiautomatic lifle or a rough
shove against the village's mud-andbrick
w^s was clear enough. "Shoot
me, shoot me here!" shrieked Maria
Lanza, as soldiers confiscated her
satchel of coca leaves. "Thank God
for la cocat'na. Because of cocaine we
can dress and eat well."
One Leopard commander estimated
that 80 percent of the population of
Cliza is involved in the clandestine
cocaine market. Across the country,
an estimated 100,000 peasant famClaaning
up Cllza: A vlllaga that thrivad on eoka
ilies now make their living in the cocaine business. It is not illegal
in Bolivia to grow and sell coca leaf, which workers chew as a
stimulant and a hunger suppressant; in a lean spason it can also
be made into tea. But the government is attempting to control
the flow of coca leaves by requir .ig buyers and sellers to be
Ucensed. The peasants protest that trading in coca is the only
way they can survive in a country where steady employment is
scarce and the minimum salary little more thu SIO a month.
Even as the soldiers drove off, firing their rifles behind them, the
villagers scrambled on the ground, fighting over the bits of coca
leaves that had spilled from the confiscated bags.
Rocky TnO: At midnight the Leopards went on another raid.
In Puca Mayu, another hamlet nearby, a peasant home had been
converted into nfabriqueta, a tiny factory producing cocaine.
Ten men had bera working all evening, taking turns stamping
barefoot in a huge trough filled with coca leaves, kerosene and
other chemicals. They smoked^n7/o,
a mixture of crude coca paste and
chemicals, and listened to music on a
tinny transistor radio. The Leopards
burst in and rounded up the workers,
locking them into the backs of the
jeeps and driving them down the
rocky trail to Coclubamba—and jail.
The small-timers busted by the
Leopards that night will probably
languish in jail for months, but they
will not be sharing their cells with any
of the country's big-time drug kings.
"The jails are full of a bunch of poor
Indians caught with a kilo or two of
coca paste," says one U.S. DEA official
in La Paz. "They can't afford
lawyers, and they'll stay in jail forever."
The few narcotraficantes, or
major drug dealers, who have been
arrested have no such problems.
They take advantage of a justice system
that is riddled with loopholes and
is infinitely vulnerable to bribery.
"They can buy just about anyone they
please," says the DEA official. "The
corruption is horrendous—and it
goes right up to the top."
nally caught up with Ochoa last Nov. IS.
They found him and Gilberto Rodriguez
negotiatingtobuy a51 million, }2,S00-acre
ranch outside Madrid. Both men were arrested;
Spanish authorities are currently reviewing
U.S. extradition requests for them.
A grand jury in Miami has indicted Ochoa
for his alleged role in the Nicaragua case.
Gilberto Rodriguez, meanwhile, was one
of three men—along with Gonzalo Rodriguez
and Botero—who might be called the
soccer-club three. Gilberto Rodriguez is
said to be the part owner, with his brother
Miguel, of CM's America soccer team.
DEA officials believe be was the source of
6,450 pounds of cocaine paste seized in California
in 1976; theyalsosayheused banks in
Miami and Colombia to finance drug smuggling.
Gonzalo Rodriguez, who is known as
"El Mejicano" (the Mexican), owns a large
piece of Bogota's Millonarios soccer team,
as well as a farm with a private landing strip.
NEWSWEEK/FEBRUARY 25. 1985
Botero is part owner of Medellin's Atletico
Nacional soccer club. In a recent joint DEACustoms-
Intemal Revenue investigation
called Operation Greenback, he and his
brother, Roberto, were allegedly caught
laundering 560 million through Landmark
First National Bank in Pl^ution, Fla.
Bank officials have denied any knowledge of
the laundering. Botero was among the first
trafficken extradited by Betancur's government,
and he is now on trial in Miami
nunder: Until recently, Colombian officials
were afraid to take on the drug overlords.
But then the cocaine smugglers made
a major blunder; they decided to assassinate
Justice Minister Rodrigo Lara Bonilla, the
one member of the Betancur government
who was crusading against them. In April
hired killers machine-gunned Lara to death
on a Bogota street, "l^e drug kings never
claimed responsibility, but they are universally
believed to have financed the hit The
21
murder outraged many Colombians who
had seen the smugglers as appealing folk
heroes battling against the country's entrenched
elites. More important, it enraged
Betancur. For two years he had ignored
Colombia'sextradition treaty with the United!
States on the ground that it violated
national sovereignty. But at Lara's graveside,
he vowed to uphold the treaty. He
declared a state of siege and went on television
to proclaim "a war without quarter" on
the cocaine mafia.
The drug lords were forced to retrench.
Four days aAer the assassination, they reportedly
held an emergency summit in
MedelHn. Some headed to Brazil; others,
including Escobar, Ochoa and Rodriguez
Gacha went to the Cesar Park Marriott
Hotel in Panama. There they approached
former Colombian President Alfonso Lopez
Michelsen, who was staying in Panama,
with a peace offer. Lopez Michelsen prom-
21
SPECIAL REPORT ^
ised to communicate the message to Betancur,
and 10 days later Attorney General
Carlos Jimenez Gomez arrived in Panan^
Jimenez met with Escobar and other
members of the cartel and asked them to put
their offer in writing. In that memorandum,
which was later leaked to the press, the
negotiators claimed to represent 80 percent
of Colombia's coke traffickers. They offered
to give up their smuggling operations, to
help finance the country's debt and to work
to rehabilitate addicts. In exchange, they
asked for an end to the sute of siege, a
revisionof the extradition treaty with Washington
and new measures that would allow
them to repatriate all their assets. Jimenez
took the offer back to Bogota. But as soon as
itbecamepublic, there was an outcry. Betancur
firmly rejected it, saying that "under no
circumstances" would he accept the deal.
HeUcopterK Colombian and U.S. officials
now hope that by keeping the drug kings on
the run, they will force them to make more
Since 1980 the Colombian police
has assigned a crack paramilitary force, the
Special Anti-Narcotics Unit (SANU), to
fill] time for the smugglers. In all,
SANU employs 1,700 top Army and police
recruits. They work in teams across Colombia's
drug-producing inland, setting up
checkpoints, sweeping through the jungle
with jeeps, trucks, on horseback or on foo^
and swooping down on refining plants with
U.S.-suppliedUH-l helicopters.
Public sentiment has also begun to turn
against the smugglers. Lara's assassination
is one reason. Another is growing con«^
over basuco, the dangerous cocaine derivative
the traffickers sell at home. About three
years ago, the drug kings decided to stop
relying on coca supplies from Peru and Bolivia
and to start growing their own coca
leaves on Colombian soil. They quickly discovered
that these leaves weren't of high
enough quality for the U.S. market. So they
started processing them with chemicals and
selling the pasty yellow byproduct on
the domestic market Basuco is cheap—
about S5 a gram—and easy to lace into
cigarettes. And it has turned many Colombian
youths, and growing numbers of young
professionals, into strung-out addictt.
Even if life has become abit harder for the
Colombia mafia, the odds against shutting
them down remain overwhelming. Some
drug-enforcement agents concede that at
most, they can hope to keep the smugglers
offbalance and prevent them from enlarging
their empires. But as long as they can sell
billions of dollars' worth of coke abroad—
and as long as the domestic market for basuco
keeps expanding—they will have the
money and clout they need to fend off the
government's attacks. Colombian officials
have finally started todo battle with thedrug
overlords. But they are in for along, costly—
and probably very bloody—war.
MARK WHITAKERwilhELAlNE SHARON
ia Waihlngtonud RON MOKEAU in BogoU
22
Feeding America's Habit
A booming demand frustrates law-enforcement efforts.
AMohave County sherirs deputy was of coke are ^ting In
camping near a deserted Arizona air- recent months, investigators have
strip last November when he spotted the an unusually large amount of c«h flwng
abandoned plane. Inside, he found 1,500 'hcFeder^Rescue
pounds of Colombian cocaine wrapped m cisco—just ^ it did in Miaro y
^^.green^dsilverfoilpackages-for
Narcod^gcnls in California set up a investigatorinKcniC^nty.C^.,whOTa
midnight stakeout on San Francisco Bay. sheriTs deputy watc^ ®
Thev ambushed eight frogmen swimming in take off in the Mojave Desert two weeks ago.
With 400 pounds of cocaine in duffel bags
from a Colombian ship offshore. Refbellny Sm^l, J!
Iowa authorities are taking a close look at becoming the landing zones of choiwfor the
package-delivery services. In one parcel, c^netr^c.';pey'rcfl>^ngmto^^^
they found a stash of cocaine tucked inside a
machinery part bound from Colombia to a
tiny Iowa hamlet Its population—380.
The white powder that feeds America's
habit still comes in largely through south
Florida routes. For the past four years the
Drug Enforcement Administration has
tried to sever that connection—and the traffic
has scattered like "a cue ball hitting a rack
ofbilliardballs,"saysU.S. Attorney Charles
Lewis, who heads the president's drug task
force in the Gulf Coast region. As much as
one-third of cocaine bound for the United
States now comes throu^ Mexico, and the
Texas. Arizona and California borders are
proving as porous to the flow of drugs as they
arc to the flow of illegal immigrants. Still
more cocaine is flown or shipped directly to
New York, the Midwest, the Southeast and
ports on both coasts. And the shifting dunes
22
Texas and California and they're landing
wherever they can," says Los Angeles nwcotics
detective Gene Stephens. With a refueling
stop in the Bahamas or other islands,
aircraft from South and Central America
can fly into rural Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama,
Kentucky and the Carolinas, landing
at hundreds of tiny airstrips built with government
industrial-development funds in
the 1960s. "It sort of backfired on us," says
Gordon Miller, regional coordinator for the
organized-crime drug-enforcement task
force in Atlanta. A few flights are even
hazarding remote airstrips in the northern
Rockies, where their cargoes fe^ the lucrative
market among Colorado skiers.
Fa,-h timea new entry point is discovered,
agentt have been quick to make arrese.
Cocaine seizures have doubled annu^ly in
Iowa and increased 29-fold in Texas in the
NEWSWEEK/FEBRUARY 25. 1985
lllct'» cu» biH hitting • rack of billiird billt'
last two yean. "We're making seizures at
historic levels," says Lewis, whose task
force numbers 149 people. "But the drug
cartels are also making historic efforts to
continue pumping drugs into our society."
Increasingly, the Colombian dealers who
dominate those cartels are settling down in
U.S. communities—particularly those with
large Latin populations or wealthy residents
where they can live inconspicuously. Marin
County, north of San Frandsco, is a favorite
ofbig'timedrug runners." You can go in and
buy a Mercedes with cash and you're not
going to stand out," says DEA spedal agent
Mike Fiorentino. Central Falls, R.I., with a
large Colombian community, has become
"the cocaine capital of New ^gland," authorities
say. And, laments police detective
Michael >^iiite, "The cocaine has brought
prostitution, robbery and violence."
Another alarming trend in the stateside
cocaine war is the partnershipof the Colombians
and older organized crime families.
Air surveillance: Record seizures, record volume
Italian Mafia chieftains once content to sell
heroin to black and Puerto Rican ghetto
residents "looked around and saw these Colombians
making a ton of money selling
cocaine to everyone and realized they had to
marry up," says Ronald Caffrey of the DEA
in New York. The Mafia, in turn, has provided
the Colombians with larger distribution
networks—and more sophisticated
money-laundering schemes, such as realestate
investments, limited partnerships and
blind trusts in foreign banlu, safe from confiscation.
"The trust buys their home, the
trust owns their BMW and the trust has an
account at Gumps," sighs John Gibbons of
the U.S. attomey'sofficein San Francisco.
Ghit: Changing patterns in cocaine consumption
worry authorities almost as much
as the proliferating supply lines. The world
cocaine glut has brought prices down—a
gram of cocaine now sells for about $50 in
New York City, less than an ounce of marijuana—
and what was once
a recreational drug for affluent
Yuppies is increasingly
prevalent among
middle- and lower-income
wage earners as well. According
to government estimates,
25 miUion Americans
have tried cocaine
and 5 to 10 million use it at
least once a month. But
Dr. Arnold Washton, cofounder
of a national
cocaine hot line (800-COCAINE)
insists those estimates
are low and that another
5,000 Americans try
cocaine for the first time
every day. Although the
typical user is still a 30-
year-old white male earning
$25,000 a year, use is
increasing among women,
rural residents and young
people—in part, experts
say. because of its glamorous
image. "Every day we read about another
celebrity or top athlete involved with
cocaine," says Dr. Larry Kroll, clinical director
of "Lifeline," a new treatment program
in Chicago. "It has a lot of glitter."
The popularity stems largely from the
perception that cocaine provides a
safe, nonaddictive high. But that benign
image is fast eroding. The National
Institute on Drug Abuse last
year declared cocaine to be a "powerfully
addictive" substance—and re-
. searchershavelinkeditsusetocardiac
1 arrests, seizures, respiratory ailments
S and other serious health problems.
According to the NIDA, the number
of cocaine-related illnesses treated at
some hospital emergency rooms has
more than doubled since 1980, and
deaths involving cocaine have nearly
tripled. Medical experts say the risks
are cumulative and increase when cocaine
is injected or smoked—and rise
-•k
A holding pen: Stiffar penalties
precipitously when mixed with other drugs,
as the deaths of John Belushi and David
Kennedy showed.
As the hazards become more apparent,
more users are seeking help for their addictions.
Washton's hot line, begun in 1983,
receives as many as 1,200 calls a day. In Los
Angeles alone, there are some 70 counseling
centers. The DEA is working with highschool
coaches and professional athletes to
warn young people of cocaine's dangers.
StilL ^ere is a Mortage of detoxification
programs. In Texas, some desperate addicts
who can't afford private treatment centers
have turned to what one clinic director calls
the "pop-a-cop" program: "You slug a cop
and they throw you in jail where you can detox
for a couple of weeks," John Cleveland,
head of Houston's Alternative House told
The Houston Post.
There is no shortage of suggestions on
how the nation's cocaine problem might be
curbed. Law-enforcement
agents are clamoring for
more money and manpower.
At a meeting in
New Orleans last month,
five Southern governors
urged the Reagan administration
to install radar
along the Gulf Coast
that might spot low-flying
planes. But many experts
think the tide won't be
turned until the penalties
are stiffened for those traffickers
who are nabbed. In
California, the maximum
sentence for conspiracy to
distribute cocaine is five
years in prison. "A guy we
convict with 350 pounds
may only do 2Vi years
in prison," says Robert
Schiro of the narcotics division
of the Los Angeles
district attorney's office.
"Ifyoucomeoutamillionaire,
that doesn't seem so bad." Federal
penalties are stiffer—sometimes including
confiscation of assets. But some savvy defendants
are pleading guilty to local charges
to avoid entering the federal system.
UKIK With their hands full trying to
locate cocaine dealers, law-enforcement
agents make little attempt to prosecute or
even arrest cocaine consumers. "If we tried
to target users, we'd be treading water—
there are so many users, we'd accomplish
nothing," says John Ryle, commander of
the Chicago Police Department's narcotics
section. Yet some experts believe that the
only way to win the cocaine battle is to put
pressureon the purchasers. "This war has to
be fought in the minds of citizens of our
country—it's they who spend billions of
dollars consuming these drugs," says U.S.
Attorney Lewis. "They're paying for bribery.
murder and corruption." And that's too
steep a price for any kind of high.
MELINDA BECK WITH BURATU REPORU
SI .
NEWSWEEK/FEBRUARY 25. 1985 23 23
FEDERAL EFFORTS TO CONTROL ILLICIT DRUG TRAFFIC
UPDATED 05/06/85
BY
Harry. Hogan
Government Division
Congressional Research Service
CONGRESSIONAL
RESEARCH
SERVICE
THE LIBRARY
OF CONGRESS
0506
CRS- 1 IB84011 UPDATE-05/06/85
ISSUE DEFINITION
Suppression of illicit traffic is only one aspect of the general Federal
Government effort to prevent the abuse of narcotics and other dangerous
drugs, but in political significance it is undoubtedly paramount. Various
approaches to the problem have been suggested and tried since the first
explicitly anti-opium law was enacted in 1887. Most recently, in enacting
the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 (P.L. 98-473, Title II), the 9eth
Congress brought to a finish the work of many years on a variety of
significant proposals for the control of crime and illicit drug traffic.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY ANALYSIS
How to prevent the non-medical use of dependence-producing drugs has been
a public policy issue in the United States for well over half a century, but
in the past 20 or so years interest in the question has become especially
marked. During this period, an apparently sharp increase in heroin use in
many inner cities accompanied the widely-reported spread of the abuse of many
other drugs.
On the Federal level, both the Executive Branch and Congress have reacted
to public concern with new initiatives — legislative and administrative
as well as with the expansion of existing programs. Many approaches to the
drug abuse problem have been taken: treatment, education, primary prevention,
and research, in addition to an increase in so-called "law enforcement" or
"supply reduction" efforts.
Budget totals provide a measure of recent growth in the general Federal
commitment to combat drug abuse: spending for all activities for this purpose
rose from $74 million in Fy69 to approximately $1.5 billion in FY84; drug
abuse law enforcement spending went from $37 million to SI.2 billion during
the same period.
In the law enforcement area, the following are among significant issues
that have received attention in recent years and that are addressed by
legislation proposed in the 98th Congress: (1) the appropriate level of
penalties for the more serious trafficking offenses? (2) the use of bail and
other release procedures in the case of accused drug traffickers? (3) ways of
increasing Government seizures of assets involved in or derived from drug
trafficking; (4) problems posed to drug law enforcement by the Exclusionary
Rule? (5) coordination of Federal drug law enforcement efforts, both with
respect to policy formulation and to its implementation? (6) criminal
sentencing in general? (7) ways of securing maximum cooperation from foreign
countries in the control of drug production and trafficking, especially
through the International Narcotics Control program under the Foreign
Assistance Act? and (8) regulatory law changes designed to enhance efforts to
prevent drug diversion.
Proposals for more stringent penalties for drug trafficking raise the
following questions; (1) What are the proper and just penalties for the
offense in question? (2) Even if the offense is seen as justifying a
repressive penalty, would the penalty actually serve the interests of
society? (3) Are heavy penalties an effective crime deterrent? (4)
Regardless of deterrence value, are heavy penalties justified on the grounds
CRS- 2 IB84011 UPDATE-05/06/85
that they remove a danger to the community for a substantial period of time?
(5) Is it the strict statutory penalty or the certainty of punishment that
acts as a crime deterrent? (6) As long as arrest and conviction rates remain
low, do statutory penalties have much impact? (7) Is it wise to limit
judicial discretion in the sentencing process? (8) Is there a solid basis
for the assumption that without mandatory penalties judges fail to impose
appropriate sentences?
Another major theme of the debate over how to stem drug abuse concerns the
actual structure of the Federal effort. The so-called "law enforcement" side
of that effort has undergone a number of reorganizations in recent years, but
questions continue to be raised. These include: (1) Do the Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA) and the Customs Bureau still have jurisdictional
difficulties despite Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1973, which was supposed to
solve this problem? (2) Is there sufficient coordination of Federal law
enforcement efforts in general? (3) Is there sufficient commitment at the
White House level? (4) Should all Federal activities concerned with drug
abuse problems be centered in one agency, as recommended in 1973 by the
National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse? Alternatively, should a
special "drug czar" office be established to formulate policy and to
coordinate activities of all operating drug enforcement agencies? (See
IB83168, "Coordination of Federal Efforts to Control Illicit Drug Traffic";
also Title II, Chapter XIII, of P.L. 98-473.)
A continuing concern of both Congress and the executive branch is how best
to secure the cooperation of other countries in the drug control effort. In
addition to diplomatic maneuvers and the operation of DEA agents overseas,
the United States presently provides direct monetary assistance to a number
of countries for narcotics control purposes. This "International Narcotics
Control Program" was *establ j.shed by a 1971 amendment to the Foreign
Assistance Act; in recent years the program's reauthorization has been
limited to a period of one year at a time. One of the most important of the
efforts initiated has been the poppy eradication operation in Mexico,
involving massive spraying of herbicides during the growing seasons. Until
recently, U.S. officials were highly enthusiastic about the program,
generally crediting it with a substantial decline in the amount of Mexican
heroin coming into the United States. However, there are now signs that
Mexican growers and traffickers have been recapturing a portion of the market
they had lost to Southwest and Southeast Asia (see IB83138, "Asian Drug
Trade; Implications for U.S. Foreign Policy.")
The International Narcotics Control program has been associated with a
number of controversial issues, including those concerned with (1) the level
of influence of Drug Enforcement Administration personnel in shaping the
efforts assisted; (2) direct participation of U.S. law enforcement officials
in foreign drug law enforcement activities; (3) use of U.S.-supplied
equipment and of U.S.-trained personnel for purposes other than drug traffic
control, particularly in support of non-democratic governments, and (4) use
of allegedly harmful herbicides in eradication programs, A related issue is
the general question of the diplomatic "linkage" of U.S. concerns over the
drug problem to all forms of U.S. assistance to, or other accommodation of,
drug source countries.
The 98th Congress saw the culmination of many years of work on a number of
general anti-crime measures as well as on several that are specifically aimed
at the drug problem. The principal enactment was an omnibus crime control
"package," consisting of twenty three titles (or "chapters") dealing with a
broad range of matters pertaining to criminal justice and procedure. Based
CRS- 3 IB84011 UPDATE-05/06/85
on an amended Administration bill that passed the Senate in February 1984 (S.
1762) , the final version -- which was attached to a continuing appropriations
bill (H.J.Res. 548; P.L. 98-473) — contained many amendments and additions
reflecting positions developed in the House.
In addition to the omnibus legislation, 98th Congress enactments included
a bill designed to deter robbery and theft of dangerous drugs from pharmacies
(P.L. 98-305), a bill to ban methaqualone (P.L. 98-329), and Federal Aviation
Act amendments to deter the use of aircraft for drug trafficking (P.L.
98-499).
98th Congress
P.L. 98-329, H.R. 4201
Transfers methaqualone from Schedule II to Schedule I under the Controlled
Substances Act. Introduced Oct. 24, 1983; referred to Energy and Commerce.
Reported Nov. 10 (H.Rept. 98-534). Passed House Nov. 16. In Senate,
referred to judiciary, Nov. 16, 1983. Reported Apr. 5, 1984 (no written
report). Passed Senate June 15, 1984. Approved June 29, 1984.
P.L. 98-499, S. 1146
Amends the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 to provide for (1) the revocation
of airman certificates of persons convicted of a violation of a State or
Federal law relating to controlled substances and (2) additional penalties
for the transportation by aircraft of controlled substances. H.R. 1580
introduced Feb. 22, 1983; referred to Public Works and Transportation.
Reported, amended, June 29, 1984 (H.Rept. 98-883). S. 1146 passed in lieu,
July 24. S. 1146 introduced Apr. 26, 1983; referred to Commerce, Science,
and Transportation. Reported Sept. 15 (S.Rept. 98-228). Passed Senate,
amended, Sept. 27. Referred to House Committee on Public Works and
Transportation, Sept. 28, 1983. Passed House, amended, July 24, 1984;
conference requested by House. Conference agreed to by Senate, Sept. 6,
1984. Senate agreed to conference report Oct. 2; -House agreed Oct. 4.
Approved Oct. 19, 1984.
o H.R. 4028 (Hughes, Sawyer, Smith of Fla., and Oilman) [Related bills:
H.R. 3326, S. 1787)
o Establishes an Office of Drug Enforcement Coordination in the Executive
Office of the President. Vice-President, may be appointed Director;
otherwise, appointment must be approved by the senate. Authorizes the
director to establish policy and priorities for all Federal drug law
enforcement functions and to coordinate and oversee such functions. Among
specific powers provided is review of all annual budgets of departments and
agencies engaged in such functions. H.R. 3664 introduced July 26, 1983;
referred jointly to the Committees on the Judiciary and on Energy and
Commerce. H.R. 4028, a clean bill in lieu of H.R. 3664, introduced Sept. 29,
1983; referred jointly to the Committees on the Judiciary and on Energy and
Commerce. Reported (amended) sept. 11, 1984. Passed House Sept. 11, 1984.
o H.R. 4901 (Hughes, Sawyer, Fish et al.) (Related bills: Titles IV and
VII of S. 829/H.R. 2151, Title II of S. 830, S. 948, Titles III and V of • S.
CRS- 4 IB84011 UPDATE-05/06/85
1762)
o Amends the Controlled Substances Act, the Controlled Substances Import
and Export Act, and the Tariff Act of 1930 to improve forfeiture provisions
and to strengthen penalties (fines) for controlled substance offenses, and
for other purposes. H.R. 3299 introduced June 14, 1983; referred jointly to
the Committees on the Judiciary, Energy and Commerce, and Ways and Means.
Clean bill, H.R. 4901, introduced Feb. 22, 1984; referred to same 3
committees. Reported, amended, by Judiciary, June 19 (H.Rept. 98-045, Pt.
I). Reported, amended, by Ways and Means, Aug. 10 (H.Rept. 98-845, Pt. II).
Passed House Sept. 11, 1984. Included also in H.R. 5690, which passed House
Oct. 3, 1984. Similar provisions included in H.J.Res. 648 as signed into law
Oct. 12, 1984 (P.L. 98-473).
H.R. 5290 (Uaxman et al.)
Establishes a temporary program under which heroin would be made
available, through qualified pharmacists, for the relief of pain from cancer.
H.R. 4762 introduced Feb. 6, 1984; referred to Energy and Commerce. Clean
bill, H.R. 5290, approved for full committee, March 21. Reported April 12
(H.Rept. 98-689). Failed of passage Sept. 19, 1984.
o H.R. 5656 (Hughes, Sawyer)
o Dangerous Drug Diversion Control Act of 1984. [see digest of Title vii.
Part B, of S. 1762/H.R. 2151, below]. Introduced Jan. 31, 1984; referred
jointly to Committees on the Judiciary and on Energy and Commerce. H.R.
5656, clean bill in lieu of H.R. 4698, introduced May 15; referred jointly to
Judiciary and to Energy and Commerce. Reported by Judiciary June 12 (H.Rept.
98-835, Pt. I). Passed House Sept. 18. Also included as part of H.J.Res.
648,_ which passed House Sept. 25. Contained in final version of H.J.Res.
648, as signed into law Oct. 12, 1984 (P.L. 98-473).
H.R. 5990 (Rangel, Oilman et al.)/S. 2866 (Moynihan, D'Amato et al.)
State and Local Narcotics Control Assistance Act of 1984. Establishes a
program of formula grants to States for the purpose of increasing the level
of State and local enforcement of State laws relating to production, illegal
possession, and transfer of controlled substances — to be administered by
the Attorney General. Establishes a program of formula grants to States for
the purpose of increasing the ability of States to provide drug abuse
prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation «•- to be administered by the
Secretary of Health and Human Services. Authorizes total appropriations of
$750 million annually in fiscal years 1986 through 1990, of which $625
million would be allocated to the law enforcement program. Introduced June
29, 1984; referred jointly to Judiciary and to Energy and Commerce. s. 2866
introduced July 25, 1984; referred to Judiciary.
0 H.R. 6031 (Related bill.: Title XII Of S. 1762)
o Money Laundering Penalties Act of 1984. Amends the Currency and Foreign
Transaction Reporting Act to make it more difficult to transfer or transport
out of the country currency derived from drug trafficking. Introduced July
26, 1984; referred jointly to Judiciary and to Banking, Finance and Urban
Affairs. Reported, amended, by Judiciary Aug. 17 (H.Rept. 98-984). Passed
CRS- 5 IB84011 UPDATE-05/06/85
House Sept. 10, 1984.
H.Res. 49 (Rangei and Gilman)
Provides for the continuance of the Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse
and Control. Introduced Jan. 31, 1983; referred to Rules. Reported March 7
(H.Rept. 98-4). Passed March 8, 1983.
o S. 215 (Thurmond, Biden et al.)/H.R. 5865 (Sawyer) (Related bills: H.R.
1098, Title II of S. 117, S. 406, Title I of S. 1762 and H.R. 2151, Title II
of S. 830, H.R. 3005)
o Amends the Bail Reform Act of 1966 to permit consideration of danger to
the community in setting pretrial release conditions, to expand the list of
statutory release conditions, to establish a more appropriate basis for
deciding on postconviction release, and for other purposes. introduced Jan.
27, 1983; referred to Judiciary. Reported May 25, 1983 (S.Rept. 98-147).
Passed Senate amended, Feb. 3, 1984. In House, referred to Judiciary, Feb.
7. Clean bill H.R. 5865 reported to full committee in lieu of H.R. 3005 June
14, 1984. H.R. 5865 reported Oct. 1, 1984 (H.Rept. 98-1121).
o P.L. 98-305, S. 422 (Related bills: S. 1762, Title X, Part N; H.R.
2944)
o Makes it a Federal offense to rob a pharmacy of a drug controlled under
the Federal Controlled Substances Act. s. 422 introduced Feb. 3, 1983;
referred to Judiciary. Reported, amended, Feb. 8, 1984 (S.Rept. 98-353).
Passed Senate, amended, Feb. 23. In House, referred to Judiciary, Feb. 27.
House Judiciary discharged and bill called up by unanimous consent. May 8.
Passed House, amended. Hay 8. Senate agreed to House amendment. Hay 17.
Approved May 31, 1984 (P.L. 98-305). H.R. 5222 introduced Mar. 22, 1984;
referred to Judiciary. Reported March 30 (H.Rept. 98-644). Passed House
April 2. In Senate, referred to Judiciary Apr. 2, 1984.
S. 503 (Humphrey et al.)
Makes it unlawful to manufacture, distribute, or possess with intent to
distribute, a drug that is an imitation of a controlled substance or a drug
that purports to act like a controlled substance- Introduced Feb. 16, 1983;
referred jointly to Judiciary and to Labor and Human Resources.
S. 1143 (Hawkins) (Related bill: S. 813)
Conditions U.S. assistance to any country that is a major producer of
opium, coca, or marihuana on reductions by that country in the levels of such
production. Introduced Apr. 26, 1983; referred to Foreign Relations. [More
detailed version included in the Department of State Authorization Act, FY84
and FY85,H.R. 2915, P.L. 98-164 (Nov. 22, 1983)]
o P.L. 98-473, H.J.Res. 648
o Title II: Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984. The following are
CRS- 6 IB84011 UPDATE-05/06/85
the more significant chapters or provisions of the title in relation to
dangerous drug control:
o Chapter I. Bail. Amends the Bail Reform Act of 1966 to (1) permit
danger to the community to be considered in determining whether to release an
accused individual pending trial, or, if release is appropriate, in
determining conditions for release and (2) increase penalties for jumping
bail (and for other related purposes).
o Chapter II. Sentencing Reform. Creates a determinate sentencing
system, with no parole and limited good time credits. Establishes a
sentencing commission, to be responsible for formulating guidelines to be
used by the courts in determining appropriate sentences.
o Chapter III. Forfeiture. Amends both 18 U.S.C. 1963 (a provision of
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) and the Controlled
Substances Act to (1) provide for the criminal forfeiture of the proceeds of
racketeering or drug trafficking activity, (2) establish the sanction of
criminal forfeiture for all felony drug offenses, (3) in general facilitate
forfeitures in drug-related and racketeering cases, and (4) raise the ceiling
on the value of property subject to administrative forfeiture (uncontested)
-- from $10,000 to $100,000. (See also sec. 213 of P.L. 98-573, Trade and
Tariff Act of 1984.)
° Chapter v. Drug Enforcement Amendments. Part A. Controlled substance
penalties. Amends both the Controlled Substances Act and the Controlled
Substances Import and Export Act to (1) increase the maximum prison penalties
for trafficking in large (specified) amounts of an opiate, cocaine,
phencyclidine (PCP), or LSD; (2) increase the fine level for trafficking in
any controlled substance; (3) increase prison penalties and fines for
trafficking in any amount of most non-narcotic substances in Schedules I or
II (includes LSD and PCP); (4) increase penalties for trafficking in
marihuana in amounts ranging from 50 to 454 kilograms; and (5) permit State
and foreign felony drug convictions to be considered under the enhanced
sentencing provisions for repeat drug offenders. Part B. Diversion control
amendments. Among other things, (1) provides for new emergency authority to
bring an uncontrolled substance under temporary control; (2) increases
regulatory authority of the Drug Enforcement Admini-stration over
practitioners (e.g., expands authority to revoke or suspend registrations);
(3) simplifies practitioner registration requirements (allowing a 3-year
life-span if determined appropriate); (4) expands reporting requirements for
drug distributors; (5) clarifies the control of isomers; and (6) authorizes a
program of grants to State and local governments to assist them in the
suppression of diversion of controlled substances from legitimate medical,
scientific, and commercial channels.
° Ci^apter IX. Foreign Currency Transaction Amendments• Amends the
Currency and Foreign Transaction Reporting Act to make it more difficult to
transfer or transport out of the country currency derived from drug
trafficking.
o Chapter X. Miscellaneous Violent Crime Amendments. Part A. Extends
existing Federal jurisdiction over contract killings and violence related to
racketeering where travel across State lines is involved.
o Part B. Creates sanctions for the offense of soliciting the commission
of a crime of violence.
CRS- 7 IB84011 UPDATE-05/06/85
o Chapter XI. Serious yonviolent Offenses. Part C. Makes it an offense
to warn anyone that his property is about to be searched by Federal'
authorities.
o Chapter XII. Procedural Amendments. Part A. Prosecution of certain
juveniles as adults. Amends the juvenile delinquency chapter of title 18,
U.S. Code, to lower the age at which certain violent or otherwise illegal
acts would be considered crimes if committed by an adult, and generally
modifies provisions that allow for special handling of juveniles, to
encourage adult treatment of offenders charged with crimes of violence or
drug trafficking offenses.
o Part F. Witness protection. Explicitly authorizes witness relocation
and protection and provides a procedure for handling civil claims filed
against protected witnesses.
o Chapter XIII. National Narcotics Act. See digest of S. 1787, below.
o Chapter XXIII. Authorizes judges to fine a drug or racketeering
offender up to twice the gross profits from his enterprise in lieu of the
fine specified for the offense in question. Authorizes the use of the
proceeds of sale of forfeited property to be used for maintenance and
rehabilitation of seized property and for the purchase of evidence.
o BILL AS PASSED OMITS EXCLUSIONARY RULE AND EXTRADITION PROVISIONS OF
ORIGINAL BILL (S. 829/H.R. 2151) AS WELL AS OTHERS THAT ARE NOT INCLUDED IN
THE ABOVE DIGEST. TITLES AND PARTS WERE RENUMBERED ACCORDINGLY.
o The original Senate bill, S. 829, introduced Mar. 16, 1983; referred to
Judiciary. S. 1762 (clean bill in lieu of S. 829) reported Aug. 4 (no
written report). Written report filed by Judiciary, Sept. 14, 1983 (S.Rept.
98-225.) Referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations until Sept. 20,
1983, for the purpose only of considering certain aspects of part M of Title
X (relating to extradition). Reported to Senate by Senator Percy with
amendments Sept. 20 (no written report). Committee on Foreign Relations
filed written report Sept. 26, 1983 (Rept. 98-241). Passed Senate, amended,
Feb. 2, 1984. Contents of Senate-passed bill (introduced in House June 28,
1984, as H.R. 5963) included in H.J.Res. 648, which passed House Sept. 25.
Amended version included in H.J.Res. 648 as passed by Senate Oct. 4.
Conference report on H.J.Res. 548 agreed to by House and Senate Oct. 10.
H.J.Res. 648 signed into law Oct. 12, 1984 (P.L. 98-473). H.R. 2151
introduced Mar. 16, 1983; referred to Judiciary.
o S. 1764 (Thurmond, Laxalt et al.) (Related bills: S. 101, Title III of
S. 829/H.R. 2151)
o Narrows the application, in Federal criminal proceedings, of the Fourth
Amendment "exclusionary rule" requiring suppression of improperly seized
evidence, by allowing admission where the officers making the seizure were
proceeding upon a "reasonable, good faith belief" that they were acting
properly. Introduced Aug. 4, 1983; referred to Judiciary. Reported without
amendment Aug. 4. Written report filed Jan. 26, 1984 (S.Rept. 98-350).
Passed Senate Feb. 7. In House, referred to Committee on the Judiciary, Feb.
8, 1984.
CRS- 8 IB84011 UPDATE-05/06/85
o S. 1787 (Bi«36n et al.)
o National Narcotics Act of 1983. Creates a "National Drug Enforcement
Policy Boara," to be chaired by the Attorney General and to be comprised of
various cabinet-level officials and others as may be appointed by the
President. Gives Board specific authorities aimed at facilitating
coordination of U.S. operations and policy on drug law enforcement
including the authority to review, evaluate, and develop budgetary
priorities. Prohibits interference by Board with "routine law enforcement or
intelligence decisions of any agency." Introduced Aug. 4, 1983; referred to
Judiciary. Reported, without amendment, August 4. Written report filed Oct.
25 (S.Rept. 98-278). (Contents of bill added by floor amendment on Oct. 26,
1983, to H.R. 3959, a supplemental appropriation bill that passed the Senate
Oct. 27, 1983. Amendment dropped in conference.) Passed Senate, amended,
Feb. 7, 1984. In House, referred jointly to Committees on the Judiciary and
Energy and commerce, Feb. 9, 1984. Included in H.J.Res. 648 as passed by
both House and Senate. Conference report on H.J.Res. 648 approved by House
and Senate Oct. 10, 1984. H.J.Res. 648 signed into law Oct. 12, 1984 (P.L.
98-473).
o S. 2582 (Percy)/H.R. 5119 (Fascell)
o International Security and Development Cooperation Act of 1984. For the
international narcotics control program under the Foreign Assistance Act,
authorizes $50.2 million for FY85. S. 2346 introduced Feb. 27, 1984;
referred to Foreign Relations. Provisions incorporated into S. 2582,
reported Apr. 18 (S.Rept. 98-400). H.R. 5119 introduced March 14; referred
to Foreign Affairs. Reported March 21 (H.Rept. 98-628). Committee amendment
in the nature of a substitute considered as an original bill for the purpose
of amendment. May 10. Passed House, amended. Hay 10. In Senate, placed on
Senate Legislative Calendar, May 16.
o S. 2606 (Thurmond and Biden)/H.R. 5468 (Rodino) (Related bill: H.R.
5528)
o Department of Justice Authorization Act, FY85. For the Drug Enforcement
Administration, authorizes appropriations of $334.7 million for FY85.
Provides general authorities for DEA. Authorizes the setting aside of funds,
derived from forfeitures, to pay awards for information leading to such
forfeitures. Provides certain specific authorities to the DEA in respect to
the conduct of undercover operations. S. 2606 introduced Apr. 30, 1984;
referred to Judiciary. Ordered to be reporj:ed with an amendment in the
nature of a substitute. May 10. Reported May 25 (S.Rept. 98-498). .Passed
Senate, amended, June 15, 1984. H.R. 5468 introduced Apr. 12, 1984; referred
to Judiciary. Reported, amended. May 15 (H.Rept. 98-759).
LEGISLATION
99th Congress
[Does not include appropriation and routine appropriation authorization
bills unless there are provisions of interest relating to other than funding
CRS- 9 IB84011 UPDATE-05/06/85
levels.]
H.R. 440 (San B. Hall, Jr.)
Amends the Federal Tort Claims Act to make the United States liable for
the constitutional torts of Federal employees arising out of the discharge of
official duties. Provides a remedy for constitutional torts committed by
Federal employees in the course of carrying out official duties; makes such
remedy exclusive of any other civil action based on the same conduct.
Introduced Jan. 3, 1985; referred to Judiciary. (Related bills: S. 492, H.R.
570)
H.R. 526 (Rangel et al.)/S. 15 (Moynihan et al.)
State and Local Narcotics Control Assistance Act of 1984. Establishes a
program of formula grants to States for the purpose of increasing the level
of State and local enforcement of State laws relating to production, illegal
possession, and transfer of concrolled substances -- to be administered by
the Attorney General. Establishes a program of formula grants to States for
the purpose of increasing the ability of States to provide drug abuse
prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation -- to be administered by the
Secretary of Health and Human services. Authorizes total appropriations of
$750 million annually in fiscal years 1986 through 1990, of which $625
million would be allocated to the law enforcement program. H.R. 526
introduced Jan. 7, 1985; referred jointly to Judiciary and to Energy and
Commerce. S. 15 introduced Jan. 3, 1985; referred to Labor and Human
Resources.
H.R. 1307 (English)/S. 531 (DeConcini et al.)
Readiness Enhancement of Air Force Reserve Special Operations Act of
1985. Authorizes establishment of a Special Operations Wing of the Air Force
Reserve, principally for support of the civilian drug interdiction mission
during peacetime. Makes permanent the Defense Department's Task Force on
Drug Law Enforcement. Authorizes such sums as may be necessary for these
purposes and requires the Secretary of Defense to submit a report on the
manner in which appropriated funds are to be spent. H.R. 1307 introduced
Feb. 27, 1985; referred to Armed Services. S. 531 introduced Feb. 27, 1985;
referred to Armed Services.
H.R. 1367 (McCullom)
Money Laundering Act of 1985. Makes it a Federal criminal offense to
assist in the "laundering" of money derived from unlawful activity or to do
so in the furtherance of unlawful activity; authorizes imprisonment of up to
5 years and/or a fine of up to $250,000 or twice the value of the amount
involved in the laundering, for first offenders, and double for second
offenders. Amends the Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act to
broaden the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury to obtain information
for the purpose of ensuring compliance with the Act and to permit him to make
available to other Federal agencies information filed in certain reports
required by the Act. Authorizes wiretaps to investigate offenses involving
prohibited transactions in monetary instruments or failure to comply with
recordkeeping and reporting requirements in connection with such
transactions. Amends the Right to Financial Privacy Act to permit financial
institutions to disclose to a Government authority whatever information they
deem relevent to a possible violation of a statute or regulation, without
having to wait for the opening of a formal investigation and compliance with
the procedures otherwise required under the Act. Introduced Feb. 28, 1985;
CRS-10 IB84011 UPDATE-05/06/85
referred jointly to Judiciary and to Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs.
(Related bills: S. 572, H.R. 1474. Note that S. 572, introduced by Senator
D'Amato and others, is identical to Title I of H.R. 1367.)
H.R. 1597 (waxman et al.)/S. 70 (Inouye)
Compassional Pain Relief Act. Establishes a temporary program under which
the narcotic drug heroin would be made available, through approved
pharmacies, for the relief of pain from cancer. H.R. 1597 introduced Mar.
19, 1985; referred to Energy and Commerce. S. 70 introduced Jan. 3, 1985;
referred to Labor and Human Resources.
H.R. 1768 (Fascell et al.)/S. 766 (Chiles et al.)
International Narcotics control Act of 1985. Requires the Secretary of
State to conduct a study of the feasibility of establishing a regional
organization in Latin America for combatting narcotics production and
trafficking. Directs the Secretary of State to issue a travel advisory
warning U.S. citizens of the dangers of traveling in Mexico — to remain in
effect until those responsible for the recent murder of a u.s.narcotics agent
have been brought to trial and a verdict has been rendered. Requires a
presidential report on the possible further utilization of the Armed Forces
in the suppression of narcotics traffic. Requires annual reports on the
involvement of communist countries in illicit drug traffic. Allows direct
participation in arrests and interrogation, by U.S. law enforcement
officials, in cases where the U.S. and the country involved so agree. Calls
for negotiations with Brazil to conclude a narcotics control agreement,
featuring a reduction in coca production. Requires assistance to Bolivia -to
be conditioned on the taking of specified anti-drug measures by the Bolivian
Government. Requires review of the Agency for international Development
project for the upper Huallaga Valley, in Peru, in terms of its effectiveness
in reducing coca leaf production and marketing. Conditions assistance to
Jamaica on the taking of certain anti-drug measures by the Jamaican
Government- Conditions U.S. contributions to the U.N. Fund for Drug Abuse
Control on the inclusion of law enforcement cooperation plans in the agency's
crop substitution projects. Prohibits the use of foreign assistance funds
for reimbursement of persons whose illicit drug crops are eradicated.
Requires 'Cost-sharing in international narcotics control programs funded
under the Foreign Assistance Act. Specifies certain measures to be taken to
ensure that foreign narcotics traffickers are denied visas to enter the U.S.
Amends the Controlled Substances Act to require mandatory lifetime
imprisonment for certain convicted drug offenders ("dangerous special
offenders"). Amends the Currency and Foreign Transaction Reporting Act to
increase penalties for reporting violations. H.R. 1768 introduced Mar. 27,
1985; referred jointly to Foreign Affairs and Judiciary. S. 766 introduced
Mar. 28, 1985; referred to Foreign Relations^
S. 237 (Thurmond et al.)
Narrows the application, in Federal criminal proceedings, of the Fourth
Amendment "exclusionary rule" requiring suppression of improperly seized
evidence, by allowing admission where the officers making the seizure were
proceeding upon a "reasonable, good faith belief" that they were acting
properly. Introduced Jan. 22, 1985; referred to Judiciary. (Related bills
S. 29)
S. 515 (D'Amato et al.)
Directs the President to conduct a comprehensive review of U.S. policy
toward Bulgaria, specifically with respect to that country's involvement in
CRS-11 IB84011 UPDATE-05/06/85
international drug trafficlcing, gun-running, and terrorism. Introduced Feb.
26, 1985; referred to Foreign Relations.
S. 630 (Hawkins)/H.R. 2013 (Rangel and Oilman)
Provides for the payment of rewards to individuals providing information
leading to the arrest and conviction of persons guilty of killing or
kidnapping a Federal drug law enforcement agent. Introduced Kar. 7, 1985;
referred to Judiciary. Called up for committee discharge in Senate, March
20. Passed Senate, March 20. Referred to House Judiciary Committee, March
25. H.R. 2013 introduced Apr. 4, 1985; referred to Judiciary.
S. 708 (DeConcini, Chiles, Hawkins, and Denton)
Amends the Foreign Assistance Act to permit certain law enforcement
actions, presently prohibited by the "Mansfield Amendment", by U.S. agents
overseas. Introduced Mar. 20, 1985; referred to Foreign Relations- (Related
bills: H-R. 962, sec. 6 of H.R. 1768)
S. 713 (Wilson)
Prohibits the interstate mail order and catalog sale, and shipment, of
specified paraphernalia associated with the non-therapeutic use of drugs.
Introduced Mar. 20, 1985; referred to Judiciary.
S. 746 (Chiles)
Requires the National Drug Enforcement Policy Board to provide a
comprehensive assessment of the "designer drug" problem and make
recommendations to Congress for necessary legislation. Introduced Mar. 26,
1995; referred to Judiciary.
S. 772 (D'Amato and Hawkins)
Requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to prepare a report on
the health effects of cocaine use. introduced Mar. 28, 1985; referred to
Labor and Human Resources.
S. 790 (Hawkins et al.)
Provides for the termination of all U.S. economic and military assistance
for Bolivia unless the Bolivian Government eradicates 10% of the country's
coca production. Introduced Mar. 28, 1985; referred to Foreign Relations.
S. 850 (Thurmond and Grassley)
Creates a Federal criminal offense for operating or directing the
operation of a common carrier while intoxicated or under the influence of
drugs. Introduced Apr. 3, 1985; referred to Judiciary.
HEARINGS
U.S. Congress. House. committee on Foreign Affairs. Task Force on
International Narcotics Control. U.S. response to Cuban government
involvement in narcotics trafficking and review of
worldwide illicit narcotics situation. Hearings...
98th Congress, 2d session. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print.
CRS-12 IB84011 UPDATE-05/06/85
Off., 1984. 316 p.
U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Government Operations. subcommittee
on Government Information, Justice, and Agriculture. Review
of the Administration's Drug Interdiction Efforts.
Hearings... 98th Congress, 1st session. Washington, U.S.
Govt. Print. Off., 1983. 589 p.
U.S. Congress. House. Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse and
Control.
Bail reform and narcotics cases. Hearing, 97th Congress, 1st
session. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1981. 117 p.
Cocaine: a major drug issue of the seventies.
Hearings, 96th congress, 1st session. Washington,
U.S. Govt. Print. Off-, 1980. 142 p.
DEA/FBl reorganization. Hearing, 97th Congress, 2d session.
Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1982. 37 p.
Federal drug strategy-1981• Hearing, 97th congress, 1st
session. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1982. 54 p.
----- Financial investigation of drug
trafficking. Hearing, 97th Congress,
1st session. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1981. 150 p.
Sentencing practices and alternatives in narcotics cases. Hearing,
97th Congress, 1st session. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off.,
1981. 108 p.
U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Government Operations.
Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.
Illegal narcotics profits. Hearings, 96th congress, 1st
session. December 1979. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off.,
1980. 507 p.
Crime and secrecy: the use of offshore banks
and companies. Hearings... 98th Congress, 1st
session. Washington, U;S. Govt. Print. Off.,
1983. 442 p.
International narcotics trafficking. Hearings... 97th congress,
1st session. November 1981. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off.,
1981. 630 p.
U.S. Congress. senate. Committee on the Judiciary.
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice. Forfeiture of narcotics
proceeds. Hearings, 96th congress, 2d session. Washington,
U.S. Govt, Print. Off., 1981. 165 p.
—--- Subcommittee on Security and Terrorism. The Cuban Government's
involvement in facilitating international drug traffic. Joint
hearing before the Subcommittee and the Subcommittee on Western
Hemisphere Affairs... and the Senate Drug Enforcement Caucus,
98th Congress, 1st session. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off.,
1983. 687 p.
CRS-13 IB84011 UPDATE-05/06/85
REPORTS AND CONGRESSIONAL DOCUMENTS
U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Government Operations.
[Dis]approving Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1973 (Drug
Enforcement Administration); report to accompany H.Res. 382.
Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off,, 1973. 30 p, (93d Congress,
1st session. House. Report no. 93-228)
• Military assistance to civilian narcotics law enforcement:
an interim report. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off.,
1982. 23 p. (97th Congress, 2d session. House. Report
no. 97-921)
U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce. Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control
Act of 1970; report to accompany H.R. 18583. Washington,
U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1970. (91st Congress, 2d session.
House. Report no. 91-1444) 2 parts.
House. Committee on the Judiciary. Criminal Code Revision Act of
1980. Report to accompany H.R. 6915. Washington, U.S. Govt.
Print. Off., 1980. 758 p. (96th Congress, 2d session. House.
Report no. 96-1396)
U.S. Congress. House. Select committee on Narcotics Abuse
and Control. Investigation of narcotics trafficking and
money laundering in Chicago, Washington, U.S. Govt. Print.
Off., February 1978. 43 p.
At head of title: 95th Congress, 1st session. Committee
print.
"Serial no. SCNAC-95-1-16"
---— Cultivation and eradication of illicit domestic
marihuana. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1984. 87 p.
At head of title: 98th Congress, 1st session.
Committee print.
"Serial no. SCNAC 98-1-9"
----- Efficacy of the Federal drug abuse control strategy:
State and local perspectives. Washington, U.S. Govt.
Print. Off., 1984. 41 p.
At head of title: 98th Congress1st session.
Committee print.
"Serial no. SCNAC-98-1-10"
— International narcotics control study missions to
Latin America and Jamaica... Hawaii, Hong Kong, Thailand,
Burma, Pakistan, Turkey, and Italy... Washington, U.S.
Govt. Print. Off., 1984. 217 p.
At head of title: 98th Congress, 1st session.
Committee print.
"Serial no. SCNAC 98-1-12"
U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Government Operations.
Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. Crime and
CRS-14
>
IB84011 UPDATE-05/06/85
secrecy: the use of offshore hanks and companies.
Staff study. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1983.
253 p.
At head of title: 98th Congress, 1st session.
Committee print.
----- Illegal narcotics profits. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print
Off., 1980 144 p. (96th Congress, 2d session. Senate
Report no. 96-887)
U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Government Operations.
Suhcommittee on Reorganization, Research, and International
Organizations. Reorganization Plan No. 2, establishing a
Drug Enforcement Administration in the Department of Justice.
Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1973. 58 p. (93d Congress,
1st session. senate. Report no. 93-469)
U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary. Controlled
Dangerous Substances Act of 1969; report to accompany s. 3246.
Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1969. 165 p. (91st Congress,
1st session. Senate. Report no. 91-613)
----- Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1983; report on
S. 1762. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1983.
797 p. (98th Congress, 1st session. Senate. Report
no. 98-225)
Criminal code Reform Act of 1981; report to accompany S. 1630.
Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1982. 1569 p.
(97th Congress, 1st session. Senate. Report no. 97-307)
----- National Narcotics Act of 1983; report to accompany S. 1787.
Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1983. 63 p. (9eth Congress,
1st session. Senate Report no. 98-278)
CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS
10/12/84 -- President signed H.J.Res. 648 into law (P.L. 98-473).
10/10/84 -- House and Senate agreed to a conference report
on H.J.Res. 648, reflecting a number of compromises
on the crime control title and including a number
of additional House-passed proposals.
10/04/84 — Senate passed H.J.Res. 648 wi^h an amended version
of the crime control title included by the House.
10/03/84 — House passed H.R. 5690, adding to it a crime
control package alternative to the one supported
by the Administration.
09/25/84 — House passed H.J.Res. 648, for FY85 continuing
appropriations, and attached the contents of the
Senate-passed crime bill, s. 1762.
09/11/84 — House passed H.R. 4901, to broaden possibilities of
forfeiture of drug trafficker assets and to raise fines for
CRS-15 IB84011 UPDATE-05/06/85
drug trafficking offenses, and also H.R. 4028, an amended
"drug czar" bill.
02/07/84 — Senate passed an amended version of the "drug czar"
bill (S. 1787) after arriving at a compromise acceptable
to tne Administration. Also passed was S. 1764, to limit
the application of the Exclusionary Rule.
02/02/84 — Senate passed (91-1) S. 1762, the Comprehensive Crime Control
Act of 1984.
08/04/83 -- An altered version of the Administration omnibus crime
control bill was reported by the Senate Judiciary committee
(S. 1752). The clean bill omits some of the more
controversial titles of the original proposal, such as those
dealing with the Exclusionary rule and Habeas corpus.
Separate
bills concerning the ommitted matter, as well as one that
would establish a "drug czar" office, were also reported.
The White House announced the creation of a new drug
interdiction group headed by Vice-President George
Bush. To be known as the National Narcotics Border
Interdiction System (NNBIS), it will coordinate
the work of Federal agencies with responsibilities
for interdiction of sea-borne, air-borne and
across-border, importation of narcotics and other
dangerous drugs -- principally the customs service, the
Coast Guard, and the armed services.
e
#
The Administration's omnibus crime control bill was
introduced in both senate and House (S. 829/H.R. 2151).
An alternative bill was introduced by a group of
Senate Democrats, led by members of the Judiciary
Committee (S. 830).
10/14/82 -- President Reagan announced a major new drive against
illicit drug trafficking. The program involves
creation of 12 regional task forces and will reportedly
require the hiring of 1,200 new investigators and
prosecutors.
09/03/82 -- The President approved the Tax Equity and Fiscal
Responsibility Act, which contains provisions designed
to remove impediments to Internal Revenue Service
cooperation with other Federal law enforcement agencies.
The changes are considered to be of special significance
in relation to Federal efforts to curb illicit drug
traffic.
01/28/82 -- President Reagan announced the establishment of a
special task force to combat illicit drug traffic in
South Florida. Composed of officials from a number
of Federal agencies, to work with State and
local authorities, the task force was placed under
the direction of Vice President Bush.
03/23/83 —
03/16/83 —
01/21/82 -- The Attorney General announced that the FBI had been
CRS-16 IB84011 UPDATE-05/06/85
given concurrent jurisdiction with the Drug Enforcement
Agency (DEA) over the investigation of violations of
Federal dangerous drug laws. The DEA Administrator will
report to the Attorney General through the FBI Director.
12/01/81 — The President signed P.L. 97-86, which contains a provision
authorizing certain kinds of cooperation hy the Armed Services
with civilian law enforcement authorities for specific
purposes, including drug law enforcement.
08/19/81 — The final report of the Attorney General's Task Force
on Violent Crime was released. The report
emphasizes the seriousness of illicit drug traffic and
the importance of a clear and consistent enforcement
policy. Recommendations included support of the use
of herbicides for drug crop eradication, support for
Che use of military resources for drug interdiction,
and calls for changes in law and practice with respect
to bail, sentencing, and exclusion of evidence.
07/29/76 — House voted to establish the Select Committee on
Narcotics Abuse and Control, charged with conducting
a general investigation of Federal drug abuse
control efforts and with making recommendations for
appropriate action to the standing committees with
relevant jurisdiction.
07/01/73 -- The Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs and several
other agencies were merged into the Drug Enforcement
Administration, by Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1973.
The new agency absorbed a number of Customs Bureau
officials.
02/07/72 — President signed the Foreign Assistance Act of 1971
(P.L. 92-226), which contained a provision establishing
a program of assistance designed to encouriage
international narcotics control.
10/27/70 -- President signed the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention
and Control Act of 1970, an omnibus bill containing
the Controlled Substances Act, which consolidated and
revised all Federal
laws for the control of narcotics and
other dangerous drugs.
04/08/68 — The Federal Bureau of Narcotics (Treasury Department)
and the Bureau of Drug Abuse Control (HEW) were merged
into a new agency in the Justice Department, the
Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs.
ADDITIONAL REFERENCE SOURCES
Bonnie, Richard J. Marijuana use and criminal sanctions.
Charlottesville, the Michie Company, 1980. 264 p.
Cocaine; the evil empire. Newsweek, v. 105, Feb. 25,
1985: 14-23.
*
CRS-17 IB84011 UPDATE-05/06/85
International narcotics control strategy report, v. i, 1985.
[Washington] U.S. Dept. of State, Bureau of International
Narcotics Hatters, 1985. 240 p.
Iyer, Pico. Fighting the cocaine wars. Time, v. 125, Feb. 25,
1985: 26-33, 35.
Morgan, H. Wayne. Drugs in America. A social history: 1800-1980.
Syracuse, N.Y., Syracuse University press, 1981. 233 p.
National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse. Drug use in
America: problem in perspective. Second report...Washington,
U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1973. 481 p.
— --- Marihuana: a signal of misunderstanding. First
report... Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1972. 184 p.
National Task Force on Cannabis Regulation. The regulation and
taxation of cannabis commerce. [?] December 1982. 64 p.
Reuter, Peter. The (continued) vitality of mythical numbers.
The public interest, spring 1984: 135-147.
Shafer, Jack. The war on drugs is over; the government has
lost. Inquiry, Feb. 1984: 14-20.
U.S. Department of Justice. Attorney General's Task Force on
Violent Crime. Final report. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print.
Off., Aug. 17, 1981. 94 p.
— O f f i c e o f t h e A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l . A n n u a l r e p o r t o f
the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force Program.
Washington [Department of Justice] 1984. 132 p.
U.S. General Accounting Office.
Federal drug interdiction efforts need strong central oversight;
report to the Congress by the Comptroller General of the
United States. [Washington] 1983. 136 p.
"GGD-83-52"
U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service.
Asian drug trade: implications for
U.S. foreign policy [by] Marjorie Niehaus. [Washington]
Aug. 11, 1983.
IB83138
..... Control of Illicit Traffic in Dangerous Drugs
[by] Harry Hogan. [Washington] Sept. 1, 1976.
18 p.
IB76061
..... Coordination of Federal Efforts to Control Illicit Drug Traffic
[by] Harry Hogan. [Washington] Oct. 24, 1983.
IB83168
Federal laws relating to the control of narcotics
and other dangerous drugs, enacted
CRS-18
t
IB84011 UPDATE-05/06/85
1961-1984; brief summaries [by] Harry Hogan. [Washington] #
Nov. 13, 1984. 37 p.
CRS Report 84-200 Gov
—_— Federal Controlled Substances Act (Titles II and III, P.L.
91-513): summary and legislative history [by] Harry Hogan.
[Washington] April 9, 1980- 76 p.
CRS Report 80-74 EPW
Wisotsky, Steven. Exposing the war on cocaine: the futility and
destructiveness of prohibition. Wisconsin law review,
v. 1983, no. 5: 1305-1426.
U.S. National Narcotics Intelligence Consumers Committee.
Narcotics intelligence estimate. The supply of drugs to
the U.S. illicit market from foreign and domestic sources.
Washington [Drug Enforcement Administration] 1978 + (annually)
U.S. President. Office of Policy Development.
Drug Abuse Policy Office. 1984 national strategy for prevention of
drug abuse and drug trafficking. Washington, U.S.
Govt. Print. Off., 1984. 125 p.
SENATE REPUBLICAN BILL
PART I
DRUGS IN THE WORKPLACE
• The Drug Free Federal Workplace Act:
* Makes clear there is nothing in federal law to bar agencies
from disciplinary action against Federal employees who use
illegal drugs.
* Prevents drug abusers from claiming rights and protections
of handicapped pereons solely because of their drug use.
* Instructs 0PM to educate Federal employees about drug
dangers and availability of treatment programs.
SCHOOLS
• The Drug-Free Schools Act aims to create a drug-free learning
environment in the nation's schools through a new program in
the Department of Education, funded at $100 million in FY
1987:
* Schools can require as condition for admission and retention
that students not use illegal drugs.
* Schools can conduct drug testing and take disciplinary action
against drug abusers.
* No funds under this program to States which prohibit drug
testing in schools.
• Enhanced fines and jail terms for adults who act with minors to
violate Controlled Substances Act.
• Expands current law against sale of drugs near schools to include
manufacture of controlled substance within that area and to
include colleges, universities, etc.
II.R. 5484
DRUGS INTHEWORKPLACE
• Does not address drug abuse in Federal workforce.
• Requires study of drug abuse in the workplace.
• Requires Office of Personnel Management to provide drug and
alcohol prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation services to
federal workers and their families.
• Requires 0PM to inform federal workers of health hazards of
drug abuse.
• 3-ycar demonstration project on including drug abuse treatment
in Federal employees' health benefits.
SCHOOLS
• $1.05 Billion over 3 years for new categorical program in
Department of Education for drug education programs:
* $350 million annually for 3 years.
* Requires 25% Slate matching funds after first year.
* Requires detailed State plan witli application.
• Bill is silent on drug testing and disciplinary actions against drug
abusers.
• Mandatory life term without parole (and up to $3 million fine)
for second conviction of person over 21 who:
* Sells or manufactures drugs within 1,000 feet of school
(including colleges, etc.) or
* Sells drugs to a minor.
PREVENTION AND TREATMENT THROUGH THE STATES
• Tiic Substance Abuse Services Amendments:
* Extends current ADAMHA (Alcohol. Drug Abuse. Mental
Health Administration) block grant, through FY 1991.
* Raises authorization for FY 1987 to $600.
* Directs $100 million of that amount for state drug abuse
treatment centers now running at full capacity.
* Reserves $40 million of that amount for treatment of high
risk youth.
* Removes most remaining strings from the block grant, to
give slates more leeway in using resources in manner best
suited to current needs.
* Secretary of HHS may withhold a State's block grant if the
State decriminalizes possession or distribution of harmful
drugs.
* Reauthorizes National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA) at
$129 million for FY 1987.
* Reauthorizes National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and
Alcoholism (NIAAA) at $69 million for FY 1987.
* Requires Secretary of HHS to prepare a National Plan to
Combat Drug Abuse, including a model state program.
* Sets up Alcohol and Drug Abuse Clearinghouse.
PREVENTION AND TREATMENT
• Adds $280 million to present ADAMHA authorization for new
Substance Abuse Block Grant
• Earmarks one third of funds for ages 5-24 for prevention and
education programs.
• Adds $30 million for new Agency on Substance Abuse
Prevention.
• Retains current strings on the block grants.
• AIDS risk education campaign.
INTERDICTION
• Repeals Mansfield Amendment, which prohibits presence of
U.S. drug agents during foreign arrests.
• Narcotic Traffickers Deportation Act simplifies standards for
deporting or excluding aliens in the drug traffic.
• Customs Enforcement Act:
* Provides severe penalties for illegal transport of drugs.
* Protects innocent aircraft owners and operators from those
penalties.
* Allows States to seize fraudulently registered planes.
* (Drug paraphrenalia are dealt with in Part 111 of Senate
Bill.)
• Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Prosecution fmprovcmcnts Act
codifies circumstances under which Coast Guard can board
vessels to enforce U.S. law.
INTERDICTION
• Modifies Mansfield Amendment, to allow U.S. agcnLs to be
present in overseas dmg busts, but only with advance approval
from State Department.
• Same provisions as Senate regarding aliens in the drug traffic.
• Customs:
* Budget increased by $237 million for FY 1987.
* Emphasis upon improving air interdiction program.
* Prohibit import of drug paraphernalia.
* Increase reporting requirements.
* Expand summons, search and seizure, and forfeiture
authority.
* Penalties for various aspects of drug smuggling.
• Coast Guard:
* Budget increased by $261 million for FY 1987-1988.
* 500 added personnel on Navy vessels in drug-smuggling
areas.
* Increase reserve strength to 1,500.
* Authorizes Guard to conduct air surveilliance .and drug
interdiction on high seas, and specifically to inspect, seize,
and arrest on vessels and aircraft subject to U.S. law.
• Drug Enforcement Administration:
* Adds $114 million, with an earmark of $54 million for
interdiction elTorls in the Bahamas.
• Mailing controlled substances is made a separate criminal
offense.
• Permits destruction of seized drugs after proper documentation
of those substances for trial evidence.
ENFORCr.MENT
• Drug Penalties Enhancement Act stiffens penalties for large-scale
domcslic trafficking, while taking into account sentencing
guidelines forthcoming from the U.S.Senlencing Commission.
• Drug Possession Penalty Act toughens penalties for simple
possevssion.
* Increased fines.
* Mandatory imprisonment for second offense.
* Repeal pre-trial diversion for first offenders.
• Continuing Drug Enterprise Penalty Act provides for imposition
of death penally for certain criminal offenses, in addition to
those in current law:
* Intentional killing in a continuing drug enterprise.
* Assassination of President
* Murder for hire.
* Murder by a Federal prisoner serving life sentence.
* Murder or loss of life arising out of taking hostages.
• Controlled Substances Import and Export Penalties
Enhancement Act conforms penalties for these violations to
those set in other portions of this bill.
• Juvenile Drug TralTicking Act sets enhanced penalties for:
* Involving minors in drug production or distribution.
* Selling drugs to minors.
* Distributing illegal drugs to a pregnant individual.
• Chemical Diversion and Trafficking Act establishes new system
of record keeping and identification requirements to keep drug
precursor and essential chemicals out of hands of drug
iraffickcrs and to identify suspicious purchasers of those
chemicals.
ENFORCEMENT
• Increases various penalties for drug dealing without regard to
work of U.S. Sentencing Commi.ssion.
• Mandatory $1,000 fine for possession on any Federal
jurisdiction; higher fines for repeat possession.
• Death penally for killing during "a continuing criminal
enterprise" by drug ring of 5 or more people that has
committed 3 or more drug violations.
• Mandatory life sentence for second conviction of anyone over 21
who:
* Sells dnigs to anyone under 21.
* Sells or manufactures drugs within 1,000 feet of a school.
* No provision regarding distributing drugs to a pregnant
person.
• No provision regarding tracking of chemicals in drug trade.
• Asset Forfeiture Amendments Act pemiiLs forfeiture of substitute
assets when proceeds of a specified crime are lost, beyond
judicial reach, substantially diminished or commingled.
• Exclusionary Rule Limitation Act limits the Exclusionary Rule
to provide admissibility of evidence if search and seizure were
undertaken in reasonable belief that they were in conformity
with Fourth Amendment
• Pan III of the Senate Bill orders GSA and DOD to identify
U.S.-owned buildings which could be used as prisons.
PRIVATE SECTOR INITIATIVES
• Narrow, two-year exemption from Competition in Contracting
Act to allow Federal government to accept certain volunteer
services.
• Permits domestic use of USIA films and other materials against
drug abuse.
Like Senate bill, permits forfeiture of substitute assets when a
convicted drug dealer has hidden his drug profits from
prosecutors.
Limits Exclusionary Rule in manner of Senate bill.
For Federal prison construction, adds 140 million in FY 1987,
$450 million in FY 1988. $500 million in FY 1989. (Senate
bill orders identification of U.S.-owned buildings convertabie
to prisons.)
SENATE REPUBLICAN BILL
PART II
DURING 1985 AND 1986, THE SENATE PASSED SEVERAL
BILLS THAT ARE IMPORTANT PARTS OF OUR NATIONAL
FIGHT AGAINST DRUG ABUSE. MANY OF THEIR
PROVISIONS HAVE NOW BEEN INCORPORATED INTO
H.R.5484. THE HOUSE-PASSED BILL.
Federal Drug Law Enforcement Agent Protection Act (S.630)
rewards persons who assist with arrest and conviction of killers or
kidnappers of a Federal drug agent
S. 850 makes it a Federal criminal offense to operate, or direct
operation of, a common carrier while intoxicated by alcohol or
drugs.
Technical Amendments to the Comprehensive Crime Control Act
(S.I 236) tightens penalties for certain drug-related crimes.
Indian Juvenile Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention Act (S.I298)
focuses resources on Native American youth.
Designer Drug Enforcement Act (S.I437):
* Makes unlawful manufacture with intent to distribute,
distribution, or processing of controlled substance analogs
(synthetic or designer drugs) intended for human
consumption without FDA approval.
* Increases fines from $250,000 to $500,000 for individuals and
$2 million for others.
RELA I ED PROVISIONS IN H.R. 5484
Withholds $1 million in narcotics control funds from Mexico
pending investigation of murders of DBA agent Enrique
Camarena Sala/ar and his pilot and pending full investigation
of detention and torture of DEA agent Victor Cortez.
Technical AmendmenLs: provisions similar to Senate bill.
Indians: $231 in additional spending for various programs of
drug abuse prevention and treatment, with particular focus on
youth.
Designer Drugs:
* Includes designer drugs as controlled substances.
* Creates major exception. Allows experimentation with these
analogs by anyone with any registration whatsoever under
the Controlled Substances Act
Department of Defense Authorization for FY 1987 (S.2638):
* Provides $227 million for drug interdiction by Customs
Service and Coast Guard.
* Includes "driving while impaired" in U.S. Code of Military
justice.
* Calls for study of drug use, treatment, and education at
DoD schools.
* Part III of Senate Republican bill provides for limited use of
the military in drug interdiction.
Money Laundering Crimes Act:
* Directly punishes laundering as offense.
* Strong penalties and forfeiture provisions.
* Money laundering added as a predicate for purposes of
wiretap and certain other statutes.
* Encourages financial instuitutions to provide voluntarily
information about suspected criminal activities.
* Provides for forfeiture of property within the U.S. that has
been acquired through drug trafficking in foreign countries.
Department of Defense:
* Requires DoD to "deploy equipment and personnel of the
armed forces sufllcienl to halt the unlawful penetration of
U.S. borders by aircraft and vessels carrying narcotic?;."
* Allows "hot pursuit" of drug traffickers into the U.S.
* Allows use of military personnel to assist drug enforcement
officials outside U.S.
* Requires DoD "loan" to civilian drug enforcement agencies
of approximately $213 million in interdiction equipment,
from existing appropriations.
* Requires dnig education in basic training; anti-drug abuse
program for all DoD personnel.
Money laundering - Similar to Senate bill:
* Criminal penalties for evading reporting requirements in a
currency transaction.
* Seizure or forfeiture of cash or property for causing bank
not to report certain currency transactions.
* Higher maximum penalties (from $500,000 to $1 million for
individuals and to $5 million for institutions) while reducing
the criminal standard from "willful" to "knowing."
* Authorizes Treasury to investigate and to require detailed
report on bank financial transactions involving more than
$3,000.
Creates new program, within Department of Justice, for grants
to Slate and local law enforcement agencies:
* $660 million in FY 1987, $695 million in FY 1988.
* 10% state and local matching requirement
* money may be used for non-federal prison constniction.
SENATE REPUBLICAN BILL
PARTI II
THIS PART INCLUDES A NUMBER OF ADDITIONAL
SENATE INITIATIVES.
COMMISSIONS, CONFERENCES, ETC.
• White House Conference on Drug Abuse, Education, Prevention
and TrcatmenU
• Requires National Drug Enforcement Policy Board to:
* Review to improve cooperation among Federal agencies and
with Stale and local governments.
* Study, in consultation with National Narcotics Border
Interdiction System and State and local law enforcement
oHicials, Federal drug law enforcement efforts and make
recommendations (report to Congress withing 180 days).
• Requires GSA Administrator and Secretary of Defense to
identify U.S. buildings which could be used as prisons.
H.R. 5484
RELATED PROVISIONS
COMMISSIONS. CONFERENCES, STUDIES, ETC.
• Wliite House Conference on Drug Abuse and Control.
• National Advisory Council on Drug Abuse Education and
Prevention.
• $650,000 for Advisory Commission on Comprehensive
Education of Intercollegiate Athletes.
• Study by HHS and National Academy of Sciences on private
insurance and public program coverage of drug abuse
treatment.
• HHS study of effectiveness of federal, state, and local drug
abuse treatment programs.
• Study by Department of Transportation on drug abu,se and
highway safety.
• Study by HHS and Department of Education on existing drug
abuse education and prevention programs.
• $3 million study by Department of Labor on drug abuse in
workplace.
• Report from President on import of drugs from insular areas of
the U.S.
• Requires President to submit, within 6 months, plan to
reorganize Executive Branch to fight drug abuse.
• Creates a National Trust for Dnig-Free Youth.
REGULATORY COMMISSIONS
• Federal Aviation Administration must:
* Require in any "drug free workplace program" that
controllers and other agency personnel involved in air safely
submit to random drug testing.
* Establish program for testing of pilots, mechanics, and other
employees responsible for flight safety.
• Federal Communications Commission authorized to revoke
licenses and seize communications equipment used in drug
activities.
• Federal Railroad Administration must establish program for
random testing of railroad engineer and other employees
responsible for safely.
HIGHWAY SAFETY
• Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act (S.1903) cracks down on
drunk drivers:
* Establishes a uniform license for commercial bus and truck
drivers whose licenses have been suspended or revoked in
any State, to prevent them from shopping around in other
Stales for new licenses.
* Withhold Federal highway funds from Stales which refuse to:
- Participate in new uniform license system.
— Set .04 blood alcohol content as maximum axcceptable
level for commercial drivers.
* Increase from $20 million to $60 million the authorization
for the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program, to allow
for more roadside testing of drivers. .
INHALANTS
• Makes it illegal to inhale, possess, purchase, sell or advertise
substances for purpose of intoxication.
• Sets penalties of 5 years and $250,000 fine for advertising; 6
months and $500 fine for possession or purchase of inhalants
for intoxication.
REGULATORY COMMISSIONS
• Prohibits Federal Aviation Administration from issuing airman
certificate to anyone whose certificate had been revoked
because of drug transport
TARIFFS
• Increases civil penally on smuggled drugs to 400% of value.
• Directs Customs Service to consult local law enforcement to
determine street value of seized drugs for purpose of setting
level of civil penalty.
HABEAS CORPUS
• Curbs abuse of habeas corpus petitions by allowing Federal
court to dismiss petition if it has been fully and fairly reviewed
by a State court
• Sets time limit for filing habeas corpus provisions.
ARMED CAREER CRIMINALS
• Broadens definition of armed career criminal to include anyone
with 3 or more convictions "for a crime of violence" or "a
serious drug offense, or both." (A career criminal convicted of
possession of gun gets automatic sentence of 15 years.)
DRUG PARAPHERNALIA
• The Mail Order Drug Paraphernalia Act (S.7I3):
* Prohibits sale and transport of paraphernalia through Postal
Service or in interstate commerce.
* Provides for seizure, forfeiture and destruction of
paraphernalia.
INTELLIGENCE
• Designates drug problem as a high priority target for national
intelligence.
• EsUiblishes an inter-agency coordinating committee to coordinate
intelligence activities of various agencies.
• Requires annual classified report to Intelligence Committees on
what U.S. Intelligence has done, will do. and could do about
drugs.
ARMED CAREER CRIMINALS
• Provisions substantially similar to those of Senate bill.
DRUG PARAPHERNALIA
• ProhibiLs import of paraphernalia.
INTERNATIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AND NARCOTICS
CONTROL
• Requires annual report by President concerning countries which;
* Facilitate drug traffic.
* Have senior officials who facilitate drug traffic.
* Have detained U.S. drug enforcement agents.
* Have refused to cooperate in anti-drug programs.
• Requires withdrawal of GSP status from countries which do not
cooperate in drug control.
• Prohibits aid (other than food and drug enforcement assistance)
to such countries unless:
* President certifies overriding national interest
* Proposed aid would secure better cooperation from recipient
nation.
• Requires willingness of foreign nation to enter into Mutual
Legal Assistance treaty with U.S., In order to combat money
laundering, must be part of presidential decision on foreign
aid.
• Modifies conditions for aid to Bolivia (recognizing that country's
cooperation with Operation Blast Furnace).
• Requires aerial and other surveys by intelligence agencies to
estimate illicit crop production.
INTERNATIONA!. LAW ENFORCEMENT AND NARCOTICS
CONTROL
• Requires President to:
* Identify countries which do not cooperate with U.S. to
prevent traffic in illegal drugs.
* Deny benefits to those countries under General System of
Preferences and Caribbean Basin Initiative.
* lncrea.se duties on any or all products from those countries.
• Increases loans through international lending institutions for
substitution crops to replace drug production overseas.
• Instructs U.S. directors of those multilateral banks to vote
against loans for countries that fail to meet drug eradication
goals.
NARCOTICS CONTROL ASSISTANCE
• Adds S45 million for FY 1987 for narcotics foreign assistance
and earmarks $10 million of that for eradication and
interdiction aircraft for use primarily in Latin America.
• U.S. will retain title to interdiction aircraft supplied to Mexico.
• $1 million earmark of narcotics assistance for research on aerial
herbicide for coca.
• GAO study of the Narcotics Assistance program.
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT
• Prohibits public disclosure of law enforcement investigative
information that could reasonably be expected to alert drug
dealers and organized crime of activity related to them.
U. S. FOREST SERVICE
• Grants arrest authority to, and permits carrying of Firearms by,
dc-signated Forest Service personnel.
• Authorizes Forest Service personnel to enforce the Controlled
Substances Act
• Prohibits possession of firearms or placing of boobytraps on
Federal property where a controlled substance is
manufactured.
NARCOTICS CONTROL ASSISTANCE
• $7.9 million increase in FY 1987 for international narcotics
control.
• Additional $35 million contingent upon presidential request and
plan.
• Earmarks at least $10 million in FY 1987 military assistance for
aircraft for narcotics eradication in countries getting narcotics
control aid. (At least 50% must support aircraft based in l^tin
America.)
• Earmarks $2 million in FY 1987 military education and training
funds for operation and maintenance of narcotics control
aircraft
• Similar to Senate provision.
• Similar to Senate provision.
• Similar to Senate provision.
TRUST FUNDS FOR TAX REFUNDS AND CONTRIBUTIONS
• Allows taxpayers to designate all or part of refund — as well as
additional contributions -- for a Drug Addiction Prevention
Trust Fund.
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE
• Provides general, as opposed to limited, arrest autbority to
agents in the INS.
BORDER INTERDICTION
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
• Provides for limited use of the military in drug interdiction.
• Allows military personnel to intercept vessels or aircraft to
identify, monitor, and communicate their location and
movement until law enforcement officials can assume
responsibility.
COASTGUARD
• Rec0gni7.es vital role of Coast Guard and need for adequate
funds.
• Provides continuing authority for Coast Guard to engage in
maritime air surveillance and interdiction.
• Clarifies existing authority concerning inspections, examinations,
searches, seizures and arrests.
DRUG EDUCATION ABROAD
• $2 million for USIA; $3 million for AID.
INSULAR AREAS
• Various provisions to strengthen drug enforcement In American
Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, Puerto Rico,
and the Virgin Islands.
• Allocates specific amounts for Puerto Rico and the Virgin
Islands.
ENFORCEMENT OF DRUG LAWS
Over 20 agencies in the United States Government now cooperate in Federal drug iaw enforcement.
The President's budget for 1987 proposes increasing the already high level of resources
dedicated to this important mission.
Current services:
Budget authority
Outlays
FUNDING SUMMARY
(In millions ol dollars)
mi 1986 1987
1,645 1.627 1,654
1,634 1,627 1,653
1988
1,680
1,679
1989
1,704
1,703
1990
1,725
1,724
1991
1,742
1,741
President's budget:
Budget authority
Outlays
n.a. 1,627
1,627
1,808
1,799
1,864
1,861
1,890
1,889
1,913
1,912
1,932
1,931
Increase from current services:
Outlays 146 181 186 188 190
PROGRAM HISTORY AND CURRENT STATUS
The administration considers improvements to the Federal drug law enforcement program to ^
one of its top domestic priorities. Over the past 5 years, the President has successfully sought
additional resources for drug law enforcement in a number of agencies.
• Government-wide resources devoted to drug enforcement have grown 96% in real terms since
1981, and will total almost $2 billion in 1987.
• Beginning in 1982, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) joined the Drug Enforcement
Administration (DBA) in narcotics investigations and today has over 1,200 agents devoted to
this task.
• The National Narcotics Border Interdiction System, headed by the Vice President, was initiated
in 1983 to help coordinate the Nation's efforts to stem drug smuggling.
• In 1983, the FBI, DBA, and 6 other Federal agencies began participating in what grew to be
13 Organized Crime Drug Enforcement (OCDE) Task Forces that, together with smaller
satellite offices, place higher than normal levels of manpower and other resources in 83 cities
throughout the United States.
• These task forces focus additional investigative resources on high-level narcotics traffickers
who operate in organized rings. Since its inception in 1983, the CODE task force program has
been responsible for over 3,000 convictions.
• The Defense Department, which began lending assistance to the drug effort in 1981, flew over
3,000 flights in 1985 involving over 10,400 flying hours searching for ships and aircraft
carrying illegal drugs into the United States, and has made available over $111 million worth
of aircraft and other major equipment to civilian law enforcement agencies.
The Nation's criminal drug investigations are conducted primarily by the DBA and FBI and are
targeted at uncovering and disrupting the organized networks that produce, transport, and distribute
illegal narcotics.
17
• The Government's drug interdiction effort, whose purpose is to stop individual shipments of
drugs in transit to the United States, is principally conducted by the U.S. Coast Guard and
the Customs Service.
• The State Department will spend about $67 million in 1986 on programs to reduce or
eliminate drug crops, targeted mainly in Latin America and Southeast Asia.
• Destruction of domestic marijuana crops is carried out primarily by the U.S. Forest Service
and the DEA in conjunction with State and local law enforcement agencies nationwide.
ADMINISTRATION PROPOSAL
The administration is proposing to maintain current level funding for most drug enforcement
programs. In selected, high-priority areas the budget proposes increases.
• An increase of $48 million is requested for the DEA to hire an additional 80 agents in 1987,
and to initiate a multi-year plan to buy voice privacy radios for every agent and computers
that will be equipped to process top secret information.
• Approximately $9 million is requested for the FBI to put in place an advanced computer
system that will aid in drug intelligence.
• An increase of $34 million is requested for ongoing Coast Guard interdiction operations.
Only one program reduction is proposed—a rescission of $19 million for the Customs Service air
interdiction program for 1986.
• This reduction eliminates marginal congressional add-ons, maintains the Customs program at
its 1985 level, and avoids additional expenditures for a program that has not proven to be cost
effective.
The increases devoted to drug law enforcement have begun to produce results, but the problems
caused by illicit drug trafficking are pervasive and continuing. Only by continuing its commitment in
this area can the Nation be sure of achieving results.
• The administration's request for 1987 proposes increases only in those areas that are truly
essential, and combines current level funding with one reduction for the remeiinder of the
drug enforcement program.
• This produces a government-wide drug enforcement request that offers the best chance of
gaining on the war against drugs, while at the same time exercising fiscal restraint in the
face of large Federal deficits.
• At the President's request level, drug related arrests by the DEA and FBI are projected to
increase by 70% over 1981.
• The proposed reduction in the Customs air program reflects a reorientation of scarce resources
from interdiction programs into investigations and intelligence.
• Adequate funding is provided to maintain the Customs detection capability at its 1985 level by
concentrating resources on the elements most crucial to the success of the program.
18
March 22, 1986
Mr. Andres Gordon
3458 East Monte Carlo Drive
Las Vegas, Nevada 89121
Dear Mr. Gordon:
Thank you for your recent telephone call to my Las Vegas office
regarding drug trafficking in America. I appreciate the time you
took to let me know of your concern.
You will be pleased to learn that Congress significantly
strengthened federal penalties for drug-related offenses during
the deliberation and subsequent passage of the Comprehensive Crime
Control Act of 1984.
Additionally, I have taken the liberty of enclosing an excerpt
from the Administration's Fiscal Year 1987 federal budget
proposals detailing the President's committment to insuring that
adequate funds are spent--even in this time of scarce federal
resources—on enforcement of federal drug laws.
I am unaware of any Senate hearings planned In the near future
specifically dealing with federal drug laws, but you may be
assured that I will keep your interest in mind should something
along these lines be scheduled.
Again, thank you for calling.
Sincerely,
Chic Hecht
CHrgs
Enclosure
4/9//-^
Military iToic in Untg f ight uutlmea
Services Could Plm Assuvlls, Equip and Vrampoit Polico
By Joanne Oinana
Waslwiiitwi IV.1 Sljll Wiit. r
U.S. military personnel will be
allowed to help U.S. agencies and
foreign governments plan assaults
on narcotics traffickers, equip police
forces and transport them to
attack sites under a new presidential
directive that defines drug traffic
as a threat to U.S. national security,
administration officials said
yesterday.
The secret National Security Decision
Directive, revealed Saturday
by Vice President Bush, will also
permit the armed forces to dedicate
personnel and equipment such as
radar-equipped airplanes or satellites
to fighting drug traffic, the
officials said.
Military assistance against narcotics
has been limited mostly to
training U.S. and foreign personnel
and to providing temporary loans of
equipment on a space-available basis,
in part because military leaders
have been wary of allowing their
forces to be turned into police officers,
Defense Secretary Caspar
W. Weinberger once called the idea
"very dangerous and undesirable."
Until 1981, even that level of aid
was against the law.
Now the armed forces will be
able to help in almost any area of
drug law enforcement except arrests,
seizure of materials and apprehension
of suspects, as long as
their primary defense mission is not
jeopardized, the officials said.
A major effort last year to disrupt
drug transport in the Caribbean,
called Operation Hat Trick II, used
military surveillance aircraft to spot
smugglers and track them for foreign
governments and the Coast
Guard. The operation is likely to be
expanded under the new directive.
Other new activities aimed at
breaking the reported link between
narcotics traffic and international
terrorism are still in the planning
stages, the officials said.
President Reagan signed the directive
April 8 after nearly a year of
interagency studies and recommendations
from the joint Chiefs of
Staff, among others, that the antidrug
role of the U.S military could
be expanded, according to the officials.
"For the first time, the U.S. government
.specifically states that the
international drug trade is a national
security concern because of its
ahilitv to destabilize democratic allies
through the corruption of police
and judicial institutions," Bush said
in making public a declassified version
of the directive. He also said "a
very real link between drugs and
terrorism" exists.
But the directive "stops short of
making drug interdiction a mission
of the Defense Department" and
leaves civilian law enforcement
agencies in the lead role at home
and abroad, said Howard Gehring.
director of the vice president's National
Narcotics Border Interdiction
System, an interagency drug control
effort.
Morton H. Halperin, director of
the Washington office of the American
Civil Liberties Union, said he is
concerned that involving the armed
forces in drug control might lead to
covert activity—such as surveillance
of U.S. citizens—that would
be illegal under ordinary law enforcement
procedures. "The military
should stay out of law enforcement.
They're not trained in it,
don't know about constitutional
rights .... There are none of the
norma! checks," he said.
If Reagan wants additional capability
to fight drugs, "he should ask
Congress to fund it for the regular
agencies. That way there would be
a public debate over whether the
changes are in the public interest,"
Halperin said.
Barry W. Lynn, an ACLU legislative
counsel, said military involvement
could lead to chain-of-command
problems and to difficulties in
presenting evidence that may have
been obtained by covert means at
drug trials. "You can't hide the role
of military officials in gathering evidence
once a case goes to court,"
he said.
The existing level of military involvement
was permitted by a 1981
revision of the post-Civil War posse
comitatus act that had barred the
armed forces from all domestic law
enforcement.
Lt, Col. Pete Wyro, speaking for
the Defense Department, said the
Pentagon is allowed to pass along to
drug agencies information it obtains
while conducting its norma! business.
such as telling them the path
of a "low, slow plane in an area
known for drug traffic." Other officials
said spy satellite information
is also provided routinely.
The 1981 act also allows the loan
of equipment such as Army Blackhawk
helicopters to the Drug Fnhiroement
Agency, which provides
its own pilots and maintenance, and
the training of drug agency and foreign
personnel in using borrowed
radar, night vision devices, cryptographic
equipment and helicopters,
Wyro said.
U.S. Navy ve.ssels carrying Coast
Guard teams have intercepted suspect
boats, held them while the
Coast Guardsmen searched them
and made arrests, and then towed
the boats to shore, he said.
"It is fair to assume" that all
these activities would increase under
the new directive, he added.
Wyro said current law requires
that all requests for assistance be
weighed for their impact on the fundamental
military mission. According
to Gehring, this requirement
stands under the new directive, but
narcotics traffic is now "a higher
priority for assessing defense
needs."
The directive lists six areas of
expanded action:
• Foreign assistance planning: "A
new door is opened" for military aid
for civil law enforcement agencies
abroad, although "some conditions"
will be attached to avoid abuses
such as those that have occurred in
the past when U.S. aid was involved
in coups or human rights violations,
. Gehring said.
U.S military aircraft can be used
to transport foreign police "only if
U.S. pilots are on board . . . and for
very limited uses," he said. U.S.
personnel involvement in "lifethreatening
situations" will be kept
at "an absolute minimum," he
added.
• Supporting counternarcotics effort.
s: Regional or hemispheric antidrug
operations bringing together
U.S. and allied forces could be
planned in the Pentagon. Communications
equipment for detecting
incoming traffic and security for the
equipment, such as coding techniques,
is "more likely" to be provided
than armaments, Gehring
said.
• International talks: "Drugs will
now be taken into consideration in
any bilateral or multilateral agreements,"
he said.
• Intelligence efforts: Drug-related
work will .become a priority instead
of "being fitted in somewhere,
Gehring said.
• Communications: Scrambling,
jamming and codes will keep mteracency
communications secure. _
• Promoting foreign control and
education programs.
LOBSTER
WITH {'IIAMl'ACiNH SAUCr
20th C P#. Ave.. MW.452112"
OUR SUMMERFESl
IS THE BEST!
LIGHT AND REFRESHING DISHES
FOR THE WARMER WEATHER
Nalinnol Award Winni
RKSTAUllANT & RATHSKEI.Ll'
2454 Wisconsin Ave., N.W., Waehingtoi
Major Credit Cards* 333-7600
2;l)ctooslnncit0n{Jo5t
PUMWED Dally. (ISSN 0190-E2M). SECOM class i»s
palO al Washington, O.C
POSTMA$TER: S«<W aOiJtwi hj TJieWasi*
PdsI, ll» ISlh SI. NW. Washisglon. D.C 20071.
TEUePHOWe NUMBERt/AREA CODE (2021
CIRCULATKDTSRVKE
CLASSIPIED ADVERTISING W
BUSINESS W
HOME Oei-IVEBYrl WEEK SASIS
«.« (20:oerda»(.»SitierSu
S480 l2CI:p«n
SSOO (jnseer.
Oalv ft Sunday:
DaOv ONv:
Sunday Oidy:
W« orovkle a reetacemers service Mr mlued oauers
meiroMlllansrea.CaliSSO'SIHEiviJOarit.weelxlav
030 sjn. Salurdays, Sundays and hoMavs.
SINGLE COPY
Am DaHv Sunday
WssNnjionMelroooKan .2S UOO Prtcesmavvary
Maryland Eastern Shore .30 11.25 curchantc Irom c
BalKmcreCouny.Md. 35 11.25 ouisde me Wash'
Md.&Va.aociro>.75ml..50 11.» mdroooiilanarea
eevdndMa&Va ll.M 12.25
BYAmLU-SftTERRITOBIESIPAVABLE IN ADV,
ivear 24yra*l(s 12t
OaOV ft Sunday: HOO.JO tlMM
OaiyONy: «4S20 1122.W
SunMyONv: SI3S20 MM
NATIONAL WEEKLY EOlTiON (BY MAIL) .
A wteuiy dloesi ol our news and corrmenlarv, avaSaCiie v>
subscrMlion. I Year 152 issues) 130.00, t mcnifts (26 i
121.00. Co« 202' 334-W71 (or inlcirmalMi.
DIRECT LINES TO NEWS DESKS
DiiiriclNewi
Financial News
Fcroldn Mews
Maryland News
Nalionai News
METRO NEWS BUREMS
Ottliict'oi Cdurnbla'334-'7300
3M-73DO NewsOntbudsman 31
334-7320 SpuNsNews 33
334-7400 Sends Scores 22
334-7313 SiyleNews It
334-7410 Virginia News 33
VireHila
Alesandria
ArOngion
Fairtax
RKmand
Maryland
334-0507 Annaooils (301120:
334-7900 Ballimore (301)02
352-2501) MonMontery Co. 29
(«04)»49-7S75 PritKa George's Co. 95
The AssedaNd Press IsenMed esdusTveMo use Mr
ol al rwwsoBoaichei crecHed tou « noi oinetw crewo mer atd kcN news c4 seowaeeoui anaui R4*r«d rarw
WASMNGTON POT BjmWNdnjfcr^M)
by RESEARCH PU8LICATI0W ,»4C. 42 Lie* Or, 4
ecleee, Cbeo 00521 (2l)37 3w-OWO
THEVilRll^lWEOSIftfiSEiyE'
R E r a l ? ? ) " - P * A l " * " "
-2 THK WASHINGTON PFF
I Measure
House
lay passed a
ll for food and
al 1987, a
|r the budget
million.
Senate on a
Stores a long
Iministration
sliminate, inprograms,
J development
ption aid, the
ral extension
. loans.
just $16.8
|odity Credit
rce for farm
ibsidies, an
lild soon have
fourth budbill
in a row
since Conbted
its new
Iscal 1987.
tUND
jry Com-
I District's
bs a mmlergency
jrate and
process.
srgencies.
iPR certi-
Incy med-
Ihters.
paramedics]
|ng to provide
rithout direcbnt,
and sup-
(e overall care
|ing daily."
abers includir
of Howard
House Panels Begin Drafung
Ambitious Antidrug Program
By George C. Wilson
WuliiDgton Poat Sulf Wiilcr .
House committees yesterday began
drafting a battle plan for combating
drugs that is so ambitious—
ranging from military interdiction
to new educational programs—it
could end up costing $5 billion a
year,, according to congression^
estimates.
The i new program is being
mapped out against the backdrop of
a commitment from the Reagan
adnuaistration to spend $359 millionZnext
year to interdict drug
smdSslcrs, broaden intelligence
gatG^ing and drug prosecution,
and!S^nd more money to prevent
druB^buse.
The administration's blueprint is
coniaJned in a letter that Attorney
Getsr^l Edwin Meese III recently
senC^o Congress and Vice Presidet^^
ush. Meese called ,the $359
million effort "a balanced approach."
House Speaker Thomas P. (Tip)
O'Neill Jr. (D-Mass.), in calling for
an all-out war on drugs, stressed in
meetings with Democratic leaders,
acceding to several persons who
attended, that he wants 4 bipartisan
campaign and not a Democratic political
effort to preempt President
Reagan on the suddenly- popular
drug issue.
Sep. Glenn English (D-Okla.), wdio
as Chairman of a Government Operations
subcommittee has been focusing
on ways to interdict drugs bound
for Ibe United States, said yesterday
that he could not put a price on the
O'Neill initiative but "it is likely to
run into the multibillions each year."
English said he saw no indication
that either Congress or the White
House would propose raising taxes
to pay for the program. "There will
have to be a diange in priorities,"
English said, "Nwith money coming
from other programs.'
Sen. Dennis DeConcini (D-Ariz.),
who has been allied with English in
the effort to push the military into
drug interdiction, said last night
that he and other senators will introduce
a companion measure to
the one being drafted for O'Neill.
He estimated the annual cost of
such a program at between $3 billion
and $5 billion.
Although a general tax increase
to pay for the effort is not politically
palatable, DeConcini said, "enhanced
revenues" could be a source
of financing. He said he favored increasing
tobacco taxes and using
the increases Reagan had earmarked
for the Defense Department
to fight drug use.
Meese in his letter said the administration's
National Drug Enforcement
Policy Board, which he
heads, wanted to work with Congress
"to end this national scourge."
The board recommended spending
the bulk of the $359 million in fiscal
1987 on aircraft to interdict drug
smugglers.
The rest of the remaining money
would be spent on intelligence collection.
dnig investigations, drug
prosecution and drug prevention.
Nuns Deny
Retracting
Abortion View
By Maijorie Hyer
Wishingion Post Sl>H Writer
Eleven American nuns yesterday
"categorically denied" a statement
' this
Patricia Hussey, members of the
Notre Dame de Namur order that
operates a shelter for homeless women
in Charleston, W.Va., were
cleared.
Hamer said Monday that the Vatican
has "accepted public declarations
of adherence to Catholic doctrine"
against abortion from 22 nuns
involved. He raised the prospect of
"formal disciplinary procedures in
accord with church law" if the Notre
Dame sisters failed to conform.
Sister Maureen Fiedler of the unofficial
Quixote Center here said yesJ
u l y 2 8 , 1 9 8 6
T h e H o n o r a b l e W i l l i a m H e r n s t a d t
3 1 1 1 B e l A i r O r i v e
A p a r t m e n t 2 5 G
L a s V e g a s , N e v a d a 8 9 1 0 9
D e a r B i l l :
T h a n k y o u f o r y o u r r e c e n t c o m m u n i c a t i o n r e g a r d i n g l e g i s l a t i o n
a u t h o r i z i n g a d e a t h p e n a l t y a s p u n i s h m e n t f o r v i o l a t i o n s o f
f e d e r a l d r u g t r a f f i c k i n g l a w s . I a p p r e c i a t e t h e t i m e y o u t o o k t o
l e t m e k n o w o f y o u r i n t e r e s t .
T h e 9 9 t h C o n g r e s s h a s n o t y e t s e e n f o r m a l S e n a t e d e l i b e r a t i o n
o n l e g i s l a t i o n w h i c h w o u l d p r o v i d e f o r t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y a s
p u n i s h m e n t f o r d r u g t r a f f i c k i n g . Y o u m a y b e i n t e r e s t e d t o k n o w ,
h o w e v e r , t h a t I a m a c o s p o n s o r o f S e n a t e b i l l 1 3 0 1 , t h e N a t i o n a l
S e c u r i t y P r o t e c t i o n A c t , T h i s l e g i s l a t i o n w o u l d p r o v i d e f o r
c a p i t a l p u n i s h m e n t a s a s e n t e n c e f o r t h e c r i m e o f i n t e r n a t i o n a l
e s p i o n a g e , a n d i s p r e s e n t l y b e i n g c o n s i d e r e d b y t h e S e n a t e A r m e d
S e r v i c e s C o m m i t t e e .
I f e e l t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f r e c e i v i n g t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y f o r c e r t a i n
c r i m e s i s a n e f f e c t i v e d e t e r r e n t t o t h e c o m m i s s i o n o f t h e s e
c r i m e s , a n d a c c o r d i n g l y , w i l l k e e p y o u r i n t e r e s t f i r m l y i n m i n d
s h o u l d a S e n a t e i n i t i a t i v e b e o f f e r e d a l o n g t h e l i n e s o f t h a t
w h i c h y o u p r o p o s e .
T h a n k y o u a g a i n f o r w r i t i n g .
S i n c e r e l y ,
C H : g s l
C h i c H e c h t
Ith incton Post
•as^iiwston post
It dean."
Reagan Asks Wider Drug Testing
By Thomas B. Edsall
W.ishuiKiof) Writtr
President Reagan, beginning an
expanded effort to reduce illegal
drug use, called yesterday for mandatory
drug testing of all federal
employes with sensitive posts in law
enforcement, national security,
safety and public health.
Reagan signaled that his program,
still to be detailed, would not
require such testing of all federal
employes.
Instead, most federal agencies
would establish volunteer testing
programs, and the federal hiring
process could be modified to require
drug screening of all prospective
employes.
Questioned by reporters at the
White House, Reagan commented
that he and members of his Cabinet
would willingly submit to drug testing.
The president declared that his
intention *is not to announce another
short-term government offensive
but to call instead for a sustained
national effort to rid America of this
scourge—by mobilizing every segment
of our society against drug
abuse."
Reagan outlined six "goals" for
his program—"a drug-free work
place," "drug-free schools," treatment
of drug abusers, "international
cooperation," "strengthening law
enforcement" and expanded "public
awareness." But he did not make
clear exactly how these goals would
be achieved.
The central strategy outlined in
his remarks and in subsequent
background briefings for reporters
is an expanded drive to identify users
of illegal drugs in the public and
private sectors through voluntary
and mandatory testing.
Once identified, such users initially
would be offered treatment
instead of facing dismissal and arrest
"We mean to reach out to the
drug user," Reagan said. "Our goal
is not to throw users in jail but to
free them from drugs. We will offer
a helping hand, but we will also
pressure the user at school and in
the work place to straighten up, to
get clean."
White House aides said there are
between 3 million and 5 million regular
cocaine users and about 18 million
marijuana users nationwide.
Since 1981, the number of drug-related
deaths and emergency room
visits has tripled, they said.
No decision has been made about
how much money to put into the
new initiative, although Reagan said
"there is going to be a cost, and we
are going to have to fmd that money."
Some drug tests can cost as
much as $100.
House Majority Leader James C.
Wright Jr. (D-Tex.) said: "We are
encouraged by the fact that he
(Reagan] is awakened to the reality
of the problem." But, Wright contended,
a large increase in funds is
needed because current spending
levels are like "trying to fight a bear
with a fly swatter."
Kenneth P. Blaylock, president of
the American Federation of Government
Employees, said his union
"stands ready to work with [Reagan]
and the White House to solve
whatever drug problems exist in
the federal work place."
He said that drug testing should
be restricted to cases involving
"probable cause" to suspect illegal
use and that testing should be done
while fully respecting employes'
due-process rights.
Au
Pre
Wheo
At a
canb;
Angry fa
side the'
test Pres
the Sovk
The d
U.S. rela
calling f
products
joint mil
lever.
About
today, at
sador U
said Aus
its expi
Lane sa
million t
room fo
think yo
better I
selves c
ate
! Says
rk on the
|]f-imposed
if they do
final ver-
|n at least
I
(D-Okla.)
lill seek to
prepared
tonference
many in-
Istment.
conferee,
I (D-Tex.),
lid said he
juse offer
J the enerine
indus-
|do--.p«-'rate
I AjiiH He
titcmmt
liftculioos
TODAY IN CONGRESS
SENATE
Me«ts at 9:15 a.m.
Committees:
Aarlcunure. Nutrition and Fomlry—9:30 a.m. Open. Hrngs. to
review agricultural traiJe issues. Clayton Yeutter, U.S. trade rep. 332
Russell Office Building.
Appropriations—10:30 a.m. Open. Labor. HHS, education and
rMled agencies subc. Maig up appropriating funds for FY87 for
Depts. of Labor, HHS and Education and related agencies. 116
DIrksen Office Building.
Appropriations—11 a.m. Open. Transportation and related agencies
subc. Business meeting to consider FY87 appropriations for the Dept.
of Transportation and related agencies. S-128 Capitol.
Appropriations—2 p.m. Open. Business meeting to mark up FY87
appropriations for the military construction subc, and FY87
appropriations for Itie Olslrlct of Columbia government. 192 OOB.
Armed Services—10 a.m. Open<ltised. Hmgs. on legislation
providing for the establlshmeni within the 000 capabilities of the U.S.
to combat terrorism and ottier forms of unconventional warfare. 222
ROB.
Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs—10:30 a.m. Open. Hrngs. on
the nomlrations of H. Robert Heller to be a member of the board of
governors of the Federal Reserve System and Iriichael Musa to be a
member of the Council of Economic Advisers. 538 DOB.
Commerce. Science and Transportation—10 a.m. Open. Science,
technology end space subc. FYS? budget hrngs. for NASA. 253 ROB.
Energy ervd Naturef Reeourcos—10 a.m. Open. Natural resources
development anO production subc Ovoreight timgS- on the proepacts
lor —porfing Americen coel. 366 DOB.
liidli 'i > 11 a m Opwi Hrr^ On ma narrUnMien o« ArWonm Seelie
Ce be en eeeocwe fusHce er me u S iuceerwe Cewrf 106 OOd
-« JO am Opart lm«de on me
raSBWFfC.
. M ew •>« Aeeeew FeMOe CiaMpr ed
•be at Cgieeb. gmiH g tar me .leeeS'lamrle r< W &e*3 C
Acwexdi « i couen ri^m or me pMd t* repUt ol me
SmiRVMiivan InsMulKin. ann Taramet tot tna Natirvul *a end Specs
Republican Policy—12:30 p.m. Closed. Luncheon meeting. S-207
Cap.
HOUSE
Meets at noon.
Committees:
Agrlcultura 9:30 a.m. Open. Wheat, soybeans aitd feed grains, and
dept. ops., research and for. agriculture subcs. Joint hmgs. on federal
grain quality standards. 1302 Longworth House Office Building.
Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs—9:30 a.m. Open. Housing and
community development subc. On HUD report on Cuyahcga
Metropolitan Housing Authority (Ohio), 2128 Raybum House Office
Building.
Banking. Finance and Urban Affairs—10:30 a.m. Open. Economic
stabilization subc. Continue hmgs. on U.S.-Canada economic and
trade relations: importance of bilateral trade relationship. 2220
RHO0. _
Energy and Commerce—9:45 a.m. Open. Heattfi and envirooment
subc. Mark up Non-Smokers Protection Act, arid pending drug abuse,
animal drug and immunaatlon legislation. 2123 RHOB.
Foreign Affairs—11 a.m. Open. International narcotics control task
force. On U.S. military rote In narcotics control overseas. 2200 RHOB.
Government Operation*—10 a.m. Open. Mark up Inspector Gen.
Act amendments; Freedom of Informatioo Act amendments, end
misc. reports. 2154 RHOB.
Irvterlor end fnsulaf Affelr*—9:45 a.m. Open. Public lands subc.
Mark up public lands tegrtlaUoo m Cellforma, Now Atexico, Utah.
Tennessee, Wisconsin, Aruona. and Alaska. 1310 LH06.
liiilk iai) 10 a.m. Open. Marii upprovtd. additional banbrapbcy
I unae penaritea tor rekpeus p«warty davneo*; oiriar weed
avvenoens. Pewvl EouOy Act. wd ewele Wte. 2141 MOB
•uiM—11 JO am Open Ow wswwe WartHp MW nsMeM
-«*™wwewiW HJiJOeeee
I Jweeaaeer—1 Ctow «a—e w m ii aop
O* weee wwee WWW dweiwe »ta
Mm
•septMd bbaew-IOam Opw TreM «*( iMg eat
tVw fretkrv-^ Act B 11 i RhOB
Satest on Htwifc—9 » a w Open On ppaartr. t»c"tp» ewd M
"v
Sh
capitals,
pie advi
to subsii
A sen
there it
Reagan'
despite
noted tl
debated
Cabinet
on (^pit
subsidizi
White
and Rep
gued for
the issu
role in t
cofttrot <
Dok-.
Sccretar
(hat th(
program
ed 'aero
beans ai
to all leg
While
August 5,1986
MEASURES REFERRED
The following bills were read the
first and second times by unanimous
consent, and referred as indicated;
H.R. 4555. An act to designate the Federal
Building at Spring and High Streets in Columbus,
OH. a-s t.lie "John W. Briclcer Federal
Building"; to the Committee on Environment
and Pubiic Works.
H.R. 4825. An act to amend chapter 89 of
title 5, United States Code, to provide authority
for the direct payment or reimbursement
of certain additional types of health
care professionals; to clarify certain provisions
of such chapter with respect to coordination
with State and local law: and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Government
Affairs.
H.R. 5233. An act making appropriation!
for the Departments of Labor. Health anc
Human Services, and Education, and reiatet.
agencies for the fi.scal year ending Septeif
ber 30, 1987. and for other purposes; to tl
Committee on Appropriations.
H.R. 5234. An act making approprlatioi
for the Department of the Interior and r^.
lated agencies for the fiscal year ending
September 30. 1987. and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Appropriations.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
The following reports of committees
were submitted:
By Mr. SPECTER, from the Committee
on Appropriations, with amendments:
H.R. 5175: A bill making appropriations
for the government of the District of Columbia
and other activities chargeable in
whole or in part against the revenues of said
District for the fiscal year ending September
30, 1987. and for otlier purposes (Rept.
No. 99-367).
By Mr. MATTINGLY, from the Committee
on Appropriations, with amendments:
H.R. 5052: A bill making appropriations
for Military Construction for the Department
of Defense tor the fiscal year ending
September 30, 1987. and for other purposes
(RcDt. No. 99-368).
By Mr. SYMMS, from the Committee on
Environment and Public Works, with
amendments:
S. 2405: A bill to authorise appropriations
for ceruin highways in accordance with
title 23. United States Code, and for other
purposes (Rept. No. 99-369).
By Mr. SYMMS. from the Committee on
Environment and Public Works, without
amendment:
S. Res. 459: An original resolution waiving
section 303(a) of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974 for the consideration of S. 2405.
By Mr, THURMOND, from the Committee
on the Judiciary, without amendment:
S. 1421: A bill consenting to a modification
in the Susciuehanna River Basin Compact
relating to the rate of interest on bonds
issued by the Susquehanna River Basin
Commission.
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS AND
JOINT RESOLUTIONS
The following bills and Joint resolutions
were introduced, read the first
and second time by unanimous consent,
and referred as indicated:
By Mr. GORTON (for himself and Mr.
DANTOBTH):
S. 2714. A bill to authorize appropriations
for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
for research and development,
space flight, control and data communications.
construction of facilities, and research
and program management, and tor other
purposes: to the Committee on Commerce.
Science, and Transportation.
By Mr. CHILES (for himself, Mr.
BiDEN. Mr. BYRD. Mr. CRAMSTON. Mr.
DECONCINI, Mr. DODD. Mr. LEAHY,
Mr. NUNN. Mr. ROCKEFEI.I.EH. and Mr.
SASSES):
S. 2715. A bill to provide an emergency
Federal response to the crack cocaine epidemic
through law enforcement, education
and public awareness, and prevention: to
nittee on Labor and Human Resources.
By Mr. BIDEN (for himself, Mr.
CHILES, Mr. BYHD. Mr. CRAMSTOM,
Mr. DBCONCIKI, Mr. DODD, Mr.
LEAHY, Mr. NUNN, Mr. ROCKEPBLLER,
Mr. SASSER. Mr. BOREN. Mr. INOUYE,
Mr. MELCHEH. Mr. KERRY, Mr. BUMPERS.
Mr. HART, Mr. BIHOAMAN, Mr.
HEPLIN, Mr. BAUCUS, Mr. LEVIN, Mr.
SARBANES, Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. JOHNSTON,
Mr. PRYOR. Mr. FORD, Mr.
GORE. Mr, LAUTEHBERO, Mr. LONG,
Mr. PELL. Mr. MOYNIHAN, Mr. SIMON,
Mr. GLENN. Mr. METZENBAUM. Mr.
HOLLiNos. and Mr. MATSUNAGA):
S. 2718. A bill to establish an Office of the
Director of National and International Drug
Operations and Policy: to the Committee on
Governmental Affairs.
By Mr. QUAYLE;
S. 2717. A bill to amend the Agricultural
Act of 1949 to require the ConwuJdity
Credit Corporation to pay produi»rs for onfarra
storage of commodities, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture.
Nutrition, and Forestry.
By Mr. RIEGLE (for himself. Mr.
HOLLINOS, Mr. GORE, and Mr. BOCKEPELLEB);
S. 2718. A bill to authorize appropriations
for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
for research and development,
space flight, control and data communications.
construction of facilities, and research
and program management, and for other
purposes: to the Committee on Commerce.
Science, and Transportation.
By Mrs. HAWKINS:
S. 2719. A bill to eliminate the statute of
limitations for serious drug offenses under
the Controlled Substances Act and the Controlled
Substances Import and Export Act;
to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. CHAPEE (for himself and Mr.
LAUTENBERG):
S. 2720. A bill to establish an Asbestos Information
Clearinghouse In the Environmental
Protection Agency: to the Committee
on Environment and Public Works.
By Mr. DODD (for himself. Mr.
CHILES, Mr. BIDEN. Mr. BYRD, Mr.
CRANSTON. Mr. DECONCINI, Mr.
LEAHY, Mr. NUNN, and Mr. ROCKEFELLERI:
SJ. Res. 386. Joint resolution to designate
October 6, 1988, as "National Drug Abuse
Education Day": to the Committee on the
Judiciary,
By Mr. HECHT (for himself. Mr.
GAHN. Mr. RIEGLB. Mr. GORTON, Mr.
CRANSTON, Mr. EAGLETON, Mr. DODD.
Mr. DECONCINI, Mr. HEPLIN, Mr.
INOUYE. Mr. ABDNOR, Mr. MEIXMER,
Mr. DIXON. Mr. BOSCHWITZ, Mr.
LuGAF. Mr. MOYNIHAN, Mr. DOMENici,
Mr. SASSER. Mr. SARBANES. Mr.
PROXMIRE. Mr. STAPFORD. Mr.
GRAMM, Mrs. HAWKINS, Mr. MATTLNGLY
and. Mr. WEICKEH);
S.J. Res. 387. Joint resolution to designate
the week of October 19. 1986. through October
28. 1986. "National Housing Week": to
the Committee on the Judiciary.
S10425
SUBMISSION OF CONCURRENT
AND SENATE RESOLUTIONS
The following concurrent resolutions
and Senate resolutions were read, and
referred (or acted upon), as indicated:
By Mr. SYMMS from the Committee
on Environment and Public Works;
S- Res. 459. An original resolution waiving
section 303(a) of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974 for the consideration of S. 2405;
to the Committee on the Budget.
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED
BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. GORTON (for himself
and Mr. DANFORTH):
S. 2714. A bill to authorize appropriations
for the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration for research
and development, space flight, control
and data communications, construction
of facilities, and re.search and program
management, and for other purposes:
to the Committee on Commerce.
Science, and Transportation.
(The remarks of Mr. GORTON and
the text of the legislation appear earlier
in today's RECORD.)
By Mr. CHILES (for himself, Mr.
BIDEN, Mr. BYRD, Mr. CRANSTON,
Mr. DECONCINI, Mr.
DODD, Mr. LEAHY. Mr. NUNN.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. SASSER.
Mr. BOREN, Mr. INOUYE. Mr.
MELCHEH, Mr. KERRY, Mr.
BUMPERS, Mr. HART, Mr. BINGAMAN.
Mr. HELFIN, Mr. BAUCUS,
Mr, LEVIN. Mr. SARBANES. Mr.
MITCHELL, Mr. JOHNSTON, Mr.
PHYOR. Mr. FORD. Mr. GORE,
Mr. LATTTENBERG, Mr. LONG, Mr.
ROCKEFELLER, Mr. MOYNIHAN,
Mr. SIMON, Mr. GLENN, Mr.
METZENBAUM, Mr. HOLLINGS.
and Mr. MATSUNAGA):
S. 2715. A bill to provide an emergency
Federal response to the crack
cocaine epidemic through law enforcement.
education, and public awareness,
and for other purposes; to the Committee
on Labor and Human Resources.
By Mr. BIDEN (for himself, Mr.
CHILES, Mr. BYRD, Mr. CRANSTON,
Mr. DECONCINI, Mr.
DODD, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. NUNN,
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. SASSER,
Mr. BOREN, Mr. INOUYE, Mr.
MELCHER, Mr, KERRY, Mr.
BUMPERS, Mr. HART. Mr. BINGAMAN,
Mr. HEFLIN. Mr, BAUCUS,
Mr. LEVIN, Mr. SARBANES, Mr.
MITCHELL. Mr. JOHNSTON, Mr.
PRYOR, Mr. FORD, Mr. GORE,
Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. LONG, Mr.
PELL. Mr." MOYNIHAN, Mr.
SIMON. Mr. GLENN. Mr. METZENBAUM.
Mr. HOLLINGS, and Mr.
MATSUNAGA):
S. 2716. A bill to establish an Office
of the Director of National and International
Drug Operations and Policy;
to the Committee on Governmental
Affairs.
R 10426 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE August 5, 1986
tlHirC LECllSLflllOS
• Mr. CHILES. Mr. President. Senator
BIDEN and I are introducing today a
package of legislation which addresses
tiie growing emergency of crack cocaine.
Crack cocaine and its lethal efftxrts
are an epidemic in this country.
With the opening of a new school year
upon us, it is imperative that the Congress
take immediate and decisive
action. Each day of delay costs us
lives. With each day. crack becomes
further and further entrenched in our
communities, and it will be increasingly
difficult to uproot the network of
dealers and traffickers who have engineered
its insidious spread.
Crack cocaine is now widely available
in over 25 Stales. It is out of control
in New York. Los Angeles, Detroit.
Houston, and Miami. In my State of
Florida, 66 percent of the law enforcement
officials tell me that the crack
cocaine problem is serious or severe in
their jurisdictions. Crack users tell me
that they can drive the length of my
Slate and find crack in every large
town without any trouble whatsover.
Usually, they don't even have to get
cat of their car. The dealers provide
ci'.rbside service.
Crack is also a killer. In south Florida
alone. 34 people died in the first 6
months of this year from cocaine overdoses.
And they were not street punks
or addicts hooked on other drugs.
They came from all walks of life, and
tliey were so-called recreational users
wlio never knew what hit them. Just
remember the deaths of sports stars
l.en Bias and Don Rogers.
Crack is arailable to the young, and
it will be in Ihe schools this fall. Police
liave told me horror story after horror
slory involving children as young as
nine who are already crack users. The
dealers and traffickers also use the
.young as lookouts and workers in
crack houses. This carmot be tolerated.
We have all heard of cocaine, but I
must stress to you that crack cocaine
is something altogether different. It is
more powerful: it is cheaper to use; it
is also far more addictive. Crack cocaine
is a purified form of powdered
cocaine that is smoked. A hit of crack
costs around $10, well within the
budget of any teenager. When smoked,
crack reaches the brain in less than 10
seconds. It produces a short but incredibly
powerful high that is follow^ed
by an equally powerful low. This rapid
cycle of euphoria and depression is
wliat produces in users the intense
craving for the crack. That is why
users say addiction can begin after
only their second use of crack.
In the wake of crack cocaine comes
increased crime. Crime rates are skyrocketing
in communities across the
country, and law enforcement attributes
the increases to crack. Once
addicted, per.sons with no criminal
records lose all scruples and morals
and become thieves and killers.
Crack is a growing plague. It requires
emergency action on all fronts.
That is the purpose of the bills we are
introducing today. They address the
crack cocaine emergency in terms of
law enforcement, education, and
health and prevention. We must help
our law enforcement officials by
strengthening criminal penalties for
crack cocaine. This is an absolutely essential
first step. But law enforcement
officials tell me that is not enough;
they require help in combating crack.
That is why both education and
health and prevention programs are
equally necessary,
Current law makes it very difficult
to arrest and convict crack dealers and
traffickers. The stlffest penalties for
possession of cocaine apply for possession
of 1 kilo of cocaine. A kilo is
enough to produce as much as 25,000
rocks. The kilo limit imposes no difficulties
on the traffickers and dealers.
Police also have difficulty arresting
the operators of crack houses, the
places where users congregate to purchase
and use crack. When police raid
these crack houses, the dealers and
users can easily dispose of the drugs,
thus avoiding ai-rest.
Our bills move cocaine freebase to
schedule 1 of the Controlled Substances
Act and decrease to 5 grams
the amount required for enhanced
penalties to apply. The penalties are
as follows;
Violsllon First olfense Repeal offense
5 grams up to 20 years. .. up to 40 years
up to $250.000 ... up to SSOO.OOO
The measure.? also strengthen penalties
for other particular crack-related
offenses. They make it a felony with
double penalties for anyone who employs,
hires, or u.ses minors in illegal
drug enterprises. They make It a new
offense of 20 years and/or $250,000 for
those who maintain or operate a crack
house or facility where drugs are manufactured,
distributed, used, or stored.
Penalties also Increase when crack
cocaine is found within 1,000 feet of a
school. Double penalties are imposed
when the crack houses are within
1,000 feet of a school. The bills also
expand existing law so that increased
penalties apply for distributing or
manufacturing any drugs within 1,000
feet of a school.
These bills will help police put
behind bars the dealers and traffickers
in crack. Those who lead our young
down the path to addiction will have
to think twice about their actions or
pay dearly.
Our measures also recognize the importance
of education in efforts to
stop the spread of crack. They direct
the President to designate October 6
as National Drug Abuse Education
Day with an emphasis on crack education
in the classrooms.
The Department of Education is directed
to provide emergency assistance
to schools on the crack epidemic and
ways to address and prevent further
usage of the drug. They also establish
an Office and Program of Drug and
Alcohol Abuse within the Department
of Education which will assist schools
in developing drug and alcohol abuse
programs within their curriculums.
The bills also propose a Federal program
of assistance for those Slates
who agree to include drug education in
their curriculum.
Students will be faced with the
temptations of crack and other drugs
•during their school years. It Is essential
that we provide them with the
knowledge and the support systems
which will allow them to resist these
temptations.
The legislation also directs the Centers
for Disease Control to prepare a
report on the impact of crack cocaine,
a data base for practitioners to use in
responding to the diseases associated
with crack, effective methods of treating
crack addicts, and analysis of existing
educational programs on crack.
They also direct the National Institute
on Drug Abuse to prepare public
service announcements warning the
public about the intensified effects of
cocaine freebase—crtack.
If we are to successfully battle crack,
all of these measures must be passed.
Law enforcement must be able to address
crack with laws that have some
teeth. But that is not enough. The
education of potential users and the
treatment of those who have succumbed
to crack's seductions and
become addicts are absolutely imperative.
I urge my colleagues to give these
bills immediate and serious attention.
They will prevent crime, and they wiil
save lives.
Mr. Pre.sident, 1 ask unanimous consent
that the text of these bills be inserted
at this point in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the bills
were ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows;
S. 2715
Be it enacted by the Senate aiiti House of
Representatives of the United States of
Anieriea in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORTTITLE.
This Act may be cited as the "Emergenoy
Crack Control Act of 1986".
TITLE I—L.4W ENFtlKCEMENT
SEC. ini. AUDITION Of COCAINE FKEKUASE TO srilKm I.K I.
fa) RESCHEOULINC.—Schedule I of section
202(c) of the Controlled Substances Act is
amended by adciing at llie end thereof the
following:
"<d) Cocaine freebase.".
(b) INCREASEB PENALTIES.—Subsectlon
(bXlXA) of section 401 of the Controlled
Substances Act is amended by—
(1) striking out "or" after the semicolon in
clause (iii);
<2) striking out the matter after the semicolon
in clause (iv) through the period and
Inserting in lieu thereof "or" and the following:
"(v) 5 grams or more of cocaine freebase,
such person shall be sentenced to a term of
imprisonment of not more than 20 years or
a fine of not more than $250,000. or both.".
ARLEN SPECTER
ibHAluR CHIC HECHT
WASHINGTON. D.C.
COUWrmES:
JUDICIARY
APPROPRIATIONS
VETERANS' AFFAIRS
INTELLIGENCE
lanftd States Senate
1936 AUG n ANII'Oi WASHIH0TON. DC 20610
August 8f 1986
•ear Colleague;
The increasingly widespread availability of drugs to Americans,
and to American youths in particular, is of preeminent concern to all
of us today.
On July 29, 1986, I introduced S.2699, "The Juvenile Drug
Prevention Act," which will aid in deterring the use and abuse of our
Mation's children by drug dealers. This bill amends sections of the
Controlled oubstances Act of 1984 to provide for the imposition of
five-year mandatory prison sentences on everyone convicted of
knowingly selling drugs to a minor, or utilizing the services of a
minor in the sale or distribution of a controlled substance, or
selling drugs within 1,000 feet of an elementary, middle or high
school. Such sentences would be imposed without possibility of
parole.
The strong deterrent effect of such a penalty is obvious — if the
price which these criminals have to pay for their actions is
substantially increased, perhaps they will think twice before deciding
to use children in their illegal enterprises.
This bill also contains another provision designed to protect our
youth from drug dangers. This provision would allow the Attorney
General to make discretionary assignments of asset forfeiture funds
resulting from successful drug enforcement operations. At present,
the Attorney General is restricted to bestowing such funds upon lav/
enforcement agencies which participated in the seizure. My bill
simply increases the Attorney General's discretion, thus giving him a
broader range of antidrug options to consider -- i.e., the funding of
programs focusing on preventive education of youth and drug
rehabilitation.
This bill will enable America's parents to rest more peacefully.
There is some comfort in knowing that great efforts are being made to
arrest big-time drug dealers, but this is of less value if our young
people are uneducated as to drug prevention in communities throughout
the country where the youth addiction rate is increasing.
I would welcome your support of this legislation. If you have any
questions, or would like to co-sponsor S.2699, please contact me or
have your staff contact Deborah F. Mcllroy of my Judiciary staff (4-
8178) .
Arlen Specter
AS:dmp
WILLIAM V ROTH. Jit. DClAWARg. CHAIRMAN SUBCOMMITTSS.
T£0 S'EVgNS. ALASKA
CHARLCS McC MATHIAS. J«.
MARYLAND
WILLIAM S COHCN, MAINE
THOMAS f EAClETON,
MISSOURI
LAWTON Chiles. riORlOA
SAM NUNN. GEORGIA
WILLIAM V flOTH, JH . DELAWARE. CHAIRMAN
WARREN a. AUOMAN. NEW HAMPSHIRE, VICE CHAIRMAN
CHARLES MCC. WATHIAS. JR.. SAM NUNN. GEORGIA
MARYLAND
WILLIAM S COHEN. MAINE
LAWTON CHILES. FLORIDA
JOHN GLENN. OHIO
THAD COCHRAN. MISSISSIPPI CARL LEViN. MICHIGAN
TED STEVENS, ALASKA ALGERT GORE. Jl..
TENNESSEE
1388 AIIP O GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
«yb I 2 AM lO* ^ATE PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
TE ON INVESTIGATIONS
WASHINGTON, DC 20510
August 11, 1986
DANIEL f RINTEL. CHICP COUNSEL
€L£AN0RE J. NIU. CHIEF COUNSEL TO THE MWORiTT
Dear Colleague:
As you are acutely aware, our country is experiencing a drug
epidemic, particularly a cocaine epidemic. This epidemic has
been intensified by the spreading use of crack, the smokable form
of cocaine. In a hearing last month, the Permanent Subcommittee
on Investigations heard testimony about the dangers of crack. We
learned from reformed users that you only need to smoke it once
to become addicted. Not only is it highly addictive, but it is
also lethal. The recent deaths of outstanding athletes Len Bias
and Don Rogers vividly demonstrated that cocaine kills.
Crack has permeated every segment of our society. It is
inexpensive, easily manufactured, and readily accessible. Crack
use has been contributed to a significant increase in violent
crimes as users become desperate to obtain this seductive drug by
any means. Despite federal and local law enforcement efforts to
contain this problem, crack continues to invade our communities.
Obviously, law enforcement cannot wage this war alone.
That is why I believe that we must reach out to the
individual. It is time to inform the people, especially our
youth, about the health hazards of crack and cocaine before they
experiment with it. To achieve this objective, I have introduced
a resolution to designate October 1986 as "Crack/Cocaine
Awareness Month". By this resolution, we encourage educators,
media and civic leaders to concentrate their efforts and dedicate
their resources to informing the public about the facts of
cocaine and crack.
I invite you to join me in sponsoring this resolution. If
you have further questions, please call Cynthia Christfield,
Staff Counsel, Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, at
4-3721.
Sincerely,
William
Chairnrtf
WilliamV^ Roth, Jr.
ChairnTfln
WVR,JR/crc/cc
.a-__ • . ^ - o' uj ^Uiic . . .' and "Mv leam#^ «n ss-sS^SS
"toS: My u,, suf;
Drugi
?«dollar.^«rof jeSXnTor a 3^"S
drug pragrams jr^twf^ originated the idea, has had little chanced
. .. insider the measures ramificatmnfi n.rf
spur to put together a great m
without attention to their quality. ~ "•-r---'*&--''^y«*^'^««8naauiuectiancefcj
There are issues here that Congress shouiH ar? m^ures ramifications. Out of the packdress
squarely. The meas^e ^
The End Game in Tax Reform
1 HEiT TAAXXC COONNPFRERRKEPEqS are getting close. The
remaining difference is how much to
_ rase busme^ taxes. The Senate wants to
f^se Uiem by less than does the House, while cutting
mdiwdual tM rates more. The House says the
^ and keep the bill from losing
m^y. The Senate is having to choose.
•Ine choice has been made more difficult by the
provisi^ involved. The big money item is depreciagn,
which IS also a symbol for both sides. The
Senate says its more generous depreciation rates are
-fS capital
f^ation The House says hyped depreciation rates
S ?n '^u'" has looked so
tad in the past. The houses also differ over so<alled
industry-specific provisions. The Senate bill would
P'-ov'sions important to defense contractors
wik ft wnS f ® f '"^"stries. Until last
ahS^RjnC^"^'^ "i"strate what lies
dfev notonously low. and so far as
1 ^ i^eep them that way.
Tij 's the wrong lime to imoose an
^ed burden on the nation's shaky crfdk S?ur?
They have hired special lobbyists, including fo™5
Senate majority leader Howard Baker, at a cost of
nearly talf a milLon dollars, plus the promise of a
sizable success premium" if they prevail. A huge
^ount of money, but a good investment for the
^ ® billions of dollars at stake.
h«u fil if the conferees so far have mostly
heW the banks at bay. The decision is not as easy as
either side—bankers or reformers—would make it
No one wants to squeeze the banks too hard It is
questionab e bank loans that are now propping uo
® m^iustry and much of the Third
world-1 he mam provision at issue involves bad debt
fSfr?L'V® against
these. The Treasury, which earlier proposed coming
Chairman Paul Volcker have both urged the conferees
to ease up.
But large and profitable corporations should pay a
rea^nable share of taxes, and many banks do not
that IS what reform is about, to make them pay
S!i7 V ^ ^ P'®'' mafte Ws
^k. You can t raise oil taxes when oil prices are so
low. You can t raise taxes on the defense industry
when defense costs are already so high. Just us. they
^rd^to '®®ve us alone. The conferees can't
;Dfepaitment funds from any school or coUegfS d an^J.^mversities. The regulatory
ainnot prove it has a program to prevent stud^t staggw^--8omething this admindrug
abuse. As worded. thfrSoLon If briS emphaped mother contexts,
vague; it leaves several key quesUons unanswered weU^F^^iS^^f
amcmg them the definition of a "program" awiS tl / education, as a matter of policy,
drug abuse—would a statement of ?Scy sSe? ^th as much
would medical oversight be reauirefP—and th*. £ > possible, the pnnciple thus far has been to
of "proof a SurSfwoSd to keep external conditions to a
taiy. William Bennett, propo^ such a link between been
reauirififf miiiTrinc r^f Ar.\u^» n. t .P throu^ a House, which » under severe pressure to "do
SOmemtnff" dhfttlf Hmrre i-v
by traffic becaus
would ride the sut
that a transitway
West traffic probi*
The truth is th,
minutes over the 1:
Silver Spring am
stations. The trai
meat has apparen
the simple—and
expensive—alterm
press buses betwer
The county's fi
most inaccurate
most of the plan is
ble) lists among its
the transitway at
Avenue every fiv<
rush hour, with {
traffic. That should
East-West traffic
trafiic too!
If the county ecu
burn on saving a 1
minutes a trip. I su
the commuters stu(
29 and others who
them what they c;
transitway!
The Post is wronj
as "a direct-mail imj
mg the issue of whet
22nd Amendment to
as a fund-raising veh
or Repeal," editorial,
Even though I favc
stantive grounds, cm
not and will not ma.
appeal on this issue.
Post is correct in i
Republican campaign
sent out a million |i
funds and urging repe
ident Reagan to serve
I will not hold my b
lican fund-raisers try (
port for their latest
amendment. But I do
tiative reveals a bn
within the Grand Old 1
civil war.
Chess Mate
Joseph McLellan's ;
world's championship
now taking place in Lo
classic example of how
should be covered. Thi
the right mixture of hi
local color and exper
addition, they exhibit t
writing style we have I
tomed to in Mr. Mcl
reviews. Just a suggest
match is over, these ;
coliection in book form.
BENJAI
Law/Judiciary
House Panels Vote Ammo for War on Drugs
House committees completed
work Aug. 13 on a $3.75 billion package
to help the nation fight its latest
war on illegal drugs.
The Judiciary, Merchant Marine
and Fisheries, and Education and Labor
committees each approved separate
packages of anti-drug-abuse legislation
Aug. 12 and 13, while two other
committees — Post Office and Civil
Service, and Public Works — sent informal
recommendations for inclusion
in a bipartisan omnibus drug bill taking
shape under the direction of Majority
Leader Jim Wright, D-Texas.
In an effort to beat President Reagan
on the public relations front.
Speaker Thomas P. O'Neill Jr., DMass.,
July 23 directed Wright to have
a bill ready for the Rules Committee
by Sept. 9. the day after the House
returns from its August recess. Full
House consideration is
scheduled for Sept, 10.
Meanwhile, Reagan
continued his own
anti-drug campaign.
Vice President George
Bush and 78 top White
House officials took
voluntary drug tests
Aug. 11 "to set an example."
Reagan look
his test Aug, 9 during a
checkup at the Bethesda
Naval Hospital.
On Aug. 14, following
two days of
meetings with Mexican
President Miguel de la
Madrid, administration
officials announced
"Operation
Alliance," which calls
for an infusion of
equipment and personnel
to patrol the border
in an effort to stem the
flow of illegal drugs.
(Mexican talkn. p.
1883)
Not to be outdone,
a bipartisan group of
House members, led by
Charles E. Schunier,
D-N.Y.p and Lynn Martin, R-llL, announced
Aug. 11 that the four major
networks (ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN)
have agreed to undertake a three-year,
$1,5 billion advertising campaign to
educate the public about the dangers
of illegal drugs. The campaign, scheduled
to begin in October, came as a
result of a letter written by Schumer
and Martin and signed by more than
338 other House members.
Money and Politics
Wright now faces the task of compiling
the new committee recommendations,
along with those of the four
panels that marked up and reported
bills in previous weeks, into a comprehensible,
comprehensive piece of legislation.
fPreoiou.s committee action,
Weekly Report p. 1847)
As he does so. Wright must take
Omnibus Drug Proposal Highlights
fo/lowing are highlighH o( proposah by more than ball a dozen House
commiuees lor omnibus legislation to prevent and combat drug abuse:
Drug Sources. Deny trade benefits to uncooperative drug-source
nations. Earmark $10 million in foreign military aid for drug interdiction
and eradication efforts. Allow U.S. law enforcement agents to be present
when drug traffickers are apprehended in foreign nations.
Irtterdlction. Expand search and seizure powers of U.S. Customs Service
and authorize nearly $1 billion over three years to beef up Customs' air
interdiction program. Authorize an extra $300 million in fiscal 1987-88 for
Coast Guard drug detection and interdiction activities.
New Crimes. Crack down on "money laundering" transactions by
individuals, banks and credit institutions that involve cash proceeds of drug
trafficking and other crimes. Ban manufacture and sale of "designer drugs,"
near-duplicates of illegal narcotics; prohibit use of children to manufacture
or distribute drugs; bar mailing of controlled substances.
Enforcement. Authorize $100 million in grants for state and local drug
enforcement activities and $60 million for Drug Enforcement Administration
efforts. Permit state and local inspection of aircraft registration.
Stlffer Penalties. Set minimum mandatory prison sentences for the
most serious drug offenses, increase sentences for lesser crimes and impose
fines of up to $10 million for drug traffickers.
Prison Construction. Authorize $1.14 billion over three years for
construction and staffing of new federal prisons.
—By Julie Rovner
Education and Prevention. Authorize $350 million annually in grants
to schools to develop drug abuse education and prevention programs.
Authorize $180 million in fiscal 1987 for a federal Agency for Substance
Abuse Prevention.
care not to damage the bill's tenuous
bipartisan support. Wright has been
keeping in close touch with House Minority
Leader Robert H. Michel, 111.,
and members of a Michel-appointed
Republican drug task force headed by
Jerry Lewis, Calif.
'Tm very pleased with the recommendations
we've gotten so far,"
Wright said Aug. 14 after a meeting
with Michel. "And I'm very pleased
with the degree of bipartisanship
we've been able to maintain."
Wright said he would not seek a
closed rule for the bill, but would ask
the Rules Committee to allow "reasonable
opportunities to beef up or
pare down" the package.
The overriding issue threatening
the current bipartisan harmony is
money. Six committees have authorized
a total of $1.92 billion for fiscal
1987 and more than
$3.75 billion over three
years. The 1987 spending
will require a supplemental
appropriations
bill, since the
House has already
passed most of its regular
appropriations bills.
Such figures in a
time of massive budget
deficits have drawn the
wrath of a number of
Republicans who accuse
Democrats of trying
to solve the drug
problem by throwing
money at it.
"There's not any
question that a couple
of billion dollars is an
awful lot more than we
need to do an effective
job," said Lewis at an
Aug. 14 press conference
to announce the
Republican task force
position on the package.
But Wright insists
that he will not impose
an arbitrary spending
ceiling on the bill, and
that he doesn't expect
the nrice tas to coat the
PAGE 1928—Aug, 16, 1986 I ^ ox lei p*" ••(•p* by
Low/Judieiory • 2
bill support.
"Drug traffickers
don't have any arbitrary
ceiling on how much
money they drain from
our economy," said
Wright. "Obviously it's
going to cost some money,
but the American public
expects no less."
And more than a few
Republicans seem to
agree. "If we can get a
handle on the problem
and come up with a good
program for $3 billion, 1
as one member would
support it," said E. Clay
Shaw Jr., Fla., whose district
has more than its
share of drug-related
problems.
Added Bill McCollum,
another Florida Republican,
"Money's not
the bottom line in this
fight. The bottom line is we have to
get tough in law enforcement and we
have to get the word out in education
in a way that's effective."
Asked where the money was going
to come from, Wright replied with a
smile; "From the same place that $300
billion for weapons comes from."
Role of Military
Another potential sticking point
is the role of the military in the drug
war. "We have a great power out there
and we spend a great deal of money on
it, and I think it's incumbent that we
use it to the maximum extent practicable,"
said Shaw.
But many members from both
parties fear that involving the military
too much in the drug war could impair
its combat readiness. Others oppose
use of the military for civilian law enforcement
within the nation's borders.
Adding to those troubles is the
fact that the Armed Services Committee,
tied up all week with the defense
authorization bill (HR 4428) on the
House floor, was unable to complete
action on its contribution to the drug
package. (Defense bill. p. 1869)
Wright said he and Michel did
not reach a firm agreement about how
to deal with the Armed Services problem,
hut one possibility being explored
was to ask the White House to prepare
a study and report back within 90
days its idea of the appropriate division
of authority between the military,
the National Guard and law enforcement
agencies.
TTie U.S. Customs Service is on the front lines
of the battle to intercept drugs being shipped
illegally into the United States.
New Prisons, Stale Aid
The most costly portion of the
drug package was approved by the Judiciary
Committee Aug. 13. The committee
July 29 had approved five
drug-related proposals, including one
(HR 5217) to make it harder for drug
dealers to "launder" their profits
through banks and other financial institutions.
(Weekly Report p. 1749)
The two new bills (HR 5393, HR
5394), approved by voice vote after a
six-hour markup, provide increased
authorizations for drug enforcement
and construction of new federal prisons,
and stronger penalties for those
convicted of drug-related offenses.
As approved by the Crime Subcommittee
Aug. 11, HR 5393 increased
the authorization for the Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA) by
$60 million for fiscal 1987, adding 543
new positions. It also created a new
grant program to aid state and local
drug enforcement efforts. The hill authorized
$100 million for the grant
program in fiscal 1987 and $200 million
in 1988.
The full Judiciary Committee,
not wanting to be outdone by other
committees with smaller anti-drug jurisdiction,
quickly upped the ante. By
the time its spending spree was over,
the committee had added well over $1
billion to the total price tag.
"To provide less [funding authority
than other committeesj really
makes no sense," said Chairman Peter
W. Rodino Jr., D-N.-I.
Committee Republicans
— as well as some
Democrats — expressed
concerns that the House
might be unable or unwilling
to pass such expensive
legislation, given
the fiscal constraints facing
members. But in the
end, they could not resist
the chance to attack such
longstanding problems as
overcrowded federal prisons.
Dan Lungren, RCalif.,
offered an amendment
to eliminate the
grant program and instead
use the $100 million
to beef up the number of
U.S. attorneys, who prosecute
federal drug cases,
and give the remainder to
the attorney general to
use as he sees fit in the
enforcement of drug laws.
"Our last priority should be for us
to share money we don't have with
states to do what they won't spend
their own money on," the California
Republican said.
John Bryant, D-Texas, sought a
compromise, suggesting spending $100
million on U.S. attorneys and new
prison construction without eliminating
the grant program. But when some
members said that the $69 million
Bryant designated for prison construction
was not enough to make a
dent in a system that is already more
than 47 percent overcrowded, the
committee boosted the total to $164
million — the amount the administration
originally sought for the Federal
Bureau of Prisons for fiscal 1987.
Lungren's last-ditch effort to delete
the grant program failed on a 14-
21 party-line vote.
Carlos J. Moorhead, R-Calif.,
then proposed an additional $977 million
for prison construction and salaries
for fiscal 1987 and 1988.
"I really think we're heading
down the road of, "Can you top this?' "
said Larry Smith, D-Fla. "Why don't
we just throw in another billion to
cure the acne of those not yet in
prison?" he added, suggesting that the
committee needed "to keep some semblance
of economic sanity" if the bill
was to pass the House.
But Republicans, who had made
extra funding for prison construction
a priority for the drug package,
wouldn't back down, and all of the
extra spending was added by voice
t«»<o«y(hoo p<oh>^.i*d ««>«>• >0 MrtP* Br Aug. 16, 1986—PAGE 1929
Law/Jvdieiary • 3
vote. "This is a mailer of pulling our
money where our collective mouth is,"
said George W. Gekas, R-Pa.
Crime and Punishment
Debate over HR 5H94, the measure
to increase penalties for drug offenses,
split along more traditional
parly lines.
The measure imposes minimum
mandatory prison sentences of five
years for first-time "serious traffickers"
and 10 years for "major traffickers."
It increases sentences for other
offenses and imposes fines of up to
.$10 million. It also makes it a federal
crime to use children to manufacture
or distribute drugs, and imposes a new
penalty of 20 years to life imprisonment
if a death results from drug trafficking
activities.
"This sends a message to people
involved in drug trafficking that if you
get caught, you're going to go to jail
for a long time — no plea bargain, no
parole," said Crime Subcommittee
Chairman William J. Hughes, D-N.J.
But some members expressed
doubts about mandatory minimum
sentences, given the current overcrowding
in the federal prison system.
"In New York, drug traffickers doing
business on the streets in front of the
police aren't even being arrested because
there's no place to put them,"
complained John Conyers Jr., D-Mich.
"If the purpose of this is to send a
message, it's the wrong message."
Debate was surprisingly restrained
over an amendment offered
by Gekas to allow the death penalty to
be imposed on individuals who knowingly
cause the death of another individual
during the course of "a continuing
criminal enterprise."
Allowing capital punishment, argued
Gekas. is "a natural extension of
the war on drugs we are waging."
But committee Democrats, many
of whom said they generally supported
capital punishment, worried that the
amendment could end up derailing
the entire drug package.
"I can't think of a better way to
kill this hill than to lack a death penalty
onto it," said Hughes.
Gekas' amendment was ultimately
rejected 16-19, with Bryant
and Smith joining the Republicans.
On a straight party-line vote, the
committee also refused, 14-21. to
adopt a McC'ollum amendment to permit
plea bargaining after conviction in
exchange for information that could
lead to the conviction of a higher-up
in a drug organization.
Coast Guard Enforcement
The Merchant Marine Committee
Aug. 16 approved a bill (HR 5406)
authorizing $1.50 million in each of fiscal
years 1987 and 1988 for Coast
Guard drug enforcement activities.
The .$.600 million package authorizes
$162 million for operating expenses
— including the addition of
].,500 military personnel, the bulk of
whom will be used to augment shore
station crews — and $168 million for
drug interdiction equipment.
The equipment would be used
primarily to allow the Coast Guard to
carry out air surveillance operations
over the high seas. The legislation asserts
the primacy of the Coast Guard
over the Navy in carrying out drugfighting
activities, including surveillance
operations.
The hill explicitly labels the funding
package an "authorization enhancement"
— money over and above
any other amounts to be given to the
Coast Guard in fiscal 1987 and 1988.
Committee members are especially
sensitive about funding for traditional
search and rescue missions. "I,
for one, do not believe that the lives of
New England fishermen or Great
Lakes boaters should be lost because
Coast Guardsmen who should be stationed
in those areas have been called
to the Caribbean to interdict marijuana
or anything else." declared
Gerry R. Studds, D-Mass.
But committee leaders acknowledged
that the additional funds were
not tied to any specific revenue
source. Asked by Claudine Schneider,
R-R.l., how the spending would be financed,
Chairman Walter B. Jones, DN.
C.. replied, "I assume we'll continue
to spend money that we don't have."
Education Programs
The Education and I.abor Committee
Aug. 12 voted to create a .$6.50
million-per-year grant program for
schools to develop drug abuse education
and prevention programs.
By voice vote, the committee ordered
reported HR 5678, its contribution
to the omnibus drug package.
Members from both sides of the
aisle seemed to take pains to maintain
the spirit of bipartisanship encouraged
by the House Democratic and
Republican leadership. The cordiality
was in marked contrast to the partisan
sniping that had characterized the
drug legislation markups of other
House committees a week earlier.
"In war. partisan politics must
give way to political unity," said Committee
Chairman Augustus F. Hawkins,
D-Calif., the bill's sponsor.
The bill creates a grant program
to provide slate education agencies
with funds to "establish, operate and
improve" drug abuse education and
prevention programs at the elementary
and secondary school levels. The
House version of the fiscal 1987 appropriations
bill covering education
(HR 52.66) requires schools to set up
such programs or face a federal fund
cutoff. (Weekly Report p. 1771)
HR 5678 also authorizes grants to
community organizations for drug
abuse education and programs to prevent
school dropouts, and to colleges
and universities for their own drug
abuse education programs and for
training elementary and secondary
school teachers how to teach drug
abuse prevention.
As approved by the committee,
the bill:
• Allows states receiving grant
money to award funds to local educational
agencies for the development of
drug abuse education and prevention
curricula; counseling programs; drug
abuse treatment referral; in-service
training for teachers, counselors, law
enforcement officials and community
leaders; and community education
programs for parents.
• Requires the education secretary
to establish a drug education and prevention
program that includes a national
media campaign; programs involving
sports and entertainment
figures, medical professionals and former
drug users; and community education
for parents.
• Requires the education secretary
to establish a clearinghouse to collect
and disseminate information to educational
agencies on successful drug education
and prevention programs and
to provide technical assistance on the
selection and implementation of such
programs.
• Authorizes $6.50 million for each
of fiscal years 1987-89.
Among the amendments adopted
by the committee were;
• By E. Thomas Coleman, R-Mo.,
to create a National Advisory Council
on Drug Abuse Education and Prevention
to "attract and focus national attention
on drug-related problems."
• By Rod Chandler. R-Waah., to require
the secretary of labor to conduct
a two-year study on the incidence of
drug abuse in the work place and efforts
to a.ssist workers.
The only partisan skirmish concerned
another Coleman amendment
PAGE 1960—Aug. 16, 1986 •"fi I"-™
'WsrcN
-2 w /O S9
News
Public Relations Service. BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA
1325 Walnut Hill Lane. Irving. Texas 75038-3096
Telephone: 214-580-2000
CONTACT: PRINT: Barclay M. Bellas, Ext. 2271
Home: (817) 283-8738
CONTACT: BROADCAST: Bob Longley, Ext. 2288
Home: (214) 570-0776
FOR RELEASE UPON RECEIPT
42,000 'EXPLORERS' TO JOIN
DRUG ABUSE FIGHT
IRVING, TEXAS, Sept. 3 — The Boy Scouts of America will throw 42,000
teenagers into the national fight against drug abuse.
Members of the nation's 2,200 Explorer posts which specialize in law
enforcement career education will begin an ongoing program this fall to
present drug abuse prevention material to elementary and junior high school
students, their own peers, and adults.
The effort is being conducted in cooperation with the Drug Enforcement
Administration and Action, tne federal volunteer agency.
Day-long training sessions throughout the country drawing upon the
resources of police agencies, drug rehabilitation counselors, and others will
prepare the teenagers who range in age from 14 through 20, for programs to be
presented before school and conmunity groups. A BSA-produced video tape also
will be made available as will a drug abuse prevention guidebook.
MORE
DRUG ABUSE FIGHT - 2
The challenge to join the war on drugs was originally accepted by law
enforcement Explorers in July at their biennial national convention held in
Seattle.
Keynoting that anti-drug rally were John C. Lawn, acting administrator of
the Drug Enforcement Administration; Thomas Gleaton, MD, executive director of
PRIDE (Parents Resource Institute for Drug Education); and Donna Alvarado,
director of Action, a federal comnunity-coordinating agency. Other
participants ranged from Los Angeles Rams' Mike Wilshire, Ralph Sampson of the
Houston Rockets, Dave Brown, Seattle Seahawks, and Marty Barrett, of the
Boston Red Sox, to country singer Lee Greenwood and TV actress Lauri Hendler,
of "Gimme a Break."
Exploring leaders noted that a recent survey found that 63 percent of the
nation's high school students have tried an illicit drug. "Statistics show
the trends across the population as a whole, but the pain of the consequences
in individual families is what pushes us to fight this problem until i t is
conquered."
Coordinating the program on behalf of the BSA is Brian D. Archimbaud,
national director of law enforcement Exploring, and law enforcement youth
chairman Kathleen C. (K. C.) Carr, of Chesterfield, VA. Linell Broecker, a
public affairs executive with the Drug Enforcement Acbninistration, represents
that agency as does Angie Hammock with Action.
A Drug Abuse Prevention Proficiency Award will be made available to
Explorers who complete the required training session, become involved in drug
abuse prevention activities, and donate at least 50 hours of their time to the
program.
(MORE)
DRUG ABUSE FIGHT - 3
The first of these awards, however, will go to a non-Explorer who has long
crusaded against drug abuse. Mrs. Nancy Reagan is scheduled to receive the
citation at the White House September 12. In her continuing championship of
the substance abuse fight she called a year ago upon the nation's Boy Scouts
to "say no to drugs" when she spoke before 32,000 of them at the National
Scout Jamboree in Virginia.
A second award, given by the Drug Enforcement Administration since 1981,
recognizes the efforts of Explorer post that conduct outstanding drug abuse
programs.
###
147BP-8/13/86
fwj
Law/Judiciary
An Election-Year Cause Celebre:
Omnibus Anti-Drug Package
Ready for House Floor Action
Responding to the pressing political
imperative of the summer of '86,
the House plans to put aside budget
matters Sept. 10 and pass a bipartisan
omnibus drug bill that would authorize
more than $3 billion in new spending
to combat drug abuse.
The legislation, as yet unnumbered,
is a compilation of proposals
from 12 standing committees aimed at
stemming the flow of illegal drugs into
the United States, stepping up enforcement
of drug laws, increasing
penalties for narcotics trafficking and
improving drug abuse education, prevention
and treatment prc^rams.
(Weekly Report p. 1928)
The measure, compiled under the
direction of Majority Leader Jim
Wright, D-Texas, with help from Minority
Leader Robert H. Michel, RIII.,
is scheduled to come before the
Rules Committee Sept. 9.
Cost No Object?
The drug abuse issue has been
gaining political momentum all summer,
spurred by a wave of publicity in
the wake of the cocaine-related deaths
of two popular athletes. Members expect
the bill to sail through the House,
despite its steep price tag.
"I'd say roar through is more like
it," predicted Rep. Glenn English, DOkla.,
who authored a number of the
omnibus bill's provisions.
President Reagan, with an assist
from his wife, Nancy, plans a nationally
televised speech on the drug problem
Sept. 14. But Reagan has been
reluctant, thus far, to seek major new
federal expenditures for an anti-drug
crusade.
A New York Times/CBS News
poll released Sept. 2 showed that twothirds
of those responding were willing
to pay more taxes to jail drug sellers.
English said he did not think
House members would be put off by
the cost of the omnibus legislation.
—By Julie Rovner
"1 think what we're going to be
facing on the floor is not members
wanting to cut out items, but members
wanting to add items," he said.
Although Democratic leaders
seized the initiative on the drive for
anti-drug legislation, they have been
careful to pull GOP members along.
"It does appear that the majority
is going to deliver on its promise to
give us a bipartisan bill." said E. Clay
Shaw Jr., R-Fla.
Like English, Shaw has long labored
on the drug problem in relative
obscurity. With the issue suddenly
popular, he has served on the Republican
task force set up to oversee formulation
of the omnibus bill. (English.
Shaw profiles, p. 2069)
Committee Action
Seven House committees — Foreign
Affairs, Government Operations,
Energy and Commerce, Ways and
Means, Education and Labor, Judiciary,
and Merchant Marine — reported
legislation in early August for
inclusion in the drug package.
Four others — Armed Services,
Interior, Post Office and Civil Service,
and Public Works — submitted titles
for the bill without formal markups.
The Banking Committee's main contribution,
legislation (HR 5176) to
crack down on drug traffickers who
"launder" illegal profits through financial
institutions, was approved in
late July. (Weekly Report p. 1719)
GOP Amendments Likely
Although key House Republicans
have expressed support for the omnibus
drug bill, they reserve the right to
try to "improve" it on the floor.
"Just because the issue is drugs
doesn't mean everyone's going to
agree on the best way to solve the
problem," said Johanna Schneider,
press secretary to Minority Leader
Michel. "There should be some debate
on what is the best way to solve the
problem," she said.
Schneider said the Republicans
would seek a rule allowing them to
offer between eight and 15 amendments.
Proposals range from requiring
drug testing for federal employees
with access to secret information to
authorizing capital punishment for
certain drug traffickers.
Republicans also plan to offer
amendments to modify the so-called
"exclusionary rule," which prevents
evidence gathered in illegal searches
from being used in court. And they
want to expand the role of the military
i.". the drug war.
The bill contains a bare-bones title
from the Armed Services Committee
that authorizes $213 million for
purchase of advanced radar and other
drug-detection hardware, but the
committee was unable to complete a
markup that began Aug. 12 because of
House floor action on the defense authorization
bill (HR 4428). (Weekly
Report p. 1869)
Senate Outlook Uncertain
What will happen when the bill
reaches the Senate remains unclear.
"Nothing has jelled here yet,"
said an aide to Majority Leader Robert
Dole, R-Kan.
But Senate Democrats are busy
trying to fashion their own omnibus
package. A spokesman for Lawton
Chiles, D-Fla., one of the leaders of a
newly formed Democratic Working
Group on Substance and Narcotics
Abuse, said the group hoped to have
its package ready for introduction the
week of Sept. 8. While details of the
package have not yet been worked out,
it, like the House bill, would seek to
step up interdiction and eradication
efforts and improve drug enforcement,
education, research and rehabilitation.
Although time is running out on
the 99th Congress, supporters of the
omnibus House legislation say they
are confident that something will find
its way to the president's desk before
adjournment.
"You can't exclude politics altogether
on a package like this," said
English, noting that public opinion
polls show that Americans find the
drug problem one of the most serious
facing the nation today. "That being
the case, 1 think members might find
the time to get a package like this
passed." •
PAGE 2068—Sept. 6, 1986 CwV '«• ,
The Pentagon's Drug Wars
The Defense Department's expanding role in the war on drugs poses questions of civil
liberties as well as whether the new mission helps or hurts military readiness.
BY DAVID C. MORRISON
ToSen, Alfonse M. D'Amato, R-N.Y.,
"drug traffickers pose a threat as
great as, if not greater than, any other this
nation faces." At an Aug. 15 press conference
called to announce the introduction
of the National Drug Interdiction Improvement
Act, D'Amato added, "If the
drug boats and planes were carrying
bombs across our borden, our Defense
Department would be mobilized to stop
them."
D'Amato's message has become a familiar
one in Washington over the past
few months. The emotionally compelling,
yet politically safe, issue of drug abuse—
propelled into the headlines recently by
the cocaine overdose deaths of several
sports stars and the advent of a potent
cocaine derivative, crack,—has set into
motion an election-year bandwagon of
seemingly inexorable momentum.
That bandwagon has also become a
legislative steamroller. No longer is there
any question that Congress will pass a
big-ticket antidrug bill before its early
October adjournment. All that remains to
be decided is what elements the final
package will incorporate from the many
proposals that Congress and the Reagan
Administration arc now generating.
D'Amato's martial tone, too, has become
a familiar one, both on Capitol Hill
and in the White House. Last April, after
a year of interagency study. President
Reagan signed a secret directive that for
the first time defined drug trafficking as
a threat to national security. The phrase
"war on drugs," once tittle more than an
overworked rhetorical device, has taken
on the ring of literal description as the
Pentagon's involvement in the drug interdiction
campaign steadily grows.
The militarization of the antidrug effort
has been an evolutionary process,
beginning with Congress's 1981 amending
of the century-old Posse Comiiatus
Act, which forbids military enforcement
of civilian laws, to allow the Pentagon to
offer indirect support to the civilian agencies
charged with drug interdiction. In
mid-July, that military involvement deepened
when the Administration dispatched
Army helicopters to transport
Bolivian antidrug squads to far-flung cocaine
processing lalMratories.
Legislation unsuccessfully proposed in
the past and slated to come up for consideration
again this year in a more radical
form would go even further, giving military
personnel direct authority to bust
drug traffickers while maintaining an air
and sea blockade of the United States'
southern borders to keep out illegal
drugs. (See box, p. 2106.)
The degree to which Congress, in its
fervor to stem the drug traffic, might
fundamentally alter the military's traditional
role as a defender solely against
external military threats is only one of the
issues raised by the Pentagon's expanding
role in the war on drugs—albeit the most
far-reaching one. Others are whether the
Pentagon's new antidrug mission helps or
hurts military readiness and who should
pay for the escalating war on drugs
among the many agencies—the Justice,
Transportation, Treasury and Defense
Departments—that have a piece of the
counter-narcotics action.
|Jz «
1:3
The Navy's E-2C Hawkeye aerial surveillance planes report suspicious sightings to civilian drug interdiction agencies.
2104 NATIONAL JOURNAL 9/6/86
The latter question is no minor matter
in a year in which Congress will be lucky
not to bump its head on the deficit ceiling
imposed by the Balanced Budget Act.
"Providing the money to carry out the
mandates of this bill will not be easy in
these times of unprecedented budget deficits."
acknowledged Sen. Dennis E>e-
Concini, D-Ariz., who is a principal cosponsor
of the new Senate
antidrug measure. "But the bottom
line is that we must treat
illegal drugs as a national security
threat to the United States
and act accordingly."
Read that reference to national
security as a cue that the
Defense Department will be
asked to pick up much of the
tab. Of the S1.4 billion earmarked
in the Senate's new
drug bill (S 2764), which will be
debated shortly after Congress
returns from recess on Sept. 8,
$887 million would come from
the defense budget. The
House's omnibus drug bill, elements
of which have been reported
out by U separate committees
but which has not been
put in final form, could be even
more expensive than its counterpart
bill in the Senate. While
the House Armed Services
Committee's portion of that
package provisionally earmarks
only S213 million specifically
for Defense Department equipment,
the Pentagon could end
up footing a larger share of the
total cost.
Given its druthers, a Pentagon
facing cuts as deep as S34
billion in a S320 billion national
defense budget request, would
naturally order its fiscal priorities
somewhat differently from
those of an election-year Congress. "We
call it a feeding frenzy, with the Defense
Department's budget as the bait," Air
Force Col. Harvey G. Pothier, acting
director of the Pentagon's Task Force on
Drug Enforcement, said of the legislative
antidrug offensive. After serving as acting
director in July and August, Pothier
resumed his position as deputy director
after a higher-ranking general officer was
named to head the task force.
PENTAGON EFFORTS
Some Members might argue that
Pothier's comment is indicative of the
Pentagon's fundamental reluctance to
march to the front lines of the war on
drugs. Rep. Glenn English, D-Okla., for
instance, a longtime crusader on the
antidrug front, complained that while
some officials have been cooperative,
pushing the Pentagon to play a larger
antidrug role "has been a constant battle
since 1981." Whatever measures Congress
ends up approving, the Pentagon
will have no choice but to comply, he
stressed. "That's been a point that some
people in the [Defense Department] have
been a little slow to recognize."
During a July 30 hearing on the issue
Air Force CoL Harvey G. Pothier
He worries about the fiscal burden on the Pentagon.
by the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee
on Defense, at which Pothier
was a witness, chairman Ted Stevens, RAlaska,
accused the services of "footdragging"
on drug interdiction while
"hiding" behind Posse Comitatus Act restrictions.
Pothier, like other defense officials, is
concerned about how much of the fiscal
burden of the escalating war on drugs the
Pentagon might have to bear, but he
denied that the department is a shirker in
that war.
"Here we have over 100 years of very
clear precise direction that we are not to
get involved in the enforcement of U.S.
laws, [then) along comes 1981 and a new
law gets passed," he said. "Congress likes
quick solutions [and] wanted the military
to go out and imm^iately do what was
expected of them. That takes time, so it
may have created a perception of the
military dragging its feet. Such was not
the case, it was simply that we needed
this time to become familiar with what
was expected of us."
As evidence of the PenUgon's growing
commitment to its new mission, Pothier
cited the 3,000 sorties, totaling more than
10,000 flight hours, flown by more than
10 kinds of military aircraft in
support of drug interdiction
during fiscal 1985. Those aircraft
include Army UH-60
Blackhawk helicopters. Navy
E-2C Hawkeye aerial surveillance
aircraft. Marine Corps
OV-IO Bronco counterinsurgency
planes and even Air
Force B-52 bombers flying sealane
patrol missions. Those BS2s
do not rain bombs on suspected
smugglers. Instead, like
the other military aircraft, they
report suspicious sightings to civilian
agencies.
Treasury's Customs Service
attends the quarterly scheduling
conferences at Tinker Air
Force Base near Oklahoma City
for the Air Force's E-3C Sentry
Airborne Warning and Control
System (AWACS) radar aircraft
so that it can capitalize on
data handed off by the
AWACS, which are uniquely
equipped to detect low-flying
smugger aircraft trying to hide
in the clutter of oil-rig helicopter
traffic along the Gulf Coast.
High-flying U-2 spy planes
have also collected aerial photographs
for drug enforcement
i intelligence analysts. Two Flor-
M ida-based aerostats—tethered
blimps hung with powerful radars—
channel early-warning
data on low-flying aircraft to
the Customs Service for drug interdiction
purposes, as well as to the Air Force and
Navy for purely military consumption.
The Defense Department has also
given civilian drug enforcement agencies
more than Sill million in equipment to
date, including aircraft, assorted nightvision
and radar systems and communications
encryption devices. Last year,
Pothier said, the department spent about
S14 million of its operations and maintenance
budget supporting the drug enforcement
effort, and has spent S22 million
so far in fiscal 1986, a fourfold
increase over the 1982 level.
The military's antidrug flcid operations
have ranged over the hemisphere.
Since 1983, under Operation BAT—
short for Bahamas and Turks—two Air
Force UH-IN special-operations helicopters
have been kept on hand to help
NATIONAL JOURNAL 9/6/86 2 1 05
Saddling Up for the War on Drugs
Rep. Charles E. Bennett, DFla.,
whose eldest son overdosed
on Valium in 1977, believes the
war on drugs should be Just
that: a no-holds-barred battle to
the finish. No surprise then that
he has long sought to push the
armed forces to the front lines
of the struggle by authorizing
them to arrest drug traffickers,
a task now entrusted solely to
civilian agencies.
Standing in Bennett's way,
among other institutional obstacles,
is an 1878 law, little debated
until this decade, called
the Posse Comitatus Act. Latin
for "power of the county,"
posse comitatus denotes the
right of authorities to call upon
the citizenry to help enforce the
law—a legal concept most of us
have seen in action only in
countless Westerns where a ragtag
"posse" saddles up to pursue
bank robbers. The Posse
Comitatus Act simply asserted
the illegality of using federal
troops as a posse.
Bennett finds that 19th-century
law badly outdated. The
drug problem "is obviously
such a desperate, terrible thing
that it has to have courageous,
manly responses," he said in an
interview. "We should not get hung up on something like
the Posse Comitatus law that was passed to protect the Ku
Klux Klan."
Not everyone agrees that the statute is but a vestigial
legacy of post-Civil War turmoil. According to University
of Pittsburgh Law School professor Jules Lobet, who is also
an associate of the Center for Constitutional Rights, Posse
Comitatus was "an anti-Reconstructionist act to help the
South get the federal military off their backs," but it is still
"a good law."
While they are not explicitly stipulated in the Constitution,
Lobel said, the basic principles underpinning the
Posse Comitatus Act can be found in the "flavor" of that
document. In a similar vein. Chief Justice Warren E.
Burger stressed in a 1972 Supreme Court opinion the
"traditional and strong resistance of Americans to any
military intrusion into civilian affairs." This tradition,
Burger wrote, "has deep roots in our history and found
early expression, for example, in the 3rd Amendment's
explicit prohibition against quartering soldiers in private
homes without consent and in the constitutional provisions
for civilian control of the military."
The Posse Comitatus Act was first proposed during
debate on the 1878 Army appropriation bill, when Democrats
decried interference by federal troops in southern
elections during the postwar occupation. Resistance to
Rep. Charles E. Bennett, D-Fta.
Troops should be allowed to enforce the law.
prohibiting military enforcement
of civilian law, ironically,
largely centered on concern
about its impact on interdiction
of the illegal drug of choice of
that day: moonshine whiskey.
"If you attempt to seize an illicit
distillery," argued Sen.
James G. Blaine, R-Maine, in a
speech opposing the bill, and
"when you call the posse comilaius
they are on the side of the
illicit distiller, what will you do
then?"
The Democrats prevailed,
putting the military out of the
law enforcement business, at
least until 1957, when another
crisis in the South prompted the
first exception to the Posse Comitatus
Act in almost a century
of observance. After Arkansas
Gov. Orval Faubus ordered the
National Guard to bar nine
black students from entering
the all-white Central High
School in Little Rock, President
I Eisenhower reluctantly federal-
" ized the Arkansas National
^ Guard and dispatched troops
I from the lOlst Airborne Divi-
£ sion to enforce federal desegregation
statutes.
Ordinarily controlled by slate
governors, National Guard
troops are not subject to Posse Comitatus restrictions.
Consequently, their frequent use during the disturbances of
the 1960s was not prohibited. More than 20 states regularly
use the National Guard today in drug enforcement operations.
The most significant amendment to the act was approved
in 1981, after Bennett unsuccessfully introduced legislation
that would have authorized the E>efense Department to
arrest drug traffickers outside of U.S. territory. Instead,
Congress allowed the department to support drug interdiction
indirectly by providing intelligence, equipment and
training to civilian agencies.
"There's no reason why U.S. government troops should
not be allowed to enforce the laws of the United States,"
insisted Bennett, whose 1981 measure passed the House
when reintroduced last year but ran into a Senate stonewall.
In fact, he said, troops "should have arrest powers
everywhere," not just outside of U.S. territory, "but I just
don't think Congress would pass that."
Whether Congress, in fact, is willing to authorize so
dramatic an escalation in today's politically charged war on
drugs will be learned on Sept. 10, when the House votes on
a measure sponsored by Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif.,
that would expand on the ^nnett proposal by allowing
troops to arrest drug smugglers on U.S. territory provided
that they are in "hot pursuit."
2106 NATIONAL JOURNAL 9/6/86
Bahamian officials interdict drug shipments
staged out of those heavily trafficked
islands. In another continuing operation,
Green Beret teams deployed In
Latin America have reportedly trained
local paramilitary organizations in
search-and-destroy antidrug techniques.
The military has also provided sea and
air support to the protracted Operation
Hat Trick interagency drug interdiction
campaigns conducted during each of the
past two years along the Caribbean sealanes.
According to the Navy, Hat Trick
II, which ended last February, resulted in
more than 1,300 arrests and seizure of
almost 400 tons of illegal drugs. Operation
Blast Furnace—in which six Army
Blackhawk helicopters, supported by 160
troops, are carrying Bolivian agents to
cocaine processing centers—is still under
way and may be extended beyond its
previously planned mid-September termination
date.
On the Arizona-Mexico border, the
Army has been running two programs,
code-named Hawkcye and Groundhog, in
which trainees learning how to operate
OV-l D Mohawk observation aircraft and
ground surveillance radars funnel any
useful data they collect to the Border
Patrol and the Customs Service.
While Hawkeye and Groundhog are
designated as training exercises that offer
ancillary benehts to the drug interdiction
effort. Pentagon testimony on
how other counter-narcotics field operations
mesh with its peacetime training
and wartime readiness requirements
has been mixed. Variances in
these assessments seem to depend on
the circumstances at hand.
Last year, for instance, as the
House prepared to vote on a bill that
would empower the military to bust
drug traffickers. Defense Secretary
Caspar W. Weinberger, who opposed
the legislation, argued in a letter to the
Armed Services Committee that "our
forces must be prepared to counter the
destructive power of modern weaponry.
Interdiction of the small boats
and aircraft typically used by drug
smugglers would not provide the realistic
training needed to prepare most
units to counter hostile military
forces."
In a recent interview, however, ^
Pothier noted that while the Pentagon
is required to seek reimbursement
from the "customer" when interagency
support is given that affords no
training value, the Defense Department
has sought no reimbursement for 98 per
cent of its drug interdiction activities.
Referring to the UH-IN special forces
helicopters that operate out of the Bahamas,
Pothier asked: "What better training
value than to operate at night over
water with little or no (navigation] aids,
using night-vision goggles? That's what
special ops helo guys do."
That also goes for the helicopters now
flying Blast Furnace missions in Bolivia,
Pothier added. "To operate far displaced
from normal supply distribution points
over topography they are not familiar
with, talk about the end of the logistical
tail," he said. "What greater training for
low-intensity conflict?"
The very fact that the Army wagged a
huge and quite obvious logistical tail.in
getting to Bolivia, however, and that word
of the raids leaked out long before they
were launched, have led some analysts to
wonder whether the U.S. military's innate
operational gigantism will hamstring
it in launching lightning raids against
drug operators, who often have excellent
intelligence and mobility.
To keep four Blackhawks in the field,
the Army needed to have six helicopters
on hand to cover for possible breakdowns.
To support the six helicopters, it needed
160 troops to carry out maintenance, security,
kitchen duty and other tasks. And
to transport the Blackhawks, it needed a
huge Air Force C-5 Galaxy airlifter. As
Army Gen. John R. Galvin, chief of the
Panama-based Southern Command, acknowledged
during an Aug. 14 press conference,
"You can't put a C-5 into Santa
Rep. Glenn English, D-Okla.
Femagon cooperation has been reluctant.
Cruz [Bolivia] and pretend that it was a
Piper Cub."
Pothier, however, argued that "the fact
that the C-5 arrived and was very visible
probably affected only the first day's operation."
Even if the Blackhawks had
come in unheralded, once they flew a
mission, he said, "the word would have
spread like wildfire throughout the drug
community." Despite the early tipoff and
some much-publicized snarls. Blast Furnace
has been officially rated a success.
Galvin professed himself pleased that of
the 25 missions the Army has flown with
Bolivian agents, a fourth have resulted in
the seizure of cocaine processing equipment.
According to Cornelius Dougherty,
a spokesman for the Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA), the Justice Department
agency that is running Blast
Furnace, the military has done "a hell of
a job" in Bolivia, where the price of coca
leaf has plummeted thanks to disrupted
demand, a market fluctuation the DEA
hopes will discourage coca planters.
Asked whether the military planned to
work with the DEA elsewhere in a similar
operation, Pothier would say only that "if
the need arises, we'll do our b«t to respond.
We're not the point of the spear on
this thing."
WHO PAYS?
One drug interdiction program on
which the Pentagon has taken some heat
from Congress is the SI 5 million measure
passed last year to create 100 five-member
Coast Guard Tactical Law Enforcement
Teams (TACLETs). The teams embark
on Navy ships to carry out the drug
busts that Navy personnel are currently
prevented by law from performing.
Several Members, most vocally
D'Amato and Stevens, charge that the
teams have been underused and complain
that the Navy did not request
another S15 million in fiscal 1987 for
the program. "If it means stopping
exercises in the North Pacific, then
that's what we want," Stevens
snapped at Pentagon witnesses during
a July 30 hearing. "We want these
naval assets used in the war on drugs."
Pothier responded in an interview
that the program has gotten off to a
slow start only because it takes nine
months to train TACLET personnel in
law enforcement practices to the point
that "you trust them to go out and use
a gun." The Navy has offered 344
"ship steaming days" this year to the
Coast Guard, which has availed itself
of only 91, in part because it has fully
trained only 55 TACLET personnel of
the 300 that have so far been recruited.
The Navy did not request
additional funds for fiscal 1987,
Pothier said, because last year's
appropriations language "was very specific;
it said S15 million for fiscal 1986,
not an ad nauseam requirement."
Coast Guard chief Adm. Paul A. Yost
told Stevens's subcommittee that because
of the ebb and flow of Navy fleet
operations and the short transit times of
its ships through drug interdiction areas.
NATIONAL JOURNAL 9/6/86 2107
all 500 of the designated
TACLET personnel, even when
trained, probably "cannot be
used productively aboard Navy
ships."
Nonetheless, in approving
$300 million in Defense Department
funds on Aug. 6 to beef up
the Coast Guard's defense capabilities,
the Senate earmarked
another $15 million for
the TACLET program and ordered
that 500 Coast Guard
drug agents be assigned to
Navy ships each year. The brief
debate on the money bill for the
Coast Guard, which operates
under the aegis of the Transportation
Department in peacetime,
was marked by misgivings,
especially on the part of
Armed Services Committee
members, over which department's
account the funds
should be drawn from.
"In the future, we are going
to have to look to the Department
of Transportation to fund
this adequately," contended
Sen. Sam Nunn of Geo^a, the
Armed Services Committee's
ranking Democrat, "because
the Navy budget is going to be under
more squeeze, in my opinion, in the coming
years, than the Coast Guard budget."
A similar, if more protracted debate
was played out the next day when the
Senate considered DeConcini's bill to
spend $295 million in defense funds on
drug interdiction equipment to be transferred
to the Customs Service, including
four Hawkeye radar surveillance planes,
three radar aerostats and four P-3 Orions
specially modihed with the huge APS-
138 radar saucer carried by advanced
versions of the Hawkeye. Those would
replace the Orions that Customs currently
operates, which carry far less capable
radars taken from F-15 fighters.
"We are broke," complained Senate
Armed Services Committee chairman
Barry Goldwater, R-Ariz. "1 would love
to do it. But we cannot even buy those
aircraft for the Air Force or the Navy or
the Army, let alone for the very important
task of drug interdiction." DeConcini
retorted that "if we are willing to
spend over $3 billion on a Strategic Defense
Initiative {"Star Wars" antimissile
research program] that might not work,
then we should be able to find $295
million for a program that will."
DeConcini prevailed, but only after
agreeing to knock out the modified Orions.
The Lockheed Corp., contractor for
the submarin^hunting Orions, has for
several years been looking for someone
willing to pay for fitting the P-3 with the
Rejk Don Edwards, D-Calif.
Troops shouia be called out only in special cases.
APS-138 radar, which would make it
competitive with the Boeing Co.'s
AWACS and Great Britain's Nimrod.
Both the Navy and the National Drug
Enforcement Policy Board, chaired by
Attorney General l^win Meese III, have
strongly opposed Lockheed's efforts, supported
by several Members, to accomplish
its marketing aims by grace of the
drug interdiction program. With the Senate
vote, the issue appears closed, and
Customs will have to make do with E-
2Cs.
The $212 million equipment package
the Senate finally approved on Aug. 7,
which wilt be counted toward the $1.4
billion drug bill yet to be debated, is
similar in most respects to proposals that
the Meese drug board and the House
Armed Services Committee recently advanced.
English, charged with crafting
the defense portion of the House omnibus
drug bill, submitted a $440 million package
to the committee shortly before Congress
began its summer vacation. His
plan included the four modified P-3s,
three radar-equipped C-I30s for U.S.Mexico
border operations and two Panama-
based AC-130 unarmed gunships
carrying classified surveillance gear.
The committee whittled the cost of the
English package down to $213 million,
mostly by scrubbing the P-3s, the C-I30s
and the AC-l30s. The AC-130s, a committee
aide said, seemed more likely to
serve general military purposes in Central
America than the drug campaign
in particular, and so did
not belong in the omnibus drug
bill. Additionally, the various
proposals agree, as many as
seven new aerostats will be deployed,
forming a picket line of
radar blimps across the southem
border all the way out to the
Bahamas, and six Air Force
special operations airlift helicopters
will be moved to a base
closer to the Mexican border to
aid in apprehending drug smugglers.
PENTAGON OVERLOAD?
In an interview about his proposed
$440 million Pentagonfinanced
antidrug package,
English said that many defense
officials looked upon the department's
escalating fiscal and
operational role in the war on
drugs as a drain on funds and
resources. But, he noted, some
Members "want to make very
extreme demands on (the department]
, and this makes them
more cooperative than they
would be otherwise."
If Congress is meting out carrots
and sticks to secure the Pentagon's
cooperation, the biggest stick on the Hill,
without doubt, is a bill (HR 5381) that
House Armed Services Committee member
Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., has sponsored.
It would order the President to
"deploy equipment and personnel of the
Armed Forces sufficient to halt the unlawful
penetration of United States borders
by aircraft and vessels carrying narcotics."
These troops would be directed to
"locate, pursue, and seize such vessels
and aircraft and to arrest their crews."
Military busts could be made even on
U.S. territory, provided it was a case of
hot pursuit. Moreover, the military would
be given only 45 days after enactment of
the bill to "substantially" halt all drug
traffic across U.S. borders.
"Employing the military in this role is
the bold step we need in a drug war that
simply hasn't been sufficient to get drugs
out of America," Hunter said. "We've
been trying to fight this critical battle
with our hands tied behind our back. It's
time to unleash an all-out offensive
against drug trafficken."
Hunter's all-out oH'ensive has gained
surprising support in (he House, with 42
co-sponson, including the Armed Services
Committee's ranking Republican,
William L. Dickinson of Alabama. It is
considerably less popular, however, on
the other side of the Potomac. "We're not
[the Pentagon's] favorite people right
now," a Hunter aide conceded.
2108 NATIONAL JOURNAL 9/6/86
LogUtically, the implications
of the bill are mind-boggling.
According to the Federal Aviation
Administration, there were
88,000 incursions of all kinds
into U.S. airspace last year by
small, low-flying aircraft. Yet
the Air Force has only 2S0 aircraft
dedicated to continental
air defense. "With 88,000 incursions
over 365 days,"
Pothier said, "if you give the
military that charge, to become
the enforcers of air interdiction,
we would have to intercept
them all." He termed this "an
impossible task."
Similarly, he noted, 177,000
sea-going l^ts are registered in
the United States, which has
thousands of miles of craggy
coastline. What the bill "is e^
fectively suggesting is a naval
blockade," he said. "How is
that going to play with John Q.
Public?"
To seal off the 2,000-mile
border. Army officials say, they
would need to divert up to 70
battalioits, or roughly a third of
their total forces.
Reflecting on the Bolivian
operation, Pothier said: 'The department's
view is that as good sound military
strategy, to maximize your effectiveness,
you go to the source. You don't try to
interdict along the U.S. border, [where]
the dnigger has all of the advantages.
You go to the source, where he or she has
all of the disadvantages."
The provision in the Hunter bill that
would allow the military to make arrests
also raises a host of legal and operational
issues, especially civil liberties concerns
stemming from the Posse Comitatus Act.
"Some of the recent practices of the
Defense Department with regard to Bolivia
and elsewhere don't raise Posse Comitatus
issues and are not things that we
are actively pursuing," said Barry W.
Lynn, legislative counsel for the American
Civil Liberties Union. But "this notion
that everything should be jettisoned,
that we should let the paratroopers go
into Harlem and clean up the drug traffic,
is a pretty frightening prospect."
Rep. E>on Edwards, D-Calif., a former
FBI agent and chairman of the Judiciary
Committee's Civil and Constitutional
Rights Subcommittee, agreed. Military
forces "should be called out only under
very special circumstances," he said.
"But here we are talking about day after
day, week after week, in drug interdiction."
A similar proposal was subjected to a
lengthy House debate last year when
Rep. Charles E. Bennett, D-Fla., chairSen.
Demis DcCuiciid, D-Ariz.
Illegal drugs are a threat to national security.
man of the Armed Services Sea Power
and Strategic and Critical Materials Subcommittee,
reintroduced a bill that failed
to pass in 1981 allowing naval forces to
arrest drug smugglers in international waters.
One of the many objections Weinberger
raised in a lengthy letter to House
Armed Services Committee chairman
Les Aspin, D-Wis., was that "our commanders
and their staffs frequently
would spend extensive time in court"
testifying in narcotics cases, which would
hurt military readiness.
Weinberger also protested that "use of
the military for these functions would
require a heavy training investment in
civilian law enforcement techniques,"
cutting into the time available for purely
military training. Rep. Tommy F. Robinson,
D-Ark., in fact, suggested during the
House debate that students at the Naval
Academy and naval training centers be
required to take 200 or more hours of
instruction in criminal procedure and
then "continue to receive on-the-job training
to keep them up to date on all the
Supreme Court rulings."
An amendment Robinson proposed to
that effect was voted down, as was a
substitute amendment English introduced
calling for a Pentagon study comparing
the Bennett plan with an expanded
TACLET program. But the Bennett proposal
was approved by a resounding 364-
31 vote. The measure later met defeat in
conference with the Senate, however, and
the 500-agent TACLET program
was instituted in its stead.
Bennett, a co-sponsor of the
Hunter proposal, said he still
thinks that the military should
have drug bust authority and
dismissed the [>efense Department's
objections. "It will make
them more ready, not less," he
argued. "Rather than just deterring
a future war, we would
be fighting a war that already
exists." Commanden need not
be tied up in court after making
arrests, he continued, because
they "could assign an able noncom
to carry it out."
Other congressional proponents
of an aggressive war on
drugs, however, including English
and DeConcini, would
rather not go that far. "That
may become necessary," DeConcini
said, "but I don't think J that we're there yet in the war
" on drugs to abrogate the Posse i Comitatus Act." I The DEA also has reservaiiS
tions about the idea. "We think
the way that [the military is]
being utilized now—for surveillance,
transportation and intelligence
purposes—is sufficient," Dougherty
said. "We don't want them to have
actual hands-on arrest authority; that
would not be useful."
Pothier reiterated the drawbacks that
Weinberger enumerated last year and
cited another: The illegal drug trade, valued
by the President's Commission on
Organized Crime last March at $27 billion-
SllO billion a year, tends to corrupt
individuals in every institution that comes
into contact with it, including the military.
Two years ago, for instance, the
president of Colombia had to withdraw
an entire army group from the field because
of its increasing complicity with
drug traffickers.
There is no guarantee that the U.S.
miliury will necessarily prove any more
resistant. A high-level informant recently
testified that "the AWACS schedules
were more accurate in South America
than they were in Oklahoma City,"
Pothier said. "This is not to suggest that
military people made the information
available, bemuse civilians had access to
a lot of the data. But that's another reason
that we're concerned about this larger
role that's being suggested on the Hill.
"If one agrees with the wisdom of the
Posse Comitatus Act, then we think there
is a role for us, it's proper and it's a role
we're now playing," he continued.
"We're very proactive in that regard,
[but] we're very reticent to become enforcers
of civilian laws." •
NATIONAL JOURNAL 9/6/86 2109
If4
lO^niYM Na281 ^•^rPtf.SEmMBER 12.
oti^Votes
Le^slatioii
Measure ^uld Allow
Use of Death I^nalty,
Military Interdiction
By Bdntd Walek
ayvburvnOT
. The Houa6 overwbelmm^ ap-
^ proved a sweepag Botidrag biS la^
r. olgbi after voting to aDcmr impoai'
'. tiooofthadeatfaptaiJtrifidnig^
\ latod iwnder caaaa aad to
U'^ Dute^ ftvceo in drug ix^*
effbrta iipog the countty's
oMfta aod bonlen.
. ^ Tbe vote oo finaJ passage was
^ to I6k to indkatioa <A the
' atroog forces prcpelUng
CoagrBsa toward sdiat lawmakecs
. fepwtediy described as a dedarw*
'. tfoo of Nor on drugs.*
Tbe handful of oppoAenCs to pa^
sags was made 9 ^ liberal Demooais,
byiuding several members
, ol the Congresfional Blad; Caucus,
who argoed that socds proviaiocis of
tbe biO would cany a uikmal an-
. ddrug crusade to rirm
There were coofbctiag estimates
the cost of tbe anibitfo^ pr>
gram, but in Its final form the
House hm aitflu'TOes mere than $2
Ulfoo Id afltidrug activUies next
aod a total (d more than $4
bUlioD over tbe next three years.
However, while tbe measure autho
rbee these amouata, ucplemenla'
tioo is cootingent 00 Senate pasmge
of similar legialatioa and enactment
of appropriationa blDs.
Before approving the measure,
tbe House also boosted the l^'s
^^OQginal level by more
tiiaa SI bilUoo end voted to change
>;]^'lecluaioiiary rule" so that some
. fflegally obcamed endcacf could be
used in court
The cofitroversial provisions,
added yesterday as amendments to
ftha drug legislation, may face
: strong opposition in the Seoate. but
' iDost were adopted by wide margiiia
;in tbe House, wittrt tbe antidrug
efidrt is seen as a compelling electiofi-
year issue.
, House Jubcfoty ChairmaD Peter
:W. Rodmo Jr. who was
, descrfoed by c(^eagaes aa 'furious'
. over tbe decaaioo by Democmic
leeders to aBovcoosideratltti of the
gxclusiouary rule and death peoaJty
amendments, said. 'We have been
SMOBUG0.AB,CSLZ
EMBRACE IN Soimi AFRICA
lUaMVriDMUS
Bigbti adhrUts Wlnak UsadeU. left, aod CoreUa Scolk King Uaa dojiog
aa SMlieu] aeeUng at Mindabi's bone la Soweio. Story on Poge A30.
House Democrats Accept
Senate's S. Africa Sanctions
Decision Qears Wiy for Fast Final Passage
ByHekn Dnw
1*iN"heSI«W«
House Denocntic leaders
agreed yesterday to accept tbe Senate's
veciieo at leglsliHoii imposiiig
saoctioia on the wblte-nunority
government of South Alrtce, clearing
the way for final passage of tbe
neaave as early as today.
Tbey sbsodoiied Ibeir own tougher
je^iallon after the Congressional
Black Caucua agreed to go along
in hopes cd assuring enactment of
sanctions, over a presidential veto if
necesesiy, before Congreea adjourns
for the year as scheduled in
early October.
To overcome concerns that the
Senate meesuro could be interpreted
to preempt state and local
lawa that ioclu^ atronger aanc-
CiaBS. tbe Houae will vote separately
on language asserting tbat it did
not intend to preclude any state or
Jocal action againat South AMca.
Senate Foreign Relatmis Committee
Chairman Rkhatd G. Lugar
(R-lDd>tuggesled during debate on
the measure last mooih that the
federal law would supersede slate
and local laws. But aides said yesterday
that his lemsrks were meant
to apply only to a particularfy farreaching
amendment under consideration
at the time,
Tbe Senate meiauie "is not as
strong as the Houae verahm but it
has real bite,' Rep. Howard E. Wolpe
(D-Mich ), chairman of the Foreign
Affairs subcommittee on Africs, tM
the Rules Cooimiitee in urging that
the House accept the Swate bill
rather than go to a potentially Irou-
Uesome conference on the issue.
Set SANCnONS, AM Cd C
Tlow^mkes Record P
Fear of Inflation, Higher Interest Rates Setf
By Stan Hindsn
awwueP* SWIIme
WaR Street was buried yesterday
in an avalanche of sell ordera that
gavs Qm stock maHiet one cd its
oeepesl price slides ever.
llM Dow juoes industrial sversge,
the mosr widely watdwd stock
lU^t baromster, plunged nn unprecedented
86.61 points. Market
srtalysta said the slide was caused in
large part by nervous mvesiors convinced
that inflation and higher intereet
rates iay ahead-
Volume on tbe New York Slock
Ek^nge hit 237.5 millioD shares,
a one-day record that eclipsed the
236.5 million shares tradsd mi Aug.
3.1984.
In the worst of all pos&ble
woilda, it doesn't get much worse
than that,' declated Larry WachteL
market analyst for Prudential-
Bsche, looking at the market's selloff.
Waditel said he expected another
wsve of selling today.
The DJIA closed at 1792.89.
down 86.61 pointa for the day, a
loss of 4.6 percent. While it was the
biggest one-day point.drop hi history,
the percentage loss was fu
less than the 12.9 percent drop on
Oct 28,1929, the year of the Great
Crash.
The Urgest previous one-day.
drop came on July 7, when the Dow
fell 61.87 points. Overall stockmarket
kuseh yesterday amounted
to S110.S2 billion, as messured by
an index maintained by the investment
film of WiUhire Associates.
Yesterday's market reaction revealed
a striking tumarotiod ID expectations
for the U.S. economy,.
Tbe setback occurred on^ one
week after the Dow hit an sdl-lime
record at 1919.71.
Market watchers said tbe sell-off
was a sign investors thou^t that
the bull market had run its course
and tbat Improved corporate earnings
would he insufficient to sustain
higher stock prices, especially li interest
rates rise.
A barrage of institutional selling
programs, linked to multimilliondollar
computer trading strategies,
playH a key role.
ViRually all atodia dechned. On
the NYSE, 1,695 atocka declined,
while only 168 iaaues increaaed and
182 were UDchnnged.
Tbe market was propelled dosmward
by a corntsnation of factors,
includii^ nervous selling linked to
Set BTOCKB.AaO. Coll
• On the slock exekanne Hcnm-, it
•«it«Hl(,ssK,ieU." AigeBl
A BIG BEAR MAF
T>4URSDAy'S DECLINE OF THE DOW JONES
4
• WEDNESDAY'S CLOSE: 1B79 U
1 , .
1^
U5S.74 ^
lOrM 11:00
9:90 M.m.
SOURCE
A Board Room G
Put Tisch at CBS
Wyman's Revelations Seal-
By David A. Vise
WwltulM 1^ Sua Wnuf
NEW YORK, Sept, 11—
Three hours into the CBS board
of directors meeting Wednesday,
Chairman Thomas H. Wyman
took s gamble that was to cost
himftisjoh,
Wyman informed the board
that he had held secret discusaiofis
with Coca-Cols Co. about
acquiring CBS, and he recommended
to the board that it pursue
those talks further, according
Co weii-infonned sources,
who provided this picture of the
da/a events.
Already under sipificant
• K« Cordon Souler res%ns si CSS New
pressure
Tisch. C
er, and i
Pnley, I
Inrgest a
betting t
neuverv
sale of
would kr
would foi
directors
support
ment, Im
-Wynu
foot.' on
CBS boai
After
ommend.
Br
Riend Who Gave $1,150 Gift
•lb Effi Barry Lobbied Mayor
tfox. "He tray have had ccnUct with
me to give me some informstiod,*
tbe mayor said. *I consfoet lobbying
CO be when you Cry to eonvince
someone to support a certaa position.'
18 D.C. Contractors Owe
$2.4 MiUion in Bacli Taxes
Pol
De<
..tJUSC V71VC0 V/VCX »*IXV/JUXIXJ.*^ •''•IT""
I fc**-. VK^- •••,1 -.'rro
BRUG8. fnaM
^ling the war OS dniga. but sow
necms to IM tba attack ia on tbe
Soi^tution of tha Uoitod Statea."
2 -la foctbaH, thare ts a thing caOed
iuing on,' • Rep- Palnda Schroekr
(IM^io.) said ia atguing against
Xe death penallr ptoviaion. "I ttiink
|h4 we are seeing is polilicai 'pii-
K(gi'right before an election.'
!iy death penahy amendment
Approved m to 112 despite
..atges by critks that it is seriously
li<^ed and could provoke a Senate
libeateT, endangering tbe entire
litidrug package.
I Bat, in an atmosphere that one
Jtmgresaional ride described ss
Jnythitig goes," a mriority ot law-
Bakers agreed with Rep. George
|r. Cekss (R-Pa.), sponsor of the
Inendment, who t<^ the House:
1 The drug dealer will poison our
dace, enslave our childcen. kill I judge .... He will stop at noth-
|g. This amendment is society's
: to this killer who seems
^isioppabie."
I la the debate, advocates of a
,.s national war against illegal
.1 easily bniriied aside objec-
,...;s to the new provisioos.
I House voted 237 to 177 to
tbe preridect to deploy
'i military force to halt the
penetration of United
•tattt borders by aircraft and ves-
&ls carrying narcotics.'
£ The provision would require the
Siilkary to provide "continuous
3erial radar coverage of the southern
border of the United States'
dnd to 'pursue and seiae intruding
•ircraft" thought to be carrying ih
2gal drugs.
§ The amendment was opposed by
Bonservative members of the
§irmed Services Committee, who
tailed it unworkable and a diain on
fMtagon resources, and by liberal
xrata, who charged it was an
. .-cedented erosion of the role
4f civilian law enforcement.
I This strikes st something funmsmental
in our system,' said Rep.
4>on Edwards (D-Calif.). 'It brings
4he mililary, with all its awesome
^jght and unique misrion, into ci-
^Lun law enforcement.'
But supporters of the amendrnent
said a nstunal wax on drugsehoutd
deploy all ot tbe nauon's weapons.
"Give me tbe Army, the Navy,
tbe Air Force,' shouted Rep.
Tommy F. Robinsoo (D-Arfc.).
The House then voted 259 to
153 to relax tbe exclusionary rule
against illegal search and seizure.
The amendment, sponsored by Rep
Daniel E. Lungren (R-Calif.), vrould
allow tbe use in crimrisl trials of
evidence obtainqd illepily and
without s search warrant if the law
enforcement officer had acted in
"good faith.'
Lungren called his proposal the
gut-check amendment,' asying. If
you don't make this fundamental
change In tbe courtroom, it is all for
naught."
The Reagan ndministiation had a
mixed reaction to the most controversial
measures approved by the
House.
Concerning a military rale in
drug interdiction efforts. Defense
Department qiokesman Robert
Sims said: "Generally. Secretary
(Caspar W.) Weinberger's view is
that this is s bad precedent—that
ia, to use tbe Aitny as a (xdice
force.'
Justice Department officials,
however, quickly embraced the proweakening
of the excluskmacy
rule. This is Ceriific,*
department spokesman Terry H.
Eastland said. "Obviously the drug
issue is bringing members of the
House to their senses at last.'
Jerry Bernan, chief legislative
counsel of tbe American Civil Liberties
Union, said a relaxation of
rules against iilegal search and set.
sure "will do nothing to halt the
problem of drugs, but only erode
the privacy of every Ammcan ehisen.*
Bennan said he hoped the provisions
dealing with the death penalty,
the extfuskmary rule and the
role d tbe military will be striKied
from the bill by the Senate. There
is no way to stop the House when It
is in an election-year panic on an
Issue like this,' he said.
The House measure would authorize
ao estimated $1 6 billion in antidrug
programs in fecal 1987,
whicli begins Oct. 1, and a total of
airaoat $3 hBkm over the next
three yearn. The bill would increaae
criminal penalties for drug offenses,
beef up sgeades such as the Coast
Guard and Ibe Customa Service
that are charged with inteidictiog
drug traffic, and pour millioos of
dollars into drug education and rehabiliiation
programs and construction
of additional pnaons.
While major quesliona remain
over how tbe ambitious effort would
be financed, the House signaled
that co« was no object in the war
on drugs.
Altemptt to reduce (uoding kv-
^ in the bill were rejected, while
tfie House agreed, 24210 171, loan
amendment by Rep. Charles B.
Rsngel (D-N.Y.) that would add Si
billion to the overall cost of the program
by boosling antidrug grnnts to
state and local law enforcement
agencies from S300 million to $1.3
billion over the next Pwo years. The
proposal, which critics described as
a substitute for the expiring federal
revenue sharing program, also
would reduce tbe state and local
government matching-funds requirement
from 50 percent to 10
TODAY IN CONGRESS
SCKATE
Uacn't 10 rm,
CofimWMf
Hew*n tnd Urtoa
Alim^».30Jjn 00¥< OkSlfW
N cexsiWf xanendtug tht F«tV$
C«'r(ip< PrKTiCn Acl et 19". •'<4 (M
n«nin4tioo Hafoid Owy** to bo FEM*
•dtniBt OHkMit 0H««
CnoTB Kiturai ftnourcM— 10 • >"
Op«o To NMO nir^ on
.-sV. 1*,V -IIP-WI i4w>
SoWeiwhWNew*—lOo.m Oa«4.
Ptnemi ffieOtfiKio moTWn. 219 Mwl
OftK* OuiidtnS.
HOUSE
M0O6«I lOO-Pi.
CoevranM
Judtdory—10 a m. Open.
rdufm OM •'•la'Mt'pnai wM Mark
aNieiencr pHit marfiaea «ua,
naluWiaeQon W 2226 Riyburn mmm
Onice Bw'Kiaig.
percent, and would permit use of
federal funds for atate and local
priaon comtructioG,
The House riso voted to provide
an additional $54 million to the
Drug Eiifbrcentent Adminlalntian
for interdictkm efforts in the Briiamu,
and to require a sentence of
life imprisonment without parole for
an adult convicted a second time of
selling a dangerous drug to a minor
on ot near school grounds.
Meanwhile, President Reagan
presided over a thoic^ dlscusskHi'
<ri tbe drug issue in a Calhnet
council meeting yesterday, but
made no dednhns, according to (sie
officUL
In remarks yestetdiy to a grotgi
of buriness and dvic leaders, Reagan
^ke out strongly, saying:
"None ed us can rest while our children
are slill prey to pushers and a
culture of liceiise thai encourages
drug use-Hmmising kicks but deliveriiig
only despair and destruction.'
The White House Domestic Policy
CuwnciL in s spirited meeting
Wednesday, recommended a
sweeping antidrug effort. Senior
H/cteyf/eemai. Maofc-ftwnedSoiE clolWng A classic
device and oaltsmandiiB nov at StK Sec the aJfeaion
and enjoy saving on special cder ciabing, soifk sportcoats,
liouse/k oveicoals. The Meds Sieve.
Ibmonow from ff to consult wfii Mr. iohn Bahi^
icpresenlab've of Hicfcev-fteetnan, on his Fall collection.
aides were banished from yesterday's
meeling, and partidpants
were sworn to secrecy.
The coundl has recoramended
that all 1.1 mUlion federal workere
hi sensitive poairiooa be subjed to
testing for drug use, but left it up to
the prttident to determine whether
all governmeit job sKdicants
should be tested.
Office of Management and Budget
Director James C Miller 111
said Monday that the cost of the
president's program would be about
a quarter of a billion dollars in new
money. Presidential spcdiesman
tiry Speakea said yesterday that
the program totals between $2
(Idlionl and $2.5 billioa,' including
money to continiK programs already
in place^
Staff ttrilmJtidU* Hatmann,
Maliy Moon and Mary Tiomlan
amtr^ntid to this rrport
RurliRolj
Awocb
The govemm
federal court to
$21 niUioo in
fines against fouj
CO political exii
LaRoucbe Jr.
Tbe Justice E
its iDoticci that
gaiti""'vv" "hat
filsed to comtd;
grand jury sub
•blatantly disreg
tempt <( court«
The liwljim,
U.S. Distrkx Ci
vidauiaccoua
have been pilh
$45,000 a day
iratioos.
Prosecolon
jury is probing
cajd fraud and t
Georgetown
University
FaU198i
Contli
Edu
C
School ior Summer antl Continuing
Non-credit Continuing Education cUrast
week of Sept. 15,1986. Re^stratlon ren
many courses. Otoose from over 100 o
.Ing;
• Art History and
Appreciation
• Studio Arts
• Theatre
• Musk
• Religious E<
• Personal D<
• Personal Pii
• Mathematk
• Computers
• Arts In Washingtmi • Economics
• Ltteratuie • Public PoUc
• Writing • History
• Communications • Epochs In \
• Classics Clvillgation
• Philosophy • Inlematlon
languages Indade:
Arabic, Chinese, Ancient Egyptian, Eng
eign Language, German, Ancient Creek
brew. Modem Hebrew, Italian, Japanes
lugese, Russian. Spanish.
Registration will be hel
Sept. 13. I9f
\]
Law/Judiciary
House Passes $6 Billion Anti-Drug Package
Despite continuing budget-deficit
problems, the House Sept. 11 overwhelmingly
approved legislation (HR
5484) authorizing more than S6 billion
to combat narcotics trafficking and
discourage the use of illegal drugs.
The vote was 392-16, with all but
one of the "nays" cast by Democratic
liberals who said the House was being
stampeded by political considerations
into approving provisions that threatened
civil liberties. The lone Republican
to oppose the bill was Philip M.
Crane of Illinois.
Most other members vociferously
supported the measure, approving
amendment after amendment that
stiffened penalties against drug dealers
and added money to programs.
Indeed, every amendment offered
that authorized more funds or expanded
anti-drug efforts in any way
was approved, and every amendment
that would have cut authorizations or
programs was rejected.
"It's mob mentality in there,"
said Brian J. Donnelly, D-Mass. "It's
just become the single biggest issue in
the country."
"In football there's a thing called
piling on," said Patricia Schroeder, DColo.
"1 think we're seeing political
piling on right before the election."
The omnibus drug bill, which now
goes to the Senate, was rushed
through the legislative process in the
House in seven weeks. Speaker
Thomas P. O'Neill Ji,, D-Mass., announced
the initiative on July 23. It
was put together by Majority Leader
Jim Wright. D-Texas, in consultation
with Minority Leader Robert H. Michel,
R-lll. (Weekly Report p. 2068)
The measure authorizes new
funds for drug interdiction and for
drug-abuse education, prevention and
treatment. It stiffens penalties for
drug crimes, authorizing the death
penalty for those convicted of drugrelated
murders, and it requires the
military to become directly involved in
anti-drug efforts.
"This represents the first truly
comprehensive approach that Congress
will have made toward an all-out
—By Julie Rovner
war on this menace of illegal drugs,"
said Wright.
Not everyone agreed. "I fear this
bill is the legislative equivalent of
crack," said Barney Frank, D-Mass.,
referring to a potent new form of cocaine.
"It yields a short-term high, but
does long-term damage to the system
and it's expensive to boot."
Before passing the bill, the House
adopted amendments increasing authorization
levels by more than $1.2
billion. The Congressional Budget Office
had estimated the cost of the earlier
version at a total of $4,799 billion
over three years. $3,943 billion of it for
new programs and personnel.
'The House also adopted three
controversial. Republican-backed
amendments that authorize the death
penalty for certain drug traffickers,
give military personnel authority to
pursue and arrest drug smugglers in
U.S. territory, and provide an exception
for the so-called exclusionary
rule, which prohibits evidence obtained
illegally from being offered in
court.
These amendments, which were
allowed to be offered as a result of
negotiations between Wright and Michel,
angered some liberals. Several
Democrats criticized the leadership
for putting them in the position of
having to choose between long-held
philosophical views and running the
risk of "looking soft on drugs."
Senate Outlook
Several members expressed concerns
that the addition of such controversial
amendments turned a consensus
bill into one that could prompt a
Senate filibuster and potentially doom
the legislation.
Only minutes after the House approved
the death penalty amendment,
American Civil Liberties Union Director
Morton H. Halperin was pledging
all of the organization's resources toward
stopping the bill in the Senate.
But after final passage, a tired-
"This represents the first truly
comprehensive approach that
Congress will have made toward
an all-out war on this
menace of illegal drugs."
—House Majority Leader Jim Wright,
D-Texas
"I fear this bill is the legislative
equivalent of crach. It
yields a short-term high, but
does long-term damage to the
system and it's expensive to
boot."
—Rep. Barney Frank. D-Mass.
Cepyiiyhl CooyvtwOAol Qvoterl^ Wts
ttpioduenoe prohibfrd pol «ic«p4 br Sept. 13, 1986—PAGE 2125
Law/Judiciary • 2
looking Wright dismissed filibuster
threats and predicted quick Senate
passage and a presidential signature.
"Anyone responsible for preventing
this legislation from being enacted will
have an angry American public to answer
to," he warned.
The Senate, however, seems bent
on ignoring the House bill and taking
up its own package.
Majority Leader Robert Dole, RKan.,
said the leadership was waiting
for a Reagan administration package
expected the week of Sept. 15. President
Reagan planned a televised address
on the drug issue Sept. 14 with
his wife, Nancy, a longtime anti-drug
crusader.
Dole press secretary Walt Riker
said Senate Republicans hope to have
Reagan's plan, with a "substantial
amendment," ready for introduction
later in the week.
The president's package is expected
to include a provision requiring
drug testing for a large portion of the
federal work force, an issue that was
not taken up by the House.
Dole praised some elements of the
House bill, especially the floor amendments
dealing with the death penalty
and exclusionary rule, but voiced concern
about the measure's spending
levels. He also expressed reservations
about giving the military civilian law
enforcement powers.
In the meantime, the Senate
Democratic Caucus Sept. 9 announced
its own $1.65 billion package at a press
conference led by Minority Leader
Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va.
Billed as a complement to the
House bill, it would establish a Cabinet-
level "drug czar" to coordinate
federal drug control policy, increase
penalties for drug-related offenses,
and authorize funds for stepped-up
drug enforcement, interdiction at the
border, eradication in drug-source nations,
education, and treatment and
rehabilitation.
"There's a great deal of similarity"
between the Senate Democrats'
proposal and the House bill, said Sen.
Joseph R. Biden Jr., D-Del., co-chairman
of a Byrd-appointed Senate
Democratic working group on substance
and narcotics abuse. "But let's
not talk about who got there first.
Let's just do what we all acknowledge
we want to do."
Troops, Evidence, Death Penalty
The military amendment, offered
by Duncan L. Hunter, R-Calif., and
Tommy F. Robinson, D-Ark., was approved
by a 237-177 vote. It would
require the Department of Defense to
use existing funds to "deploy equipment
and personnel of the armed
forces sufficient to halt the unlawful
penetration of U.S. borders by aircraft
and vessels carrying narcotics." For
the first time, the military would be
given authority to pursue suspected
drug smugglers into U.S. territory and
make arrests.
"We are telling the president of
the United States: 'You can't think
about it, you can't have a jelly bean.
You shall deploy the members of the
armed services,'" said Robinson.
But opponents warned against allowing
the military to enforce civilian
laws. "This is something you just can't
have in the United States," said Don
Eklwards, D-Calif. "Next they will
have tanks coming down the streets,
like in Chile."
The exclusionary rule amendment,
offered by Dan Lungren, RCalif.,
and adopt^ 259-153, creates an
exception to the rule. It would permit
evidence gathered in an illegal
search to be offered in court "if the
search or seizure was undertaken in a
reasonable, good-faith belief that it
was in conformity with the Fourth
Amendment to the Constitution,"
which prohibits unreasonable search
and seizure.
The Supreme Court ruled in 1984
that the rule could be suspended if
officers had acted under warrants
later found to be defective. Lungren's
amendment would permit "good
faith" warrantless searches. (1984 Almanac
pp. 227, 5-A)
"I would say this is a gut-check
amendment," said Lungren. "It goes
to the question of whether or not we
are serious about dealing with the
drug problem."
But critics argued that the exclusionary
rule's purpose is to protect the
innocent, not to let the guilty go free.
"The Lungren amendment puts a gaping
hole in the Fourth Amendment,"
said Dan Gtickman, D-Kan.
The day's most heated debate
came on an amendment offered by
George W. Gekas, R-Pa., that allows
the death penalty to be imposed on
drug traffickers involved in a "continuing
criminal enterprise" who
"knowingly cause the death of any
other individual."
"There can be no ultimate war on
drugs if we do not cast our ultimate
weapon," Gekas said.
Opponents said that the death
penalty was inappropriate in a consensus
bill, and pointed repeatedly to a
statement by Reagan that "the drug
issue is too important" to let it become
"embroiled in a side issue such
as the death penalty."
"This is one of the most tragic
days of my life when in our hatred of
drugs, we trample the Constitution,"
said Parren J. Mitchell, D-Md.
The amendment, adopted on a
296-112 vote, would establish the second
potentially enforceable federal
death penalty since a 1972 Supreme
Court decision struck down most state
and federal death penalty statutes.
Currently, the only such penalty is one
for a killing during an aircraft hijacking.
That was enacted in 1974, but the
law has never been tested, and some
lawyers say it could be unconstitutional
in light of subsequent Supreme
Court decisions on death penalty statutes.
(1974 Almanac p. 275)
Other Amendments
Other major amendments adopted
included:
• By Charles E. Bennett, D-Fla., to
allow the military to assist drug enforcement
officials in searches, seizures
and arrests outside the United
States, by 359-52. Bennett's amendment
was further amended by the
Hunter-Robinson amendment.
• By Ken Kramer, R-Colo., to establish
a sentence of life imprisonment
without parole for a second conviction
of an individual over age 21 for
selling drugs to a child or teenager or
selling drugs at or near a school; by
355-54.
• By Glenn English, D-Okla., to increase
new funds for the Drug Enforcement
Administration from $60
million to $114 million and to earmark
the additional money for cooperative
narcotics interdiction efforts in the
Bahamas.
• By Charles B. Rangel, D-N.Y., to
increase by $1,055 billion the authorization
for grants for state and local
law enforcement, to reduce the state
and local matching requirement from
50 percent to 10 percent, and to permit
the funds to be used for non-federal
prison construction; by 242-171.
• By Claude Pepper, D-Fla., to increase
the authorization of funds for
drug abuse treatment from $180 million
to $280 million, by voice.
The House also rejected a number
of amendments, including one by Bennett
to mandate transfer of aliens arrested
for illegal entry or other federal
laws from state and local jails to federal
prisons. The vote was 198-206. I
PAGE 2126—Sept. 13, 1986
M
I jujlitiieil m '•hoh or •> 094 •*<•9' br edwowal cNsos
Aiiicricjul Pl[>e and Accessory Ixagiie
4121 Hillsboro Road • Suite 209
Nashville, 'Ibiincsscc 37215 ..bHAfOR,C.H:CHECHT
WASHINGTON. D.C.
lS8bSEP22 AHiO-U2
September 19, 1986
Senator Chick Hecht
U. S. Senate
Room SH-302
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Hecht:
The Afnerican Pipe and Accessory League is an organizalion composed of 710
pipe, tobacco and accessory manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers. We have
membership in all fifty states and five European countries. As director, it is
my duty to assemble the desires of our membership and share their concern. I
have received scores of letters and complaints concerning two bills which recently
passed the United States House of Representatives. The two bills, H.R.1625 and
H.R. 5282 (Mail Order Drug Paraphernalia and Import/Export of Drug Paraphernalia
which are apparently going to be merged into one bill by the United States Senate)
have created an incredible problem which 1 cannot resolve!
Please understand that the American Pipe and Accessory League feels that a
hard-line on drugs is not only necessary but long overdue. At the same time
though, we cannot have our tobacco products and accessories associated with drugs
or drug paraphernalia. The suggested lists of drug paraphernalia pipes includes
the composition of every conceivable historic, traditional and present day tobacco
pipe made or ever made, for example, metal, wooden, acrylic, glass, stone, plastic
or ceramic. Because of the Import-Export bill's exception citing Meerschaum
as a material that could not be used for drug paraphernalia, more questions have
surfaced. Now every traditional tobacco pipe manufacturer is rightfully seeking
their exemption status. Please find enclosed one such letter I have received from
a Dutch company which has been exporting pipes of ceramic and clay material to the
United States for over 235 years, but now find their ceramic and stone material
listed as drug paraphernalia.
In this time of drug and abuse awareness, any association, by name, to drugs
is devastating. 1 do not know how much these bills will help in curbing drugs
but I can already see the damage being rendered to traditional tobacco! The general
pipe and tobacco industry which have been under attack by way of the federal
ad/promotion ban and local "no smoking" ordinances may not be able to withstand
this final association with drugs.
Even though we are all against drugs and abuse, the American Pipe and Accessory
League cannot support this pending legislation for the reasons cited. Please
vote against t h i s i l l conceived smoking paraphernalia b i l l .
Sincerely,
RTV/es
End.
P.O.BOX507-2800AM GOUDA
BANK:
CREDIT LYONNAIS BANK
NEDERLAND
REK.NR. 63.64.37.299
POSTGIRO 5582604
HANDELSREG1STER K.v.K.
GOUDA 27622
TELEFOON 01828-10427
1749-1774
VAN DER WANT
P I J P E N F A B R I H K E N
ANNO 1749 B.V.
Gouda , September 1 t I986
Dear Sir ,
Recently I was informed the House of Congress is
considering H,R« 5282 ( To prohibit the importation of drug
paraphernalia ) to become a law . Although I am not a US
citizen my company and ray family did mutual beneficial
business with 8hr US-agents for mobe then 255 years o
1774-1811
1811-1840
1840-1885
1885- 1898
1885-1917
1917-1966
I subscribe your goal to outlaw everything which makes
the consumption » trading and production of drugs feasible .
In your latest proposal of July 29 « I986 you define " stone
bowls ( except Meerschaum )" as drug paraphernalia » I am
convinced you don't want to harm the legal trade in my clay
tobaccopipes and my ceramic hollow bowl tobaccopipes , however
the earlierquoted text opens the possiblity that my products
sometimes are regarded as drugparaphernalia and sometimes as
tobaccopipes •
Since my ancestor Pieter van der Want started the
company in 17^9 we produce long clay pipes called Churchwardens.
It was by then the only smoking instrument because cigars .
cigarettes and briar pipes were unknown . At the start of this
century we started to glaze the pipes like pottery . My
ceramic pipes are used for puffing tobacco , decoration on the
wall ( for example my Delft Blue pipes and collecting ( Christmas
pipes) •
In your proposal you make an exception for Meerschaumpipes,
I wonder whether you could include my clay tobaccopipes and
ceramic pipes in the exception in order to avoid future doubts
and mistakes . It is a humble request on behalf of my US-agents
and hundreds of retailtobaccodealere who enjoy selling
tobaccopipes of a company older then your beuatiful nation •
1966-1984
Yours respectfully ,
Aart H.W, van der Want
eighth generation pipemaker
1984-
September 19, 1986
i',Ern'"a tcr fiEmr
0 c
SEP 19 PJJ 2 f,3 DRUG CONTROL ACT
TITLE I. WHITE HOUSE LEGISLATION WITH SUGGESTED CHANGES NOTED
A. Drug Free Federal Workplace Act of 1986
This title amends the Rehabilitation Act and the Civil
Service Reform Act to make sure they do not bar agencies from
taking disciplinary action against Federal employees found to be
using illegal drugs. Also it makes sure the term "handicapped",
for purposes of qualifying for benefits, does not include someone
whose only handicap is current addiction to, or use of, illegal
drugs or alcohol.
The Senate Bill deletes the provision relating to pending
litigation.
The Senate Bill adds House language which instructs 0PM to
educate Federal employees as to the dangers of drug abuse and to
the availability of treatment and prevention programs.
B. Drug-Free Schools Act of 1986
The Bill contains a provision which authorizes a new $100
million state-administered grant program to establish drug-free
learning environments. The Bill also makes clear that Federal
law would not bar an educational institution from conducting a
program of drug testing. The Administration's language has been
modified to remove many of the reporting requirements and
restrictions on the use of the funds.
Additionally, the Bill requires the designation of an
official for drug abuse activities at several departments.
Further, it prohibits the awarding of Federal funds under this
Title to states who prohibit drug testing in educational
institutions.
-2-
C. Substance Abuse Services Amendments of 1986
The Administration's Bill eliminated various restrictions now
imposed on the states concerning the use of funds under the
alcohol and drug abuse and mental health services grant.
The Senate Bill would authorize appropriations for the
alcohol, drug abuse and mental health services block grant of
$600 million for fiscal year 1988, and 5% increases for fiscal
year 1989 through 1992. Of these funds, the Secretary, acting
through the Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Mental Health Administration,
shall reserve $100 million for existing state alcohol and drug
abuse treatment programs. Of this reserved amount, 40 percent
will be available for programs for "at-risk" youth.
The Bill also eliminates various restrictions now imposed on
states on the uses of funds under the Alcohol and Drug Abuse and
Mental Health Services Block Grant.
The Senate Bill grants the Secretary of Health and Human
Services the authority to withhold a State's alcohol, drug abuse
and mental health services block grant funds if the State
decriminalizes the possession or distribution of harmful drugs.
Another provision tracks previously reported legislation from
the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, S. 2595, "The
Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Mental Health Amendments of 1985" with
certain modifications. The modifications which include the
following:
One year reauthorization at $116 million for the National
Institute of Drug Abuse and $69 million for the National
Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; deletion of
section 10 and 11; addition of the following provisions:
The Bill further requires that the Secretary of Health and
Human Services shall prepare a National Plan to Combat Drug
Abuse.
The Bill establishes an Alcohol and Drug Abuse Clearinghouse
for the dissemination of materials concerning education and
prevention of drug abuse.
Additionally we require the Secretary of Health and Human
Services, through the FDA, to conduct a study of alkyl nitrates
and report to the appropriate Congressional committees as to
whether this substance should be treated as a drug under the
Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. Further, no funds under this
portion will be available to any state which decriminalizes
possession of controlled substances.
-3-
D. Drug interdiction and International Cooperation Act of 1986
International Forfeiture Enabling Act of 1986
This subtitle of the Administration package permits
forfeiture of property within the United States acquired from
foreign unlawful drug activities. The language from this
subtitle has been tracked in substantial part in S. 2683, the
"Money Laundering Crimes Act of 1986", which was included in the.-
Senate Democrat package. The House package includes a similar
provision passed as a McCollum amendment. The Senate passed S.
2683 as an amendment to the Debt Ceiling Bill by a vote of 98-0.
This provision is folded into the money laundering title. It is
essentially duplicative of that subtitle and need not be included
as a separate subtitle.
1. Mansfield Amendment Repeal Act of 1986
This section repeals the "Mansfield Amendment" which
prohibits officers and employees of the United States from
participating in narcotics arrests in foreign countries, and from
the interrogation or presence at the interrogation of a United
States person arrested in a foreign country with respect to
narcotics control, without the written consent of the person
being interrogated.
The Senate Bill strikes the Administration provision and
inserts the Murkowski Bill which modifies the Mansfield Amendment
by repealing the prohibition against U.S. drug agents being
present during an arrest. U.S. drug agents may be present at the
interrogation of a U.S. citizens only upon the consent of that
citizen.
2. Narcotic Traffickers Deportation Act of 1986
This section simplifies the current provisions of the
Immigration and Nationality Act authorizing the exclusion and
deportation of individuals convicted of drug related crimes, and
specifies the violation of foreign drug laws as grounds for
deportation or exclusion. The House Bill was amended by
Congressman Lungren and includes the Administration language.
The Senate Democrat Bill does not address this matter. The
Senate Bill incorporates the concept of the Administration
proposal but uses the language offered by Congressman Lungren.
- 4 -
3. Customs Enforcement Act
This subtitle makes a number of changes in the laws governing
Customs including increasing certain civil penalties and changing
the rules relating to the sale of seized assets. The Bill also
substantially increases penalties relating to unmanifested drugs
and other merchandise, grants the Secretary specific authority to
operate customs facilities in foreign countries and grants the
authority to extend U.S. Customs laws to foreign locations with
the consent of the country concerned.
•,4
The Senate Bill modifies the language to provide severe
penalties directed at those involved in the illegal
transportation of drugs. Penalties are not inadvertently imposed
on those aircraft owners/operators/pilots who are unconnected
with the illegal drug trade. An additional modification
clarifies that aircraft owners and operators are liable for fines
only when they participated in or were aware of the use of their
aircraft for the transportation of illegal drugs.
4. Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Prosecution Improvements
Act of 1986
This section resolves prosecutorial problems, which arise
during criminal trials, resulting from the execution of existing
authority which allows the Coast Guard to stop and board certain
vessels at sea and make arrests and seizures for violations of
U.S. laws.
E. Anti-Drug Enforcement Act of 1986
It is important to note that under the Sentencing Reform Act
of 1984, beginning November 1, 1987, Federal courts will be
required to use guidelines established by the United States
Sentencing Commission. Amendments seeking to impose specific
sentences and/or fines for specific violations will severely
damage the effort to bring consistency to fixing sentences at a
level to meet the crime.
1. Drug Penalties Enhancement Act of 1986
This section sets forth a series of amendments to stiffen
penalties for large-scale domestic drug trafficking. The House
Bill also increases penalties for such traffickers. The House
Bill was subject to extensive amendment on the Floor, resulting
in a patchwork of fines and penalties with no coordination or
consistency. Furthermore, there has been no effort to take into
account sentencing guidelines which are soon to be released by
the U.S. Sentencing Commission. Accordingly, the House penalties
-5-
may negate the work of the Commission in developing such
guidelines. Likewise, the Senate Democrats Bill includes a
section to provide for stiffer penalties. The Administration's
penalty provisions in this section have been developed to take
the guidelines into account.
2. Drug Possession Penalty Act
This section rewrites the penalty provisions for simple
possession of controlled substances. These stiff new penalties
include increased fines, mandatory imprisonment for second time
offenders, and repeal of pre-trial diversion for first
offenders. The House Bill makes minimal changes to penalties for
simple possession. The Senate Democrat Bill increases penalties
for simple possession offenses.
3. Continuing Drug Enterprise Penalty Act of 1986
This section provides for imposition of the death penalty for
commission of certain criminal offenses. The offenses include an
intentional killing while engaged in a continuing drug
enterprise, assassination or attempted assassination of the
President, murder for hire, murder by a Federal prisoner serving
a life sentence, and murder or loss of life arising out of a
hostage taking situation. In addition, this subtitle sets up
constitutional procedures for the imposition of the death penalty
for all crimes for which the death penalty is currently
provided. Among others, current law provides for imposition of
the death penalty for commission of the crimes of treason,
espionage, murder, and aircraft piracy. The House Drug Bill
provides for the death penalty only when an individual
intentionally kills another while engaged in a continuing drug
enterprise. The Administration's language which is similar to
the House Bill is included in the Senate Bill. Additionally, the
Senate Drug Bill contains the provisions of S. 239, which was
reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee and is pending on the
Senate Calendar. Similar legislation passed the Senate in 1984.
United States Marshals Service Act of 1986
This section is substantially the same as S. 2044, introduced
at the request of the Department of Justice and pending in the
Judiciary Committee. The Bill has been the subject of strong
opposition from the Federal judiciary. The substance of the
subtitle is only peripheral to drug enforcement and perceived by
some to threaten courtroom security. Neither the House nor the
Senate Democrat Bill contain any similar provision. This section
is not included.
-6-
4. Controlled Substances Import and Export Penalties
Enhancement Act of 1986
This section generally conforms penalties for import and
export violations to those established elsewhere in the
Administration's proposal. Once again, in an effort to strive
for consistency and encourage a comprehensive approach to the
drug penalty structure, the Administration's provisions are
incorporated as part of the Senate Bill.
5. Juvenile Drug Trafficking Act of 1986
This section provides for additional penalties for persons
who make use of juveniles in drug trafficking. Both the House
Bill and the Senate Democrat Bill address this same issue. The
House language makes it a crime for the adult offender to
"employ, use, persuade, induce, entice or coerce a person under
eighteen" to commit drug offenses, whereas the Administration's
language requires that the juvenile "act in concert" with the
adult offender. The Senate proposal incorporates the best
features from both the House Bill and the Administration's
language. It also incorporates language from the Senate
Democrats providing enhanced penalties for distribution to minors
and adds a new concept providing for enhanced penalties for
knowingly distributing to a pregnant individual.
6. Chemical Diversion and Trafficking Act of 1986
This section establishes a new system of control over the
sales of certain precursor and essential chemicals in the
manufacture of illegal drugs through new record keeping,
reporting, and identification requirements designed to keep these
chemicals out of the hands of illegal drug manufacturers. The
House package only provides for a study to determine the need for
legislation or regulation to control the diversion of legitimate
precursor and essential chemicals to the illegal manufacture of
drugs. The Senate Democrat package does not include any like
provision.
Money Laundering Crimes Act of 1986
This section of the Administration package provides an
offense for laundering the proceeds of certain specified crimes.
This section closely tracks the language of S. 2683, which has
passed the Senate and is also part of the Senate Democrat
package. The House package includes a slightly different money
laundering bill. S. 2683 was the subject of give-and-take
compromise with the Minority in order to develop consensus
legislation. It is very positive legislation, however, the
Administration's language is preferred. The Administration's
-7-
bill differs from S. 2683 in that it provides: enhanced
protection for financial institutions which disclose information;
broader summons authority for the Treasury Department; and,
forfeiture authority under title 31 rather than title 18. The
Senate bill adopts the Administration's language with certain
minor amendments. Since this measure has been passed in large
measure by the Senate, it appears in the text of the Bill in
Title II.
Controlled Substances Technical Amendments Act of 1986
This section makes technical corrections to the Controlled
Substances Act. The provisions of this subtitle were passed by
the Senate when it passed S. 1236 on April 17, 1986. The
provisions of this subtitle are included in the House Drug Bill
and the Senate Democrat Drug Bill. The provisions of the
Administration's Drug Package is included in the Senate Bill.
Since this measure has been passed by the Senate, it appears in
the text of the Bill in Title II.
Controlled Substances Analogs Enforcement Act of 1986
(Designer Drugs)
This section makes it unlawful to manufacture with the intent
to distribute, or to possess "designer drugs" intended for human
consumption. Since this measure has been passed by the Senate,
it appears in the text of the Bill in Title II.
The Administration provision is identical to S. 1437 as it
passed the Senate last December, with the exception of the
addition of conforming amendments. These conforming amendments
incorporate the prohibition of controlled substances analogs
elsewhere in the criminal code where reference is made to
controlled substances.
The House Bill contains a provision similar to S. 1437;
however, the definition of controlled substances analog set forth
in H.R. 5246 is problematic. The Senate Bill sets forth language
almost identical to S. 1437 except that the fines are increased
from ?250,000 to ?500,000 for an individual and $2 million other
than individuals.
7. Asset Forfeiture Amendments Act of 1986
This section of the Administration package provides for the
forfeiture of substitute assets where the proceeds of a specified
crime are lost, beyond judicial reach, substantially diminished,
or commingled. This subtitle goes beyond the other proposals in
the Senate Democrat package and the Senate-passed S. 2683, both
-8-
of which only provide for the forfeiture of traceable assets.
The House package does not provide for the forfeiture of
traceable or substitute assets.
8. Exclusionary Rule Limitation Act of 1986
This section contains limitations on the exclusionary rule
under which Federal courts have in the past suppressed or
excluded otherwise admissible evidence because of a determination
that it was obtained in an illegal manner. This proposal is
similar to S. 1784 which passed the Senate in the 98th Congress
and to S. 237 introduced by Senator Thurmond in the current
Congress. The Administration's language is preferable in that it
incorporates a standard which conforms most closely to case law
decided by the Supreme Court. The House Bill was amended to
provide for a limited exception to the exclusionary rule. The
Senate Democrat Bill contains no such provision.
9. Public Awareness and Private Sector Initiatives of 1986
This section creates a narrow, two year exemption from the
Competition in Contracting Act to allow payment of out-of-pocket
expenses for media and publication preparation where at least 50%
of the costs are borne by the private sector. It also creates a
narrow exemption to the current prohibition against releasing,
for domestic audiences, United States Information Agency films,
television spots, publications, etc.
-9-
TITLE II« BILLS PREVIOUSLY AGREED TO BY THE SENATE INCORPORATED
INTO THE BILL
A. S. 630 — Federal Drug Law Enforcement Agent Protection Act.
This Bill provides rewards to those assisting with the arrest
and conviction of persons guilty of killing or kidnapping a
Federal drug agent.
B. S. 850 — A bill to make it a Federal criminal offense to
operate or direct the operation of a common carrier while
intoxicated as a result of using alcohol or drugs.
C. S. 1236 — Technical amendments to the Comprehensive Crime
Control Act of 1983, as modified.
D. S. 1298 — Indian Juvenile Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention
Act, with a modification adding additional law enforcement
language for the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
E. S. 1437 — Designer Drug Enforcement Act as modified.
Includes conforming amendments suggested by the
Administration.
F. S. 2638 — The bill includes the authorization language
contained in the Department of Defense Authorization for
fiscal year 1987, which provides $227 million for drug
interdiction by the U.S. Customs Service and the U.S. Coast
Guard. The Senate Bill also calls for a study of drug use,
treatment and education at schools operated by the Department
of Defense. It also includes language to include driving
while impaired to the U.S. Code of Military Justice.
G. S. 2683 — Money Laundering
-10-
TITLE III. NEW INITIATIVES AGAINST DRUGS
A. White House Conference
Establishes a White House Conference on Drug Abuse,
Education, Prevention and Treatment. Both the House Bill and the
Senate Democrat Bill call for a White House Conference.
B. Federal Railroad Administration
FRA is directed to establish a program for the random drug _
testing of railroad engineers and all employees directly
responsible for the safety of railroad operations.
C. Federal Aviation Administration
FAA is required to include in any "drug free workplace
program", a requirement that all air traffic controllers and
other agency personnel directly involved in air safety submit to
random drug testing. FAA is also directed to establish a program
for the testing of airline pilots, mechanics, and all employees
directly responsible for the safety of flight operations.
D. Use of Fraudulent Aircraft Registration
Adopts the House provision which, establishes a Federal
violation for the use of a forged or altered aircraft
registration in conjunction with transporting controlled
substances. Allows states to establish criminal penalties for
the use or attempted use of forged or altered aircraft
registration. States are allowed to provide for the seizure of
aircraft.
E. Federal Communications Commission
The Federal Communications Commission is authorized to revoke
licenses and seize communications equipment used in drug related
activities.
F. Highway Safety
The bill would establish a single, uniform license for
commercial bus and truck drivers. This would prevent commercial
drivers who have had licenses suspended or revoked in one state,
perhaps for alcohol or drug-related incidents, from "forum
shopping" and obtaining a new license in another state.
-11-
The Bill would use a withholding of Federal highway funds to
encourage states to participate in the uniform licensing system.
And would also: 1) increase from $20 million to $60 million the
authorization for the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program,
some of such increase to be used for roadside testing of drivers
for alcohol and drug impairment; 2) authorize funding for the
establishment of computer links between states to communicate
commercial driver license information, including prior drug and
alcohol use; and 3) use the withholding of Federal highway
funding to encourage the states to set .04 Blood Alcohol Content
as the maximum acceptable level for commercial drivers (this is
the standard used for airline pilots and railroad engineers).
The bill is very similar to S. 1903, which was reported
unanimously by the Commerce Committee.
The Senate Bill also contains resolution language that calls
upon the states to administer, where there is cause to do so,
tests of drivers suspected of driving under the influence of
controlled substances.
G. Harmful Inhalants
This section suggested by Senator Roth makes it illegal to
sell or advertise substances for the purpose of becoming
intoxicated. The section only applies where the substance has
traveled or is intended for travel in interstate commerce or the
mails.
The section provides for a sentence of five years and a
$250,000 fine.
H. GSP
The bill also includes a provision which requires that GSP
status be withdrawn from countries that do not cooperate in drug
control efforts.
I. Civil Penalty for Importing Drugs
For purposes of assessing a civil penalty for the illegal
importation of controlled substances, the Customs Service is
authorized to assign a value equal to the street value of the
controlled substance. And the civil penalty for such importation
will be two times the street value. This is relevant also to the
payments to informants since their informants fee will be based
on such a street value.
-12-
j. Habeas Corpus Reform
This section would curb the current abuse of habeas petitions
by providing that a Federal court may dismiss a petition if it
has been fully and fairly reviewed by the state court. This bill
would also promote finality of state court decisions by requiring
that habeas petitions be filed within a certain period of time.
S. 2301, which is identical to the language included in this
Bill, is pending on the Senate Calendar.
K. Armed Career Criminals
The bill includes the language of S. 2312. Present law
defines an armed career criminal as an individual who has three
or more convictions for "robbery or burglary". Under current
law, if a career criminal is convicted of possession of a
firearm, he must be sentenced to 15 years. S. 2312, which was
reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee, redefines an armed
career criminal as an individual who has three or more
convictions "for a crime of violence" or "a serious drug offense,
or both". The Administration package made no reference to armed
career criminals. The House package and the Senate Democrat
package both contain subtitles relating to career criminals.
They are substantially similar to S. 2312.
L. Drug Paraphernalia
S. 713, the Mail Order Drug Paraphernalia Control Act,
prohibits the sale and transportation of drug paraphernalia
through the services of the Postal Service or in interstate
commerce. It also provides for the seizure, forfeiture, and
destruction of drug paraphernalia. The Administration package
does not include any drug paraphernalia reference.
Representative Levine offered an amendment to the House package
which is substantially similar to S. 713.
M. Intelligence Agencies
The Bill designates the drug problem as a high-priority
national intelligence collection and action target and directs
the establishment of an inter-agency coordinating committee with
representatives from all intelligence collection and analysis
agencies, to set and prioritize drug-related intelligence
collection and action goals and targets and coordinate the
various drug-related activities of these agencies. The Bill also
requires an annual, classified report from the DCI to the
Intelligence Committees of both Houses, outlining what US
intelligence has done about drugs the preceding year? what it
will do in the coming year? and what it could do if additional
resources were provided.
-13-
N. Improving Law Enforcement And Narcotics Control Abroad
1. Requires the President to submit an annual report to the
Congress listing any country:
a. which engages in or facilitates the production or
distribution of illegal drugs.
b. any senior officials of which do so.
c. in which U.S. drug enforcement agents have suffered
or been threatened with.
d. which has refused reasonable U.S. requests for
cooperation in anti-drug programs, including aerial
"hot pursuit."
2. No U.S. aid shall be given, and U.S. representatives to
multilateral development banks shall oppose all aid from
those banks, to all countries listed, unless the
President certifies:
a. There is overriding national interest in providing
such aid.
b. The drug aid will encourage better cooperation on
drug programs.
3. The government of the country has adequately dealt with
cases of violence against U.S. drug enforcement agents.
Food aid and drug enforcement aid would be excluded from the
prohibition.
4. Drugs are declared a national security problem and the
President is urged to explore the possibility of engaging
such essentially security-oriented organizations as NATO
in cooperative drug programs.
5. Amends Foreign Assistance Act requiring that willingness
of foreign countries to enter into Mutual Legal
Assistance Treaties with the United States in order to
combat money-laundering should be factored into
Presidential determinations of foreign assistance.
6. Modifies FY 1987 conditions on assistance to Bolivia in
recognition of Bolivian cooperation with the United
States during Operation Blast Furnace. Places near term
emphasis on continued Bolivian cooperation on
interdiction efforts and later assistance on Bolivia's
progress in meeting illicit crop eradication goals.
-14-
7. Requires that intelligence agencies conduct a sufficient
number of aerial and other surveys to insure that a
reliable estimate of illicit crop production levels may
be made for the major producing countries.
8. Strengthens the Latin American Administration of Justice
program and permits human rights training funds to be
provided foreign police forces.
9. Various technical amendments.
O. Harcotics Control Assistance
Given the skyrocketing cost for maintenance of U.S. supplied
eradication and interdiction aircraft in Mexico, as well as the
inefficiencies of the program, a section was added which states
the United States shall retain title of aircraft and lease them
to the Mexican government (modification of House provision).
P. Freedom of Information Act
This section will prohibit public disclosure of law
enforcement investigative information that could reasonably be
expected to alert drug dealers and organized crime of law
enforcement activity related to them. A Drug Enforcement
Administration study found that 14% of all drug enforcement
investigations were significantly compromised or cancelled due to
public disclosure of information related to these investigations
and informants involved in them. The Director of the FBI and the
Department of Justice support this legislation. As well, this
language was unanimously approved by the Senate in the 98th
Congress. The House Drug Bill makes no reference to this problem
with the Freedom of Information Act.
Q. U.S. Forest Service S. 2809.
Grants general arrest authority to and permits the carrying
of firearms by designated Forest Service personnel. Authorizes
Forest Service personnel to enforce the Controlled Substances
Act. Prohibits the possession of a firearm or the placement of
boobytraps on Federal property where a controlled substance is
manufactured.
R. Trust Fund for Tax Refunds and Contributions
Vfhen taxpayers file their income tax returns, they would be
allowed to designate that all or part of any refund due be
contributed to a Drug Addiction Prevention Trust Fund. Taxpayers
may also make additional contributions to the Trust Fund at the
time they file their tax returns.
-15-
S. Immigration and Naturalization Service
Provides general, as opposed to limited, arrest authority to
agents in the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
T. Agriculture Payments and Loans
Extends current exclusion from receiving payments or loans if
found guilty of cultivation of controlled substances from 4 years
to 9 years, and establishes rewards for information leading to
the conviction of those cultivating controlled substances.
U. Action
Current law authorizes approximately $2 million under the
direction of ACTION for volunteer demonstration projects, of
which about $500,000 is currently allocated to drug abuse
prevention, education and treatment through the use of
volunteers. This provision would increase the current
authorization by $3 million, which would be earmarked for
expansion of the drug program.
V. STUDIES
1. Study on the Use of Existing Federal Buildings as Prisons
The Administrator of General Services and the Secretary of
Defense shall jointly conduct a study to identify any building
owned or operated by the United States which could be used, or
modified for use, as a prison by the Federal Bureau of Prisons.
2. Drug Law Enforcement Cooperation Study
The National Drug Enforcement Policy Board, in consultation
with the National Narcotics Border Interdiction System and state
and local law enforcement officials, shall study Federal drug law
enforcement efforts and make recommendations. The Board shall
report to Congress within 180 days of enactment of this subtitle
on its findings and conclusions.
3. Uniform Crime Reports and National Victimization Survey
Directs the inclusion of drug offenses as Part I offenses in
the Uniform Crime Report, and expands the National Victimization
Survey to include victimization of drug use.
4. Narcotic Assistance Study
GAO is mandated to conduct a study of our narcotic assistance
programs (House provision).
-16-
W. BORDER INTERDICTION
1. Department of Defense
The first section, by slightly amending existing statutes,
provides for the limited use of the military in drug
interdiction. Current law allows the use of military equipment
and personnel to enforce violations of the Controlled Substances
Act, upon the declaration of an emergency circumstance by the
Attorney General and Secretary of Defense. An emergency
circumstance "may be determined" to exist only when (1) the size
or scope of the suspected criminal activity in a given situation
poses a serious threat to the interests of the United States; and
(b) enforcement of the law would be seriously impaired if
assistance was not provided. The Senate Bill changes the
language to state: "an emergency circumstance exists when . . ."
Further, current law provides that the military may not be
used to interdict or to interrupt the passage of vessels or
aircrafts. The Senate Bill allows military personnel to
intercept for the purpose of identifying, monitoring, and
communicating the location and movement of vessels until such
time as Federal, state, or local law enforcement officials can
assume responsibility.
2. Additional Funds for Southern Border Initiative
The Administration has identified a need for a total of $400
million for the Southwest Border Initiative. In addition, the
Administration believes the Southeast Border Initiative may cost
$100 million. Title II of the Senate Bill provides $227 million
contained in the Senate-passed DOD Authorization Bill, an
additional $273 million is provided for a Southern Border
Initiative, bringing the total to $500 million.
3. Coast Guard Interdiction
The Senate Bill recognizes the important role the Coast Guard
plays in drug interdiction and the need to fund it adequately.
It provides continuing authority for the Coast Guard to engage in
maritime air surveillance and interdiction, and clarifies
existing enforcement authority concerning inspections,
examinations, searches, seizures and arrests.
s
-17-
FUNDS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1987
A. Drug Enforcement Administration
The FY 1987 Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary and
Related Agencies Appropriations Bill appropriated $427 million
for the DBA, this is $15 million more than was appropriated by
the House. We recommend an additional $45 million be authorized.
B. Federal Prison System
The Senate FY 1987 Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations
bill appropriated $129 million for prison construction compared
to $122.5 million in the House bill. We recommend an additional
$50 million be appropriated for these purposes.
Additionally, we would recommend that an additional $28
million be appropriated to finance the subsistence costs, medical
care, and prison guards associated with an increased prison
population.
C. The Judiciary, Defender Services
The FY 1987 Senate Commerce, Justice, Appropriations bill,
etc., appropriated $70 million as compared with the House bill
which appropriated $68.3 million. We would recommend an
additional $18 million be appropriated.
D. The Judiciary, Fees of Jurors and Commissioners
The Senate FY 1987 Commerce, Justice, etc., Appropriations
Bill appropriated $47 million as compared to the $44.6 million
appropriated by the House. We would recommend an additional $7.5
million be appropriated.
E. Drug Education Program Abroad
Authorizes an additional $3 million for AID and $2 million
for USIA devoted solely for drug education programs abroad.
F. Narcotics Control Assistance
The bill increases the narcotics foreign assistance authority
for FY 1987 by $45 million, $10 million of which is for
eradication and interdiction aircraft for use primarily in Latin
America (modification of House provision).
Additionally, $1 million of narcotics assistance funds is
earmarked for research on developing an aerial herbicide for coca
(House provision).
-18-
» ••
G, State and Local'Narcotics Control Assistance
Provides $100 million in grant funds, in a 50% matching
formula, to state and local enforcement agencies to be used for
investigation, arrest, and prosecution of drug offenders.
CAP REMOVAL FROM FORFEITURE FUNDS
The Department of Justice has a forfeiture fund generated
from seizures of assets in drug related prosecutions. The assets
consists of cash and proceeds of sales of these assets. By law,
these funds can be used for certain law enforcement purposes.
However, there is cap, administered by the Appropriations
Committee, on how much of the funds can be used each year. This
cap undercuts the basic purposes of the funds to have the seized
proceeds of criminal activities help finance the war on crime.
The Senate Bill would remove the cap on the fund and would
remove it from the budget allocation process. The bill would not
prevent the funds from being sequestered, if there were a
sequester.
CnfltAi ^
1986
At9^
T*
Senate Republicans
Unveil Antidrug Plan
Dole Predicts Enactment of a Major Bdl
(
sau
Cor
ed
th>
A(
Ql
S
8 i
By Edward Walsh
WaUn^on Post Stafi Writet
; Senate Republicans yesterday
jumped into the antidrug crusade
Sweeping Capitol Hill, unveiling a
$1.3 billion program at a news conference
that featured 10 GOP sen-
Stors seeking reelection in Novemt)
er.
« 1 don't think there is any turning
back," Majority Leader Robert J.
•Dole (R-Kan.) said in predicting enactment
of a major antidrug pack-
5age before Congress' scheduled
Adjournment in two weeks.
I "This bill is going to separate the
kalkers from the doers on the issue
[of drugs." added Sen. Strom Thur-
Imood (R-S.C.). •»-
t. Dole said he hopes a bipartisan
antidrug package can be fashioned
:&om the GOP proposal and. a plan
.(announced earlier by Senate Denijocrats.
He said enactment of anti-
•dn% legislation "is one thing ttat
•might make it worthwhile to stick
iarouttd here" beyond the Oct. 3 ad-
'joumment target.
I However, reaching a bitarti^
•consensus on antidrug legislation
I may be impeded by differences over
several key issoes.
Last week,, the House overwhelmingly
approved an antid^
measure that would allow capital
punishment in drug-related murders.
The Senate GOP proposal expands
on this, allowing the death
penalty for assassination or attempted
assassination of the president,
murder committed under a
•^urdet-for-hire" contract, murder
by a federal prisoner serving a life
and murder or odier loss
of life during a hostage-taking incident.
•
; The Senate Democrats' bill con-
' tains no death-penalty provision.
and an attempt to adopt one in the
Senate could easily set off a filibuster.
, ,
The Democratic proposal also
"would not change the "exclusiona^
rule," which bars use of illegally
obt^ned evidence in court. The
Senate GOP measure, like the
House bill, would grant "good-faith
exceptions to the rule in drug cases.
Another difference centers on
the use of the military in drug interdiction
efforts. The Senate Republican
plan calls for limited use of
riie military, to track and identify
aircraft and ships thought to carry
iUegai drugs, while the mote ambitious
House bill would direct the
military to "pursue and seize" intruding
airct^ and ships and to
Kovidfi round-the-clock aeral radar
.coverage of the country's sm^em
" • •
Dole said the Senate RepiMcan
plan would be less expensive tim
the House-passed measure, which
he estimat^ would cost $3 billion
in its firet year, compared with $1.3
billion for the GOP proposal. Othere
have estiniated the cost <rf the
House measure at more than $2
billion in fiscal 1987 and up to $6
l^n over the next fiye years:
. "We don't have to get hooked on
the spending habit to beat America's
drug p^)lem,* Dole said.
( President Reagan renewed his
antidrug message yesterday, referring
to a "drug and alcohol epidemic
in this country" that "no one is safe
from—not you, not me, and certamly
not our children, because this ep^
. idenuc has their name written on it.
In a speech to presents of historically
Wack colleges, Reagan told
of an 8-year-old drug a«r and pusher
whom Nancy Reagan learned of
while visiting a drug treatment center.
Reagan said the boy wore a
beeper to class so he could be notified
when he had a customer.
The president repeated the
theme of the televised appeal he
delivered with the First Lady last
Sunday and said he believed the
fight against drugs would won.
He quoted from the diary of a
World War I soldier, who wrote of
his determination to fight the war
"as if the issue of the whole struggle
depended on me alone."
"This is how America will crusade
against drugs." Reagan said.
"Not by making excuses, but by
each of us doing our part, by pulling
together." . .
Sixteen GOP senators attended
yesterday's Capitol Hill news conference,
inckding 10 who are up for
reeiection^Dole bristled when
a^ed why the Republicans had
waited to announce their antidrug
initiative, accusing the Democraticcontrolled
House of allowing antidrug
bills to "languish" all year and
then rushing to see how much
money you can throw" at the drug
problem.
But Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Tex.;,
who is not up for reelection, acknowledge
the strmig
yrar forces that are propellmg Congress
toward enactment of major,
antidrug legislation. Praising" Sen.
Paula Hawkins (R-Fla.) for her early
antidrug efforts, Gramm said that
now "everybody is stampeding to
get in on the issue, and that's
right."
Describing the U.S. situation as a
"war for survival" against drug dealers.
Hawkins said: "For too long we
have been outspent, outmannedand
outgunned in this war on drugs."
Among its provisions, the Senate
GOP plan would impose a mandatory
prison sentence for a second
conviction of drug possession and
would require random drug tests
for air traffic controllers.
The measure also would encourage
taxpayers due a refund to donate
a portion of it to the federal
antidrug campaign, which Dole ^
ticnated could raise up to $6 milhon
a year.
• i
staff writer Barbara Vobejda
contributed to this report
i
DUNCAN L HUNTER
4ITH [HSTRICT. CaUFORMIA
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
SELECT COMMITTEE ON
NARCOTICS ASUSE AND CONTROL Congras of the "Bnitd States
l^ouse of 'ReprtsEntattoEs
^Dashmgton, ©£ 20515
WASHINQTON OMCE
117 CANNON BUILDING
WASHINGTON. DC 20515
(202) 226-5672
MAIN OlSTWCT OFFICE:
366 SOUTH PIERCE STREET
El CAJON. CA S2020
INLAND
(619)579-3001
COASTAL
(619) 293-6383
September 23, 1986
The Hon. Chic Hecht
United States Senate
Washington, D. 0. 20510
<u'A*
crTn5 £1 r.~
P" -Xr
<£)
c
oo
^.4
Dear Senator Hecht:
During consideration of the House Omnibus Drug bill. Rep. Tomny
Robinson and I successfully offered an amendment which would provide
us with the necessary tools to win the war on drugs.
The Hunter-Robinson provisions direct the President to deploy,
within 30 days of the enactment of the bill, military equipment and
personnel in sufficient numbers to halt the unlawful penetration by
aircraft and vessels of drug traffickers across our border. The
military could locate, pursue, seize, and arrest crews of planes and
boats that are trafficking in drugs. The military could make
arrests only along U.S. borders and if they were in "hot pursuit".
In recent days, however, the Department of Defense has termed
this amendment an "impossible task." OOD has made statements saying
that they will have to interdict 88,000 aircraft and place troops
shoulder to shoulder across our border if these provisions are
enacted into law. These statements are very misleading.
I am enclosing some information which I believe will clarify the
purpose of this amendment and also show that DOD has the resources
to help in the war against drugs. I hope that during consideration
of the Senate drug bill, similar provisions will be included. If
you have any questions please contact Vicki Middleton of my staff at
X55672.
With best wishes.
Member of Congress
DH:vm
INTERDICTION FACTS
** While approximately 88,000 low flying aircraft enter U.S.
airspace, this is not the number of aircraft that the Department
of Defense would have to interdict. (This translates into
approximately 10 planes an hour.)
** First, aircraft crossing our northern border would be excluded.
** Second, all small aircraft crossing our southern border must
land at one of 27 designated airports. Therefore, small
aircraft that land at these designated border airports would not
have to be interdicted.
** A recent GAO report estimates that between 3,600 and 10,000
aircraft are suspected of smuggling illegal narcotics across our
southern border. That translates to between 10-27 planes a day
coming across the border.
**In addition, 60% of cocaine is smuggled by air and 90% of that at
night.
E2-C AVAILABLE FOR DRUG INTERDICTIOM
**As of 1/86 there were a total of 83 E2-C aircraft with 13 funded
but not built.
** Currently there are 6 carrier battle groups deployed. There are
4 E2-C's with each battle group. Total number of E-2C's
deployed 24.
** Therefore, there are 59 E-2C's not deployed and available for
drug interdiction efforts.
** It would take 6 E-2C stations to provide radar coverage of our
southern border. The Department of Defense estimates that it
would take 20 aircraft to provide nighttime coverage of our
border.
OV-10
The Marine Corps currently has two OV-10 squadrons located:
at I-tlAS Mew River, NC
at MCAS Camp Pendleton*
—there is also a 6 aircraft detachment in Okinawa
* The squadron at Camp Pendleton has 15 aircraft 7 of which have the
FLIR.
BLACKHAWKS
LOCATION NUMBERS
Ft. Campbell, KY 100
106th in KY 31
Ft. Bragg, NC 71
Ft. Stewart, GA 1°
Ft. Lewis, WA 36
Ft. Ord, CA 25
Ft. Devens, MA ^
Training and Doctrine Command:
Ft. Benning, GA ®
Ft. Eustis, VA 24
Ft. Rucker, AL 21
—only a fev/ now in the National Guard
--5 in Sen. Drug Bill for Arizona Guard
—remainder scattered around the world
Total number of Blackhawks 335
E-2C RADAR ORBITS AND SOUTHERN BORDER AIR BASES
}A Pnt<t Betfs
M Aoam 'UK Q.r n
MS
M .<UNeftou«
n SM*ov
sutk CtffVi «r -r fe>«<«7r
ft toMflt M«firrr.;'vi
SC CM(«»
X ChgHf
ic« Cn bvunCMii
K CtpiM tteum.u<
•C Ku r,
9C . CMltft «« SJ" U(^
CMcChmv
nc c*<uteiNi«
lac crtntMitu*
ISC. CsofJM..
.ire S«jt»s
IK Cialcit «r ip« HocB
19C Cvurr l«nirlir«
10 Oeuit V|li«v
7D DviMt
SO ».Js1«%*r
«} 0nioM«
U {^jlSovnei
If (I iZorro
If 'lo«>t«siFKUIB«*
If A foil FrMNick
f r«n Jrfcte"
3t forcUtnnur
*f Fart
V Fgrt FVmi*
)*A FojiSgn.K
F0JlSun1S«
" fe>\ ui«o<i
n* FotviOum
i(.« o«d'^u«atrB>ja«,<i«B>.r.
iG*a c»&-» ^. .1* '
1»a &>• Cklt Onriifv,\
tC iiarig farltae
Ml (('((I lijno fill'*
rx Af>4
JH -.I'v.ifjfl
s* 'c.- ftn
'J M»cl I'i*x
Jell' (j>.. .
«
If*"". ..
M W"i'i»v,n>,i„.,
41|| Uob iS L<t< O'WJ.'
SU W.ii> ir It <VKn
.ft Wwi. NMC,
'N di«'jr%
.U ri,xif^
10 (»N>iq«(
iO LHr^ar. Cem
«• tb«Ot
"iv"
utl'drx.
1
DUNCAN L. HUNTER
45™ OISTRICT, CALLFORMI*
COMMTTEC ON AFLMEO SERVICES
AUKOMHRRRIES:
MIUTAFTR PERSONNEL
ANO COMPENSATION
SEAPOWIP AND STAATESIC AND
CNITKAI. MATEAIAES
SELECT COMMITTEE ON NARCOTICS
A8USEAN0 CONTROL
REPUBLICAN TASI POFTCE
ONAORICUAURE
ASSISTANT REGIONAL WHIP.
WESTERN AND PLAINS STAHS
Congress of the lara'tetl States
^ODSE of 'RcprcBoitatitieB
, ©.£. 2051J »
REPLY TO:
• 117 CANNON BuiiDim
WASHINSTOH. O.C. 20SIB
(202) 22B-SS72
DISTRICT OPNCES
• 366 SOUTH PIERCE STREET
ELCAJON. CA 92020
INLAND
1619)579-3001
COASTAL
(619)293-6383
• 1101 AIRPORT ROAD, SUITE C
IMPERIAL. CA 92251
(619)353-6420
O 430 DAVIDSON STREET
CHULA VISTA. CA 92010
(619)422-0693
*MILITARY BORDER AIR FACILITIES CAPABLE OF HANDLING DRUG INTERDICTICN AIRCRAFT
VaNDENBERG AFB
NORTON AFB
MARCH AFB
NORIH ISLAND NAS
MIRAMAR NAS
EL CENTRO NAS
YUMA NAS
DAVIS MCOTHAN AFB
HOLCMAN AFB
LAUGHLIN AFB
CHASE FIELD NAS
CORPUS CHRISTI NAS
ELLINGTON AFB
NEW ORLEANS NAS
•
KESSLER AFB
EGLIN AFB
HURLBURT AFB
TYDALL AFB
MACDILL AFB
HOMESTEAD AFB
PATEtICK AFB
PENSACOLA NAS
KEY WEST NAS
JACKSONVILLE AFB
CECIL FIELD NAS
* ALL U.S. NAVAL AIR FACILITIES/STATIONS LISTED ABOVE ARE CAPABLE OF
ACCOMODATING BOTH E-2C AND P-3 AIRCRAFT. *
4
HUNTEH097
[9-4-851
AMENDMENT TO THE COMMITTEE PRINT OF THE OMNIBUS DRUG BILL
OFFERED BV MR. HUNTER OF CALIFORNIA
strike out subsection (a) o£ section 206 of the bill
(page 29, lines 13 through 19), and redesignate the following
subsections accordingly.
At the end of title II of the bill (page 30, after line
15), add the following new section:
i
1 SEC. 207. DSE OP ARMED FORCES FOR INTERDICTION OF NARCOTICS
AT UNITED STATES BORDERS.
(A) GENERAL REQUIREMENT.—
(1) AUTHORITY TO LOCATE, PURSUE, AND SEIZE AIRCRAFT
AND VESSELS.—Within 30 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the President shall deploy
equipment and personnel of the Armed Forces sufficient to
halt the unlawful penetration of United States borders by
aircraft and vessels carrying narcotics. Such equipment
and personnel shall be used to locate, pursue, and seize
such vessels and aircraft and to arrest their crews.
Military personnel may not make arrests of crew members
of any such aircraft or vessels after the crew members
have departed the aircraft or vessels, unless the
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
milicary personnel are in hoc pursuit.
(2) RADAR COVERAGE.—within 30 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the President shall deploy
radar aircraft in sufficient numbers so that during the
hours of darkness there is continuous aerial radar
coverage of the southern border of the United States.
(3) PURSUIT AIRCRAFT.—The president also shall
deploy sufficient numbers of rotor wing and fixed wing
aircraft to pursue and seize intruding aircraft detected
by the radar aircraft referred to in paragraph (2). The
President shall use personnel and equipment of the United
States Customs Service and the Coast Guard to assist in
carrying out this paragraph.
(4) USE OF NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES.—in carrying
out this section, the President shall use members of the
National Guard and the Reserves. The tours of such
members shall correspond to their training commitments
and shall be considered to be within their mission. T*-
President shall withhold Federal funding from any
National Guard unit whose State commander does not
cooperate with the drug interdiction program required by
this Act.
(5) EXPENSES.—The expenses of carrying out this
section shall be borne by the Department of Defense,
(b) 45-DAY DEADLINE.—The president shall substantially
fU)NTER097
J
1 haln the unlawful per.otro t ion of United States borders by '
2 aircraft and vessels carrying narcotics within 45 days after'
3 the date of the enactment of this Act.
4 (c) REPORT.—within 50 days after the date of the
5 enact.ment of this Act, the President shall report to Congress
6 the following:
7 (1) The effect on military readiness of the drug
B interdiction program required by this section and the
9 costs in the areas of procurement, operation and
10 maintenance, and personnel which are necessary to restore
11 readiness to the level existing before commencement of
12 such program.
13 (2) The number of aircraft, vessels, and persons
14 interdicted during the operation of the drug interdiction
15 program and the number of arrests and convictions ,
16 resulting from such program.
17 (3) Recommendations for any changes in existing law
18 that may be necessary to more efficiently carry out this
19 program.
20 (d) REQUEST FOR FUNDING.--within 90 days after the date
21 of the enactment of this Act, the President shall submit to
22 Congress a request for—
23 (1) the amount of funds spent as a result of the drug
24 interdiction program required by this section? and
25 (2) the amount of funds needed to continue operation
HUNTEROg?
4
1 of the program Lhrough fiscal year 1987.
2 Such request shall include amounts necessary to restore the
3 readiness of the Armed Forces to the level existing before
4 cciratencement of the program.
5 (e) BUDGET REQUESTS.—eegi nnir.g with the budget request
6 for fiscal year 1988 and for each fiscal year thereafter, the
7 Preside.nt shall submit in his budget for the Department of
8 Defense a request for funds for the drug interdiction program
9 required by this section in the form of a separate budget
10 function.
MEMORANDUM
OF CALL Previous editions usable
TO:
[ I YOU WERE CALLED BY-/ IO 1 YOU WW^^EE^^IISSIITTEECD BY-
'
OP (Organization)
• PLEASE PHONE ^ • FTS • AUTOVON
• WILL CALL AGAIN • IS WAITING TO SEE YOU
n RETURNED YOUR CAUL O WISHES AN APPOINTMENT
mksage"
ri~
63-110 NSN 7540-00-634-4016 STANDARD FORM 63 (Rev, 8- 8 1 )
Prescribed by GSA
« (J.S. G.P.O. t984-42t-5Z9/417 FPM R (41 CFR) 101—11.6
- eUNCrfiN L. HUNTER
« = THOiaTRICT CHLIfOflXlA
COMMITIEE ON ARMED SERVICES
su»ccwMin(«s
MILITARY PEASONtfa,
ANO COMPChSATtON
SEAPOWEA AND STHATEGIC AND
CAmCAL MATSAIAlS
SELECT COMMJTTCE ON NARCOTICS
ABUSE AND CONTROL
A£RUSUCAN TASK PORCE
ON AGRICULTURE
ASSISTANT REGIONAL WHIP.
WrtSTERN AND PLAINS STATES
the mnitecl States
l^ousE Of KqircsEntatiDeB
HDafiliington, B.C. 205J5
September 22, 1935
RERTY TO:
• 117 Cannon Suiioing
Washington, O.C. 20S15
(2021 22B-5672
OlSniCT OFFICES
N 366 South Pierce Strect
El Cajon. CA 92020
Inland
(619)679-3001
Qmstal
(619(293-6383
• 1101 AiRpORtRoao, SuiteG
Imperial. CA 92251
(619)363-5420
• 430 Davidson Street
Chula Vista. CA 92010
(619)422-0893
Dear Senate Colleague:
and Tomnw Robinson (00b, r SSo^JastSr
Duncan Hunter
Member of Congress
'Misinformation' charged
to Pentagon on drug tactics
By Jennifer Spevacek
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
The Pentagon is spreading "misinformation"
to discredit a controversial
congressional move todeploy
the military in the war on drugs, the
measure's sponsors said yesterday.
"We're not talking about people
with bayonets and gas masks ...
holding hands across the border,"
said Rep. Duncan Hunter, California
Republican. "This is something
that's easily achievable by the U.S.
military."
The measure, which would give
the president 30 days after passage
to deploy the military to stop drugcarrying
boats and planes at the borders,
is included in the sweeping
anti-drug package approved by the
House last week.
Defying predictions, the measure
was approved 237-177 as a floor
amendment to the bill.
After intense Pentagon lobbying,
the Senate will probably try to cut
the amendment out of the bill, said
Rep. Tbmmy Robinson. Arkansas
Democrat and co-sponsor of the
amendment.
"Now that we have a tough bill, it's
like a hot potato," Mr. Robinson said.
"If they succeed in weakening this
bill on the Senate side, I fully intend
to demonstrate what they've done.
... This bill will end up being nothing
more than a political turkey."
Majority Leader Robert Dole is
expected to unveil his own anti-drug
package today. Senate reaction to the
Hunter amendment has been "bemused
contempt," one Senate staff
member said.
Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger
has called the proposal
"pretty absurd," arguing that it
would be nearly impossible to carry
out and damaging to military
readiness.
Mr. Hunter said the defense secretary
has been the victim of "an
embarassing lapse on the part of his
staff" and is "misinformed."
"The misinformation coming
from the Pentagon has been very interesting—
They could do it in two
days," Mr. Hunter said.
At any given time, there are more
than enough planes and helicopters
sitting idle that could be used for the
drug interdiction program, he said.
For example, the military has"83
E-2C radar planes of which about
two dozen are deployed at any given
time, Mr. Hunter said. That means
59 are sitting on miiita)7 bases unused,
while only six are needed to
provide radar coverage of the entire
U.S.-Mexico border, he said.
The Pentagon maintains that it
would have to buy at least 32 of the
expensive radar planes to carry out
the plan, "You just can't take how
many you've got aloft, because
you've got to have backup," a Pentagon
spokesman said.
Mr Hunter said the Pentagon also
has misrepresented the number of
planes it would have to intercept at
the borders.
While about 78,000 private planes •
enter the country each year, most 1
enter legally and land just inside the I
border to check in with US. Cus- i
toms, Mr. Hunter said. "Obviously '
the drug smugglers don't stop," he i
said. .
The General Accounting Office •
estimates that between 3,600 and
10,000 planes enter illegally each
year, or about 27 a day, Mr. Hunter •
said.
It is "disingenuous" for the mili- •
tary tolobby for the proposed Strategic
Defense Initiative — which assumes
military technology to defend
against a nuclear attack — while
claiming to be unable to stop a few
dozen small Cessna airplanes, he
said. •
Nor would the military have to
catch every plane for the program to
be successful, Mr. Hunter said. "It's
like a freeway where everyone is
driving 100 miles an hour because
there are no cops."
The media also have misrepresented
the proposal by suggesting
that the military would have to shoot
down drug-carrying planes and
search illegal aliens at the borders,
Mr. Hunter said.
"Nobody has ever proposed that
we shoot down narcotics-carrying
aricraft," Mr. Hunter said. Nor does
the measure address drugs crossing
the border on the ground, he said.
FRF FPTEMBER19,1986
1 VSTATEMENT
OF SENATOR CHIC HECHT IN SUPPORT OP OMNIBUS DRUG ABUSE
PREVENTION LEGISLATION
Mr. President, I rise today to speak in opposition to something
which seems to have become a veritable American tradition; the
tolerance of wide spread drug abuse in our nation's schools.
Concurrently, Mr. President, I wish to express my steadfast
support for S. 2878, the Anti Drug Abuse Act of 1986, of which I
am a cosponsor.
Mr. President, statistics show that nearly two thirds of our
American teenagers have used an illicit drug at some time before
their senior year of high school. A particularly unfortunate
aspect of this fact becomes more apparent when one considers that
drug use impairs the memory, alertness, and achievement of our
teenagers; with frequent users of marijuana earning below average
and failing grades twice as frequently as their classmates. How
will we be able to educate our young—the inheritors of our
nation—in an environment so clouded with the ill effects of drug
abuse?
Moreover, Mr. President, not only have many of our nation's
schools witnessed an increase in drug abusing students, but in
some cases these educational institutions have inadvertently come
to furnish a veritable free market in which drug dealers may
merchandise their goods. Drug transactions occurring on high
school campuses, in fact, have come to represent a significant
percentage of all drug sales to American teenagers. Even more
frightening is that statistics show a number of illegal drugs—
particularly marijuana—are used on school groundsl Students
provide the demand, drug dealers provide the supply, and in too
many cases, our schools provide a marketplace for this deadly
exchange.
Mr. President, in current attempts to curtail the use of drugs,
education programs have been implemented to reach young children
before they are exposed to drugs. These programs, however, are
not being taught in our junior high schools, as some might
imagine—no, the proliferation of drugs is too widespread for
pre-exposure programs to be successful at that late level—
rather, these programs are targeted at fourth and fifth graders.
In other words, Mr. President, the problem has become so great
that we must now fill the days of our 9 and 10 year-olds with the
harsh reality that they may face a near-term drug confrontation.
I wish to point out to my colleagues that the escalation of drug
abuse is shown not only by the number of this scourge's victims,
but may also be measured in the potency and availability of
today's illicit drugs. The purified form of cocaine known as
"crack", for example, has lead to a number of drug-related
deaths.
In closing, Mr. President, I would simply like to remind my
colleagues of the responsibility we all share to protect and
nurture our young people. Today, in America, the most serious
threat to our children is drug abuse. The continuing tolerance
and misconception of this nation's drug problem stand as
obstructions to the corrective action which must be undertaken if
we are to rescue our young people, our future, from this terrible
epidemic. Congress has an obligation to remove these
obstructions. To this end, I wholeheartedly support the omnibus
anti-drug measure introduced in the Senate, and urge my
colleagues to do the same.
S13404
Sec. 603. Domestic Release of USIA Material
on me?al Drues
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
FIHDIHGS
Ssc. 102. THE CONGRESS FINDS AND DECLARES
THAT—
<a) Illegal drug use is having alarming and
tragic effects upon a significant proportion
of the national workforce and results in billions
of dollars of lost productivity each
year.
(b) Employers are concerned with the well
being of their employees, and the need to
maintain employee productivity.
(c) The Federal Government as the largest
employer in the nation can and should
show the way toward achieving drug-free
workplaces through a program designed to
get the message to drug users that drug use
will not be tolerated In the federal workplace.
(d) Drug use by persons responsible for
the safe transportation of people and goods
has the potential to cause the ioss of many
lives and millions of dollars of property
damage. Any harm created by drug impairment
can extend far beyond the harm
caused to the individual drug user.
SEC. 103. AMENDMENTS TO THE REHABILITATION
ACT.—
<a) Subparagraph (7)(B) of section 706 of
title 29. United SL&tes Code. Is ftznendedr
(i) by striking out ''Subject to the second
sentence of this subparagraph, the" in the
first sentence and inserting in lieu thereof
"The", and
(iiJ by striking out the second sentence
and Inserting in tieu thereof the foUowing:
"The term "handicapped individual, does
not Include any individual who uses, or is
addicted to. illegal drugs: Provided ftoiceucr.
That an individual who is otherwise handicapOTd
shall not be excluded from the protections
of this Act if he also uses or is also
addicted to drugs. For purposes of sections
793 and 794 of this title as such sections
relate to employment, the term "handicapped
individual, does not include any Individual
who is an alcoholic whose current use
of alcohol prevents such individual from
performing the duties of the job in question
or whose employment, by reason of such
current alcohol abuse, would constitute a
du^ threat to property or the safety of
others,"
tb) Section 706 of title 29, United States
Code. Is further amended by adding the following
new subsection to the end thereof;
"(16) The term. Illegal drugs, means controlled
substances, as defined by Schedules I
and II, section 802(6) of title 21. United
States Code, the possession of or distribution
of which is unlawful under chapter 13
of title 21, United States Code."
SEC. 104. AMENDMENT TO THE CIVIL SERVICE
REFORM ACT.—Section 2302 (b)(IO) of title
5, United States Code. Is amended by striking
out United States" and inserting in lieu
thereof;
"United States; and nothing in this paragraph
shall be construed to permit or require
the employment of an applicant or
employee who uses a controlled substance
as defined by Schedules I and II. section
802(6) of title 21, the possession of or distribution
of which is unlawful under chapter
13 of title 21."
SEC. 105. TECHNICAL AND CoNroRKiNo PaovisioNS.—(
a) The provisions of this Act
shall supersede any inconsistent federal law
rule or reguiaiton.
(b) This Act shall become effective on its
date of enactment and shall apply to any
pending litigation.
TITLE II-DRUG-PREE SCHOOLS ACT
OP 1986
SEC. 201. This title may be cited as the
"Drug-Free Schools Act of 1986 (The Zero-
Tolerance Act)",
FINDINGS
SEC. 202. Ttie Congress finds the following:
(1) Drug use Is widespread among American
students, not only in secondary schools,
but Increasingly in elementary schools as
well.
(2) The use of drugs by students constitutes
a grave threat to their physical and
mental well-being and significantly impedes
the teaming process.
(3) The tragic consequences of drug use by
students ore felt not only by the students
themselves and their families, but also by
their communities and their Nation, which
can ill afford to lose their skills, talents and
vitaiity.
<4) Among our cultural Institutions,
schools, assisted by parents and the community.
have a special responsibility to assist in
combating the scourge of drug use by adopting
and applying firm but fair drug policies.
(5) That prompt action by our Nation's
schools can bring us significantly closer to
the goal of a drug-free generation.
(6) Educational institutions should establish
clear policies to ensure that illegal drug
users will be held accountable for their actions.
(7) Drug testing in appropriate circumstances
is a diagnostic tool designed to
create a healthier educational environment,
increase productivity, improve public safety,
and protect fellow students, faculty and employees.
(8) Experience with drug testing has
shown that it can significantly contribute to
reducing the demand for illegal drugs while
protecting nondrug-using students, faculty
and employees from the harm caused by Illegal
drug users.
SE& 203. PURPOSE.-The purpose of this
Act is to assist State and local educational
agencies to establish a drug-free learning
environment within elementary and secondary
schools and to prevent drug use among
students in such schools.
SEC. 204. AUTHOR IEATIOH OF AFFR<^IAnoNs,—
For the purpose of carrying out thig
Act there are authorized to lie appropriated
$100,000,000 for fiscal year 1987 and such
sums as may be necessary for each of the
four succeeding fiscal years.
SEC. 205. RESERVATIONS AND ALLOTMENTS.
(a) From the funds appropriated under section
204 for any fiscal year, the Secretary
shall reserve 20 per centum for national programs
under section 210.
(bKl) From the remainder of the amount
appropriated to carry out this Act for each
fiscal year after the application of subsection
(a), the Secretary may reserve up to
one per centum for projects authorized by
this Act in Guam, American Samoa, the
Virgin Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands,
and the Trust Territory of the Pacific
Islands;
(2) The Secretary shall allot the funds reserved
under paragraph (I) among Guam,
American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, the
Northern Mariana Islands, and the Trust
Territory of the Pacific I.slands according to
their respective need for assistance under
this Act.
(c)(1) Prom the remainder of the amount
appropriated to carry out this Act for each
fiscal year after the application of subsections
(a) and <b), the Secretary shall allot to
each State an wnount which bears the same
ratio to that remaining amount as the
number of children aged five to seventeen.
Inclusive. In the State bears to the number
September 23, 1986
of such children In all States. The number
of children aged five to seventeen, inclusive.
In a State and In all the Sutes shall be determined
by the Secretary on the basis of
the most recent available dau satisfactory
to the Secretary.
(2KA) The Secretary may reallot all or a
portion of the State's allotment for any
fiscal year if the State does not submit a
State application under section 206. or otherwise
indicates to the Secretary that It
does not need or cannot use the full amount
of its allotment for that fiscal year. The
Secretary may fix one or more dates during
a fiscal year upon which to make reallotments.
(B) The Secretary may reallot funds on a
competitive basis to one or more Slates that
demonstrate a current need for additional
funds under this Act, Any funds reailotied
to another State shall be deemed to be part
of its allotment for the fiscal year in which
the funds are reallotted.
<d) For the purpose of this section, the
term "State" does not Include Guam, American
Samoa, the Virgin Islands, the Northern
Mariana Islands, or the Trust Territory of
the Pacific Islands.
SEC. 206. STATE APPLICATIONS.—(a) Any
State desiring to receive a grant from funds
allotted under section 205 for any fiscal year
shall submit to the Secretary a State application
which meets the requirements of this
section.
(b) Each State application shall—
(1) covera period of three fiscal years;
(2) be submitted at the time and in the
manner spedfled by the Secretary; and
(3) contain whatever Information the Secretary
may reasonably require, including—
(A) assurances that—
(1) the State educational agency will be responsible
for the administration, including
supervision, of all State and local projecU
supported by the State's grant and shall
maintain whatever fiscal control and fund
accounting procedures are necessary to
ensure the proper disbursement of. and accounting
for, Federal funds paid to the
State under this Act;
<ii) the State educational agency will distribute
at least 90 per centum of its allotment
on a competitive basis to local educational
agencies to pay the Federal share of
the costs of local projects under section 208;
(ill) the State educational agency will provide
for continuing administrative direction
and control by a public agency over funds
under this Act used to benefit teachers,
school administrators, and students in private
nonprofit elementary and secondary
schools; and
(iv) no more than 5 per centum of the
amount allotted to a State under section
205(c) will be used for State administration;
and
(B) descriptions of—
<i) the priorities and goals the State has
selected for the use of funds under this Act
during the period of the State application;
(11) how. In establishing its priorities and
goals under the State plan, the State has
taken into account the needs of those public
and private nonprofit elementary and secondary
schools which desire to have their
teachers, school administrators, and students
participate in projects under this Act:
(ill) the procedures and criteria the State
will use to select local projects to be supported
under this Act from among the applications
received:
(iv) how parents, local educational agencies.
private nonprofit elementary and secondary
schools, law enforcement agencies,
the courts. State agencies engaged in preventing
drug abuse, drug and alcohol treatment
programs, and other interested comSeptember
23, 1986 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S13403
S. 2862. A bill for the relief of the Carollnas
Cotton Growers Association. Inc.; ordered
held at the desk.
By Mr. PACKWOOD (for himself, Mr.
BRAOIEY, Mr. DOLE, Mr. DECONCIMI.
Mr. DIXON. Mr. DT;RENBERGER. Mr.
OOLSWATER, Mr. HOLUNGS, Mr.
KERRY, Mr, LAUTEHBERG, Mr. MOYNIHAN.
Mr, PELL, and Mr, TKURMOHDI;
S,J, Res. 418. Joint resolution to designate
February 4, 1987, as '"National Women In
Sports Day": to the Committee on the Judiciary.
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED
BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. DOLE (for himself. Mr.
DENTON, Mr, NICKLES. and Mr.
WARNER) (by request):
S, 2849. A bill to foster a drug-free
Federal workplace, to promote excellence
in American education by
achieving a drug-free environment in
our Nation's schools, to extend and
make - improvements in substance
abuse service programs, to strengthen
drug-interdiction efforts through
better international cooperation, to
enhance domestic law enforcement capabilities
in the war on illegal drugs,
to encourage and enhance the use of
private sector initiatives in a concerted
campaign of public education on the
dangers of illegal drug use, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on
the Judiciary.
PRUG-FREE AMLHICA ACT OF 1988
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, on behalf
of the administration, I introduce an
omnibus anti-drug package, the Drug-
Free America Act of 1986.
I want to commend President
Reagan and all those in the executive
branch for putting together this
timely and thoughtful piece of legislation.
For many years, both the President
and Mrs. Reagan have shown
their conunitment to fighting drug
abuse. And this package is the culmination
of those efforts,
A number of the proposals contained
in the administration bill are included
as drafted, or modified, in the Senate
Republican drug package that was also
introduced today. And I feel confident
that many portions of the administration's
bill ultimately will appear in
drug legislation passed by Congress.
Mr. President, again, let me congratulate
the administration for its focused
and responsible approach to
fighting drug abuse. With the White
House, and both Houses of Congress
working together, we can come up
with the kind of national anti-drug
policies that will be effective both in
cost and results.
The bill is as follows:
S.2849
Be it enacted by the Senate and Howe of
Representatives of the United States of
America fn Congress assembled. That titles 1
through VI of this Act may be cited as "The
Drug-Free America Act of 1988".
TITLE I-DRUO FREE FEDERAL
WORKPLACE ACT OP 1988
THE DRCG-FREE AMERICA ACT OP 1088
TABLE OP CONTENTS
TITLE I-DRUG-PREE FEDERAL
WORKPLACE ACT OF 1986
Sec. 101. Title
Sec. 102. Findings
Sec. 103. Amendments to the Rehabilitation
Act
Sec. 104. Amendment to the Civil Service
Reform Act
Sec. 105. Technical and Conforming Provisions
TITLE II-DR0G-PREE SCHOOl^ ACT
OF 1988
Sec. 201. Titie
Sec. 202. Findings
Sec. 203. Purpose
Sec. 204. Authorization of Appropriations
Sec. 205. Reservations and Allotments
Sec. 208. State Applications
Sec. 207. State Projects
Sec. 208. Local Projects
Sec. 209. Participation of Private School
Teachers, School Administrators
and Students
Sec. 210. National Programs
Sec. 211. Drug Testing in Educational Institutions
Sec. 212. Use of Funds
Sec. 213. Conforming Ameridments
Sec. 214, Definitions
Sec. 215. Effective Date
TITLE III-SUBSTANCE ABUSE
SERVICES AMENDMENTS OP 1986
Sec. 301. Title
Sec. 302. Extension of Block Grant
Sec. 303. Elimination of Certain Block
Grant Earmarks
TITLE IV-DRUG INTERDICTION AND
INTERNATIONAL COOPERAnON ACT
OF 1986
Subtitle A—International Forfeiture Enabling
Act of 1988
Subtitle B—Mansfield Amendment Repeal
Act of 1988
Subtitle C—Narcotic Traffickers Deportation
Act of 1986
Subtitle E>—Customs Enforcement Act of
1986
Subtitle E—Maritime Drug Law Enforcement
Prosecution Improvements
Act of 1986
TITLE V-ANTI-DRUG ENFORCEMENT
ACT OF 1986
Subtitle A—Drug Penalties Enhancement
Act of 1986
Subtitle B—Drug Possession Penalty Act of
1966
Subtitle C—Continuing Drug Enterprise
Penalty Act of 1986
Subtitle D—United States Marshals Service
Act of 1986
Subtitle E—Controlled Substances Import
and Export Penalties Ehihancement
Act of 1986
Subtitle F—Juvenile Drug Trafficking Act
of 1986
Subtitle G—Chemical Diversion and Trafficking
Act of 1986
Subtitle H—Money Laundering Crimes Act
of 1986
Subtitle I—Controlled Substances Technical
Amendments Act of 1986
Subtitle J—Controlled Substances Analogs
Elnforcement Act of 1986
Subtitle K—Asset Forfeiture Amendments
Act of 1986
Subtitle L~Exclu8ionary Rule Limitation
Act of 1986
TITLE VI-PUBLIC AWARENESS AND
PRIVATE SECTOR INITIATIVES ACT
OF 1086
drug use. and for other purposes; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. DOLE (for him.self. Mr. THURMOND.
Mr. ABDNOR. Mr. BROYHILL,
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. D'AMATO. Mr.
DAKFORTH, Mr. DENTON, Mr. DOMEHtci,
Mr. GFTAMM, Mr. HATCH, Mrs.
HAWKINS. Mr. HEINZ, Mr. LAXALT.
Mr. LucAR. Mr. MArriNCLY. Mr. Mc-
Connell. Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. NICKLES.
Mr. QUAYLE. Mr. ROTH, Mr.
SIMPSON. Mr, SPECTER. Mr. STEVENS.
Mr. TRIBLE. Mr. WARNER, and Mr.
WILSONI;
S. 2850. A bill to strengthen and improve
the enforcement of the laws against Illegal
drugs, and for other purposes: read the first
time.
By Mr. HELMS (by request):
S. 2851. A bll) to amend the Federal Crop
Insurance Act to improve the administration
of such Act. and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition,
and Forestry.
By Mr. TRIBLE;
8. 2852. A bill to authorize the Secretary
of Transportation to release restrictions on
the use of certain property conveyed to the
Peninsula Airport Commi^ion, Virginia, for
airport purposes: to the Committee on Commerce.
^ience. and Transportation.
By Mr. BROYHILL;
S. 2853. A bill to provide for reciprocity In
International trade in large electrical equipment;
to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. HEINZ;
S. 2854. A bill to authorize the donation of
certain non-federal iands to Gettysburg National
Military Park and to require a study
and report on the final development of the
park; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition,
and Forestry.
By Mr. HEINZ from the Committee
on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs,
S. 2855. An original bill to extend the expiration
date of the Defense Production Act
of 1950: placed on the calendar.
By Mr. HEINZ (for himself. Mr. ZORINSKY.
Mr. D'AMATO. and Mr. ANDREWS):
S. 2856. A bill to implement the United
States-European Communities Agreement
on Citrus and Pasta, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. GRAMM (for himself. Mr.
NICKLES, Mr. MCCLDHE, Mr. DOLE.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. MORKOWSKI. Mr.
COCHRAN, Mr. HELMS. Mr. SIMPSON.
and Mr. WALLOP):
S. 2857. A bill to revitalize oil and gas production
in the United States: to the Committee
on Finance.
By Mr. D'AMATO:
S, 2858, A bill to prohibit United States
payments to the United Nations on or after
October I, 1987, unless certain United Nations
files have been made available to appropriate
law enforcement officials; to the
Committee on Foreign Relations.
By Mr. MATSUNAGA:
S. 2859, A bill for the relief of Imelda Vlllanueva
Locquiao; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
By Mr. MATSUNAGA:
S. 2860. A bill to amend the Tariff Act of
1930 regarding the customs administration
of duty-free sales enterprises; to the Committee
on Finance.
By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself and
Mr. METZENSADM):
S. 2861. A bill to provide for research, education.
and Information dissemination concerning
Alzheimer's disease and related dementias;
to the Committee on Labor and
Human Resources.
By Mr, SIMPSON (for Mr. THURMONDI
(for himself, Mr. HELMS, Mr. HOLLINOS.
and Mr. BROYKILL):
SEC. 101. This Title may be cited as the
"Drug-Free Federal Workplace Act of 1986."
Sec. 601. Title
Sec. 602. Expedited Procedures for Obtaining
Volunteer Services
n$sp The National Association of SeG(ffl.(j9^^y ScUoo\ Principals
1904 Association Drive • Restonv Uirgjnia-?2p^,* Tel: 703-860^200
'3"^ SEP 26 hH 9 58
September 24, 1986
The Honorable Chic Hecht
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Hecht:
This week the United States Senate will consider legislation designed to mount
an all-out war against drug abuse in our society--the Omnibus Anti-Drug bill,
I am writing to ask your support for an important initiative that Senators
Pressler and Boren will present to the Senate this week in the form of an
amendment. The amendment will express the sense of the Senate that motion
pictures depicting illicit drug use in a socially glamorous or attractive
manner be rated with a sub-category "D." The resolution calls upon the Motion
Picture Association of America to expand its present voluntary movie rating
system to include "D" so parents will be better informed about the content of
the movies their children attend.
The movie industry, as you know, is a powerful medium for public opinion, and
it is our deep concern that many films directed to the youth market depict the
use of drugs as sophisticated, even glamorous. An expanded rating system,
including a subcategory "D" will enable the entire public, and especially
parents to make more informed choices about the content of movies shown at
theaters across the nation.
The overall theme of the Omnibuis Anti-Drug bill is that all sectors of our
American society will be participating in the war against drugs. Certainly
schools have and will continue to play a key role in educating youth about the
dangerous life-threatening effects of illicit drug use. I hope you will agree
with us that the motion picture industry can also play a significant role in
our quest for a drug free society.
I urge you to join Senators Pressler and Boren in efforts to strengthen and
improve the Omnibuis Anti-Drug bill.
Sincerely yours,
Scott D. Thomson
Executive Director
Serving a l l Administrators m Secondary Education
WILLIAM L ARMSTRONG. RICHARD G LUGAR
CHAIRMAN JAMES A. MCCLURE
MARK ANDREWS CHARLES McC. MATHIAS. JH.
JOHN K. CKAFEE FRANK H. MURKOWSKI
THAO COCHRAN 609 PACKWOOD
JOHN C. OANFORTH mm •. M . . /m . WILLIAM V. ROTH. J«.
ROBERT DOLE mntf»h ALAN K SIMPSON
PETE V. DOMENICI WLWLV0 SCVllUW ROBERTT. STAFFORD
JAKE GARN STROM THURMOND
BARRY GOLOWATER REPUBLICAN POLICY COMMITTEE LOWELL P. WEICKER. JR.
ORRIN G. HATCH ,
MARK 0. HATFIELD RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING ROBERT EPOTTS
WASHINGTON. DC 20510 STAnomeciok
202-224-2946
September 24,1986
TO: Senate Republican Administrative Assistants. Legislative Directors, and
Committee Staff Directors
FROM: Bill Gribbin {x42946)
SUBJECT: Senate and House Drug Bills
Enclosed is a quick side-by-side of the Senate Republican drug bill, introduced on Monday,
September 22, by the Majority Leader and cosponsored by many Republican Senators, and H.R.
5484, which passed the House of Representatives on September 11.
You usually receive from the Policy Committee our Legislative Notice on bills reported from
committees. In this case, however, the legislation is on a fast track; and because of its
importance, we thought you would find useful this preliminary comparison.
The Senate Republican bill has three parts. The first comprises the Administration's
proposals, with certain exceptions, The second consists of anti-drug legislation which passed
the Senate during the last year and a half, during which the House was not active on this issue.
The third contains quite a few new proposals, including pieces of legislation already introduced
by Republican Senators.
While there are many points of agreement between the two bills, there are obvious
differences. The House bill is to a large extent a money bill, but it does not address the source
of Its new revenues.
Both bills modify the exclusionary rule and address the death penalty, though the Senate
provision is much broader. In addition, the Senate bill deals with habeas corpus and takes an
overall approach to sentencing more in accord with the work of the U.S. Sentencing
Commission.
As you know, the House bill provides for the extensive involvement of the Armed Forces in
border interdiction. The Senate bill provides for very limited use of the military In that regard.
There are important differences between the two bills regarding education, prevention, and
treatment, in its program of grants for drug treatment, the Senate bill bars funds to states which
decriminalize controlled substances. Moreover, the Senate bill addresses matters which were
not dealt with by the House: chemical diversion and trafficking, operation of common carriers
under influence, inhalants, highway safety and commercial licensing, problems with the Freedom
of information Act, special problems encountered by the U.S. Forest Service, and a voluntary
payment mechanism from tax refunds.
As matters develop, we hope to provide you with an update.
September 24, 1986
Senator Chick Hecht
U. S. Senate
Room SH-302
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Hecht:
Based on my request, I am in receipt today of testimony given before the
Subcommittee on Crime of the House Committee on the Judiciary on May 8,
1986. This was a hearing on the Mail Order Drug Paraphernalia bill. I
have a personal concern since I have a retail tobacco store and have been
trying to develop a small mail order business. Plus, I notice in the
bill that wooden and ceramic pipes, as well as some others, are in a
category of suspicion. It was this suspicion that prompted me to get
the testimony of the Chief Postal Inspector and the Assistant U. S.
Attorney General that testified on the bill. Please find their testimony
enclosed.
Did you know that the Post Office would not want this bill? Did you
know that the Post Office said that the definition would make enforcement
difficult? To quote the statement of Jack Swagert, "the listing
of prescribed items may include commercially available items which are
legitimately used for other than drug purposes." Finally, you will note,
that they don't even know who would be an expert to tell them what is
good or bad.
Look at page two of the Attorney General's statement titled "Problems
in Drug Paraphernalia Control." He voiced a number of concerns of vagueness
and broad definition like the Postal Inspector. While I personally
do everything within my power to oppose drugs, 1 think the Attorney
General is correct in saying, at the bottom of page two, that federal,
state and local resources are better used in our horrible national drug
problem. There is no drug paraphernalia. Senator, without drugs.
I am behind the elimination of drugs but please do not waste my tax
dollars on the issue of paraphernalia. As the Postal Inspector and
Attorney General agree, I think it is a waste of time.
Ends.
P.O.Box 111509 • 4121 Htllsboro Road • Nashville, TN 37222
SURTLARY OF
STATE?™ OF JACK E. SWAGERTY
ASSISTATIR CHIEF INSPEQOR - CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS
ON H. R. 1625
BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME OF THE
HOUSE COMMITTE ON THE JUDICIARY
MAY 8, 1986
THE POSTAL INSPECTION SERVICE IS THE INVESTIGATIVE ARM OF THE UNITED STATES
POSTAL SERVICE AND, AS SUCH, HAS INVESTIGATIVE AUTHORITY OVER ALL VIOLATIONS OF
FEDERAL CRIMINAL LAW RELATING TO THE POSTAL SERVICE. POSTAL CRIMES INCLUDE THE
MISUSE OF THE POSTAL SYSTEM BY THE WILING OF BOMBS, PORNOGRAPHY, CONTROLLED
SUBSTANCES AND OTHER NON-MAILABLE ITE.MS.
POSTAL INSPECTORS BEGAN INVESTIGATING THE UNLAWFUL MAILING OF CONTROLLED
SUBSTANCES AND OTHER NON-MAILABLE ITEMS IN 1909 WHEN CONGRESS FIRST ENACTED
LEGISLATION DEALING WITH THIS TYPE OF ACTIVITY. TRADITIONALLY, OUR INVESTIGATIONS
INTO THE MAILING OF ILLEGAL DRUGS HAVE BEEN IN SUPPORT OF THE PRIMARY
ROLE OF THE DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION AND THE U. S. CUSTOMS SERVICE.
THE POSTAL SERVICE SUPPORTS THE PURPOSES OF H.R. 1525. HOWEVER, IF THIS
LEGISLATION WERE ENACTED, OUR EFFORTS WOULD NOT BE DIRECTED TO ANY ATTEMPT TO
DETERMINE THE CONTENT OF MAIL BIH" RATHER TO IDENTIFYING PUBLISHED ADVERTISING
DIRECTED TOWARD THE SALE BY MAIL OF PROSCRIBED ITEMS AND TO THE INVESTIGATION OF
COMPLAINTS CONCERNING VIOLATIONS. AT THIS TIME, WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT PERCEOTAGE
OF DRUG PARAPHERNALIA SALES ARE CONDUCTED BY MAIL OR INTERSTATE COMMERCE.
THE POSTAL SERVICE IS CONCERNED WITH THREE PORTIONS OF THE BILL. FIRST, SECTION
102(A) SHOULD BE CLARIFIED AS TO WHETHER IT ALSO INTENDS TO COVER.THE MAILING OF
ADVERTISEMENTS FOR THE SALE OF DRUG PARAPHERNALIA AND'THE OFFERING FOR SALE OR
THE TRANSPORTATION OF DRUG PARAPHERNALIA IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE. SECONDLY, THE
DEFINITION OF "DRUG PARAPHERNALIA" MAY BE SUBJECT TO SUCH BROAD INTERPRETATION
THAT IT WOULD CAUSE ENFORCEMENT DIFFICULTIES. THE LISTING OF PROSCRIBED ITEMS
MAY INCLUDE COWERCIALLY AVAILABLE ITEMS WHICH ARE LEGITIMATELY USED FOR OTHER
THAN DRUG-CONNECTED PURPOSES. ALSO, WE ARE NOT AWARE OF READILY QUALIFIED
EXPERTS TO PROVIDE TESTIMONY AS TO WHETHER A PARTICULAR ITEM IS A PROSCRIBED ITEM
OF DRUG PARAPHERNALIA. OUR THIRD CONCERN IS THAT NO AGENCY IS SPECIFIED TO HAVE
THE SEIZURE AND FORFEITURE AUTHORITY DESCRIBED IN SUBSECTION (c). THIS AUTHORITY
SHOULD BE SPECIFICALLY DESIGNATED AND FORFEITURE PROVISIONS SHOULD BE CLEARLY
DEFINED.
STATEMENT
OF
JAMES KNAPP
DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
BEFORE
THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
U.S. HOUSE OP REPRESENTATIVES
CONCERNING
H.R. 1625
DRUG PARAPpRNALIA
ON
MAY 8, 1986
•n
Mr. Chalrraan and Members of the Subcommittee —
I welcome the opportunity to appear today to provide the
views of the Department of Justice with respect to legislation to
establish federal criminal Jurisdiction over traffic in drug
paraphernalia. We fully share the concerns of the sponsors of
H.R. 1625 with respect to the wide-spread availability of articles
designed for use by drug addicts. Some Items of drug paraphernalia
actually enhance the effects of controlled substances, thereby
rendering dangerous substances even'more dangerous — for example,
marijuana isomerlzation kits and cocaine free base kits. Other
items of drug paraphernalia are used to grow, process or facilitate
the use of dangerous drugs. Such products tend to glamorize
the use of illicit drugs and should, to the maximum extent practicable,
be eliminated. While further study of the paraphernalia
problem is advisable before enacting federal criminal paraphernalia
legislation, we are pursuing with the Postal Service possible"
non-criminal legislative measures for curbing interstate traffic
in drug paraphernalia.
PAST DRUG PARAPHERNALIA CONTROL EFFORTS
By way of background, the Drug Enforcement Administration
drafted the model drug paraphernalia act in 1979 and supported
this model state law with a model legal brief for use by state and
local prosecutors. DEA also produced explanations of the act,
provided legal assistance to the states and served as a national
clearinghouse for the anti-paraphernalia legislative effort. As
of today, thirty-eight states and the District of Columbia have
enacted this model act or a modificat^ion of the D^A model.
This effort in the late 1970*s represented a recognition on
the part of the Department of Justice that state and local governments
are in a better position than the federal government to deal
with the drug paraphernalia problem. In addition to the fact that
federal law enforcement agents represent less than 10% of the
total law enforcement resources in the United States, it has been
our view that state and local officials have traditionally had the
lead in dealing with massage parlors, pornography shops, and other
such questionable businesses which have much in common with the
"head shops" which deal in drug paraphernalia. It is our understanding,
for example, that at least one municipality has effectively
eliminated head shops through local zoning ordinances, a
means of control not available to federal authorities.
While most states have enacted the model drug paraphernalia
act, it is our impression that very few localities devote any
significant effort to enforcing these state laws. State laws have
generally had the effect of reducing the open sale of drug
paraphernalia, but information available to us indicates that drug
paraphernalia is still widely available virtually everywhere to
persons in the drug culture who know where to purchase it.
PROBLEMS IN DRUG PARAPHERNALIA CONTROL
Several possible explanations have been put forward for the
relatively Inactive state and local drug paraphernalia enforcement
effort.
First, definitions of drug paraphernalia are difficult to
write with the result that defendants who force prosecutors to go
to trial can claim that the Item of drug paraphernalia In question
is not, in fact, drug paraphernalia but rather an item Intended
for a lawful purpose. To make the case, therefore, the prosecutor
finds himself In need of an expert witness who can testify that
the Item or Items In question are Items of drug paraphernalia, the
sale of which Is prohibited by law. The simple fact is that very
few such expert witnesses are available. This raises the question
as to whether It might be cost-effective to undertake a national '
research effort aimed at the development of a national drug
paraphernalia manual and training program which could train
selected state agents as paraphernalia "experts" along the lines
of training provided to state officials who administer
"breathallzer" tests and then testify In court as to the results.
Such a research effort would likely be costly and further study is
advisable before undertaking such a project.
A second possible explanation for the minimal state and local
drug paraphernalia effort is that the definition of drug paraphernalia
used In the 1979 model act may be too broad. That act,
for example, attempts to cover spoons, straws, and "roach clips".
This effort can produce unintended results. It was found at one
point, for example, that the coffee stirrers qsed at McDonald's
restaurants Included a small spoon at one end whlAh was prized by
addicts for measuring out controlled substances. To their credit,
as soon as they found that their stirrers were being misused,
McDonald's re-deslgned their coffee stirrers. Straws pose a
similar problem as virtually any kind of straw — or even the
traditional rolled—up hundred dollar bill —- can be used to snort
cocaine. The alligator clips available In electronics stores are
easily substituted for the "roach clips" used by marijuana smokers
to get the last few drags off a marijuana cigarette without
burning the fingers of the user. In short, our review of the drug
paraphernalia Issue has led us to believe that we might be well
advised to focus law enforcement efforts upon "hard-core"
paraphernalia such as cocaine free base kits and marijuana
Isoraerlzatlon kits rather than trying to reach all Items
traditionally viewed as drug paraphernalia.
Third, some have questioned the value of attacking drug
paraphernalia at a time when federal, state, and local resources
are already strained in an effort to curb a massive national drug
problem. Obviously, most Items of drug paraphernalia pose no
danger without the availability of the controlled substances In
connection with which they are used. In making a choice as to
whether to devote enforcement efforts to attacking drugs or drug
paraphernalia, there would be general agreement that controlling
the Illicit drugs themselves should be the higher priority. Given
this fact, perhaps It Is unreasonable to expect vigorous state and
local enforcement of drug paraphernalia laws until such time as we
can begin to significantly reduce the traffic in illegal drugs, at
which point enhanced resources can be devoted to drug paraphernalia.
Finally, there Is some thought that the lack of any federal
drug paraphernalia control effort evidence a view on the part of
the national government that drug paraphernalia Is not an
important problem.
FEDERAL DRUG PARAPHERNALIA LEGISLATION
We can well understand the position of those who support
federal drug paraphernalia legislation. Moreover, the bill before
the subcommittee, H.R. 1625 (identical to S. 1407^ is a superior
product to prior federal legislative proposals in that It seeks to
limit federal jurisdiction to Interstate and mall order sales. We
have two specific reservations with respect to H.R. 1625. First,
by attempting to reach interstate as well as mall-order sales, the
bill inadvertently casts the brunt of the drug paraphernalia
problem upon federal authorities. Virtually every Item of drug
paraphernalia orglnates outside the state in which it is ultimately
sold. Second, the bill is too broad in scope. It attempts to
cover all items of drug paraphernalia. Including spoons, straws
and "roach clips" as well as any other item "primarily intended
or designed" for use in connection with drugs. The meaning of the
phrase "primarily intended or designed" is unclear and would be
difficult to apply in practice.
As we have indicated, we are working with the Postal Service
on draft legislation to attack the drug paraphernalia problem
using civil and administrative mechanisms.
Quite frankly, we have more questions than answers regarding
paraphernalia enforcement and are less than confident that we are
in a position to draft a federal drug paraphernalia statute that
will achieve the ends we all seek. For example, should we focus
only upon Items of drug paraphernalia that lend themselves to
characterization as "hard core" paraphernalia? If so, which items
belong in this category? Are drug paraphernalia enforcement
efforts doomed to failure in the absence of a "pharmacopoeia" or
manual on drug paraphernalia and a program for training expert
witnesses? Does state and local experience with drug paraphernalia
enforcement suggest more effective methods of dealing with
this problem? How much drug paraphernalia is sold over-thecounter,
by mail, and by interstate package services? And the
questions go on.
^mteb ^tates^ Senate
MEMORANDUM "/^L
0(h^y^J "7
(aJ A
'tA
/A\ ^y-^'Ar^ ^ A^
Jj^h
^ Aa A—
l/\r-ky^^ lAr~t
X ^ r (T^--/' -z^/-e
National Conference of State Legislatures ,,
444 North Capitol Street, - P'ssident David E.'teething Executive Director
Suite 203 er. Earl S. Mackey
Washington, 0,0, 20001 >Jorm«ak(iw S®i"a©8
202/624-5400
September 25, 1986
Honorable Chic Hecht
United States Senate
302 Hart Senate Office Bldg
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator Hecht:
The National Conference of State Legislatures commends your efforts to
address the drug abuse crisis. NCSL recently approved policy supporting the
adoption of federal legislation designed to curtail the use of illegal drugs,
and we stand ready to work with Congress and the Administration in this
endeavor.
The members of NCSL, however, are concerned that federal legislation may be
drafted which unnecessarily preempts state and local statutes, poses
constitutional problems for many states, or imposes sanctions upon states.
Careful consideration must be given to the impact of federal initiatives on
state and local governments. We believe that incentives rather than sanctions
should be used to develop a spirit of cooperation and coordination between the
states and the federal government in this important area.
State legislatures have taken the lead in combating drug abuse by enacting
tough criminal laws and by funding treatment and education programs. We
recommend an improved federal partnership and support in this effort and urge
you to provide for full coordination in planning and program implementation at
the state level.
Federal drug legislation should include funds to enhance and expand state
education, social service, and law enforcement programs. We urge you to provide
maximum flexibility to the states in administering those programs and in
allocating the funds provided. In addition, mandates and restrictive grant
conditions, especially in the areas of curriculum and treatment, should be
avoided. Any requirements imposed upon state and local governments should be
fully funded.
Denver Office: 1050 17th Street • Suite 2100 • Denver. Colorado 80265 • 303/623-7800
Again, we commend your efforts in this critical area, and pledge our
continued support and cooperation in addressing the drug abuse crisis. We look
forward to working with you in developing and implementing legislation that will
eliminate this problem.
Sincerely,
David E. Nething /
Majority Leader
North Dakota Senate
President, NCSL
STATEMENT OF SENATOR CHIC HECHT ON DCIIALr OF OMNIBUS DRUG ABUSE
PREVENTION LEGISLATION
Mr, President, I rise today to speak in opposition to something
which seems to have become a veritable American tradition; the
tolerance of wide spread drug abuse in our nation's schools.
Concurrently, Mr. President, I wish to express my steadfast
support for S. 2850, the Drug Abuse Prevention package, of which
I am a cosponsor,
Mr, President, statistics show that nearly two thirds of our
American teenagers have used an illicit drug at some time before
their senior year of high school. A particularly unfortunate
aspect of this fact becomes more apparent when one considers that
drug use impairs the memory, alertness, and achievement of our
teenagers; with frequent users of marijuana earning below average
and failing grades twice as frequently as their classmates. How
will we be able to educate our young—the inheritors of our
nation—in an environment so clouded with the ill effects of drug
abuse?
Moreover, Mr. president, not only have many of our nation's
schools witnessed an increase in drug abusing students, but in
some cases these educational institutions have inadvertently come
to furnish a veritable free market in which drug dealers may
merchandise their goods. Drug transactions occurring on high
school campuses, in fact, have come to represent a significant
percentage of all drug^ sales to American teenagers. Even more
frightening is that statistics show a number of illegal drugs—
particularly marijuana—are used on school grounds I Students
provide the demand, drug dealers provide the supply, and in too
many cases, our schools provide a marketplace for this deadly
exchange.
Mr. President, in current attempts to curtail the use of drugs,
education programs have been implemented to reach young children
before they are exposed to drugs. These programs, however, are
not being taught in our junior high schools, as some might
imagine—no, the proliferation of drugs is too widespread for
pre-exposure programs to be successful at that late level—
rather, these programs are targeted at fourth and fifth graders.
In other words, Mr. president, the problem has become so great
that we must now fill the days of our 9 and 10 year-olds with the
harsh reality that they may face a near-terra drug confrontation.
I wish to point out to my colleagues that the escala_t^n of drug
abuse is shown not only by the number of this(^courgeJ^^victims,
but may also be measured in the potency and availability of
today's illicit drugs. The purified form of cocaine known as
"crack", for example, has lead to a large number of drug-related
deaths.
in closing, Mr. President, I would simply like to remind my
colleagues of the responsibility we all share to protect and
nurture our young people. Today, in America, the roost serious
threat to our children is drug abuse. The continuing tolerance
and misconception of this nation's drug problem stand as
obstructions to the corrective action which must be undertaken if
we are to rescue our young people, our future, from this terrible
epidemic. Congress has an obligation to remove these
obstructions. To this end, I wholeheartedly support the omnibus
anti-drug measure introduced in the Senate, and urge my
colleagues to do the same.
IL-15-B3 INDEX FILE OF SENATOR HE.
SCHAEFER, WILLIAM H., , D.D.S.
- -F A.I«TI ELD- A-VENUE -
REND» NV
RM
ITEMS:
SCHAEFFEK, C. C.» MR.
APARTMENT 219
3751 SOUTH NELLIS BOULEVARD
-LG-WA S VEGAST NV-8912I
ITEMS: 39
SGWAET=FER, CHARLES, MR.-AUO-MR
9AI MADRONE CIRCLE
SPARKS, NV 89A31
(jH
ITEMS: 39
SCHAEFFER, DOUGLAS S., MR.
ISSUE
JUDICIARYISSUE
TAXES
ISSUE
TAXES
POST OFFICE BOX 753
HENDERSON, NV 89015
OF
ITEMS: 8A- - --
SCHAEFFER, MURIEL, MS.
900 SOUTH RAHCO DRIVE
LGWA S VEGAS, NV 89106
ITEMS: 39
SCHAFER, ALJ^ED"^. , MR.
1<|35 EAST RENO AVENUE
LG-WA S-VEGASR-NV--89119
ITEMS: 39
SCHAFER-^ -6ERAR0-M-. ,- MR-. -AND MR
ISSUE
NATURAL RESOURCES
ISSUE
TAXE S
ISSUE
TAXES
• I• - T. •
37<^^A88AY WAY
GSWP ARKS, N-V 89A31
ITEMS; 39
SCHAFER, GERARD H., MR, AND MR
ISSUE
TAXES
37<J AB8AY WAY
GSWP ARKS, NV 89<T31
I T EMS: -3-9-
I SSUE
SCHAFER, GERARD H., MR. AND MR
37<T A88AY WAY • .. _
SPARKS. NV E9<F3L J
GW ' - . . • -
ITEMS: 39
SCHAFER, HENRY, MR.
365 MORAINE WAY
HENO,-NV-89503
BOS
ITEMS: 38
-SGHAFER-T--UERR¥
6700 E, RUSSELL ROAD
LAS VEGAS, NV 89122
UCN-
2-7-83 4-6-83
ISSUE
TAXES
. 1 1 i i ' . J O ' l
.'i. • ip'
:r
ISSUE
TAXES
CASE
1.24
11-15-83
SCHA-FER, WILLIAM, MR.
. 2315-UIICASTA C1J<LLE
LAS VEGAS, NV 89108
GW ITEMS: 39
SCHAFER V "WILL I AM , MR ,
2315 DECOSTA CIRCLE
LAS V£GAS,-NV 89.10.8-
IltHS: 39
SCHAFFELF GENE, MR.
1853 NORTH RANCHO DRIVE
LAS VEGAS, NV 89106
. GW .
ITEMS: 39
SCHAFFER, BOB, MR. AND MRS.
I3"22 "S0UTH~M0JAVE ROAD
LGAWS VEGAS, NV 89104
ITEMS: 39
SCHAFFER, ESTHER, MS.
37.2-7-HAZELWOOOSTREtJLAS
VEGAS, NV 89109
GW ITEMS: 39
SCHAFFER, • LESLIE
2855 NORTHWEST HOLCDMB LANE
. RE-NO-, NV--895il- -
GW
ITEMS: 39
SCHAEF-ER+-LESLIE.
2855 NORTHWEST HOLCOMB LANE
RENO, NV 69511
GW
ITEMS: 39
SCHAFFER, LESLIE
2A55-NURTHWEST HOLCOMB LANE
RENO, NV 89511
GW
A TEWS:. 39 —
SCHAFHAUSER, FRANK, MR.
455. DRUH-LANE
FGWA LLON, NV 89406
ITEMS: 39
ISSUE
T A X F S
ISSUE
TAXES
ISSUE
TAXES
-ISSUETAXES
ISSUE
-JT-AXES RRFTJ^- ••
T
ISSUE
TAXES
ISSUE
TAXES
ISSUE
TAXES
.1 . ^ -J (. * i-v c
ISSUE
-TAXES
SCHALLER, CONRAD, MR.
NV 89005
PPJ:JR
1533 5TH
BOULDER CITJT
GW
ITEMS: 39
ISSUE
TAXES
SCHALLER, JULIA L., MS.
NUMbER 225H
3 9 5 0 MOUNTAIN V I S T A
LAS VEGAS, NV 89121
BDS
ISSUE
COMMERCE
I l - 1 5 - b 3 INDEX FILE OF SENATOR HLC
SCHAMAUN, PERRY J., HR. AND MR
-ARROW PLACE- - - -
LGAW S VEGAS* NV 89106
ITEMS: 39
SCHAMAUN, PERRY J., MR. AND MR
3107 ARROW PLACE
LGAWS -VFCCA-S-,-NV 89108 -
ITEMS: 39
SCHANDA, EILEEN, MS.
925 EAST DESERT INN ROAD
SUITE U
. LDAP S VEGAS, - N- V 89109
ITEMS: 211
SCHAPEL, JEANNE, MS.
ISSUE
TAXE-S--
ISSUE
TAXES
ISSUE
TRANSPORTATION
POST OFFICE BOX 60039
RENO, NV 89506
BDS
H-FEHS: -96
ISSUE
TAX
SCHAPEL, R.
-TGE—&EX-60039
DRPE NO, NV 89506
ITEMS: 2«»5, 21
SCHAPEL ,~RT.77M^~ 7 ~
POST OFFICE BOX 60039
- R6N&R-NV-8-9-&89
RM
ITEMS: ^ 5
S C M A P - E L - , - - -
POST OFFICE BOX 60039
RENO, NV 89506
ITEMS: 38
SCHAPEL, R., MR.
-FISOS RU §E IG N-RE-L-A TIONS
ISSUE
EDUCATION
ISSUE .
TAXES
\
c . l l I
POST OFFICE BOX,60039
RENO, NV 89506
BDS
— — ITEMS^: -38
SCHAPEL, R., MR.
PO-ST-UPP ICE 80X -60G89
GRWE NO, NV 89506
ITEMS: 179
I S SUE
TAXES
. j I 1> i.l'-. ,
ISSUE
AANK-L-NCSCHAPEL,
K., MR. AND MRS.
POST OFFICE BOX 6039
- RENO , - NV- -89-506— - -
BOS
ITEMS: 96
SCHAPET-R R€DNEY- ERR-M8. •
POST OFFICE BOX 60039
RENO, NV 89506
- OF - -
ITEMS: 3 6
0'3
t f i
ISSUE
TAX
.
, ,
ISSUE
AGRICULTURE
STATEMENT OF SENATOR CHIC HECHT ON BEHALF OF OMNIBUS DRUG ABUSE
PREVENTION LEGISLATION
Mr. President, I rise today to speak in opposition to something
which seems to have become a veritable American tradition; the
tolerance of wide spread drug abuse in our nation's schools.
Concurrently, Mr. President, I wish to express my steadfast
support for the Drug Abuse Prevention package intpoduood today,
-aftd of which I am a cosponsor.
Mr. President, statistics show that two thirds of our American
teenagers have used an illicit drug at some time before their
senior year of high school. A particularly unfortunate aspect of
this fact becomes more apparent when one considers that drug use
impairs the memory, alertness, and achievement of our teenagers;
with frequent users of marijuana earning below average and
failing grades twice as frequently as their classmates. How will
we be able to educate our young—the inheritors of our nation—in
an environment so clouded with drug abuse?
Moreover, Mr. President, not only have our schools become a
refuge for drug abusers, but they inadvertently seem to furnish a
veritable free market in which drug dealers may merchandise their
goods. Drug sales occurring on high school campuses represent 57
percent of the drugs sold to American teenagers. An even more
frightening statistic is that one third of these drugs never make
it off campus before they are usedi Students provide the demand,
drug dealers provide the supply, and in too many cases, our
schools provide a sanctuary for this deadly exchange.
Mr. President, in current attempts to curtail the use of drugs,
education programs have been implemented to reach young children
before they are exposed to drugs. These programs, however, are
not being taught in our junior high schools, as some might
imagine—no, the proliferation of drugs is too widespread for
pre-exposure programs to be successful at that late level—
rather, these programs are targeted at fourth and fifth graders.
In other words, Mr. President, the problem has become so great
that we must now fill the days of our 9 and 10 year-olds with the
harsh reality of a possible near-term drug confrontation.
I wish to point out to my colleagues that the escalation of drug
abuse is shown not only by the number of this scourge's victims,
but also may be measured in the potency and availability of
today's illicit drugs. The purified form of cocaine known as
"crack",, for example, has lead to a large number of drug-related
deaths.
In closing, Mr. president, I would simply like to remind my
colleagues of the responsibility we all share to protect and
nurture our children. Today, in America, the most serious threat
to our children is drug abuse. The continuing tolerance and
misconception of this nation's drug problem stand as obstructions
to the corrective action which must be undertaken if we are to
rescue our young people, our future, from this terrible epidemic.
Congress has an obligation to remove these obstructions. To this
end, I wholeheartedly support the anti-drug measure introduced in
the Senate today, and urge my colleagues to do the same.
*
h
k
k
»
%
k
i-*
;i 5^l
11-15-83 INDEX FILE OF SENATOR HEU
SCHWARTZ, RUTH, MS.
<»3A0 -8KAMSU£W001^-
LAS VEGAS, NV 89117
items: 39
ISSUE
TAXfeS
SCHWARTZ, STANLEY M., MR. AND
2b COUNTRY CLUB LANE
LAS VEGAS, NV 8940-9--
ITEMS: 250
SCHWARTZ,-STANLEY Mr, MR, AMG
26 COUNTRY CLUB LANE
LAS VEGAS, NV 89109
ITEMS: 12A ^
SCHWARTZ, V. LISA, MS.
PUBLIC RELATIONS
INVITATION
1201 HAkEWOOD SQUARE
WEXFORU, PA 15090
NL
l-I-feMS^ l-58
SCHWARZ, OTTO, DR.
fOST- OHf^ITiE- BOX -15451
LAS VEGAS, NV 89114
ITEMS: 44
SCHWARZ,"OTTO, OR,
P9§^P?PiCE BOX 15451
l.AS-VfcGAS, N^V-89114
items: 60
S GHWARitl^ E-47HE-R-,-MS,- -
ISSUE
LEGISLATION
ISSUE
INTERIOR, S. 457
CASE
GONSWTUE-NT RtPLY
CASE
AGENCY RESPONSE
2815 BAKER DRIVE
CARSON CITY, NV 89701
GW— - •• - —
ITEMS,: 39 , ,,
SCHWARZER, ESTHER, MS.
ISSUE
TAXES
q<u;©ii ru
2815 BAKER DRIVE
CARSON CITY, NV 89701
GW ..I.' .
I TfcM-Si -^9
SCHWARZER, ESTHER, MS.
^15--8.AK4R DR-I-VECARSON
CITY, NV 89701
GW
ITEMS: 39'
SCHWAKZWALTER, MERL, MR.
1076 RICE GRASS LANE
- - -TONQP-AH, .NV.-890i^.-...
GW
ITEMS: 39
-SGHWEBL-fe, -DENNIS,-MR.
-1-SSU£
MO'i S
'-''i <9-*^--' 'I: VJ'"* K,.; T"
'Trv._ j, •, ^ T
3339 SHERMAN LANE
CAR SON CITY, NV 89701
ISSUE
FOREIGN RELATIONS
ITEMS: -273
J //.'-g • • t.
I.l-15-b3 INDEX FILE OF SENATOR HEC
SCHWEDE, GLENDA R., MS.
3901-EL X£DLRAi_
LAS VEGASt NV 89102
GW
items: 39
SCHWEDE, GLENDA R., MS.
3901 EL CEDERAL
LAS_V£GAS,_K.V-89102
GW
ITEMS: 39
SCHWEEK^- RANDY, MR. AND MRS
1093 SEWELL
ELKO, NV 89801
. aOSISSUE
1AX£S_
ISSUE
TAXES
ISSUE
TAX CREDIT
items: 137
SCHWEIKERTr WALTER, MR. -AND
2615 VALMAR PLACE
RENO, NV 69503
GW
lI£nS.L 39.x.
MR
-4£SU£
U .-.'IN T.'!A , A \/CC!
I r r - C A ; . J .X-; X.
SCHWEIKEKT, WALTER, MR. AND MR
2615 VALMAR PLACE GRWE NO, NV. 8Sr J50. 3 •
ITEMS: 39
ISSUE
-lAXES-
!> ^ xoucg(" joi, •
SCHWEIKERT, WALTER, MR. AND
2615 VALMAR PLACE • • '
REND^-NV 89503 - - - GW ..
items: 39
S CHWEllZER*. -iOXllAkO JU-^-MR..-
MR
ISSUE
«-•- TAXES
r I I H -• I ) X.Si-iri;s
2160 EXETER DRIVE i ' l
LAS VEGAS, NV 89115- '
BS
ITEMS: 3, 63
SCHWtlZER, BETTY HSU, MS.
"lb55""tUDmr COURT "
RENO, NV 89503
RJD • •
items: 120
SCHWEI2ER, BEtTY HSU, MS.
1055- TUDOR...C0.UR1
RENO, NV 89503
RJD
items: 120 i •'
SCHWEIZER, LORRAINE,. MS,.
33A9 FANDANSD PLACE
LAS-y£GAS NV--891.02- v
GW
ITEMS: 39
INTRO
H H S
SOCIAL SECURITY'
PUBLIC _RELA-TiflNS.
CONGRATULATIONS
,> •, i ^ 'TV,
(.1 . •- u •• •
PUBLIC RELATIONS
CONGRATULATIONS
ISSUE
TAXES
-.U-XXi—U—1—: .. X . ... X.. -J - Ul,.
SCHWETTMAN,- CATHERINE, MISS
3602 TIOGA WAY
LAS VEGAS, NV 89109
. GWISSUE
TAXES
ITEMS: 39
11-15-83
SCHWLTTMAN, CATHERINE, MISS
3602 TIOO-A NAY - -
LAS VEGAS, NV 89109
GW
ITEMSS 39
SCHWIKERT, J., MR.
212 MILINANE DRIVE
LAS-VEGAS, NV- 8-9105
GW
ITEMS: 39
SCHW-IKERT, JO, MRS.
212 MILINANE DRIVE
LAS VEGAS, NV 69107
. &0-S
ISSUE
TAXES
ISSUE
TAXES
ISSUE
CIVIL RIGHTS
items: 71
SCHWIND, GEORGE,
I<t24 SANTA ANITA DRIVE
LAS VEGAS, NV 89109
GN
-IXfeMrS-:-3-9 ^
A 1-4. ,SXJG.
4-$4U€
TAXES
SCHHINGDOZ, DONNA A., MS.
• •' ( - ••••: -4.-! 'Si
6761 BONILLO DRIVE ——
LAS VEGAS, NV 89121 ,
GH
ITEMS: 39
TA*£-SXO
,
SCIACQUA, JULIA, MS.
890 CASA OOMA DRIVERE-
N&, NV 89503 -
ITEMS: 39
SG-IAL ABOTL,—A-,-, - -MR _ AND HRS-.-
^>065 VAHE CIRCLE
LAS VEGAS, NV 89121 ' '< '
OG - —
ITEMS: 0
SCIALABBA, A., MR, AND MRS.
ISSUE
TAXES
fusc :iino
ISSUE
INTERIM SENT FROM LAS VEGAS OFFICE
TAXE S
4065 VAHE CIRCLE
LAS VEGAS, NV 69121
GW —
-l^fcH-S4-0, 39
ISSUE.
FOLLOW-UP TO INTERIM FROM LAS VEGA
TAXES
SCIALABBA, A., MR. AND MRS.
-4065.-V-AH£-ClRCtELAS
VEGAS, NV 89121
GW
ITEMS: 39
SCIAME, CECILIA, MT.
98 SOUTH HIGHLAND «183
-L-AS -VE-GAS, -NV-89-106
GW
ITEMS: 0
SC IAME ,-G8C I LIA M S .
98 SOUTH HIGHLAND fll83
LAS VEGAS, NV 89106
--GW —
ITEMS: 39
ISSUE
-TAXES
ISSUE
PACKAGE SENT
-TAXES
ISSUE
TAXES
i'T^CFI
S T A T E M E N T O F S E N A T O R C H I C H E C H T O N B E H A L F O F O M N I B U S D R U G A B U S E
P R E V E N T I O N L E G I S L A T I O N
M r . P r e s i d e n t , I r i s e t o d a y t o s p e a k i n o p p o s i t i o n t o s o m e t h i n g
w h i c h s e e m s t o h a v e b e c o m e a v e r i t a b l e A m e r i c a n t r a d i t i o n ; t h e
t o l e r a n c e o f w i d e s p r e a d d r u g a b u s e i n o u r n a t i o n ' s s c h o o l s .
C o n c u r r e n t l y , M r . P r e s i d e n t , I w i s h t o e x p r e s s m y s t e a d f a s t
s u p p o r t f o r t h e D r u g A b u s e P r e v e n t i o n p a c k a g e i n t r o d u c e d t o d a y ,
a n d o f w h i c h I a m a c o s p o n s o r .
M r . P r e s i d e n t , s t a t i s t i c s s h o w t h a t t w o t h i r d s o f o u r A m e r i c a n
t e e n a g e r s h a v e u s e d a n i l l i c i t d r u g a t s o m e t i m e b e f o r e t h e i r
s e n i o r y e a r o f h i g h s c h o o l . A p a r t i c u l a r l y u n f o r t u n a t e a s p e c t o f
t h i s f a c t b e c o m e s m o r e a p p a r e n t w h e n o n e c o n s i d e r s t h a t d r u g u s e
i m p a i r s t h e m e m o r y , a l e r t n e s s , a n d a c h i e v e m e n t o f o u r t e e n a g e r s ;
w i t h f r e q u e n t u s e r s o f m a r i j u a n a e a r n i n g b e l o w a v e r a g e a n d
f a i l i n g g r a d e s t w i c e a s f r e q u e n t l y a s t h e i r c l a s s m a t e s . H o w w i l l
w e b e a b l e t o e d u c a t e o u r y o u n g - - t h e i n h e r i t o r s o f o u r n a t i o n - - i n
a n e n v i r o n m e n t s o c l o u d e d w i t h d r u g a b u s e ?
M o r e o v e r , M r . P r e s i d e n t , n o t o n l y h a v e o u r s c h o o l s b e c o m e a
r e f u g e f o r d r u g a b u s e r s , b u t t h e y i n a d v e r t e n t l y s e e m t o f u r n i s h a
v e r i t a b l e f r e e m a r k e t i n w h i c h d r u g d e a l e r s m a y m e r c h a n d i s e t h e i r
g o o d s . D r u g s a l e s o c c u r r i n g o n h i g h s c h o o l c a m p u s e s r e p r e s e n t 5 7
p e r c e n t o f t h e d r u g s s o l d t o A m e r i c a n t e e n a g e r s . A n e v e n m o r e
f r i g h t e n i n g s t a t i s t i c i s t h at o n e t h i r d o f t h e s e d r u g s n e v e r m a k e
i t o f f c a m p u s b e f o r e t h e y a r e u s e d ! S t u d e n t s p r o v i d e t h e d e m a n d ,
d r u g d e a l e r s p r o v i d e t h e s u p p l y , a n d i n t o o m a n y c a s e s , o u r
s c h o o l s p r o v i d e a s a n c t u a r y f o r t h i s d e a d l y e x c h a n g e .
M r . P r e s i d e n t , i n c u r r e n t a t t e m p t s t o c u r t a i l t h e u s e o f d r u g s ,
e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m s h a v e b e e n i m p l e m e n t e d t o r e a c h y o u n g c h i l d r e n
b e f o r e t h e y a r e e x p o s e d t o d r u g s . T h e s e p r o g r a m s , h o w e v e r , a r e
n o t b e i n g t a u g h t i n o u r j u n i o r h i g h s c h o o l s , a s s o m e m i g h t
i m a g i n e - - n o , t h e p r o l i f e r a t i o n o f d r u g s i s t o o w i d e s p r e a d f o r
p r e - e x p o s u r e p r o g r a m s t o b e s u c c e s s f u l a t t h a t l a t e l e v e l - -
r a t h e r , t h e s e p r o g r a m s a r e t a r g e t e d a t f o u r t h a n d f i f t h g r a d e r s .
I n o t h e r w o r d s , M r . P r e s i d e n t , t h e p r o b l e m h a s b e c o m e s o g r e a t
t h a t w e m u s t n o w f i l l t h e d a y s o f o u r 9 a n d 1 0 y e a r - o l d s w i t h t h e
h a r s h r e a l i t y o f a p o s s i b l e n e a r - t e r m d r u g c o n f r o n t a t i o n .
I w i s h t o p o i n t o u t t o m y c o l l e a g u e s t h a t t h e e s c a l a t i o n o f d r u g
a b u s e i s s h o w n n o t o n l y b y t h e n u m b e r o f t h i s s c o u r g e ' s v i c t i m s ,
b u t a l s o m a y b e m e a s u r e d i n t h e p o t e n c y a n d a v a i l a b i l i t y o f
t o d a y ' s i l l i c i t d r u g s . T h e p u r i f i e d f o r m o f c o c a i n e k n o w n a s
" c r a c k " , f o r e x a m p l e , h a s l e a d t o a l a r g e n u m b e r o f d r u g - r e l a t e d
d e a t h s .
I n c l o s i n g , M r . P r e s i d e n t , I w o u l d s i m p l y l i k e t o r e m i n d m y
c o l l e a g u e s o f t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y w e a l l s h a r e t o p r o t e c t a n d
n u r t u r e o u r c h i l d r e n . T o d a y , i n A m e r i c a , t h e m o s t s e r i o u s t h r e a t
t o o u r c h i l d r e n i s d r u g a b u s e . T h e c o n t i n u i n g t o l e r a n c e a n d
m i s c o n c e p t i o n o f t h i s n a t i o n ' s d r u g p r o b l e m s t a n d a s o b s t r u c t i o n s
t o t h e c o r r e c t i v e a c t i o n w h i c h m u s t b e u n d e r t a k e n i f w e a r e t o
r e s c u e o u r y o u n g p e o p l e , o u r f u t u r e , f r o m t h i s t e r r i b l e e p i d e m i c .
C o n g r e s s h a s a n o b l i g a t i o n t o r e m o v e t h e s e o b s t r u c t i o n s . T o t h i s
e n d , I w h o l e h e a r t e d l y s u p p o r t t h e a n t i - d r u g m e a s u r e i n t r o d u c e d i n
t h e S e n a t e t o d a y , a n d u r g e m y c o l l e a g u e s t o d o t h e s a m e .
DANIEL E. LUNGREN
4^0 DISrmCT. CAUFOHNIA
COMMrTTttS:
JVOtCIAHV
IUNKIM6 MINOAirr UCMBIR
tUBCOMhUTTf E ON lUMUGftATlON
KfMtU ANO INTUMATIONAL lAW
MCOMMrrrU ON C«M€
JOrWT KONOMIC COWMnTEE
^MCOMHrTTEE ON INVESTWCNT.
ME ANO PMCCS
V?C6 CHAIEMAN
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRADE,
fROOUCT^VtTY. ANO ECONOMIC
GROVV^
CHAtfMAN. HOUSE REKJBUCAN
TASK FOACI OH
CUME AND NANCOnCS
lof the Bnltd States
liimse of 'ReftresentatiDtB
^asliington, BC 20515
2440 AAVeURN HOUSE OmCE SUIID^NG
WASHINOTON, DO 20S1S
a02) 220-2410
olsrmcTomce:
ISO EAST OCEAN OOULEVAftO
SUrTE SOS
LONG IIACH. CA 0OSO2
(212>49S-S19»
P12) 42S-0210
<2121014-0)71
PLEASE ACPLV TO:
O wASHmcTON omci
O DIOTnCT OfTlCE
SEPTEMBER 25, 1986
LUNGREN ASSAILS THE "TIMOTHY LEARY" BAIL-OUT AMENDMENT
MR. SPEAKER: AS I INDICATED IN THE DEBATE ON THE OMNIBUS DRUG
BILL LAST WEEK, AN EXTREMELY DANGEROUS PROVISION WAS SLIPPED INTO THE
TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS THAT WILL ALLOW ANY REGISTRANT WITH A P.H.D. OR
M.D. BEHIND THEIR NAME TO INGEST OR PROVIDE FOR THEIR SPOUSES FRIENDS
AND EVEN STUDENTS SOME OF THE MOST POTENT SUBSTANCES KNOWN TO MAN.
SOME OF THESE DESIGNER DRUGS ARE 5000 TIMES THE STRENGTH OF MORPHINE
OR ABOUT 2500 TIMES THE STRENGTH OF HEROINE.
THIS PROVISION WAS MISREPRESENTED TO THE RULES COMMITTEE AS
NONTECHNICAL LANGUAGE SOMEHOW NECESSARY TO LEGITIMATE RESEARCH, AND
WAS SLIPPED INTO THE TECHNICAL PACKAGE ON THAT BASIS.
I SHOULD ADD THAT THE ONLY TESTIMONY IN SUPPORT OF THIS PROVISION
BEFORE OUR SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME WAS OFFERED BY DR. LESTER GRINSPOON
OF HARVARD. HE ATTEMPTED TO PERSUADE THE SUBCOMMITTEE THAT HIS REAL
CONCERN WAS WITH RESEARCH. HOWEVER THERE WERE THOSE OF US WHO
REMAINED SKEPTICAL IN THAT THE DESIGNER DRUG LEGISLATION THAT I FIRST
OFFERED AND THE SUBSEQUENT SUBCOMMITTEE AND COMMITTEE BILLS WERE
CAREFULLY CRAFTED TO AVOID ANY INTERFERENCE WITH LEGITIMATE RESEARCH.
BUT DR. GRINSPOON ARGUED THAT ANY ANIMAL TESTING FOR TOXICITY OR THE
REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE A RESEARCH PROTOCOL UNDER SCHEDULE I WAS TOO
BURDENSOME.
IT IS NOW CLEAR THAT DR. GRINSPOON AND HIS SMALL GROUP OF FOLLOWERS
HAVE A BROADER AGENDA. IT HAS COME TO MY ATTENTION THAT THE ONLY
VOICE FOR THIS PRO DRUG TRAFFICKING PROVISION IN OUR HOUSE DRUG BILL
SITS ON THE ADVISORY BOARD OF THE NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR THE REFORM
OF MARIJUANA LAWS (NORML). IN SHORT, THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, THE
RULES COMMITTEE AND THIS HOUSE "HAVE BEEN HAD." IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT
THIS PRO DRUG ABUSE PROVISION BE REMOVED FROM THE BILL IN CONFERENCE.
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
^^v$EP2F; iU Q /.g
Office of the Asnstant Attorney General Washington, D.C. 20530
September 25* 1986
Honorable Chic Hecht
United States Senate
Washington, D. C. 20510
Dear Senator Hecht:
After the Senate begins consideration of the drug bill on
Thursday or Friday, we understand that an amendment will be
offered by Democratic Senators to create a national "drug czar,"
We believe that this amendment will be the same as, or quite
similar to, S. 2716, a free-standing bill Introduced In early
August, 1986.
Such an amendment would be a direct, partisan slap at the
President, the Vice President and everyone in the Administration,
Including the Cabinet Members on the National Drug Enforcement
Policy Board, who are working to solve our nation's drug problem,
A similar bill was vetoed by the President In 1983. I enclose a
letter to Senator Dole, dated September 10, 1986, that sets forth
our objections In more detail.
We strongly oppose the "drug czar" amendment. We would be
more than happy to provide any additional Information you may
desire.
Sincerely
J^ohn R. Bolton
Assistant Attorney General
Enclosure
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of the Assisunt Attorney General Wasfiington, D.C. 20SSO
10 SEP 1988 0
Honorable Robert Dole
Majority Leader
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Dole:
This is to Invite your attention to a very troublesome bill,
S. 2716, which may be offered as an amendment to drug enforcement
legislation. This proposal seeks to revive the "drug czar" issue
which resulted in the President's disapproval of H.R. 3963 of the
97th Congress.
By way of background, legislation proposing creation of a
"drug czar" was approved, without hearings or significant
consideration, as a part of H.R. 3963 in late 1982. As the
President believed that this legislation would undermine rather
than enhance federal drug enforcement efforts, he disapproved the
bill. A copy of his Statement of Disapproval is enclosed for
ready reference.
During the 98th Congress, we worked at length with Senators
Thurmond and Biden and agreed to a compromise, enacted as part of
the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 198^1, which created the
National Drug Enforcement Policy Board charged with the mission of
developing a national drug enforcement strategy and of
coordinating federal drug enforcement efforts. The Board, chaired
by the Attorney General and comprised of several Cabinet-level
officials including the Secretaries of the Treasury, State,
Defense, and Transportation, was thus created on October 12, 1984
and held its first meeting in early 1985. Since that time, the
Board has strived to carry out its mandate and has, we believe,
made Important progress toward the coordination and Integration of
federal drug enforcement activities.
Honorable Robert Dole
Page Two
September 1, 1986
The effect of approving S. 2716 would be to repudiate
the National Drug Enforcement Policy Board within leas than
two years of its having been created by Congress. We would
hope that any such effort In the Senate will be strenuously
resisted. In the meantime, I wanted to be certain that you
know of the depth of feeling which S. 2716 elicits among the
federal law enforcement community. We vigorously oppose S.
2716 and sincerely believe that its approval would be
counter-productive to our common goal of enhanced drug
enforcement. In short, should S. 2716 be approved by the
Congress, we would be constrained to urge the President to
disapprove It.
Sincerely,
John R. Bolton
Assistant Attorney General
Enclosure
THE WHITE HOUSE
Offic* of the Fr«s« E*er«tkry
ror I««di.te tel.... '""'y "•
NEHOItXMDUH DJSAFPftOVAL
1 an withholding »y approval of H.R. 3#63» • bill
concerning criminal law mattera, bacauae ita diaadvantagea
far outweigh any intended benefita.
In late September 19B2, the Senate overwhelmingly
approved a major crime bill by a vote of to 1. That
measure, the Violent Crime and Drug Enforcement Improvements
Act of 1982 (S. 2572), would have resulted in urgently needed
reforms in Federal bail laws to put an end to our 'revolving
door* system of justice, comprehensive reforms in Federal
forfeiture laws to strip away the enormous assets and profits
of narcotics traffickers and organised crime syndicates, and
sweeping sentencing reforms to insure more uniform, determinate
prison sentences for those convicted of Federal crimes.
That major crime bill also contained other criminal law reforms.
X strongly supported the principal elements of the Violent Crime
and Drug Enforcement Improvements Act, especially the bail,
sentencing, and forfeiture provisions.
The House of Representatives failed to approve this
measure. It adopted a miscellaneous assortment of criminal
justice proposals, H.R. 3963, which was approved in the
waning hours of the 97th Congress. Although some elements of the
House-initiated bill are good, other provisions are misguided
or seriously flawed, possibly even unconstitutional. While
its previsions on forfeiture of criminal assets and profits
fall short of what the Administration proposed, they are clearly
desirable. Had they been presented to me as a separate measure,
I would have been pleased to give my approval. But H.R. 3963
does not deal with bail reform, nor does it address sentencing
reform. Both are subjects long overdue for congressional action.
In addition to its failure to address some of the most
serious problems facing Feder-al law enforcement, this 'mini-crime
bill* wpuld in several respects hamper existing enforcement
ectlvity. I am particularly concerned ebout its edvcrse impact
on our efforts to combat drug abuse.
The Act would create a drug director and a new bureaucrecy
within the Executive Branch with the power to coordinate end
direct all domestic and international Federal drug efforts,
including law enforcement operation!. The creation of another
layer of bureaucrecy within the Executive Branch would produce
friction, disrupt effective law enforcement, and could threaten
the Integrity of criminal investigations and prosecutions —
the very opposite of what ita proponent! apparently intend.
The acriousnese of thla threat is underscored by the
overwhelming opposltlOB to thie provision by the Federal law
enforcement community as well as by such groups as the
Internetionel Association of Chiafa of Folice and the National
Association of Attorney's General. «»e ao-called 'drug Csar*
mora
(OVER)
MOvlsioB was snactsd hastily without thoughtful «#bata
and without bansfit of any hsarlngs. Although Its aim --
with which Z am in full agreemant — la to promota coordinatiM.
this can ba and is balng achiavad through existing administratlva
atructuras.
Ooon taking offlea, X diractad the Attorney General and ether
senior officials of the Administration to Improve the
coordination and efficiency of federal law
with particular emphasis on drug-related crime. *hls has been
accomplished through the establishment of the Cabinet Council on
UgaT Policy, which is chaired by the Attorney General and whose
M^etship Includes all Cabinet officers with responsibility for
narcotics law enforcement. Working through the Cabinet Council^
the White House Office on Drug Policy is an integral part of the
process by which a comprehensive and coordinated narcotics
enforcement policy Is carried out.
I am pleased with the results of this process, which lest Fell
led to the creation of a netlonwide task force effort to combat
olganiaed crime and narcotica trafficking. The war ©J crime end
druQB does not need mote bureaucracy in Washington. It d^s need
M>re action in the field, and that ia where my Administration
will focus its efforts.
B B 3963 would also authorise the Federal prosecution of an
armed robber or burglar who has twice been convicted in State
court. Thie proviaion includes an unworkable and
unconatitutlonal restraint upon Federal prosecutions in this
area by allowing e State or local prosecutor to veto any Federal
prosecution under his or her authority, aven if the Attorney
General had approved the prosecution. Such a raatraint on
Federal prosecutorial discretion end the delegation of ^ecutive
responsibility it entsils rsiss grave constitutional and
practical concerns. It would, for Bxsmple. surely
friction among Federal, State, end local prosecutors at a time
when we are doing ao much to decraase it.
Other provisions of H.R. 3963 ere also defective. For
example, thi provision that expends Federal jurisdiction whenwer
food, drugs, or other products are tampered with, en expansion
ihat 1 st?o;gly support, was drafted to
occurs in en injured consumer's own home. It also falls to
distinguish between.tampering.that resulta in injury and
tampering that results in death. These are, however, essentially
technicil matters which might have been overcome but for the
press of time in the closing days of Congress. I share the
Widespread public desira for new legislation on tampering and
will work with the new Congress to produce en acceptable bill
on that subject.
My Administration has proposed slgnlflcsnt ^
strengthen lew enforcement and restora the balance between the
forces of Xsw snd the forces oi crime. Changes in _
ball laws, the excluaionary rule, the insanity ^«'®"®'
substantive reforms in crimlhel law were not passed by the »7th
Congress. Such reforms. If enscted, could make e reel
difference In the quality of Justice in this country.
pore
3
I Bl*asuzs to to spprove
It would h»v» '5_-4,?,tlon. X cor^letuly uupport
,ub»t*ntlve 3513, ,uch «s the Federal lntelli»eace
•OM o£ the leaturea of B.R. 3»»^. with in principle.
peraonnel ®Vthia bill 'sr-'atly outweigh Ita benellta.
but the diaadvantagea of thla biw 9^^^ contain
X look forward to ® ...nt bill. *»d wy hdainistration.
Jhe -'i?- ?Jai«.^ Thu^LJd aid Cbalrwan Bodino
BOMAU) REAGAN
THE WHITE HOUSE.
Continuation of Senate and House Proceedings of September 24, 1986,
Issue l\o. 127; and Proceedings of September 25, 1986, Issue /\o. 128.
Vol. 132 WASHINGTON, THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 1986 No. 128 Congressional "Record
United States
of America
PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 99'^ CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION
United States
Government
Printing Office
SUPERINTENDENT
OF DOCUMENTS
Washington. DC 20^02
C^FICIAL BUSINESS
Penally lor oiivste use. S300
F^CR^HECHTOOOH R S 0 0 5 6 F 1 3
HON CHIC HECHT
SENATE OFFICE BLDG
WASHINGTON DC 2 0 5 1 0
ECOND CLASS NEWSPAPER
Postage and Feea Paid
U.S. Government Printing Olflce
(USPS 0S7-3»0)
raikmg Points
VOL VI, No. 7, September 26, 1986
The Crusade Against Drug Abuse
"We seek to create a massive change in national attitudes which ultimately
will separate the drugs from the customer, to take the user away from the
supply. I helieve quite simply, that we can help them quit....My
generation will remember how America swung into action when we were
attacked in World War II....Now, we're in another war for our freedom, and
it's time for all of us to pull together again."
President Reagan
"Drugs steal away so much. They take and take, until finally every time a
drug goes into a child, something else is forced out, like love and hope
and trust and confidence. Drugs take away the dream from every child's
heart and replace it with a nightmare. And it's time we in America stand
up and replace those dreams."
Nancy Reagan
In an unprecedented move, the President and Mrs. Reagan took their message to
the American people on Sept. 14 in a televised appeal for support in the
crusade against drug abuse.
The Crusade for a Drug-Free America
Drug abuse was a major national problem when President Reagan took office and
fighting this problem became one the earliest priorities of his administration.
• In 1982, President Reagan announced a comprehensive strategy to stop drug
abuse and drug trafficking through international cooperation, drug law
enforcement, drug abuse prevention, treatment and research.
• The First Lady also began a major program in 1981 to increase public
awareness of the dangers of drug abuse and to get people involved in
helping young people "Just Say No" to drugs.
However, while gains have been made, drug abuse remains one of the most acute
crises facing our nation today.
Reagan Redoubles Efforts
The President redoubled his efforts to fight drug abuse when he announced,
Sept. 15, additional proposals toward achieving the goal of a drug-free
America.
These include an executive order, budget proposals and an omnibus bill aimed
at eliminating illegal drugs from our workplaces; eliminating drug abuse from
our schools; providing effective treatment for those suffering from past drug
abuse; improving international cooperation to stop the in-flow of illegal
drugs; further strengthening law enforcement; and increasing public awareness
and drug abuse prevention.
The President's new initiatives call for almost $900 million in additional
resources targeted to ridding our society of drugs. This would bring the
total federal contribution to more than $3 billion for FY 1987. These budget
proposals would not allocate new funds; rather, resources within the existing
federal budget would be redirected.
An Executive Order to Achieve a Drug-Free Federal Workplace
Consistent with his authority as President and as head of America's largest
employer (2.8 million civilian employees), the President, Sept. 15, signed an
executive order establishing a policy against the use of illegal drugs by
federal employees, whether on-duty or off-duty.
The order calls for procedures that will achieve a drug-free workplace while
protecting the rights of the employee. The order also authorizes the use of
drug testing programs as a diagnostic tool to identify drug use in certain
circumstances.
• The head of an agency must establish a testing program for employees in
sensitive positions based on the agency's mission, the employees' duties,
and the potential consequences of employee drug use to public health and
safety or to national security.
• The head of an agency may order the testing of any employee (1) when there
is a reasonable suspicion that the employee uses illegal drugs, (2) as
part of an investigation of an accident or unsafe practice, and (3) as
part of or as a follow-up to counseling or rehabilitation through an
employee assistance program.
• Voluntary testing programs will be established for employees in
non-sensitive positions. Applicants will be tested at the discretion of
the hiring agency.
The head of an agency must develop plans for a drug-free workplace which must
include an employee assistance program emphasizing education, counseling
referral to rehabilitation and coordination with community resources. *
Employees must be given notification 60 days prior to the start of testing
and confidentiality will be protected. Users of Illegal drugs will be subiect
to appropriate disciplinary actions unless they voluntarily seek assistance
The Drug-Free America Act of 1986: Cornerstone of Drug Abuse Efforts
The Drug-Free America Act of 1986, according to the President, "is one of the
most important, and one of the most critically needed, pieces of legislation
that my administration has proposed."
The President is strongly committed to the passage of the proposed bill, which
will be the cornerstone of the administration's anti-drug effort, before
adjournment of Congress for the year. The bill is composed of six areas of
legislation.
1. The Drug-Free Federal Workplace Act of 1986, together with the
President's Executive Order, would assist the federal government to
set an example for all employers to provide drug-free workplaces. It
would make clear that the use of illegal drugs by current or
prospective federal employees will not be tolerated.
2. The Drug-Free Schools Act of 1986 would authorize JlOO million to
assist state and local governments in establishing drug-free learning
environments in elementary and secondary schools.
3. The Substance Abuse Services Amendments of 1986 would respond to
the grave health threat presented by the use of illegal drugs. Block
grants would be extended from FY 1988 to FY 1992 to states for
alcohol, drug and mental health programs, and would eliminate several
unnecessary restrictions in current law that limit the flexibility of
the states in putting the funds to work where they are most needed.
4. The Drug Interdiction and International Cooperation Act of 1986
would emphasize the need for greater international cooperation in the
fight against drugs. This would improve procedures used in seizing
the proceeds of narcotics-related crimes committed in other
countriesj facilitate deportation of illegal aliens involved in drug
trafficking; significantly strengthen U.S. Customs laws in order to
curtail drug smuggling; and amend the authority of the Coast Guard to
stop and board vessels for violations of U.S. drug laws.
5. The Anti-Drug Enforcement Act of 1986 would strengthen the ability
of our law enforcement personnel and courts to ensure that those
convicted of illegal drug offenses are suitably punished and deprived
of the profits of their crime.
6. The Public Awareness and Private Sector Initiatives Act of 1986
would remove the statutory impediments for increased cooperation
between the private sector and the government in educating the public
about the hazards of drug abuse.
Drug Abuse: The Facts
According to the Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Mental Health Administration:
• There are about 500,000 hard-core heroin users in the U.S.
• Between 4 and 5 million Americans use cocaine at least once a month.
Approximately 21.6 million have tried the drug at least once.
• Among 18-25 year olds, 28 percent have tried cocaine.
• From 1975 to 1984, the amount of cocaine smuggled into the U.S.
quadrupled. In 1984 10 tons of heroin, 85 tons of cocaine, and about
15,000 tons of marijuana were brought into the U.S.
Drugs in Schools
Drug use is running rampant in our schools — and not just at the high school
level. Tragically, many school districts and police departments say drug
education programs aimed at 12-year-olds are already too late and should begin
at the kindergarten level.
• Experts say most first-time experience with drugs now occurs before high
school.
• In 1985, 61 percent of all high school seniors, about 2 million people,
had tried at least one or more illicit drugs; 41 percent had used drugs
other than marijuana. One out of every 20 high school seniors smokes
marijuana daily. Among 12-17 year olds, more than 6 million have used it
at least once.
• Among high school seniors, cocaine use has dramatically risen. In 1985,
17 percent had tried the drug. Among 1985 high school seniors who said
they had used cocaine in the past year, 22 percent said they used it in
school. Among 12-13 year olds, about 60,000 have tried cocaine.
• Almost one-third of New York's seventh graders admit to having used
illegal drugs.
• Drop out rates are clearly associated with frequent drug usage.
Drugs on the Job
• Estimates vary from 10 percent to 23 percent on how many workers use drugs
on the job. It is impossible to estimate accurately the dollar cost of
the harm they do in mistakes, damage and human suffering.
• Drug abusers are three times as likely as non-users to injure themselves
or a co-worker on the job.
• Drug-using workers are 28 percent less productive than their peers.
Reagan's Commitment to Winning the Battle
President Reagan has emphasized the need to help drug abusers regain control
of their lives, punish pushers and stop the flow of drugs to the United
States. The administration already made great strides toward this goal:
• Thirty-seven federal agencies are working together in this vigorous
national effort.
• Under the Reagan Administration, federal spending for drug law enforcement
will virtually triple — from little over $700 million in FT 1981 to an
anticipated $2.1 billion in FY 1987.
• The Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces were established under
the Attorney General in 1982 to attack drug trafficking by major criminal
organizations.
• In 1982, the President asked Vice President Bush to establish a South
Florida Task Force to respond to the drug trafficking emergency there.
The effort pooled the resources of nine federal agencies, including
the military, with state and local authorities.
The unprecedented success of the South Florida Task Force led to the
creation of the National Narcotics Border Interdiction System in
1983. This system is now a model for coordinating interdiction
efforts around all our borders.
Operation Alliance
On Aug. 14, 1986, the Reagan Administration announced Operation Alliance, a
major new cooperative drug law enforcement effort along the 2,000 mile
U.S.-Mexico border to choke off the flow of drugs, weapons and other
contraband across the border. This program will involve more than 20 U.S.
agencies, including federal, state, and local authorities; more than 500
federal law enforcement personnel; and, if Congress approves, $266 million
over the next two years to hire additional agents and prosecutors and purchase
new air surveillance equipment.
The President's Programs Have Made Gains
• In 1981, one foreign country was eradicating narcotics; today, 14
countries and all 50 states are eradicating.
• Aggressive enforcement activity against cocaine manufacturers in Colombia,
Peru, and Bolivia is disrupting the flow of cocaine. U.S. helicopters
have been aiding the effort in Bolivia.
• Enhanced interdiction has increased U.S. seizures of illegal drugs. In
1981, the U.S. seized two tons of cocaine; in 1985, we seized 20 tons.
• The U.S. Armed Forces have cut the use of illegal drugs in the military by
67 percent since 1981.
• Since 1981, Mrs. Reagan has traveled more than 100,000 miles to 28 states
and six foreign countries in her campaign and has clearly become the
national leader in the effort to stop drug abuse by young people.
t Due to the First Lady's hard work, the number of parent groups has grown
from 900 to 9,000 groups nationwide. Our school-aged children have formed
more than 10,000 "Just Say No" clubs around the country.
• Attitudes are changing. In 1985, polls showed 73 percent of our teenagers
believed that possession of small 2unounts of marijuana should be treated
as a criminal offense, compared to 44 percent in 1979.
Congressional Action: Republicans Provide the Tough Initiatives
On Sept. 11, the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives passed a
billion anti-drug bill. This package would spend an enormous amount of money
without adequate regard to whether many provisions effectively address the
drug problem. To gain bipartisan support. Republicans were allowed free rein
with amendments; thus the toughest anti-drug measures in the bill were
sponsored by Republicans, such as life imprisonment without parole for a
second conviction of selling drugs to minors, relaxation of the "exclusionary
rule" which has allowed incriminating evidence to be barred from proceedings
on technicalities, and a death penalty provision for members of criminal
enterprises who knowingly cause the death of another individual. The bill
passed with a 392-16 vote.
The federal role in fighting drug abuse is vital, but it is only a component
of what must be the total resolve of our nation to end illegal drug use. All
segments of American society — labor, business, the clergy, educators and
those in sports and media must share in the role of making drug abuse
unacceptable.
"As we mobilize for this national crusade," said Reagan, "I'm mindful that
drugs are a constant temptation for millions. Please remember this when your
courage is tested: you are Americans. You are the product of the freest
society mankind has ever known. No one — iever— has the right to destroy
your dreams and shatter your life."
TALKING POINTS is published by the Republican National CommiUee. Permission Is granted to
reproduce materials in this publication without prior approval or acknowledgement. Terry Wade, Communications Director
Frank J. Fahrenkopt, Jr., Chairman Judy Van Rest, Publications Director
Betty Heitman, Co-Chalrman Philip Kawfor, Research Director
Robin Carte, Chief of Stall Catherine DeLany, Editor
William I. Greener, III, Deputy Chiel ol Stall lor Political Operations
Protecting Dreams
Talking Poin
310 First Street, S.E.
Washington, D.C. 20003
CJIXC rteCllL
OM 30A!
twn
?Bntteb ^tateig Senate
MEMORANDUM
- f / ]
t
^ C
d
w>0 U^<y^ CO
S.
NELLIE C. WEIL, President
THOMAS A. SHANNON, Executive Director
NATIONAL SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION
1680 Duke Street
Alexandria, Virginia 22314
DATE: September 26, 1986
Senator Chic Hecht
302 Senate Hart Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
SUBJECT: DRUG EDUCATION LEGISLATION
SS
m
imn -o
NJ
CO
Sc
rs>
jr-
= 0
r': ^
O ^
OS
00
Dear Senator Hecht;
The National School Boards Association (NSBA), on behalf of 96,000
local school board members nationwide, is heartened that Congress and
the Administration have shown a strong interest in joining with the
on-going efforts of local school boards and launching a broad-based
national attack on substance abuse. A nationwide commitment to attack
the problem in a single concerted effort will be more effective than
each local community attempting to attack the problem on its own.
However, NSBA would caution Congress not to abandon several important
principals governing federal, state and local governmental relations
in the rush to respond to the drug crisis before Congress adjourns.
1) Funds should be distributed to states on a pass-through formula
basis to local schools rather than left at the state level for
discretionary grants. The drug crisis is all pervasive and each
local community needs additional resources to attack the problem
according to locally determined priorities.
2) Allocating a large portion of drug education funds to state
governors to address dropouts and other at-risk youth through
community-based organizations risks losing accountability for
these funds since there are few controls on the educational
quality of these programs outside of the educational system.
Local schools can more easily be accountable for developing
cooperative programs with community-based organizations to reach
at-risk youth.
3) The award or use of grant funds should not be linked to
requirements to espouse a particular educational message (e.g.
illegal drugs are wrong and harmful) or to adopt a particular
drug education curriculum or drug abuse prevention policy (e.g.
drug testing). The principal of local control of education
dictates that the statute should be silent on these matters.
Senator Chic Hecht
September 26, 1986
Page Two
4) Funding must be adequate — at least $150 million — and should
not be skimmed from other federal education programs.
NSBA looks forward to swift passage of legislation to implement and
fund new federal initiatives in this all important area. The future
of many children is at stake. Thank you for your concern for the
needs of public school children.
Very truly yours,
NELLIE C. WEIL
President
THOMAS A. SHANNON
Executive Director
STROM THURMOND, SOUTH CAROUNA. CHAIRMAN
CHARLES McC, MATHIAS. JR.. MARYLAND JOSEPH R. 8IDEN. JR.. OEUWARE
PAOL LAXAUT, NEVADA EDWARD M. KENNEDY. MASSACHUSETTS
ORRIN G. HATCH. UTAH
ALAN K. SIMPSON. WYOMING
CHARLES E. GRASSLEY. IOWA
JEREMIAH DENTON. ALABAMA
ROBERT C. BYRD. WEST VIRGINIA
HOWARD M. METZENBAUM. OHIO lanitEd States Senate ARLEN SPECTER. PENNSYLVANIA
MITCH McCONNELL. KENTUCKY
JAMES T. BROYHILL. NORTH CAROUNA
DENNIS DECONCINI. ARIZONA
PATRICK J. LEAHY. VERMONT
HOWELL HEFLIN. AU8AMA
PAUL SIMON. ILLINOIS
• • •• iJ.C,
OtNH'S W SHCOO. CHitf COUNS£U AND STAFf OlftECTOA
OIANA L WATIRMAN, GENERAL COUNSEL
MEUNOAKOUTSOUMPAS, CHlEP CLERK
MARK H. GcrtNSTEIN. MlNORfTY CHIEF COUNSEL
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY - ;
WASHINGTON. DC 20510
September 26. 1986
Dear Colleague:
During debate on the omnibus drug bill, it is likely that
an attempt will be made to modify the constitutional
protections afforded by the exclusionary rule. I intend to
offer such amendments as may be necessary to develop a fair and
effective system of civil sanctions as an alternative to that
rule. I hope to have your support in this effort.
My proposed bill. S. 492. entitled "Law Enforcement and
Investigative Officers Civil Liability Protection Act" develops
a system of alternate civil remedies to protect Americans from
unconstitutional searches and seizures. The bill had the
support of the Society of Former Special Agents of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation,
Like all other serious proposals for reform of the Federal
Tort Claims Act. S. 492 would immunize individual law
enforcement agents from personal liability, except in the most
extreme situations, and shifts such liability to the
government, which is ultimately responsibile for training and
supervising the agent. It provides that the government shall
be liable for bodily injury and property damages, or liquidated
damages up to $2,000. unless the agent was not acting in good
faith. Thus, the civil damages are financially responsible and
fair to both the victim of the unconstitutional action and the
government.
As former Chief Justice Burger recognized in his
concurring opinion in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Narcotics
Agents nearly fifteen years ago. it is particularly fitting to
link modifications on the application of the exclusionary rule
to the development of an effective system of civil remedies to
protect Americans from violations of their constitutional
rights.
Attached is a copy of a recent article from the Washington
Post which dramatically illustrates the reasons why you should
support efforts to make the government rather than the
individual police officer financially responsible for
violations of a citizen's constitutional rights.
Jo/eph R, Biden. Jr
I
>
A14 THURSDAY. MARCH 6,1986 . • • •« ' TIY; WASHINGTON POST
Police Held Liable on Improper Arrest
Immunity limited Even if Judge Signs Warrant, High Court Rules
By A! Kamen
Washinfitoii Post Stnd Wrilcr
Th^^ugreme^our^ule^j^e^
terday that police officers may
forced to pay damages to people
J# tiiey arrest improperlyth'ey
had first obtained an arrest
V—even if
warrant signed by a judge^
Police officers^ unlike ^rosecutors
and judges, do not enjoy absolute
immunity from lawsuits, and
''objectively unreasonable" actions
expose tiiem to liability for
^gijiaggg^ Justice Byron R. White
wrote for the court.
Jerald R. Vaughn, executive director
of the International Association
of Chiefs of Police, said he was
"disappointed" by the ruling. "It
raises more concerns" in the minds
of officers about their personal liability
and "being second-guessed,"
Vaughn said.
The ruling involved the predawn
arrest of Louisa and lames R.
Briggs. a prominent, Rhode Island
couple picked up in a drug sweep
after their names surfaced in a
wiretap of a suspected drug dealer.
The couple was taken to a police
station, booked, held for several
hours and released. Local and statewide
papers reported that the couple
had been arrested on drug possession
charges. lames Briggs is a
real estate developer, forrner oresr
ident of the Narragansett Chamber
of Commerce, former head of the
1br.ll h^nrt t'nnd and muscular dvstronhv
drives and former Plc-rtPH
towr^axasjggggj^
""^(^irmlctm^t was returned
against the couple. They sued the
state trooper, Edward Malleyi-ydto
had sought the arrest warfdftti
based on a telephone conversation
tapped by another officer, Joseph
Miranda, during a drug investigation.
The Briggses each asked $2
million in damages for violations of
their civil rights.
A trial judge threw out the case,
saying that the magistrate's issuance
of a warrant entitled Malley to
ley obtained an arrest warrant for
the couple for conspiracy to posses^
marijuana with intent to deliver.
"The question in this case,"
immunity. The 1st U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals overruled, saying
that a warrant does not automatically
shield police from lawsuits if it
can be shown that officers should
have known there was no "probable
cause" for an arrest.
^hat limited immunity. White
lintH "nrfividp.ti amnle nrotecti(^n to
all hut the niainlv incomnetent r,r
•those who knowinglv violate the
The court rejected arguments
tronr20 states and from law enforcement
groups that a magistrate's
issuance of a warrant
shielded the officer from liability.
In this case. White said,-Malley
^ was acting on the basis of a tele-
. phone .convetsatioii between an unknown''
pCTSbn»'ah£l,.;Paid Driscoll,
who knew the Briggses' daughter
and whose phone was tapped. The
unknown caller said he had smoked
marijuana at a party at the Briggses'
home "in front of Jimmy
Briggs" and that he, the caller, had
"passed it to Louisa."
Based on that information, Mai-
White said, "is whether a reasonably
well-trained officer ... would
have known that [the call] failed lo^
establish probable cause and that he
^houldnoHjaveaDgjiedfwt^
ratX^nufelljpEoIdmg the appeals
court, sent the case back for a jury
to decide that issue.
"It is true that in an ideal system
an unreasonable request for a warrant
would be harmless," White
said, "because no judge would approve
it. Jut ours is not an ideal
^3^gtwiT^^^_anditis_j)05^
..magistrate, working under d^Ret,'
•Pressures, will fail to perform as'a
. magistrate .should. We find it
1
— ••oatiire the offic'efln^.
g for the warrant to roim'mize' thi^
iiiiger. bv "exercisiiig"reasonaDie^
^Tustl^Lewis F.Towell Jr., joined
by Justice William H. Rehnquist,
dissented. Powell said he agreed
that police do not enjoy absolute
immunity, but said Malley appeared
to have been "reasonably competent"
and that a magistrate's issuance
of a warrant, "although not
conclusive, is entitled to substantial
evidentiary weight."
Editor, Judy Myers
Notice #117
September 26,1986
U.S. SENATE REPUBL[CAN POLICY COMMITTEE
William L. Armstrong, Chairman
PLEASE NOTE: This and all other current Legislative
Notices are now available immediately through LEGIS,
where they are regularly updated and where Floor
Supplements are posted. Use the LEGIS report "LNOT"
for the electronic notice, which you can also capture and
print in your office.
Calendar — —
S. 2878: THE SENATE BIPARTISAN DRUG BILL
REPORTED: Not reported out of committee.
BACKGROUND: The Majority Leader on Sept 23 introduced S. 2850, a comprehensive package of
anti-drug measures. It included (1) most of the recommendations from S. 2849 (the Administration's
bill), (2) several bills that had been acted upon by the Senate during the past year, and (3) additional
Senate proposals. During the past several days, Republicans and Democrats have engaged in discussions
to put together a bipartisan drug bill, drawing upon S. 2850 as well as S. 2798, its Democrat
counterpart The result of this joint effort is S. 2878.
PURPOSE
• Toughen penalties against drug possession and trafficking
• Strengthen drug interdiction efforts
• Secure greater intemational cooperation with U.S. efforts to combat drug trafficking
• Make it easier to crack down on drugs in the workplace
• Reauthorize and expand current drug abuse prevention and treatment, create a new program of
drug abuse education, and reduce alcohol and drug abuse among Native Americans
TITLE 1: ENFORCEMENT
• Drug Penalties Enhancement Act raises penalties for large-scale domestic trafficking. It
incorporates provisions from both Republican and Democrat bills, aiming at greater
coordination and consistency than in House-passed bill.
• Drug Possession Penalty Act stiffens penalties for simple possession of a controlled substance:
higher fines, mandatory imprisonment for second offense, repeal of pre-trial diversion for first
offenders. (House bill makes minimal changes.)
• Juvenile Drug Trafficking Act (1) provides additional penalties for persons who use juveniles in
trafficking, with added penalties for second offense, (2) adds penalties for providing drugs to
persons under 21 or using persons 14 years of age or younger, and (3) broadens current law
against selling drugs within 1,000 feet of a school to include (a) manufacturing drugs and (b)
schools at all levels.
• Asset Forfeiture Amendments provide for forfeiture of a convicted person's substitute assets
when proceeds from a specific crime are not reachable by the court.
• Controlled Substance Analogs Enforcement Act outlaws manufacture with intent to distribute
"designer drugs" and prohibits possession with intent for human consumption. Identical to S.
1437, passed by Senate in Dec. 1985, but with stiffer penalties and conforming amendments.
• Continuing Drug Enterprise Act sets heavy penalties, including life term under certain
circumstances, for drug kingpins.
• Controlled Substances Import and Export Act Penalties Enhancement Act imposes stiffer
penalties for impon and export violations and confonns them to other penaties in bill.
S. 2878 2 LEGISLATIVE NOTICE
%
• Money Laundering Crimes Aa tracks language of S. 2683, which passed the Senate as
amendment last summer and was pan of both Republican and Democrat bills. Provides strong
penalty and forfeiture provisions, greater authority for Treasury.
• Broadens definition of armed career criminal to include anyone with 3 or more convictions "for
a crime of violence" or "a serious drug offense" or both.
• For drug law enforcement for FY 1987, adds to Department of Justice and Federal Judiciary
$237,500,000 in budget authority and $104,093,000 in outlays above the level in current law.
• Provides for Drug Law Enforcement Grant program.
• Requires report by DOD/Justice on military facilides that could be used for prisons.
• Requires National Drug Enforcement Policy Board report to Congress on improving interdiction
and improving cooperation among law enforcement agencies. (See related provision under
Interdiction.)
• Removes cap from forfeiture funds (generated from assets seized in drug-related prosecutions),
removing that money from the budget allocation process.
• Includes provisions of the Controlled Substances Technical Amendments Act passed by Senate
in S. 1236 in April, 1986.
• Includes provisions of the Federal Drug Law Enforcement Agent Protection Act (S. 630,
previously passed by Senate), providing rewards for assisting in arrest or conviction of killers or
kidnappers of a Federal drug agent
• Operating a common carrier under influence of drugs or alcohol is made a Federal criminal
offense. (S. 850 previously passed by Senate).
• Freedom of Information Act amendment: prohibits public disclosure of information that might
alert drug dealers or organized crime figures of law enforcement related to them.
• Mail Order Drug Paraphernalia Act bars sale and transport of drug-related items through Postal
Service or in interstate commerce. Provides for seizure, forfeiture, and destruction of
paraphemalia
• Imposes criminal penalties for setting up or maintaining any place for making, distributing, or
using a controlled substance. Applies also to those who "knowingly and intentionally" rent or
make available a place for those purposes.
• In place of the Chemical Diversion and Trafficking Act, bill provides for a study of chemical
precursors in manufacture of illegal drugs.
White House Conference: Both S. 2850 and S. 2798 called for a White House Conference concerning
the drug problem. The Republican bill (1) emphasized parental involvement and participation by
parents' organizations and (2) focused the Conference upon education, prevention, and treatment. The
Democrat bill (1) mandated Conference representation for state and local officials and (2) broadened
the scope of the Conference to include trafficking and law enforcement This bill, however, contains no
provision on this point, which may be considered during floor debate.
TITLE II: INTERNATIONAL NARCOTICS CONTROL
• Increases International Narcotics Control Assistance by $55 million for FY 1987 if (1) requested
by President with (2) a plan for expenditure. At least $10 million of that amount would be for
aircraft for eradication and interdiction primarily in Latin America
• Penalties for countries involved in drug trade:
* Foreign Assistance to "every major illicit drug producing or major drug-transit country" is
cut (1) 50% for FY 1987 and (2) 100% thereafter.
* Secretary of Treasury, as of March 1, 1987, must instruct U.S. representatives to
international lending institutions to vote against loans to those drug countries.
* President must deny benefits under Generalized System of Preferences, Caribbean Basin
Economic Recovery Act, and other tariff preferences.
LEGISLATIVE NOTICE 3 S. 2878
* Exception if President certifies that country has cooperated in past year with U.S. antidrug
efforts and that U.S. national security interests require the assistance. (Sets
conditions for the President to consider in making the determinations and procedures for
Congress to disapprove his determination by joint resolution.)
• Provides for U.S. retention of title to interdiction aircraft loaned to Mexico and requires recordkeeping
on those planes.
• Set-aside of $1 million for development of aerial herbicide for coca.
• Comptroller General study of effectiveness of Narcotics Control Assistance program.
• Requires yearly report on extent to which countries cooperate with U.S. extradition requests.
• Amends Mansfield Amendment: prohibits U.S. officials from making an arrest in foreign
country but allows them to be present and to assist foreign officers in making arrest Also allows
self-protection.
• Orders expeditious creation of information-sharing on arrests of foreign nations in U.S.; study of
narcotics traffic from Africa; allows S2 million to be used in Colombia or elsewhere to protect
officials; sets conditions on assistance to Bolivia; requires President to take steps to combat
narcoterrorists.
• Requires presidential report on threats or violence against U.S. drug enforcement personnel in
foreign countries and bars aid or loans to countries which do not cooperate in such
circumstances.
• Urges negotiations for new procedures for Coast Guard boarding of vessels of foreign registry.
• Collection of narcotics data made priority task for intelligence community, with mandate for
information on narcotic crop production.
• Supports U.N. conference on drug abuse and trafficking, urges speedy action on narcotics
control conventions, etc.
• Advocates Mexico-U.S. Intergovernmental Commission.
• Expresses concem about opium production in Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan and Laos.
• Adds $2 million to U.S.I.A. and S3 million to A.I.D. for overseas drug education.
TITLE III: INTERDICTION AND COMMERCE
• National Drug Interdiction Improvement Act contains language from FY 1987 DOD
authorization bill, already passed by Senate, providing $212.1 million to Customs Service and
Coast Guard for better intelligence and interdiction. It also allows at least 500 Coast Guard
personnel to be assigned to naval vessels to assist in drug interdiction.
• Customs Enforcement Act tightens up customs procedures and requirements, increases certain
penalties, expands authority of Secretary of Treasury in various customs matters. It also makes
unlawful various aspects of moving and transferring illegal drugs.
• Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Prosecution Improvements Act codifies circumstances under
which Coast Guard can board vessels to enforce U.S. law. Creates new offense: possession with
intent to distribute a controlled substance aboard a vessel within territorial waters of another
country which permits U.S. enforcement.
• Requires report from National Drug Enforcement Policy Board on extent to which Department
of Defense should be involved in law enforcement; and report on drug education in DoD
schools,
• Driving under influence of drugs is made offense under U.S. Code of Military Justice.
• Permits DoD to loan personnel to civilian law enforcement agencies to operate and maintain
equipment used by agencies to assist in foreign interdiction activities.
• Establishes a Federal violation for using unregistered aircraft in transporting drugs; provides for
seizure of aircraft; allows States to impose criminal penalties for use of forged or altered aircraft
registrations.
• Authorizes FCC to revoke licenses of persons who use licensed communications equipment for
drug-related activities and to seize any equipment so used.
S. 2878 4 LEGISLATIVE NOTICE
• Study by National Drug Enforcement Policy Board of Federal drug law enforcement efforts.
• Emergency Assistance by Department of Defense. Slightly amends current law to redefme
"emergency circumstance" in which military may by used outside the land area of the U.S. to
enforce the Controlled Substances Act: when size and scope of suspected criminal activity pose
serious threat to interests of the U.S. and when enforcement of the law would be seriously
impaired if assistance were not provided. Requires consultation with Secretary of State. Allows
military personnel to intercept, identify, and monitor the location of vessels and aircraft until
law enforcement officials can assume responsibility.
TITLE IV: EDUCATION, TREATMENT. AND REHABILITATION -- DEMAND REDUCTION ACT
Drug-Free Federal Workplace Act amends the Rehabilitation Act to ensure that Federal agencies are
not barred from disciplining or terminating employees who currently use illegal drugs or abuse alcohol.
Treatment and Rehabilitation: Substance Abuse Services Amendments:
• Reauthorize current ADAMHA (Alcohol, Drug Abuse, Mental Health Administration) block
grant for FY 1987.
• Raises authorization for FY 1987 to S675 million.
• Directs S125 million of that amount for state drug abuse treatment centers in areas of greatest
need (e.g., full capacity.)
• Reserves S20 million of that amount for treatment of high risk youth.
• Gives States more leeway in using resources under the block grant
• Picks up much of S. 2595, the ADAMHA reauthorization on the calendar, concerning
reauthorization of NIAAA, NIDA, HHS report on suicide, etc.
• Requires from HHS a national plan to combat drug abuse.
• Prohibits creation of any new agency or center to carry out these provisions, thus barring
administrative creation of costly ($30 million) new office,
• Revises allotment procedures for Indian tribes.
• Includes sense of Senate resolution that possession or distribution of controlled substances
should remain a criminal offense under State laws.
Education: Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act:
• Creates new $150 million program in Department of Education for grants to States:
* $20 million of that amount is for Secretary's discretionary fund, of which $10 million is
earmarked for training centers.
* $2 million of the remaining $10 million is earmarked for Indian drug abuse projects.
* The remaining $130 million is distributed to States by school-age population formula, with
a minimum State grant of $650,000.
* At least $80 million of the $130 million must be passed through by the governors to State
(10%) and local (90%) education agencies. The remaining $50 million can be used by the
governors for wide range of activities, including school and community-based programs.
* Private schools eligible to participate.
* 5% cap on administrative expenses. High risk youth must be a priority in the state
programs.
• Sense of Senate resolution urging Motion Picture Association to "D" rate films depicting drug
use in favorable way.
Indian Alcohol and Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act:
• Establishes comprehensive approach to drug and alcohol abuse among Native Americans
through various programs of prevention and treatment, with particular focus on youth.
LEGISLATIVE NOTICE
•>
5 S. 2878
• Authorises attack on narcotics traffic in Indian country.
• Provides guidance to Federal agendes r^ponsible for Indian programs.
OTHER PROVISIONS: PRIVATE SECTOR INITIATIVES
• Provides narrow, two-year exemption from Competition in Contracting Act to allow Federal
government to accept certain volunteer services,
• Permits domestic use of USIA films and other materials against drug abuse.
TRUST FUNDS FOR TAX REFUNDS AND CONTRIBUTIONS
• Allows taxpayers to designate all or part of refund - as well as additional contributions -- for a
Drug Addiction Prevention Trust Fund.
MATTERS NOT COVERED IN THE BILL, which may be subjects of floor amendments, include;
death penalty, reform of exclusionary rule, habeas corpus reform, and random drug testing of Federal
transportation employees. These items will be covered by additions to the electronic Notice available on
LEGIS, through the "LNOT" function.
Staff Contact: Bill Gribbin, x42946
O
M E M O R A N D U M
September 26, 1986
TO: Senator Hecht
FROM: George
RE: Major Amendments to Drug Bill
Among many probable amendments, the following are most important.
** Hawkins amendment to require the Department of Defense to
participate in drug interdiction efforts along our borders. The
Defense Dept. opposes such increased responsibility. A similar
provision is included in the House bill.
** Drug Czar amendment: This would require that one official be
responsible for coordinating overall national drug policy. The
Administration is strongly opposed to this amendment.
* Habeas Corpus amendment: This would put limits on State
prisoners' appeal rights in federal courts. You are a cosponsor of
a similar bill.
** Exclusionary Rule amendment: This would allow certain 'unjustly
obtained' evidence to be used in court cases against drug offenders.
The Administration supports this.
** Federal Death Penalty amendment.
S13770 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE September 26, 1986
WEICKER SEES CREATIVE BOOKKEETIMG. NOT
NEW CASH
WASHINGTON—Sen. Lowell Welcker
charged Thursday that President Reagan's
antidrug program will be financed by "stealing"
funds from other programs, not by new
dollars.
Welcker. chairman of the Senate appropriations
subcommittee that handles health
and education programs, said that the $900
million In "increased resurces" planned by
Reagan will come from money now allocated
to other domestic programs.
"The Fhesident does not propose spending
new money on the war on drugs," Welcker
said in a Senate speech. "Rather, he proposes
stealing the money from one program
to spend It on another."
Welcker said It was his understanding that
$100 million will be taken from student aid
programs and given to local school districts
for drug education and law enforcement coordination.
He said $233 million will be
shifted from current drug programs and allocated
to the National Institute of Drug
Abuse for drug treatment, prevention and
research.
Among the cuts. Welcker said, will be $75
million in block grants for community and
migrant health centers: $2 million from the
block grants for preventive activities to
reduce morbidity and mortality: $86 million
from the National Institutes of Health earmarked
for research $6 million from the National
Institute of Mental Health for prevention
of mental Illness: $1.3 million from
the National Institute of Alcohol and Alcoholism:
and $60 million from the low-income
home energy program.
Welcker said states will be able to shift alcohol.
drug abu.se and mental health block
grants to increase drug abuse activities, if
they do so without additional money.
• 1430
Mr. MATHIAS. Before the Senate
passes the bill, every Senator and all
of the Nation's taxpayers ought to
know how these programs are going to
be paid for.
Is it going to be new money? Is it
going to be money taken from other
programs? Is it going to be shifted
around in some way which is good? Or
is it going to be paid for by robbing
programs that are already far too
small?
In sum, there are a number of unanswered
questions, and there is very
little evidence to answer them, at least
on the present record. Perhaps the
biggest question of all is. even with all
of the recommended changes, will this
bill be effective, or are we spinning our
wheels? Is all of this concern going to
be squandered on a wasted effort?
Only careful and thoughtful deliberation
can answer that question, and
I urge every Senator to bring that
kind of deliberation to this process, because
the American people, our families
and our children, deserve nothing
less.
Mr. HECHT. Mr. President, I rise
today to speak in opposition to something
which seems to have become a
veritable American tradition; the tolerance
of widespread drug abuse in
our Nation's schools. Concurrently,
Mr. President, I wish to express my
steadfast support for S. 2878, the Antidrug
Abuse Act ol 1986, of which I am
a cosponsor.
Mr. President, statistics show that
nearly two-thirds of our American
teenagers have used an illicit drug at
some time before their senior year of
high school. A particularly unfortunate
aspect of this fact becomes more
apparent when one considers that
drug use Impairs the memory, alertness.
and achievement of our teenagers;
with frequent users of marijuana
earning below average and failing
grades twice as frequently as their
classmates. How will we be able to educate
our young—the inheritors of our
Nation—in an environment so clouded
with the 111 effects of drug abuse?
Moreover, Mr. President, not only
have many of our Nation's schools witnessed
an increase in drug abusing students,
but in some cases these educational
institutions have Inadvertently
come to furnish a veritable free
market in which drug dealers may
merchandise their goods. Drug transactions
occurring on high school campuses.
in fact, have come to represent
a significant percentage of ali drug
sales to American teenagers. Even
more frightening is that statistics
show a number of illegal drugs—particularly
marijuana—are used on
school grounds. Students provide the
demand, drug dealers provide the
supply, and in too many cases, our
schools provide a marketplace for this
deadly exchange.
Mr. President, in current attempts to
curtail the use of drugs, education programs
have been implemented to
reach young children before they are
exposed to drugs. These programs,
however, are not being taught in our
junior high schools, as some might
imagine—no. the proliferation of drugs
is too widespread for preexposure programs
to be successful at that late
level—rather, these programs are targeted
at fourth and fifth graders. In
other words, Mr. President, the problem
has become so great that we must
now fill the days of our 9- and 10-yearolds
with the harsh reality that they
may face a near-term drug confrontation.
I wish to point out to my colleagues
that the escalation of drug abuse is
shown not only by the number of this
scourge's victims, but may also be
measured in the potency and availability
of today's illicit drugs. The purified
form of cocaine known as "crack." for
example, has lead to a number of
drug-related deaths.
In closing. Mr. Pre.sident. I would
simply like to remind my colleagues of
the respon.sibillly we all share to protect
and nurture our young people.
Today, in America, tlie most serious
threat to our children is drug abuse.
The continuing tolerance and misconception
of this Nation's drug problem
stand as obstructions to the corrective
action which must be undertaken if we
are to rescue our young people, our
future, from this terrible epidemic.
Congress has an obligation to remove
these obstructions. To this end. 1
wholeheartedly support the omnibus
antidrug measure Introduced in the
Senate, and urge my colle^ues to do
the same.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the
bipartisan measure now before the
Senate represents more than just a
few weeks' work on directing our national
attention and resources to
combat the drug problem.
This package draws on measures
which have been introduced and debated
In both Houses of Congress,
some of which have already been approved
by this body. Also Included are
proposals sent to us by the President
and Mrs. Reagan as part of the national
crusade they are leading against the
war on drugs.
I am pleased to be a cosponsor of
this comprehensive package, which attempts
to coordinate activities and resources
to arrest both the supply ami
demand for illegal drugs.
My Stale of Mississippi, along with
other Gulf Coast States, Is a primrentry
point for much of the drugsmuggling
activity in our country. The
people of Mississippi don't want that
distinction, and 1 believe this bill will
help us do something about it.
Title in of this bill will do much to
strengthen drug interdiction efforts. It
contains language, already passed by
the Senate, to provide $212.1 million
to the Customs Service and Coa.st
Guard for better intelligence and
interdiction. It also allows at least 500
Coast Guard persormel to be assigned
to naval vessels to assist In drug interdiction.
The bill tightens customs procedures
and requirements, increases penalties,
and expands the authority of the Secretary
of the Treasury in various customs
matters.
The bill also directs the Department
of Defense to be an integral part of
the comprehensive, national drug
interdiction program. It permits the
Department of Defense to loan personnel
to civilian law enforcement
agencies to operate and maintain
equipment used in foreign interdiction
ac'Llvities.
It is necessary that we secure greater
international cooperation with U.S. efforts
to combat drug trafficking. This
package increases International narcotics
control assistance by $55 million
for fiscal year 1987, Including at least
$10 million for procurement, of aircraft
to interdict drug traffic primarily from
Latin America.
In addition to interdiction efforts,
the bill would enhance law enforcement
efforts at the State and local
levels against drug trafficking. It also
provides additional resources for eliminating
drug use in the schools and
work place, and for enhancing drug
abuse treatment capacity.
The elements of this legislation
which lncrea.se public awareness and
prevention of drug abuse are necessary
components of this comprehensive
effort to achieve a drug-free society.
We can best help our citizens underSaturday,
September 27, 1986
Daily Digest
HIGHLIGHTS
Senate agreed to conference report on Tax Reform Act of 198(5.
Senate
Chamber Action
Routine Proceedings, pages Sl386)-Sl41S0
Measi^es Introduced: Five bills and one resolution
were introduced, as follows: S. 2884-2888. and S
Res. 493.
S1410S
Measures Reported: Reports were made as follows;
S. 2885, to amend title 38, United States Code, to
provK^ for certain Veterans' Administration benebased
on the service-connected
disability or death of a veteran, to be paid in accordance
with laws administered by the Veterans' Adminmration
and to provide for certain Veterans'
Administmion insurance policy loans to be mode
and revolving funds to be administered in accord-
Y>ce with such laws, and to provide for Veterans'
Administration home loan guaranty reports under
certain circumstances, and for other purposes. (S
Rept. No. 99-494) - r- \
^ 2575, to amend title 18. United States Code,
wiA respect to the interception of certain communications
and other forms of surveillance, and for
other purposes, with an amendment in the nature
a substitute.
Measures Passed:
OH Mluthn Liability and Compensation Act of
1966: Senate passed S. 2799, to consolidate and improve
Federal laws providing compensation and establishing
liability for oU spills, after agreeing to
committee ^endments and MitcbeM Amendment
No. 3082, of a technical nature.
fog* s?4i3r
Repeal of United Stales Trustee System: Senate
p«s^ S. 2888, to temporarily delay the repeal of
theJJnited States Trustee System.
rae* tl4)M
Anti Drug Abuse Act of 1986: Senate resumed
cons^ration of H.R. 5484, to strengthen the Federencourage
foreign cooperation in enulicating
illicit drug crops and in haldng international
drug traffic, to improve enforcement of Federal
d^ laws and enhance interdiction of illicit drug
shipments, to provide strong Federal leadership in
establishing effective drug abuse prevention and
education programs, and to expand Federal support
(ot drug abuse treatment and rehabilitation efforts,
with Dole-Byrd Amendment No. 3034, in the nature
of a substitute, taking action on additional amendments
proposed thereto, as follows:
. . . ^ o » « $ i a » 4 5
Adopted:
(1) Bentseo-Amendment No. 3039, to provide addidonal
authorization for the procurement of secure
voice radios for Federal law enforcement agencies.
a«g« SI3964
(2) Abdnor-DeConcini Amendment No. 3040, to
authorize the Commissioner of Customs, acting
under the direction of the Secretary the Treasury,
to recruit, train, and acc^t, without regard to die
civil service clai^fication laws, rules, or regulations,
the services of individuals without compensadon as
volunteers to aid the U.S. Customs Service in the
performance of its responsibilities, and to establish
the U.S. Customs Reserve.
(3) Hawkins Amendment No. 5041, to strengthen
penalties for individuals over the age of 18 who
knowingly and intentionally sell a controlled substance
to a pregnant woman.
P«9«St39M
(4) Weicker Amendment No. 3042, to require the
Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration
to include as a top priority research on neuronal
receptors.
P^«SI3«70
(5) Biden (for Kennedy) Amendment No. 3043
to provide funds for programs which identify and
meet the needs of drug-dependent offenders.
Pofl* 119971
D1201
D 1202 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — DAILY DIGEST SepUmber 27,1986
i . ' .
(6) By 83 yeas to 4 nays (Vote No. 297), DeConcini
modiHed Amendment No. 3044, to provide additional
Requirements for Department of Defense
suppoK of drug interdiction activities.
rofl* $19977
(7) Durenberger-Trible Amendment No. 3045, to
increase the assistance furnished by the Federal
Government to officers and employees who abusively
use drugs or alcohol.
Pog« S139tl
(8) Harkin Amendment No. 3046, to encourage
increased participation by the Gvil Air Patrol in the
Federal Government's drug interdiction program.
p««*sism
(9) Andrews Amendment No. 3047, to provide
community action agencies the opportunity to offer
local bro^-based programs for ^cohol and drug
abuse prevention.
rm9» sisaas
(10) Andrews Amendment No. 3048, to require
that die powers and authorities provided in section
4218, which provides sratutory authority for the Secretary
of the Interior to authorize employees of the
Department to exercise law and order powers in
Indian country, shall be exercised in accordance
with an agreement between the Secretary of the Interior
and the Attorney General.
rd9« sissas
(11) By 57 yeas to 29 nays (Vote No. 298), Moynihan-
Humphrey Amendment No. 3049, to declare
that the Soviet acdon in imprisoning and falsely
charging Nicholas Daniloff reflects the failure of the
Soviet Union to observe internationally recognized
standards of human rights and civil condua and
raises profound doubts about Soviet willingness to
live up to their responsibilides and commitments
under any international or bilateral agreement; to
urge the President to continue forthright demands
for the immediate and unconditional release of Mr.
Daniloff; to call on the President to condition his
agreement to a summit meeting with Secretary Gorbachev
on the prompt return of Mr. Daniloff from
the Soviet Union; to express opposition to any new
economic or commercial agreement with the Soviet
Union, or any new transaaions under existing economic
or commercial agreements with the Soviet
Union until Mr. Daniloff has been granted unconditional
permission to depart the Soviet Union; and to
call on the President to demand that the Soviet
Union remove its spies from its United States mission
and from the United Nations Secretariat and to
take all measures necessary to bring an end to such
direct Soviet violations of the United Nations Charter.
f«a« S199M
(12) Murkowski Amendment No. 3050, to exempt
certain maritime operations from the restrictions regarding
participation in foreign police arrest actions.
Pafl«SI3990
(13) Metzenbaum Amendment No. 3051, to increase
the amount of funds for treatment purposes.
Pa0*S13991
(14) Domenid Amendment No. 3052, to establish
the President's Media Commission on Drug Abuse,
to examine public education programs in effect on
the date of enactment which are implemented
through various segments of mass media, and intended
to prevent narcotic and psychotropic drug
abuse.
pofl* sism
(15) Helms modified Amendment No. 3053, to
eliminate the sugar quota of countries with governments
involved in the trade of narcotics illegal in
the United States, and to maintain the sugar quota
for specified countries.
p««*sism
(16) Bingaman Amendment No. 3054, to establish
a communitywide drug and alcohol prevention and
health promotion demonstration program.
Pa9« sism
(17) D'Amato Amendment No. 3055, to prohibit
possession, manufacture, sale, importation, and mailing
of ballistic knives.
Pafl«SI4003
(18) Domenici Amendment No. 3056, to provide
access for eligible homeless individuals to benefits
under the food stamp, job training, AFDC, supplemental
security income, medicaid, and veterans programs.
P«B« SI4003
(19) Hatch (for Abdnor) Amendment No. 3057,
to ensure full one-half of 1 percent minimum grant
to each of the 50 States under subtitle B, Drug-Free
Schools and Communities Act of 1986.
Poff* S140M
(20) Hatch-Kennedy Amendment No. 3058, of a
technical and clarifying nature.
Paff«S140M
(21) DeConcini Amendment No. 3061, to restore
the Federal pretrial diversion program.
Pva* S14022
(22) Domenici modified Amendment No. 3062, to
express the sense of the Congress that the entertainment
industry take certain steps to assist in the national
war against illegal drugs.
P«9«SI40»
September 27,1986 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — DAILY DIGEST D1203
(23) Danfonh Amendment No. 3063, to add provisions
regarding testing, licensing and qualification
of operators of commercial motor vehicles.
rciff*Sf4024
(24) specter Amendment No. 3064 (to Amendment
No. 3063), of a perfecting nature, providing
that the Secretary of Transportation shall, not later
than October 1, 1988, submit to the Congress a
study regarding the manner in which the requirement
regarding blood alcohol content level impacts
on operators of commercial motor vehicles who are
required by their employers to be available to operate
such commercial motor vehicle on short notice.
foe«si402r
(25) Harldn Amendment No. 3065 (to Amendment
No. 3062), of a perfecting nature, to eiq>ress
the sense of the Congress that the entertainment industry
take certain steps to assist in the national war
against illegal drugs. (Amendment was not agreed
to, but fell when Amendment No. 3063 was modified,
which includes the language of diis amendment.)
Peg* 114033
(26) Leahy Amendment No. 3066, with respect to
the use of Freedom of Information Act information
by criminal organiaations.
Pa9*SI4033
(27) Mathias Amendment No. 3067 (to Amendment
No. 3066), of a perfeaing nature, to amrad
dtle 18, United States Code, with respect to the
interception of certain communications and other
forms of surveillance.
Pog* SI4033
(28) Chiles Amendment No. 3068, to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1954, to provide for the
reimbursement to State and lo<^ law enforcement
agencies for costs incurred in investigations which
substantially contribute to the recovery of Federal
taxes.
Pag* SI404I
(29) Hatch (for Gorton) Amendment No. 3069, to
provide that the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency shall conduct a study of the manufacturing
and distribution process of cyanide, with
a view to determining methods, procedures, or
other actions which might be taken, employed, or
otherwise carried out in connection with such manufacturing
and distribution in order to safeguard the
public from the wrongful use of cyanide.
Pog* 314043
(30) Metzenbaum Amendment No. 3070, to
amend the provisions of the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Aa relating to infant formula.
Pag* SI4043
(31) Helms Amendment No. 3071 (to Amendment
No. 3070), of a perfecting nature, to help prevent
rape and other sexual violence by prohibiting
dial-a-porn operations.
Pog* si 4047
(32) Evans Amendment No. 3072, providing that
no funds may be expended to modify any existing
aircraft for air surveillance purposes unless the proposed
modifications comply with validated requirements
and specifications developed by the U.S.
Coast Guard.
Pag* SI4064
(33) Evans Amendment No. 3073, to create a
White House Conference on Drug Abuse and Control.
Pag* S14064
(34) Metzenbaum Amendment No. 3074, to designate
alcohol and drug abuse prevention programs
targeted at smdent athletes.
Pag*SI406S
(35) Dole Amendment No. 3075, to authorize the
number of Marine Corps officers to be on active
duty in the grade of lieutenant general is increased
by one, contingent on a Marine Corps lieutenant
general serving as Direaor of the Department of
Task Force on Drug Enforcement.
Pog* $14073
(36) Hawkins-Helms Amendment No. 3076, to
authorize the Secretary of Agriculmre to expand law
enforcement programs necessary to prevent the
manufacture, distribution, or dispensing of marijuana
and other controlled substances on National
Forest System lands. .
Pog* S14073
(37) Levin-DeConcini Amendment No. 3077, to
provide a mandatory minimum sentence for juvenile
drug traffickers.
Pog* S1407S
(38) Domenici Amendment No. 3080, to conform
certain provisions of the bill to the requirements of
the Congressional Budget ACT of 1974.
Pag*SI40S7
(39) Chiles Amendment No. 3081, to correct
drafting errors to clarify the intent of section 1451.
Pog* S140SS
Rejected:
Dixon Amendment No. 3059, to provide that the
President shall deploy equipment and personnel of
the Armed Forces to address the unlawful penetration
of United States borders by aircraft and vessels
carrying narcotics, through the use of pursuit aircraft,
radar coverage, and with the use of National
D1204 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — DAILY DIGEST September 27,198S'
Guard and Reserves. (By. 72 yeas to 14 nays (Vote
No, 299). Senate t^led the antendment.)
$14007
Withdrawn:
(1) Mattingly Amendment No. 3060, to provide
for the imposition of the death penalty for certain
continuing criminal enterprise drug offenses. (By 23
yeas to 60 nays (Vote No. 300), Senate earlier failed
to table the amendment.)
p0e«St4OI6
(2) Helms Amendment No. 3078, to provide for
the inclusion of certain drug-related information on
passports.
faga S14076
(3) Mathias-Moynihan Amendment No. 3079, to
establish the American Conservation Corps.
Pa«« si4ors
A unanimous<onsent agreement was reached providing
for further consideration of the bill and
amendments proposed thereto on Tuesday, September
30.
Pafl*St4150
Tax Reform Atrt of 198^—Conference Report: By
74 yeas to 23 nays (Vote No. 296), Senate agreed to
the conference report on H.R. 3838, to reform the
Internal Revenue laws of the United States.
Pdfl*$l3S67
Measures, Ordered Placed on Calendar: faga si4io5
Statements on Introduced Bills: Pa** si4i05
Additional Cosponsors: Pd«« si41M
Amendments Submitted: Po«» si4107
Additional Statements: Pa** sum
Record Votes: Rve record votes were taken today.
(Total—300)
Pa«M SISM4, S13980, S139tP. S14014, 514022
Recess: Senate convened at 8 a.m., and recessed on
Sunday, September 28, 1986, at 2:21 a.m., until 11:30
a.m., on Monday, September 29, 1986. (For Senate
program, see the remarks of Senator Simpson in
today's Record on page S14136.)
Committee Meetings
No committee meetings were held.
Floor Supplement #117-A
Editor, Judy Myer. September 27. 1986
U.S. SENATE REPUBLICAN POLICY COMMITTEE
Calendar William L. Armstrong, Chairman
S. 2878: THE SENATE BIPARTISAN DRUG BILL
H.R. 5484 THE OMNIBUS DRUG ACT
REPORTED: Not reported out of committee.
POSSIBLE UNPRINTED AMENDMENTS
Hawkins. U.S. - Mexico trade and drug interdiction.
Hawkins. Strengthen authority of U.S. Forest Service to deal with growers and traffickers on federal
lands.
D'Amato. Additional authority for Customs Service.
D'Amato. Ban ballistic knives.
Gorton. Relating to cyanide contamination of food.
Gorton. $10 million authorization of Landsat (satellite monitoring).
Unknown. Certain provisions from S. 1903, the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act, relating to
licensing of commercial bus and truck drivers, standardized blood alcohol content, and roadside testing
of drivers.
Domenici. Resolution on media drug use.
Domenici. Commission on media Ad Council against drugs.
Domenici. Relating to homeless persons' eligibility for benefit programs.
Stevens. Concerning drug testing of employees in sensitive or critical positions.
Abdnor. Create a Customs Auxiliary.
Hatch. Technical amendment regarding new funds for ADAMHA and VA.
Weicker. Technical amendment regarding receptor research (relating to drug addiction).
Durenberger. Concerning drug treatment under Federal Employee Health Benefit Program.
Durenberger. Study of drug treatment available in private sector.
Simpson. Provision from S.2850, giving INS agents general arrest authority.
Murkowski. Mansfield exemption for Coast Guard.
Denton. Merit pay at DBA.
Unknown. Amendments to Rehabilitation Act conceming disciplinary actions against employees,
private and/or public sector, who use illegal drugs.
Unknown. Mandatory minimum penalty for providing drugs to juveniles or for using juveniles in drug
traffic or for dealing within 1,000 feet of school.
S. 2878 2 LEGISLATIVE NOTICE
Wilson, Establish new suicide prevention program.
Mathias. Establish the American Conservation Corps. Abo, in case of drug offenders, allow suspension
or deferment of sentencing for first offense for simple possession, if person enrolls in the Corps. Evans.
White House Conference.
Unknown. Provisions of S. 2578, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, with possible
amendment thereto concerning Dial-a-pom.
Harkin. $7 million to Civil Air Patrol.
Chiles. Allow State and local governments to receive up to 10% of federal taxes obtained as result of
investigations assisted by those governments.
Bentsen. Additional funds for secure radio communication by FBI, DEA, and Secret Service.
Kerry. Investigation of alleged drug dealing by Nicaragua Freedom Fighters.
Kennedy. Halt funding to Freedom Fighters in Nicaragua unless DEA certifies, every 6 months, that
there is no involvement in drug traffic.
Kennedy. Specify TASC (Treatment Alternatives to Street Crimes) as eligible recipient for state and
local law enforcement grants.
Deconcini. Restore Drug Diversion Program, eliminated under provision of the bill.
Staff Contact: Bill Gribbin, x42946
September 26, 1986
JUDICIARY
TITLE I: ANTI-DRUG ENFORCEMENT
A. Drug Penalties Enhancement Act of 1986
This section sets forth a series of amendments to stiffen
penalties for large-scale domestic drug trafficking. This
penalty section incorporates penalty provisions from both the
Democrat and Republican drug packages. Provides for increased,
stiff penalties for most drug related offenses. The most serious
drug traffickers, so-called "drug kingpins", would face a
mandatory minimum of ten years, and up to life imprisonment.
This bill also increases fines, to reflect the enormous profits
generated by drug dealing. Prohibits suspension of sentences and
prohibits probation and parole.
Also included, S. 1236 — Technical amendments to the
Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1983, as modified.
B. Drug Possession Penalty Act
This section rewrites the penalty provisions for simple
possession of controlled substances. These stiff new penalties
include increased fines, mandatory imprisonment for second time
offenders, and repeal of pre-trial diversion for first
offenders.
C. Juvenile Drug Trafficking Act of 1986
This section provides for additional penalties for persons
who make use of juveniles in drug trafficking. Doubles penalties
for employing or using children to distribute drugs, and also
doubles penalties for manufacturing drugs near schools.
D. Asset Forfeiture Amendments Act of 1986
This section provides for the forfeiture of substitute assets
where the proceeds of a specified crime are lost, beyond judicial
reach, substantially diminished, or commingled.
-2-
Cap Removal From Forfeiture Funds
The Department of Justice has a forfeiture fund generated
from seizures of assets in drug related prosecutions. The assets
consist of cash and proceeds of sales of these assets. By law,
these funds can be used for certain law enforcement purposes.
However, there is a cap, administered by the Appropriations
Committee, on how much of the funds can be used each year. This
cap undercuts the basic purpose of the funds which is to have the
seized proceeds of criminal activities help finance the war on
crime. The Senate compromise bill would remove the cap on the
fund and would remove it from the budget allocation process. The
bill would not prevent the funds from being sequestered, if there
were a sequester.
E. Controlled Substances Analogs Enforcement Act of 1986
(Designer Drugs)
This section makes it unlawful to manufacture with the intent
to distribute, or to possess "designer drugs" intended for human
consumption.
The compromise provision is identical to S. 1437 as it passed
the Senate last December, with the exception of the addition of
conforming amendments and stiffer penalties. These conforming
amendments incorporate the prohibition of controlled substances
analogs elsewhere in the criminal code where reference is made to
controlled substances.
F. Continuing Drug Enterprise Act of 1986
Increases fines for the most serious drug kingpins and
includes mandatory life imprisonment for the absolute top drug
traffickers under certain conditions.
G. Controlled Substances Import and Export Penalties
Enhancement Act of 1986
This section imposes stiffer penalties for import and export
violations similar to those established elsewhere in the Senate
compromise proposal.
H. Money Laundering Crimes Act of 1986
This section of the compromise package provides an offense
for laundering the proceeds of certain specified crimes. This
section closely tracks the language of S. 2683, which has passed
the Senate.
-3-
I. Armed Career Criminals
The compromise bill includes the language of S. 2312.
Present law defines an armed career criminal as an individual who
has three or more convictions for "robbery or burgulary". Under
current law, if a career criminal is convicted of possession of a
firearm, he must be sentenced to 15 years. S. 2312, which was
reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee, redefines an armed
career criminal as an individual who has three or more
convictions "for a crime of violence" or "a serious drug offense,
or both".
J. Authorization of Appropriations for Drug Law Enforcement
K. Deleted
L. State and Local Narcotics Control Assistance
Provides $115 million to state and local law enforcement
agencies for drug law enforcement. The Federal share would be
75%, the state share 25%.
M. Study on the Use of Existing Federal Buildings as Prisons
The Secretary of Defense shall conduct a study to identify
any building owned or operated by the United States which could
be used, or modified for use, as a prison by the Federal Bureau
of Prisons.
N. Drug Law Enforcement Cooperation Study
The National Drug Enforcement Policy Board, in consultation
with the National Narcotics Border Interdiction System and state
and local law enforcement officials, shall study Federal drug law
enforcement efforts and make recommendations. The Board shall
report to Congress within 180 days of enactment of this subtitle
on its findings and conclusions.
0. Deleted
P. Narcotic Traffickers Deportation Act of 1986
This section simplifies the current provisions of the
Immigration and Nationality Act authorizing the exclusion and
deportation of individuals convicted of drug related crimes, and
specifies the violation of foreign drug laws as grounds for
deportation or exclusion.
- 4 -
Q. Federal Drug Law Enforcement Agent Protection Act
This provision provides rewards to those assisting with the
arrest and conviction of persons guilty of killing or kidnapping
a Federal drug agent. (formerly S. 630)
R. Common Carrier Operation Under the Influence of Alcohol
or Drugs
This provision makes it a Federal criminal offense to operate
or direct the operation of a common carrier while intoxicated as
a result of using alcohol or drugs. (formerly S. 850)
S. Freedom of Information Act
This section will prohibit public disclosure of law
enforcement investigative information that could reasonably be
expected to alert drug dealers and organized crime of law
enforcement activity related to them. A Drug Enforcement
Administration study found that 14% of all drug enforcement
investigations were significantly compromised or cancelled due to
public disclosure of information related to these investigations
and informants involved in them. The Director of the FBI and the
Department of Justice support this legislation. As well, this
language was unanimously approved by the Senate in the 98th
Congress.
T. Prohibition on the Interstate Sale and Transportation of
Drug Paraphernalia
The Mail Order Drug Paraphernalia Control Act, prohibits the
sale and transportation of drug paraphernalia through the
services of the Postal Service or in interstate commerce. It
also provides for the seizure, forfeiture, and destruction of
drug paraphernalia.
U. Manufacturing Operations
Outlaws operation of houses or buildings, so-called "crack
houses", where "crack", cocaine and other drugs are manufactured
and used.
V. Study Related to Drug Crime Reporting
This section requires that the Bureau of Justice Statistics,
in cooperation with the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other
Federal enforcement agencies as well as other Federal, state and
local statistics groups, gather, compile, and publish
comprehensive data on drug trafficking and abuse.
-5-
W. Study Related to Precursor and Essential Chemical Review
This section requires that the Attorney General conduct a
study concerning the need for legislative, regulation, or other
alternative methods to control the diversion of legitimate
precursor and essential chemicals to the illegal production of
drugs of abuse.
X. Controlled Substances Technical Amendments Act of 1986
This section makes technical corrections to the Controlled
Substances Act. The provisions of this subtitle were passed by
the Senate when it passed S. 1236 on April 17, 1986. The
provisions of this subtitle were included in the House Drug Bill,
the Senate Democrat Drug Bill, the Senate Republican Bill and the
Administration package.
- 6 -
TITLE II. INTERNATIONAL NARCOTICS CONTROL
Strengthening U.S. Narcotics Control Efforts Abroad
1. Authorization of Funds
Authorizes $75 million in additional narcotics assistance for
FY 1987, provided that the President submit a plan on how $45
million of those additional funds are to be used. $10 million of
the funds are to be used for interdiction and eradication
aircraft, primarily in Latin America.
2. Restrictions on Aid to Foreign Countries
Revamps present law governing foreign aid, favorable U.S.
votes in multilateral development banks, and Generalized System
of Preferences tariff benefits to narcotics producing and
narcotics transit countries. Under bipartisan provision, these
benefits will be denied all major illicit drug producing
countries or major drug-transit countries unless the President
annually certifies that the country is cooperating fully with the
United States in combatting narcotics production, trafficking,
and narcotics money laundering, or is taking adequate steps on
its own. The President may give a positive certification to an
otherwise uncertifiable country for "vital national interest
reasons", but reasons must be fully explained in the
certification. All certifications are subject to Congressional
resolutions of disapproval under expedited procedures.
3. Retention of Title on Aircraft
U.S. Government will retain title to interdiction/eradication
aircraft provided under foreign assistance to the maximum extent
practicable. Contains finding that Mexico has used U.S. provided
aircraft inefficiently.
4. Records of Aircraft Use
Secretary of State required to keep detailed records of
aircraft provided to Mexico, and make them available to Congress
upon request of the Chairmen.
8. Mansfield Amendment
Amends present "Mansfield amendment" which prohibits U.S.
participation in arrests overseas. U.S. personnel may "assist"
in arrests, but not make arrests directly. They may take
- 7 -
reasonable self~defense actions in such actions^ Applies to all
countries unless the President certifies for an individual
country that it is against the national interest.
11. Conditions on Assistance for Bolivia
In light of Bolivian cooperation in Operation Blast Furnace,
1987 conditions on assistance are changed. First half of
assistance is conditioned on continued cooperation in
interdiction operations, second half assistance on development of
plan to eradicate coca and demonstrated progress in meeting
plan's objectives.
15. Intelligence Support to Combatting the Drug Problem
Makes collection of data on narcotics production and
trafficking a priority one task for the intelligence community in
the yearly intelligence strategy report. Specific mandate is
given to collect sufficient data so that highly reliable
estimates may be made of narcotic crop production and yields for
major producing countries.
16. Reports on Certain Countries; Restrictions on Assistance
President must list countries which as a matter of policy
promote narcotics trafficking, have senior officials involved, in
which U.S. drug enforcement personnel have suffered violence at
the hands of officials of that country, or have failed to provide
reasonable requests for law enforcement cooperation, including
aerial pursuit of smugglers. No foreign aid may be provided, and
MDB aid must be opposed for any listed country unless President
certifies overriding national interest, assistance would improve
prospects for cooperation with country in halting flow of illegal
drugs, and the government of such country has made bona fide
efforts to investigate crimes against U.S. drug enforcement
personnel.
Other Provisions
5. $1 million earmark for research on aerial herbicide for
coca
6. GAG study on narcotics assistance programs
7. Report on extradition cooperation
9. Report on U.S. system to prevent visas being provided to
drug trafficking
10. Mandates a threat assessment of drug trafficking in
Africa
12. Report by President on steps taken to combat
narco-terrorism
-8-
13. Call for Secretary of State and Coast Guard to negotiate
new interdiction procedures with foreign countries for
vessels of foreign registry.
14. Adds Secretary of State to decisions on posse comitatus
17. U.S. Executive Directors to MDBs directed to support
programs of drug eradication
18. Deleted
19. Deleted
20. Deleted
21. Declares drugs a national security problem and President
urged to engage NATO allies in cooperative programs
22/ 23. Supports UN Conference on Drug Abuse and Illicit
Trafficking
24. Mandates study of effectiveness of UN drug programs.
25. Calls for more effective implementation of international
drug conventions.
26. Call for a Mexico-United States Intergovernmental
Commission
27, 28. Reports on opium production in Pakistan, Iran,
Afghanistan and Laos
29. $2 million for USIA drug education programs
30. $3 million AID authorization for drug education programs
31. Report on international drug education programs.
- 9 -
Title III. INTERDICTION
A. National Drug Interdiction Improvement Act of 1986
This section includes the authorization contained in the FY
1987 DoD Authorization bill providing $212.1 million for enhanced
intelligence collection activities and for drug interdiction
aircraft and aerostat radar to be used by the U.S. Customs
Service and the U.S. Coast Guard.
It authorizes an additional $90 million for DoD aircraft and
aerostat radar to be used by civilian agencies in drug
interdiction efforts.
It provides $45 million for DoD to purchase radar systems for
Coast Guard surveillance aircraft and $15 million for the
Tactical Law Enforcement Team
It provides additional authorizations in the amount of $153
million for the Coast Guard and $115.90 million for the Customs
Service. It also authorizes $25 million for the establishment of
command, control, communications, and intelligence (C-3l) centers
and $7 million for drug interdiction helicopters for Hawaii.
This section allows Coast Guard personnel to be assigned to
naval vessels to assist in drug interdiction and mandates that at
least 500 Coast Guard members be so assigned each year.
It establishes a joint United States-Bahamas Drug
Interdiction Task Force and authorizes $15 million to implement
the task force.
B. Customs Enforcement Act of 1986
This section:
Clarifies definitions in the Tariff Act.
Increases vessel arrival reporting requirements and provides
substantial criminal and civil penalties for violating the
arrival reporting requirements.
Clarifies existing law to require that persons arriving in
the U.S. as pedestrians immediately report their arrival to the
U.S. Customs Service.
-10-
Establishes forfeiture and fines as the penalties for failure
to declare items which are imported and increases the penalties
for filing false manifests and for unlawfully unloading
merchandise.
Makes it unlawful to possess merchandise while knowing or
intending that it be unlawfully introduced into the U.S. or to
transfer merchandise between an aircraft and a vessel on the high
seas if the plane or boat is of U.S. nationality or if the
circumstances indicate that the purpose is to introduce the
merchandise into the U.S. in violation of U.S. law. Violators
are subject to civil and criminal penalties and civil forfeiture.
Streamlines the procedure for forfeiture of conveyances for
payment of penalties. It also provides for the forfeiture of
conveyances used to transport controlled substances, but provides
for the return of the conveyance if it is determined that neither
the owner nor the operator of the conveyance knew nor should have
known about the presence of the contraband.
Expands the Customs civil search and seizure warrant to cover
any article subject to seizure, such as conveyances and monetary
instruments, rather that just imported merchandise.
Amends the Tariff Act to treat amounts tendered in lieu of
merchandise subject to forfeiture in the same manner as the
proceeds of sale, so that they may be deposited in the Forfeiture
Fund, and to allow agency expenditures to be paid before liens.
Allows Secretary of the Treasury to exercise some discretion
in determining the amount of rewards for informants.
Permits the Secretary of the Treasury to require landing
certificates to comply with international obligations, such as
bilateral or multilateral agreements to reduce or prevent
smuggling.
Clarifies the Secretary's authority to exchange information
with foreign customs and law enforcement agents.
Grants the Secretary authority to operate customs facilities
in foreign countries and to extend U.S. Customs laws to foreign
locations (with the consent of the country concerned).
Authorizes the Secretary to utilize commercial "cover"
corporations and bank accounts and to lease property and pay for
services without complying with the normal requirements which
would reveal government involvement when such activities are
needed in authorized investigative operations. It also makes
clear that the usual laws governing banking deposits and space
rentals do not apply in such undercover operations.
-11-
Establishes that, while documented yachts d6 not have to make
formal entry, they must report their arrival to customs and
declare any goods on board.
Eliminates restrictions on the ability of Customs officers to
enlist the aid of other law enforcement officers or civilians in
apprehending violators, raises the penalties for failure to
render assistance, and provides protection for civilians who
render such aid.
Raises the amount which must be reported by a person who
exports or imports monetary instruments to §10,000.
Makes it unlawful for a U.S. citizen or a person aboard a
U.S. aircraft to possess controlled substances with an intent to
manufacture or distribute or for any person aboard an aircraft to
possess with an intent to manufacture or distribute a controlled
substance knowing or intending that it be unlawfully introduced
in the U.S.
Provides criminal penalties for for wilfully operating
aircraft at night without lights in conjunction with drug
trafficking and for the willful use and/or installation of
unlawful fuel systems in aircraft. It also subjects unlawful
fuel systems and the aircraft in which they are installed to
seizure and civil forfeiture.
C. Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Prosecution Act of 1986
This section resolves prosecutorial problems which arise
during criminal trials as a result of the execution of existing
authority, which allows the Coast Guard to stop and board certain
vessels at sea and make arrests and seizures for violations of
U.S. laws.
In addition, this section creates a new offense to make it
unlawful under U.S. law to possess with intent to distribute a
controlled substance aboard a vessel located within the
territorial sea of another country where that country
affirmatively consents to enforcement action by the U.S.
D. Reports on Department of Defense Drug Control Activities
This section requires the National Drug Enforcement Policy
Board to report to Congress on the manner and extent to which the
Department of Defense should be involved in drug law enforcement
activities.
-12-
It also mandates a joint National Drug Enforcement Policy
Board/Department of Education report to Congress on drug
education efforts in schools operated by the Department of
Defense.
E. Driving While Impaired by Drug Intoxication to be
Punishable Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice
This section makes it an offense under the U.S. Code of
Military Justice to drive while under the influence of drugs.
F. Drug Interdiction Assistance to Civilian Law Enforcement
Officials
This section permits the Department of Defense to loan
personnel to civilian law enforcement agencies to operate and
maintain equipment used by those agencies to assist foreign
governments in drug interdiction activities.
G. Air Safety
This section establishes a Federal violation for the use of
an unregistered or fraudulently aircraft in conjunction with
transporting controlled substances and provides for the seizure
of such aircraft. It also allows States to impose criminal
penalties for the use or attempted use of forged or altered
aircraft registrations.
H. Communications
This section would authorize the Federal Communications
Commission to revoke the licenses of individuals who use their
licenses for drug-related activities and to seize communications
equipment used in such activities.
I. Drug Law Enforcement Cooperation Study
The National Drug Enforcement Policy Board, in consultation
with the National Narcotics Border Interdiction System and State
and local law enforcement officials, shall study Federal drug law
enforcement efforts and make recommendations. The Board shall
report to Congress within 180 days of enactment of this section
on its findings and conclusions.
\
-13-
j. Emergency Assistance by Department of Defense Personnel
The first subsection, by slightly amending existing statutes,
provides for limited use of the military in drug interdiction.
Current law allows the use of military personnel and equipment
outside of the land area of the U.S. to enforce the Controlled
Substances Act or to transport civilian law enforcement officers
seeking to enforce the Controlled Substance Act upon the
declaration of an "emergency circumstance" by the Attorney
General and the Secretary of Defense. The bill clarifies the
term "emergency circumstance" by declaring that an emergency
circumstance exists when: (1) the size and scope of the
suspected criminal activity in a given situation poses a serious
threat to the interests of the United States; and (2) enforcement
of the law would be seriously impaired if assistance were not
provided. It also mandates that the Secretary of State shall be
consulted prior to declaration of any emergency circumstance.
The second subsection allows military personnel to intercept
vessels and aircraft for the purpose of identifying, monitoring,
and communicating the location and movement of the vessel or
aircraft until such time as Federal, State, and local law
enforcement officials can assume responsibility. Current law
provides that the military may not be used to interdict or to
interrupt the passage of vessels or aircraft.
-14-
TITLE IV. DEMAND REDUCTION
A. Treat.ment and Rehabilitation
This title reauthorizes the Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Mental
Health Services Block Grant at higher funding levels of $675
million. Five percent is set aside for model community programs
aimed at high risk. Of these funds, the Secretary, acting
through the Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Mental Health Administration,
shall reserve $125 million for state alcohol and drug abuse
treatment programs to be distributed on the basis of population
and need.
This title also eliminates various restrictions now imposed
on states on the uses of funds under the alcohol and drug abuse
provisions under the block grant except that at least 80 percent
shall be used for alcohol and drug treatment and rehabilitation
services.
Another provision tracks previously reported legislation from
the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, S. 2595, "The
Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Mental Health Amendments of 1985" with
certain modifications. The modifications which include the
following:
One year reauthorization at $129 million for the National
Institute of Drug Abuse and $69 million for the National
Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism? deletion of sections
10 and 11? addition of the following provisions:
The title further requires that the Secretary of Health and
Human Services shall prepare a National Plan to Combat Drug
Abuse.
The title establishes an Alcohol and Drug Abuse Clearinghouse
for the dissemination of materials concerning education and
prevention of drug abuse.
Additionally, we require the Secretary of Health and Human
Services, through the FDA, to conduct a study of alkyl and butyl
nitrates and report to the appropriate Congressional committees
as to whether this substance should be treated as a drug under
the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.
The section also provides $11 million in new treatment funds
for veterans programs.
B. Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act of 1986
This title contains a provision which authorizes a new $150
million state-administered grant program to establish drug free
schools and communities. Of this amount, at least $80 million
-15-
will be available for state (10%) and local (90%) education
agencies. The remaining $50 million shall be made available to
community prevention and education programs.
The Secretary of Education shall retain $20 million for
national programs of which $10 million is used for regional
training centers. In addition, the Secretary of Education and
the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall provide
assistance to communities and schools where appropriate.
C. Action
Current law authorizes approximately $2 million under the
direction of ACTION for volunteer demonstration projects, of
which about $500,000 is currently allocated to drug abuse
prevention, education and treatment through the use of
volunteers. This provision would increase the current
authorization by $3 million, which would be earmarked for
expansion of the drug program.
D. The Indian Alcohol and Substance Abuse Prevention and
Treatment Act of 1986
The primary purpose of this title is to authorize the
development and implementation of a coordinated, comprehensive
program for the prevention and treatment of alcohol and substance
abuse among Indian tribes and their members. In order to better
focus some of the existing programs of alcohol and substance
abuse, this title directs the two Departments, Interior and
Health and Human Services, having primary responsibility for
Federal programs of assistance to American Indians, to enter into
a Memorandum of Agreement.
Recognizing the vested interest and the authority of the
tribes over their members, this title provides for the tribes to
develop and implement their own coordinated approach, tailored to
the local needs, through Tribal Action Plans.
The programs authorized in this title include a number of
programs targeting Indian youth, including authority for the
construction of emergency shelters, juvenile detention centers,
and regional treatment centers.
Finally, to ensure that the current and new programs will be
effective, this title provides for the training of key tribal,
Indian Health Service and Bureau of Indian Affairs personnel in
the areas of alcohol and substance abuse.
-16-
TITLE V. TAX CHECKOFF
When taxpayers file their income tax returns, they would be
allowed to designate that all or part of any refund due be
contributed to a Drug Addiction Prevention Trust Fund. Taxpayers
may also make additional contributions to the Trust Fund at the
time they file their tax returns.
iinc.nui-iciiv 1 nu. ^dxciiuac i>o
Purpose: To eliminate the sugar quota of countries with
governments involved in the trade of narcotics illegal in the
United States, to maintain the sugar quota for specified
countries, and for other purposes.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES—99th Cong., 2d Sess.
Referred to the Committee on and
ordered to be printed
Ordered to lie on the table and to be printed
Amendment intended to be proposed by Mr. Helms, for himself.
Mr. Zorln'skVf. Mrs. Hawkins. Mr. Meloher. Mr. Hatch ^ ('Ar .
Viz
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
At the end of the bill, add the following:
Sec. _. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of
law:
(1) The President may not allocate any limitation
imposed on the quantity of sugar to
(AO any major illicit drug producing country or
major- drug-transit country, as determined by the
President, or;
(B) any foreign country that imports sugar
produced in Cuba, determined by the President.
(2) The President shall—
- 2 -
1 (A) use all authorities available to the
2 President as is necessary to enable the Secretary of
3 Agriculture to operate the sugar program established under
4 section 201 of the Agricultural Act of 1949 (7 U.S.C.
5 1446) at no cost to the Federal Government by preventing
6 the accumulation of sugar acquired by the Commodity Credit
7 Corporation; and
8 (B) subject to paragraph 1, and to the extent
9 possible, subject to subparagraph (A), allocate any
10 limitation imposed on the quantity of sugar entered during
1 1 calendar year 1987 among foreign countries in a manner
12 that.ensures that the total quantity of sugar allocated
1 3 under such limitation to each beneficiary country for
14 calendar year 1987 is not less than the total quantity of
s
15 sugar entered during quota year 1986 that are products of
f
16 such beneficiary country.
17 (b) For purposes of this section --
18 (1) The term "beneficiary country" --
1 9 (A) has the meaning given to such term by
20 section 212(a)(1) of the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery
21 Act (19 U.S.C. 2702(a)(1)); and
22 (B) includes the Republic of the Philippines and
23 the Republic of Ecuador.
24 (2) The term "entered" means entered, or withdrawn
25 from warehouse, for consumption in the customs territory
26 of the United States.
27 (3) The term "customs territory of the United
28 States" means the States, the District of Columbia, and
29 Puerto Rico.
Law/Judiciary
Senate Takes Up Compromise Anti-Drug Bill
Despite protests that it was acting
too hastily, the Senate Sept. 26 appeared
headed toward passage of a bipartisan
"consensus" bill (HR 5484)
aimed at stepping up the nation's war
on illegal drugs.
The measure authorizes about
$1.5 billion for drug interdiction,
eradication, prevention, education and
treatment efforts. It also authorizes
grants to state and local governments
to aid in drug law enforcement.
The House passed its own, more
sweeping version of the bill Sept. 11.
The Senate adopted an amendment to
that measure substituting the provisions
of S 2878, introduced late Sept.
25 by Majority Leader Robert Dole,
R-Kan., and Minority Leader Robert
C. Byrd, D-W.Va. (House bill provisions,
p. 2192)
Controversial Items Dropped
The Dole-Byrd bill did not contain
several controversial provisions of
earlier versions introduced Sept. 23 by
Senate Republicans IS 2850) and Sept.
9 by Senate Democrats (S 2798). (GOP
package. Weekly Report p. 2191)
Omitted, for example, was a Democratic
proposal to create a Cabinetlevel
"drug czar" to oversee and coordinate
federal drug enforcement
efforts. The Reagan administration
has long opposed that idea.
Also dropped were provisions
from the Republican bill that would
have authorized the death penalty for
several federal crimes, including murder
committed in the course of a continuing
drug enterprise, and would
have weakened the so-called exclusionary
rule that prohibits illegally obtained
evidence from being offered in
court. Similar provisions are in the
House-passed drug bill.
The consensus measure also
dropped from the GOP bill provisions,
included at President Reagan's request,
to make clear that the government
could implement a mandatory
drug-testing program for federal
workers in "sensitive" positions. Reagan
Sept. 15 issued an executive order.
No. 12564, requiring such testing.
—By Julie Rouner
It was not clear Sept. 26 whether
amendments would be offered to add
back the death penalty, exclusionary
rule, drug-testing and drug-czar provisions.
But such moves were expected
to produce a pitched battle on the
floor if they developed.
The compromise Senate bill contained
GOP provisions increasing the
military's involvement in the drug
war. The measure, however, did not
contain House language authorizing
military personnel to make arrests.
Costs and How to Cover Them
The bill's price tag for fiscal 1987
was expected to fall between the $1.3
billion of the Republican version and
the $1.6 billion cost of the Democratic
measure. As passed by the House, HR
5484 authorized a total of $2.87 billion
in new funds for fiscal 1987.
The House and Senate disagree
on where the money would come from.
A governmentwide continuing
"If we vote for legislation
to win an election and
trample the Constitution
in the process, we have not
served the country very
well."
—Sen. Daniel J. Evans,
R-Wash.
funding resolution (H .1 Res 738)
passed by the House Sept. 25 provided
$2.1 billion for anti-drug efforts
through an across-the-board cut of '/a
of 1 percent in other discretionary
programs. (Story, p. 2261)
The Senate consensus bill, however,
includes a controversial plan offered
by Dole to allow federal taxpayers
to check off a box on their tax form
to forgo a portion of any refund owed
and earmarK it instead for anti-drug
efforts. Taxpayers not receiving refunds
could use the checkoff to make
contributions to anti-drug efforts.
Dole has estimated that the checkoff
could raise $500 million next year.
Dole's plan, announced before the
House passed its bill, drew scorn on
the other side of the Capitol. "I don't
think this should be a volunteer effort,"
said Charles B. Rangel, D-N.Y.,
chairman of the House Select Committee
on Narcotics Abuse and Control.
"I don't see them proposing a tax
checkoff for aid to the (Nicaraguan)
'contras.'"
The tax checkoff, along with
other provisions of the bill, ruffled
feathers in the Senate, as well.
The night the Dole-Byrd bill was
introduced, Lowell P. Weicker Jr., RConn.,
lodged a formal objection to it
on grounds that the checkoff raised
revenue — making it legislation that
must originate in the House under Article
I of the Constitution. That forced
sponsors to transform S 2878 into a
substitute amendment to the Housepassed
HR 5484.
Weicker and other moderate Republicans
also complained about the
speed with which the Senate was acting
on a measure they considered constitutionally
suspect.
"The bill before us is a rough
draft," said Charles McC. Mathias Jr.,
R-Md. "It's ore that needs refining."
Even before seeing the final version,
Daniel J. Evans,. R-Wash., denounced
what he called a "sanctimonious
election stampede that will
trample the Constitution."
"If we vote for legislation to win
an election and trample the Constitution
in the process, we have not served
the country very well," he said. |
PAGE 2266~Sept. 27, 1986 CoprtigM
THtWumciiw POST
pports Antidrug Plan
But Imposition of Death Penalty, Use of Military Are Rejected
By Dewu
The Senjie endoned a sweeping
cafnpajRn-season antidrug plan ear*
ly yesterday after sidetracking
more drasbc House-approved proposals,
includiog imposition of the
death peoaJly in major narcotics
cases and use the military to
combat drug smuggling.
Stopping just ^rt of passing the
legislation after a gruehng Saturday
session that lasted until after 2 a.m.
yesterday, the Senate put off a final
vote until financing details can be
worked out and all senators will be
on hand lor the roll call
The Senate signaled support lor
the death penalty but excluded it
aid »evera] other controversial provisions.
including mandatory drug
testing favored by President Reagan.
to avert filibusters by critics
who charged that the Constitution
was being trampled" in the cause
of curbing drug abuse.
It was the first major bump in the
road for the antidrug bandwagon
that has found Democrats and Republicans
in an almost frantic race
to provide lough fiitfed responses to
what both parties see as a mounting
public demand for action against the
spread of drugs.
Hut. aside from the most controversial
provisions of the House bill,
the two chambers' measures are
aimilar in seeking to pump mllliona
of dollars Into new interdiction, law*
cnforccn>ent. education and treatmeni
programs to fight drug abuse.
Knactment with Reagan's signature
is expected if the two houseii
can resolve the death penalty and
other issues without running into a
Senate filibuster, which couM delay
or even jeopardize passage before
Congress adjourns in the next week
or two. The Senate is expected to
pass the bill and send it to conference
by midweek.
The 250-page bill authorizes
$1.4 billion, financed in part by a
voluntary Income-tax refund checkoff.
for everything ranging from
international cooperation to destroy
drug ^eduction at the source to
local programs for treatment of vie*
lima. The House bill includes at
least $2 billion for similar purposes.
About half of the total would go
toward improv^ Interdiction ef*
foru to keep drugs out of the country,
including an additional $153
mlHion for the Coast Guard. $115
million for the Customs Service and
$135 million for Defense Department
purchase of radar and aircraft
to aid civilian efforts. In addition,
the Senate approved an amendment
ordering (he Pentagon to release
surplus equipment and other assets
for use by civilian agencies.
Another $115 million would be
allocated to state and local law en*
forcemenl agencies on a 3-to-l
iiiatching basis for drug contr^ efforts.
and funds for treatment and
rehabilitation would be increased. A
new $ 1 SO million state-administered
grant program would be set
up to help rid schools and eommunilicn
of drugs.
Penaltle.t for most drug-related
crimes would be increased, including
a mandatory sentence of no lees
than 10 years for "kingpin" traffickera.
a doubling of penalties for using
children (o distnbute drugs and new
penaltiea for knowingly selling
drugs to pregnant womra. "Designer
drugs" would be outlawed, and
new curbs would be put on money
laundering by drug dealers.
Foreign aid would be cut off to
countries that produce or transport
drugs unless the president certifies
that they are cooperating wtth U.S.
antidrug efforts.
Qui. pressed by leaders of both
parlies to hold back what Majority
Leader Robert J. Dole (K*Kan.)
called "blockbuster" amendments.
Democrats gave up their proposal
for a drug<ontrol "cxar" and conservatives
withheld their deathpenalty
proposal along with others
to kx)^ llK exclusionary rule restraining
use of illegally obtained
evidence In court and to restrict
habeas<orpus rights of prisoners to
petjhon for release.
Proposed restrktions on the
Freed^ of Infonnation Act to
avoid alerting drug dealers of pending
moves against them were approved
in modified form.
The only break in the dike came
wheo Sen. Alan J. Dixon (D-Ill.)
pu^ed to order use of the Armed
Forces to hdp seal U.S. borders
against drug smuggling, a modified
version of a House provision that
drew fire on both national security
and civil liberties grounds in (he
Senate. It was defeated, 72 to 14.
THE ARROW COLLECTION
Dress shirts distinctively tailored to fit both you opd your lifestyle
S^n/assae/^
EMBASSY OF AUSTRALIA
WASHINGTON. D. C.
30 Septemberr 1986
Dear Senator Hecht,
On Saturday evening the Senate appended a provision to
the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 Amendment 3053 which reallocates
sugar import quotas between supplying countries. As predictions
are that the overall level of D.S. sugar imports will be cut
next year, this provision would place the burden of such quota
cuts on other supplying countries, principally Australia, a
close ally of the United States,
I want to emphasise to you that Australia cooperates
extremely closely with the U.S. in all aspects of anti-narcotic
liaison. Our two governments are working together at all levels
on this terrible problem. It would surely be grossly wrong in
these circumstances to amend the Anti-Drug Abuse Act in such a
way to heavily penalise Australia.
Australia is a major sugar exporter? the U.S. is a very
important market for us. The level of our exports to the U.S.,
like that of other countries, has been steadily whittled down by
the progressive reduction in the overall level of the U.S.
import quotas. This has contributed to the difficulties facing
our sugar industry and more generally is of concern when seen
against the background of an overall balance in our bilateral
trade that runs two to one in favour of the United States.
Australia's share of U.S. import quotas reflects past
historical performance in this market. The basis used in 1982
to set those import quotas reflects GATT principles. It would
be particularly detrimental to Australia/U.S. trade relations if
the U.S. were now to reallocate quotas on a selective and
discriminatory basis in breach of those principles.
Furthermore, the U.S. would be repudiating a commitment "not to
take any restrictive or distorting measure inconsistent with the
provisions of the General Agreement" that was agreed by all
countries at the recent Punta del Este meeting and which the
U.S. and Australia had fought hard to achieve.
The elimination of Australia's sugar quota would come
on top of other major difficulties that Australia has recently
encountered in its trade relations with the U.S. and would
generate a very adverse reaction in Australia,
We therefore ask that at the very least the existing
provision be amended so that it only relates to drug-related
issues by deleting paragraphs 2 and 3 from the Amendment No,
3053 to the Anti-Drug Abuse Bill,
Yours sincerely.
P. Rawdon Dalrymple
Senator Chic Hecht
Senate Hart Office Building
Room 302
3{aKe liilkcd, (turrc w<!rc S« .IUSTia;AI2.CoL
/O
a f e t y
c d f o r
lines
i peeler
I Wn<«*f
rransportation
ded yesterday
lal error was
r two commiitd
20 people in
a sweeping list
dations for the
ving commuier
^ge letter to
Senate Approves Antidrug Program
lly hxlward Walsh
Washmuttio Host Sf WrUet
The Senate overwhelmingly approved
a major antidrug program
yesterday but left unanswered the
critical question of how to pay for it.
The measure, which differs significantly
from the House-passed
antidrug package, was approved, 97
to 2, after the Senate adopted a
nonbiriding resolution pledging not
to cut other programs to fund a national
war on drugs.
Senate leaders were unable to
J
DRUGS, From A1
to see a great exercise In fisjresponsibility
in its wake."
louse and ^nate leaders said
night that they expect to conle
a conference committee to atjpt
to resolve differences hern
the $1.4 billion Senate bill
the more ambitious House
^ sure, which would authorize
|ut $1.7 billion in antidrug prois
in fiscal 1987.
ich a conference would not only
fp to deal with the different fundlevels
but with several other
itional issues involved in Conias'
election-year rush to enact
intidrug program.
'hese include use of the death
ilty in some drug-related murcases.
relaxation of, Titles
linst use o'l iIiegali)(.obtaihed evice
in court and deployment of
military forces in drug-intertion
efforts. These provisions are
Ithe House bill but absent from
Senate measure.
;n. Mack Mattingly (R-Ga.),
iported by Dole, said he will in-
, that the Senate accept the
[use's death-penalty provision.
Hemocratic liberals had exissed
hope that the House would
;ept the Senate version of the
[islation, killing the death-penalty
iposal and other politically ejqiloissues
for this year.
explain where the money would be
found, debying the issue until Congrests
adopts an omnibus spending
bill to fund all government programs
in the fiscal year beginning
today.
Majority Leader Robert J. Dole
(R-Kan.) .said there is little sentiment
to raise taxes to pay for the
program and that he hopes it will
not require Congress to exceed its
budget limits for fiscal 1987.
As a "last resort." Dole said, he
would support using some of the
funds from the temporary windfall
But the tfouse wants other differences
resolved, including a gap
of more than $300 million in how
much will be provided in grants to
state and local governments for antidrug
programs.
Sens. Lawton Chiles (D-Fla.) and
Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) strongly
defended the Senate decision to
delay the funding question.
"What we didn't want was a filibuster
on that bill after dealing
"This is great
politics, this drug
but:'
—Sen. Lowell P. Weicker Jr.
with all the other contentious issues,"
Biden said. "We will get the
funding."
The two votes against the bill
were cast by Sens. John Melcher
(D-Mont.) and Gordon J. Humphrey
(R-N.H.). Sen. Jake Gam (R-Utah),
recuperating after donating a kidney
to hia daughter, did not vote.
In its version of the omnibus
spending bill for this fiscal year, the
House imposed, an across-the-board
cut on most other government programs
to provide the more than
$600 million In actual spending this
to the government next year in the
first year under tax-overhaul legislation
awaiting President Reagan's
signature.
The noiibinding resolution on
funding, the la.st i.ssue to be resolved
in the Senate drug bill, was
adopted at the insistence of Sen.
Lowell P, Weicker jr. (R-Conn.),
who threatened a paralyzing endof-
session filibuster if other programs
were cut.
"This is great politics, this drug
bill." Weicker said. "Now you are
See DRUGS. A14. CoL 1
IIAdhi yCJir ti'lm wounz'reauK-'iraiii
pa.ssagc of either its or the Senate's
antidrug measure.
The nonbinding resolution in
which the Senate rejected this approach
was adopted by voice vote
but not without withering criticism.
Sen. Gary Hart (D-Colo.) said the
resolution highlighted "the ridiculous
bind" in which Congress finds
itself since adoption of the Gramm-
Rudman-Hoilings balanced-budget
law and by "a president who is totally
out of touch with reality."
"We're afraid to say the word
'tax,' " Hart said. "There are too
many people afraid of the president
ami his veto, his rhetoric about
'make my day." We're all dancing
around the edge."
Sen. Daniel J. Evans (R-Wash.)
said, "We're dealing with a 500-
pound gorilla of an issue, and I'm
afraid the Senate is going to come
up with a tiny mouse of an answer."
The Senate and House bills would
stiffen penalties for drug convictions.
increase funding for the Coast
Guard and Customs Service and
transfer some Defense Department
aircraft and radar to civilian agencies
to help in drug-interdiction efforts.
Both would also increase funding
for drug education and rehabilitation
programs and for prison construction.
lenger G-ew Joked About Cold \^ther
United Prets Internationa]
:APE CANAVERAL, Fla.. Sept.
The cold weather' that later
would be blamed for playing a role
Seated on the flight deck of the
cabin with flight commander Fran-
Ai
Dl
' f ' i
oi/^A^ 3
-^yvw-y^io^-
/t c ^ (jAyu^yUL
^^^--i_c^/ 4f
L^j^
,(Lv^U , ,
^//^ ^IMrt
(r-'^nryiXL (/
^ntteb ^tatei^ Senate
MEMORANDUM
(XM 'f'Oso
c^ya -
5 0 , ^ 6 / 6
ll-'^olU V
F'AULA HAWKINS
I fLpRIDA
'^CnUeb Pieties ^ctxaic
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20510
July 30, 1986
The President
The White House
Washington, D. C. 20500
Dear Mr. President:
As fellow Republicans looking to a President who has shown
great leadership on t)ie drug issue, we would like to request that
you convene a White House Conference on Illicit Drug Use and
Control. We feel that the time is ripe for you to convene a high
visibility, high-level conference where you can issue your
marching orders and solicit the cooperation of all the key
sectors of our society.
The White House Conference would convene not only key
government officials, but also those key movers and shakers from
sectors such as the news media, the entertainment industry,
professional sports, the health profession, the legal profession,
the business community, academla, labor unions, education, and so
on.
We need a White House Conference to facilitate
implementation of existing policy and recommendations, not to
provide a forum for further study, rhetoric, and debate which
would further delay action. The President's Commission on
Organized Crime Just spent over 3 years and about ^3 million to
conrliict an excellent comprehensive study of our Nation's drug
problem. These recommendations liave not received the attention
and focus they clearly deserve from the Congr^s, the Executive
Branch, state and local officials, or the priva'te sector.
In addition, the Congress has charged the National Drug
Policy Enforcement Board to produce a national drug strategy this
summer, which we understand we will be receiving soon.
We are particularly grateful for your recent bold initiative
committing U.S. military personnel and equipment in direct
support of Bolivian military operations against cocaine
laboratories and traffickers. We hope you can build on the
momentum from this successful initiative and the recently
The President
July 30, 1986
Pa^e ?
completed policy studies and reports to expand our efforts,
especially on tlie domestic demand aide of the problem.
This Conference Is Intended as a tribute to your leadership,
and the leadership of the First Lady, on the drug issue. But
clearly more can be done, many government officials and many key
private sector leaders could be prodded to take more effective
action against our drug problem. We believe a White House
Conference will contribute substantially to this cause and we
hope you give our suggestion the most serious consideration.
Sincerely,
1
.A J-lAWKkN9
riARtOA
UlCnUcb ^Ictlc^ Senate
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20910
July 30, 1986
The President
The White House
Washington, D. C. 20500
Dear Mr. President:
As fellow Republicans looking to a President who has shown
great leadership on tlie drug issue, we would like to request that
you convene a White Mouse Conference on Illicit Drug Use and
Control. We feel that the time is ripe for you to convene a high
visibility, high-level conference where you can issue your
marching orders and solicit the cooperation of all the key
sectors of our society.
The White House Conference would convene not only key
government officials, but also those key movers and shakers from
sectors such as the news media, the entertainment industry,
professional sports, the health profession, the legal profession,
the business community, academia, labor unions, education, and so
on.
We need a White House Conference to facilitate
implementation of existing policy and recommendations, not to
provide a forum for further study, rhetoric, and debate which
would further delay action. The President's Commission on
Organized Crime Just spent over 3 years and about ^3 million to
conduct an excellent comprehensive study of our Nation's drug
problem. These recommendations have not received the attention
and focus they clearly deserve from the Congress, the Executive
Branch, state and local officials, or the prlva*te sector.
In addition, the Congress has charged the National Drug
Policy Enforcement Board to produce a national drug strategy this
summer, which we understand we will be receiving soon.
We are particularly grateful for your recent bold initiative
committing U.S. military personnel and equipment in direct
support of Bolivian military operations against cocaine
laboratories and traffickers. We hope you can build on the
momentum from this successful initiative and the recently
The President
July 30, 1986
Paj',e ?
completed policy studies and reports to expand our efforts,
especially on the domestic demand side of the problem.
This Conference Is Intended as a tribute to your leadership,
and the leadership of the First Lady, on the drug Issue. But
clearly more can be done, many government officials and many key
private sector leaders could be prodded to take more effective
action against our drug problem. We believe a White House
Conference will contribute substantially to this cause and we
hope you give our suggestion the most serious consideration.
Sincerely,
/
Q c f -
Wh«n A bill oomes befor« the Se3nuaaKtae>, dI ebate uouaU p~^S,oLn, e
H'R- 548^caae ^befores^a^e ai^jraa^ paeaed overwhalmlngly^
/Lnd that'o what ahouU have happened to Chls pleue of legia~'
ion •• The AlJUBB all u£ I90fh—It gjearod the Cenate
without debate;/m was a bipartisan bill everyone could support. MBe
Our nation pays too high a price for drug abuse in terms of lives
lost, families shattered and dreams forsaken. According to the President's
commission on Organized Crime, there are an estimated half-million
heroin addicts in this country; four to five million Americans regularly
use cocaine; and over 20 million Americans regularly use marijuana. The
drug problem is complex. Any effective strategy must involve a comprehensive
approach, including efforts at home and abroad.
This bill provides approximately fgd* million in .wdditioiiel funds for
foreign assistance progr^s to help countries eradicate drugs within their
borders, it -outa off all aid to countries that are major illicit drug
producing countries and have not, either though their own efforts or with
our assistenee, reduced production or transshipment of narcotics.
The bill hopefully will stem the flow of drugs into our ccuntry.
It increases by one-third the current level of funding for interdiction,
including increased funding for the Coast Guard and the Customs Service.
And it rigorously enforces domestic drug control laws. The legialation
Increases penalties for moat drug-related offensesv-and includes e- r y o i i 7 ^
penalty of from-10-yeere-te lite impgisonment jCotf''drug kingpins T The
hill creates new offenses and increases penalties for drug offenses InPage
2, chat With Ohio
%
volving children, as wall aa Increased fines to strike at the financial
underpinning of organized crime.
Recognizing that we must educate our youth about the dangers of
•a.oQ -
locaMschool districts^ for drug abU5o''«n^ education. In utJai a efeate
to qualily-fnr this mnnev -it mnmt- hflye n drug edusatinn-r^ngraTn immlv
ing oohools and anmfiiiL—its ewn woneyr'
This was a piece of legislation all of us could support. Some
of us would have liked to have enacted stronger provisions regarding
the death penalty. But overall this bill will move us in the right
direction, it wisely recognizes the need to reduce both the supply
of, and the demand for, drugs.
The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 is a good pieoe of legislation.
Properly administered, it could go a long way toward reversing a trend
bordering on national disgrace.
OCT.
When a bill aomes before the Senate, debate usually is the
rule rather than the exception. But there was no expressed opposition
when H.R. 5484 came before the Senate and was passed overwhelmingly,
97-2,
And that's what should have happened to this piece of legislation
— The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, It cleared the Senate
without debate. It was a bipartisan bill everyone could support.
Our nation pays too high a price for drug abuse in terms of lives
lost, families shattered and dreams forsaken. According to the President's
Commission on Organized Crime, there are an estimated half-million
heroin addicts in this country; four to five million Americans regularly
use cocaine; and over 20 million Americans regularly use marijuana. The
drug problem is complex. Any effective strategy must involve a comprehensive
approach, including efforts at home and abroad.
This bill provides approximately $60 million in additional funds for
foreign assistance programs to help countries eradicate drugs within their
borders. It cuts off all aid to countries that are major illicit drug
producing countries and have not, either though their own efforts or with
our assistance, reduced production or transshipment of narcotics.
The bill hopefully will stem the flow of drugs into our cointry.
It increases by one-third the current level of funding for interdiction,
including increased funding for the Coast Guard and the Customs Service.
And it rigorously enforces domestic drug control laws- The legislation
increases penalties for most drug-related offenses and includes a
penalty of from 10 years to life imprisonment for drug kingpins. The
hill creates new offenses and increases penalties for drug offenses inPage
2, Chat With Chic
volving children, as well as increased fines to strike at the financial
underpinning of organized crime.
Recognizing that we must educate our youth about the dangers of
drug use, the bill provides $150 million in grant money to state and
local school districts for drug abuse and education. In order for a state
to qualify for this money, it must have a drug education program involving
schools and commit its own money.
This was a piece of legislation all of us could support. Some
of us would have liked to have enacted stronger provisions regarding
the death penalty. But overall this bill will move us in the right
direction. It wisely recognizee the need to reduce both the supply
of, and the demand for, drugs.
The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 is a good piece of legislation.
Properly administered, it could go a long way toward reversing a trend
bordering on national disgrace.
/ 0/3 u House Leadership Leaning |
Toward Modified Drug Bill
Controversial Provisions Would Be Deleted
By Edward Walsh
WJISLUNGTOA POST S(«LF WNLER
The House Democratic leadership
has tentatively decided to accept
a modified version of the Senate's
antidrug bill in an attempt to
avoid a Senate filibuster against the
death penalty and other controversial
provisions of the House-passed
legi^tion that could prevent enactment
of any drug-control program
this year.
House Speaker Thomas P. (Tip)
O'Neill Jr. (D-Mass.) told a group of
reporters at lunch yesterday that a
version of the Senate-passed bill,
stripped of some provisions that the
House objects to. may be brought to
the House floor next week.
An aide to O'Neill said the modTm:
WASHINGTON POST
ifications will probably include some
increases in funding sought by the
House, but will skirt the most politically
explosive issues the House
added to its antidrug bill, including
use of the death penalty in some
drug-related murder cases.
These controversial provisions—
which also call for a relaxation of
judicial rules against the use of illegally
obtained evidence in court
and deployment of U.S. military
forces in drug-interdiction efforts—
are threatened by a filibuster by
liberal Democrats in the Senate.
That threat was increased this
week by a letter to Majority Leader
Robert J. Dole (R-Kan.) from a
group of moderate Republican senators
who also object to several of
the Hou.se provisions.
"We believe that reintroducing
these issues into the debate would
make it extremely difficult, if not
impo.ssible, to complete action on
thi.s vital legislation," the GOP .senators
wrote Dole. "We hope you will
use your good offices to persuade
the House to accept the Senate bill
without a conference,"
One strategy being considered by
the House leadership i.s to bring up
a modified version of the Senate bill
on the House's so-called "consent
calendar," which would require a
two-thirds vote for passage. The
measure could then be enacted if
the Senate accepted the House's
modification of the Senate bill.
This strategy, however, could
face resistance from House Republicans,
who led the effort to include
the death penalty and the other controversial
provisions in the House
bill. With a two-thirds vote neces-
•sary. House- Republicans could defeat
the modified bill, but they
would then be open to election-year
charges that they prevented a national
war on drugs.
"It puts us in a difficult position,"
an aide to House Minority Leader
Robert H. Michel (R-III.) said.
Samn
CHIC HECHT
NEVADA StATi 0'»ret»:
COHHIN«CI:
BANKINC, HOUSING ANO URBAN AFPAIRS
ENERGY ANO NATURAL RESOURCES
SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTEUIGENCE Idnited States Senate
CARSON CITY OFFICE:
308 NORTH CURAT STRICT
(702) B85-SI11
WASHINGTON, DC 20510
LAS VEGAS OFFICE:
300 LAS VIGAS BLVD.. SOUTH
{7021 388-6605
RCRO OFFICE:
300 BOOTH STREET
(702) 784-8007
October 10, 1986
The Honorable Strom Thurmond
Chairman
Senate Committee on the Judiciary
SD-224
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Strom:
I am writing to express my concern over a provision in both the
House of Representative's original, and most recently passed,
version of Drug Abuse Prevention and Treatment legislation. This
provision would require financial institutions such as banks and
casinos, among others, to report currency transactions in the
amount of $3,000 or more. Present law on this subject only
requires such reporting for transactions of $10,000 or more.
It is my understanding that a similar provision is absent from the
original Senate-passed'^:version of omnibus drug legislation, and
likewise from the package expected to be considered before the
full Chamber shortly. In light of the fact that I have been
contacted by a number of affected parties in my State who claim
they would be adversely affected by such a requirement, I
would ask that you keep in mind my concern for this matter during
deliberations on a final drug bill.
Thank you in advance for your consideration.
CH:gs
PETE WILSON coMMimcs.
CAUfOR-^A ARMCOSEflVICES
AGRlCUlTUng. NUTRmON. AND FORESTRY
SPEOAbOaMMtftSf ON ACIN6
mm Starts 3tnatt
WASHINGTON, DC 20510 iS3G OCT I t| PH 3' 05
-fc
OPPOSE DOMENICI AMENDMENT TO THE DRUG BILL
WOULD LIMIT USE OF SEIZED CRIMINALS' ASSETS FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT
Ic COMMinSS
October 13, 1986
Dear Colleague:
I am writing to urge you to oppose an anticipated attempt
to remove from the bi-partisan drug bill a provision that takes
drug traffickers' profits and uses them to help fund druq
interdiction.
Under present law, when drug smugglers' cash is seized by
the Customs Service and when the assets of convicted drug
traffickers are sold, the money is put into special asset
forfeiture funds. The bi-partisan drug bill contains a
provision that plows back into law enforcement all of these
ill-gotten gains. The Department of Justice and the Customs
Service anticipate that this mechanism will lead to an
additional $75 million being spent in FY 87 for such things as
rewards to citizens who help DBA, drug buy money, and radar and
radio equipment to be used for interdiction.
When the drug bill comes to the floor, an amendment may be
offered by Senator Domenici that would retain the current law
cap mechanism on these funds. This cap has effectively limited
the asset forfeiture funds so that only 25% is being used for
law enforcement; the other 75% goes back into the general fund
of the treasury to fund other, less worthy programs. T ask
that you oppose this amendment.
The problem with present law is that the money in the
forfeiture funds may be used for law enforcement only to the
extent appropriated. Unfortunately, since these funds were
recently established, most of the money has been appropriated
for other uses — not for law enforcement.
. order to make sure that the seized assets from major
criminals are used for law enforcement, it is necessary to
remove the forfeiture funds from the appropriating and budget
scorekeeping process. This is what the bill would do.
4- the Domenici amendment, you are effectively
taking these seized criminal assets and using them for other
than law enforcement purposes. The general programs of the
• should be paid for with tax money. The
windfall from seized criminal assets should be turned against
major criminal activity.
I hop that you will join me in opposing the Domenici
amendment.
Sincerely,
PETE WILSON
17TH DISTRICT, PENNSYLVANIA
GEORGE W. GEKAS
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIAflY
• 1008 LONCWORTH HOUSE OFFICE 8UIUHNG
WASHINGTON. DC 20$ 18 (202) 22$>4315
SUBCOMMITTEES
CfttMlNAL JUSTICE—RANKING MINORITY MEM6ER iCHT D 1 RIVEFISIDS OFFICE CENTER
SUITE 302
2101 NORTN FRONT STREET
HARRlSeuRG. PA 17110
|717)232-$133
DISTRICT OFFICES:
CONSTITUTIONS. AND CIVIL RIGHTS
SELECT COMMITTEE ON AGING Congress of the Iiniteds:@t9tes • HERMAN SCHNEEBELI FIDERAl 8UILDIN6
P.O. SOX SOS
WILLIAMSPORT. PA 17703
(7171 327.81SI
tftouBE Of HeprtsEntatitJEB
Washinflton, 14, 1986 26 NORTH FOURTH STREET
SiWOURY.PA 17801
(717}268-8417
Senator Chic Hecht
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator;
The Senate now has before it consideration of H.R. 5484, the "Omnibus
Drug Enforcement, Education, and Control Act of 1986." An amendment
sponsored by me, providing for the death penalty for certain continuing
criminal enterprise drug offenses, is contained within that measure.
I would be happy to answer any questions about the death penalty
amendment which you might have. Please feel free to call me in my office
(X54315) any time or have your staff contact my counsel, Ray Smietanka
(x57087) with any comments or questions.
GEORGE W. GEKAS
Member of Congress
GWG/wac
THIS STATIONERY PRINTED ON PAPER MADE WITH RECYCLED FIBERS
Editor, Judy Myers
Notice #121
October 14,1986
U.S. SENATE REPUBLICAN POLICY COMMITTEE
William L Armstrong, Chairman
PLEASE NOTE: This and all other current Legislative
Notices are now available immediately through LEGIS,
where they are regularly updated and where Floor
Supplements are posted. Use the LEGIS report "LNOT"
for the electronic notice, which you can also capture and
print in your office.
Calendar • • •
H.R. 5484: HOUSE - SENATE DRUG BILL
REPORTED: Not reported out of Committee
[NOTE: THIS NOTICE REPORTS ON THE LATEST VERSION OF THE DRUG PACKAGE BY
HIGHLIGHTING THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE HOUSE AND SENATE VERSIONS
FOR MORE DETAIL ON THE ORIGINAL SENATE VERSION, PLEASE SEE NOTICE #117.]
BACKGROUND: THE STATE OF PLAY: On Sept. 11, the House passed H.R. 5484. On Sept, 27, the
Senate passed its own version of that bill. Instead of going to conference, the House on October 8, by a
vote of 391 to 23, agreed to a rule under which the adoption of the rule would constitute House
acceptance of H.R. 5484, as amended by the Senate, with a further House amendment in the form of a
bill introduced by Rep. James Wright. The resulting bill is herein referred to as the HOUSE bill. It
will be considered by the Senate, together with the SENATE AMENDMENTS outlined below.
.TITLE I -- ENFORCEMENT Overview: HOUSE maintains many provisions of the SENATE bill in
same, or substantially similar form. These include:
Drug penalties enhancement
Amendments to Controlled Substances Act regarding fines
Drug Possession Penalty Act
Juvenile drug trafficking provisions
Manufacturing controlled substances within 1,000 feet of college
Continuing Drug Enterprise Act
Continuing Criminal Enterprise Act
Controlled substance import and export penalties
Armed career criminals
Mail Order Drug Paraphemalia Control Act
Manufacturing operations provisions
Technical amendments to Controlled Substances Act
Precursor and essential chemical review
Ballistic knives
Electronics Commications Privacy Act
Minimum mandatory sentence for juvenile traffic offenders.
SENATE AMENDMENT will add back certain SENATE provisions dropped in the HOUSE version:
Authority to impose sentence below the statutory minimum
Some provisions concerning asset forfeiture, controlled substances
Analogs, and money laundering
All SENATE provisions concerning Federal Drug Law Enforcement Agent Protection and
common carrier operation under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
H.R. 5484 2 LEGISLATIVE NOTICE
• Drug law enforcement assistance:
SENATE had authorized $115 million for a new law enforcement assistance program of grants
to help local governments fight drugs.
HOUSE currently proposes $350 million.
SENATE AMENDMENT authorizes $350 million for FY 1987, $350 million for FY 1988, and
$230 million for FY 1989.
• Dial-a-Pom;
SENATE had prohibited Dial-a-Pom operations.
HOUSE omitted this provision.
SENATE AMENDMENT drops Dial-a-Pom.
• Death penalty:
SENATE had nothing on this subject.
HOUSE permits dea^ penalty for murder committed during course
of continuing drug enterprise.
SENATE AMENDMENT is silent on this subject.
TITLE II - INTERNATIONAL NARCOTICS CONTROL
• Funds for International Narcotics Control Assistance:
SENATE bill added $63 million, of which $45 million was (X)ntingent upon submission of
presidential plan for spending it and $10 million is
earmarked for aircraft primarily in Latin America.
HOUSE bill adds $53 million, with same earmark, and requires a formal budget request by
President for the $45 million.
SENATE AMENDMENT restores SENATE language.
• Retention of title to aircraft:
SENATE required retention of title "to the maximum extent practicable."
HOUSE deletes clause.
— SENATE AMENDMENT accepts HOUSE language.
• Restriction of U.S. aid to drug countries:
HOUSE bill revises SENATE provisions requiring reduction in assistance to countries that
produce or traffic in drugs (unless President makes certain certifications); removes GSP
(Generalized System of Preferences) from this section to a separate penalty provision on trade
benefits; does not allow denial of sugar quotas to those countries; and removes specific date for
presidential action.
SENATE AMENDMENT generally maintains SENATE language, keeps SENATE approach to
GSP penalties. Keeps SENATE ban on sugar quota for any country the govemment of which is
involved in drug traffic or fails to cooperate with U.S. enforcement efforts.
• Mansfield Amendment (bars U.S. officials from making arrest in foreign countries):
SENATE allowed U.S. personnel to be present, to assist in arrest, and to protect themselves.
HOUSE gives Sect, of Slate limited waiver authority; allows self defense; permits maritime law
enforcement with agreement of foreign country.
SENATE AMENDMENT restores SENATE language.
• Diplomatic passports for DEA personnel overseas:
HOUSE commends this. No comparable SENATE provision.
SENATE AMENDMENT adopts HOUSE language.
• Bolivia:
SENATE praised Bolivian cooperation, sets conditions for continued
assistance.
HOUSE adds requirement for specific, numerical eradication targets in
future U.S.-Bolivia agreements.
SENATE AMENDMENT calls for "numerical eradication targets" but does not set their levels.
• Mexico:
HOUSE withholds $1 million in narcotics control assistance from Mexico until certain actions
are taken concerning murder and abduction of DEA personnel.
SENATE AMENDMENT (see Sec. 2032) lists problems with Mexico and recommends various
presidential responses, including a "mandatory travel advisory for all of Mexico."
I
LEGISLATIVE NOTICE 3 H.R. 5484
HOUSE requires consultation and pilot programs for crop substitution.
SENATE AMENDMENT omits consultation provision on crop substitution, but retains
SENATE language on similar activities by multilateral development banks.
• Administration of Justice Program:
HOUSE allows $2 million for protection of judges, etc.
SENATE AMENDMENT keeps HOUSE provision without the specific amount
• Miscellaneous:
HOUSE supports $500,000 reward for arrest of Ochoa Vasquez (Colombian drug boss);
SENATE AMENDMENT adopts HOUSE language.
• Intelligence:
SENATE made drug information a priority for intelligence community,
HOUSE simply urges more attention to this.
SENATE AMENDMENT restores SENATE language.
• Pakistan:
HOUSE adds aerial eradication to suggested Pakistan control program.
SENATE AMENDMENT adds HOUSE language.
TITLE 111 - INTERDICTION
• FCC:
SENATE authorized FCC to revoke licenses and seize equipment of those who use it in drug
traffic.
HOUSE omits provision.
SENATE AMENDMENT restores Senate language.
• Civil Air Patrol:
SENATE authorized $7 million from unobligated DoD funds. HOUSE provides $3.5 million
SENATE AMENDMENT conforms with original Senate provision: "up to $7 million."
• Surveillance aircraft:
HOUSE provides for four E2C Hawkeyes to be loaned to Customs and four E2Bs for the Coast
Guard.
SENATE AMENDMENT provides two E2C Hawkeyes to Customs Service and two to the
Coast Guard. Replaces HOUSE funding provision to conform wi± original Senate intent that
funds be new money, not absorbed from existing DoD budget
• Coast Guard:
HOUSE hikes authorization for Coast Guard interdiction to $76 million. SENATE
AMENDMENT increases it to $89 million (for purchase of two C-130 surveillance aircraft with
small reduction in cutters).
TITLE IV -- DEMAND REDUCTION
• Prevention and Treatment:
SENATE added $225 million to ADAMHA block grant; $11 million to VA; no new agency
created. HOUSE creates Agency for Substance Abuse with new program (in addition to
AMADHA) at $228 million, with $28 million of that reserved for ASAP (Alcohol and Substance
Abuse Prevention).
SENATE AMENDMENT restores SENATE provisions.
• Education:
SENATE created $150 million new program of grants to States, with requirement of 62% passthrough
to Slate and local education agencies. HOUSE creates $250 million program, requires
80% pass-through to SEAs and LEAs.
H.R. 5484 4 LEGISLATIVE NOTICE
SENATE AMENDMENT increases total to $200 million, of which $7.5 million is at discretion
of Sect of Education; $7.5 million at discretion of Sect of HHS; $10 million allocated to
regional training centers; $15 million for higher education grants. $160 to States, with split of
65%-35% between school-based and community-based programs. $800,000 minimum grant to
each State.
• ACTION:
SENATE authorized $3 million for each of two years,
HOUSE authorized about $2.5 million for each of two years.
SENATE AMENDMENT accepts House language.
• Miscellaneous:
HOUSE requires S3 million Dept of Labor study on drugs in workplace.
SENATE AMENDMENT allows a study.
TITLE XII - HIGHWAY SAFETY
SENATE set uniform standard for intoxication at .04 blood level; sanctions against States not
in compliance become effective in FY 1993. HOUSE sets intoxication standard at .1 blood
level; sanctions do not kick in until 1996.
SENATE AMENDMENT keeps .04 blood level but requires DoT study of impact of this
standard on operators of commerical vehicles who are required to be available to drive on short
notice. Keeps SENATE sanctions date.
TITLE XV - SENATE POLICY REGARDING FUNDING
The SENATE declares that money to carry out provisions of this act should be provided as
new budget authority for FY 1987, and that such amounts should not be provided by transfeis
from, or reductions in, other spending.
POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS:
Helms. To restore SENATE language prohibiting Dial-a-Pom.
Unknown. To strike HOUSE provision on death penalty.
Unknown, To delete Metzenbaum provisions regarding FDA approval of infant formula.
Hatch-Chiles. To increase ADAMHA block grant by $15 million to $515 million, with no change in setasides
in current law. $186 million additional money is authorized for drug and alcohol treatment and
rehabilitation, as follows: 45% distributed to all States on basis of population, 55% to States on basis of
need (as defined in SENATE bill), $11 million to be transferred to the Veterans Administration, 1% of
total for evaluation of treatment programs. Creates new Office of Substance Abuse within ADAMHA
with $15 million new money and $5 million from Dept of Education, to oversee clearinghouses,
administer demonstration grants for "high risk" youth. Another $20 million is authorized for those
"high risk" programs. Reauthorizes NIAAA at $69 million and NIDA at $129 million (SENATE
figures). Retains Metzenbaum amendment on infant formula Retains Sense of Senate language
oinceming alcohol warning labels and regarding State laws on possession of controlled substances.
Staff Contact: Bill Gribbin, x42946
O
United States
t/ America
No. 144—Part H (Eonaressional llecord
PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 99^^ CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION
Vol. 1)2 WASHINGTON, FRIDAY, OCTOBER 17, 1986 No. 144—Part n
House of Representatives
PROVIDING PGR CONCURRING
IN THE SENATE AMENDMENT
TO THE HOUSE AMENDMENT
TO THE SENATE AMENDMENT
TO THE BILL H.R. 5484, DRUG
ENFORCEMENT. EDUCATION,
AND CONTROL ACT OP 1986,
WITH AN AMENDMENT
iContinued)
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.
KiLDEE>. Pursuant to House Resolution
597, the House is considered to
have concurred In the Senate amendment
to the House amendment to the
Senate amendment with an amendment.
Consisting of the text of H.R.
5729 introduced by Representative
WRIGHT, to H.R. 5484: and. House Concurrent
Resolution 415 is considered as
having been adopted.
The text of the House amendment
to the Senate amendment to the
House amendment to the Senate
amendment provided for by the text
of House Resolution 597 is as follows:
SF.CTHIH /. SHOUT TITIM.
This Acl may be cited aa the "Anti-Drug
Abuse Act of 1986".
sue. I. <iKi:.\siUTiosorACT.
This Act li organized as follows:
TITLE t-ANTl'DRUa ENFORCEMENT
Subtitle A—Narcotics Penalties and
Enforcement Act of 1988
Subtitle B—Drug Possession Penalty Act of
1986
SubliUe C—Juvenile Drug Trafficking Act of
1988
Subtitle D—Assets Forfeiture Amendments
Act 0/1986
Subtitle E—Controlled Substance Analogue
Enforcement Act of 1986
Subtitle F—Continuing Drug Enterprise Act
0/1988
Subtitle GR—Controlled Substances Import
and Export Act Penalties Enhancement
Act 0/1988
Subtitle H—Money Laundering Control Act
0/1988
Subtitle I—Armed Coreer Criminals
Subtitle J—Authorieation of Appropriations
for Drug Law Enforcement
Subtitle K—State and Local Narcotics
Control Assistance
Subtitle L—Study on the Use of Existing
Federal Buildings as Prisons
Subtitle M—Narcotics Traffickers
Deportation Act
Subtitle N—Freedom of Information Act
Subtitle O—Prohibition on the Interstate
Sale and Transportation of Drug Paraphernalia
Subtitle P—Manufacturing Operations
Subtitle Q—Controlled Substances Technical
Amendments
Subtitle A—Precursor and essential
chemical review
Subtitle S—White House Conference for A
Drug Free America
Subtitle T—Common carrier operation
under the influence of alcohol or drugs
Subtitle U—Federal Drug Law Enforcement
Agent Protection Act of 1988
TITLE II—INTERNATIONAL NARCOTICS
CONTROL
TITLE III—INTERDICTION
Subtitle A—Department of Defense Drug
Interdiction Assistance
Subtitle £—Customs Enforcement
Subtitle C—Mariti7ne Drug Law Enforce-
- ment Prosecution Improvements Act of
1986
Subtitle D—Coast Ouard
Subtitle E— United States Bahamas Drug
Interdiction Task Force
Subtitle F—Command, Control,
Communications, and Intelligence Cenlers
Subtille O—Transportation Safety
Subtitle H—Department of Justice funds for
drug interdiction operation in Hawaii
Subtitle I—Federal Communications
Commission
TITLE IV-DEMAND REDUCTION —^
Subtitle A—Treatment and rehabilitation j
Subtitle B—Drug-Free Schools and J
Communities Act of 1988
Subtitle C—Indians and Alaska Natives
Subtitle D—Miscellaneous Provisions
TITLE V-UNITED STATES INSULAR
AREAS AND NATIONAL PARKS
Subtitle A—Programs in United States
Insular Areas.
Subtitle B—National Park Service Program.
TITLE VI-FEDSRAL EMPLOYEE SUBSTANCE
ABUSE EDUCATION AND
TREATMENT
TITLE Vll-NATIONAL ANTIDRUG REORGANIZATION
AND COORDINATION
TITLE VIII—PRESIDENTS MEDIA COMMISSION
ON ALCOHOL AND DRUG
ABUSE PREVENTION
TITLE IX—DENIAL OF TRADE BENEFITS
TO UNCOOPERATIVE MAJOR DRUG
PRODUCING OR DRUG-TRANSIT
COUNTRIES
TITLE X—BALLISTIC KNIFE
PROHIBITION
TITLE XI—HOMELESS ELIGIBILITY
CLARIFICATION ACT
Subtitle A—Emergency Food for the
Homeless
5u6(iiie B—Job Training for the Homeless
Subtitle C—Entitlements Eligibility
TITLE XII-COMMERCIAL MOTOR
VEHICLE SAFETY ACT OF 1988
TITLE XIII—CYANIDE WRONGFUL USE
SBC. * CnVPIJANCB WITHBl'DGBT ACT.
Notwithstanding any other provision of
this Act any spending authority and any
credit authority provided under this Act
shall be effective for any fiscal year only to
such extent or in such amounts as are provided
in appropriation Acts. For purposes of
ihis Act. the term "spending authority" has
the meaning provided in section 401IC/I2I of
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and
the term "credit authority" has the meaning
provided in section 3110) of the Congresssional
Budget Act of 1974.
• This symbol represents the time of day during the House proceedings, e.g., • 1407 is 2:07 p.m.
Matter sec in this typeiace indicates words inserted or appended, rather than spoken, by a Member of the House on the floor.
H11219
H11220 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE October 17, 1986
Tm.E l-ANTI-DRVG KNFORCHmilNT
Subtille A—\arcotir$ PenaltUa and Enfamment Actor me
sac. mi. HUORT TITLE.
This subtitle may be cited as the "Narcotics
Penalties and Enforcement Act of I9S6". SEC. mi. COftmOLLED .WS.ST.-l.Vfi'S ACT PESALTies.
Section iOUbKl) of the Controlled Substances
Act HI V.S.C. 84Ilbill)l is amended—
H) by redesignating subparagraph ICI as
subparagraph ID): and
HI by striking out subparagraphs lAI and
(Bl and inserting the following in lieu thereof:
"flUAl In the case of a violation of subsection
la) of this section involving—
"li) I kilogram or more of a miliars or
substance containing a delectable amount
of heroin:
"/HI S kitograms or more of a mixture or
substance containing a detectable amount
vf—
"III coca leaves, except coca leaves and extracts
of coca leaves from which cocaine, ecgonine,
and derivatives o/ecgonine or their
soJis /iai>c been removed;
"illl cocaine, its salts, optical and geometric
isomers, and salts of isomers;
"inil ecgonine. its derivatives, their salts,
isomers, and salts of isomers; or
"IIVI any compound, miriure. or preparation
which contains any quantity of any of
the substance referred to in subclauses 111
through Hill;";
"liiil SO grams or wore of o mixture or
substance described in clause liil which contains
cocaine base:
"livl 100 grams or more of phencyclidine
IPCPl or I kilogram or more of o wiiiure or
substance containing a detectable amount
of phencyclidine IPCPI:
"ivl 10 grams or more of a mixture or substance
conlaining a detectable amount of lysergic
acid diethylamide ILSDl;
"Ivil 400 grams or more of a mixture or
substance conlaining a detectable, amount
of N-phenyl-N-/l-H.phenylclhyll-4-plpertdinyt/
propanamide or 100 grams or more of
a mixture or substance containing a delectable
amount of any analogue of N-phenyl-N-
/2-l2-phcnylethyU-4-pipertdinylJ propanamide;
or
"iviii 1000 kilograms or more of a mixture
or substance containing a detectable
amount of marihuana;
such person shall be sentenced Co a term of
imprisonment which may nol be less than 10
yeais or wore than life and if death or serious
bodily injury results from the use of
such substance shall be not less than 20
years or more than life, a fine not to exceed
the greater of that authorised in accordance
with the provisions of tiffe 18. United Stales
Code, or 84,000.000 if the defendant ts an individual
or 810.000.000 if the defendant is
other than an individual, or both. If any
person commits such a i>io7a/ton after one
or more prior convictions for on offense
punishable under this paragraph, or for a
felony under any other provision of this title
or title 111 or other law of a Slate, Che
United States, or a foreign country relating
to narcotic drugs, marihuana, or depressant
or stimulant substances, have become final,
such person shall be sentenced to a term of
imprisonment which may not be less than 20
years and not more than life imprisonment
and if death or serious bodily injury results
fiom Che use of such substance shall be sentenced
Co life imprisonment, a fine not to
exceed the greater of twice that authorised
in accordance with the provisions of title IS,
United States Code, or 88.000.000 if the delendanl
is an indwidual or 820,000.000 if
the defendant is other than on individual,
or botlu Any sentence under this subparagraph
shall, in Ihe absence of such a prior
conviction, impose a term of supervised release
of at least 5 years in oddition to such
term of imprisonment and shall, if there was
such a prior coniiction, impose a term of
supervised release of at least 10 years in addition
to such term of imprisonment. Notwithstanding
any other provision of law.
Che court shall not place on probation or
suspend the sentence of any person sentenced
under this subparagraph. No person
sentenced under this subporaprapA shall be
eligible for parole during the term of imprisonment
imposed therein.
"IBI In the case of a violation of subsection
lal of this section iJiuoZpins—
"HI 100 prows or more of a mixture or substance
containing a del^table amount of
heroin:
"liil SOC prams or more of a mixture or
substance containing a delectable amount
of—
"III coco teoi'es, except coca teones and extracts
of coca leaves from leAicA cocaine, ecgonine,
and derivatives of ecgonine or their
salts have been removed:
"llll cocaine, its salts, optical and peometric
isomers, and satts of isomers;
"HIU ecgonine. its derivatives, their salts,
isomers, and salts of isomers: or
"IIVI any compound, mixture, or preparation
which contains any quantity of any of
tAe substance referred to in subclauses III
through Hill;";
"liiil 5 grams or more of a mixture or substance
descn'bed in clause liil which contains
cocaine base;
"livl 10 grams or more of phencyclidine
IPCPI or 100 grams or more of a mixture or
substance contoininp o detectable amount
of phencyclidine IPCPI:
"Ivl I gram or more of a mixture or substance
containing a delectable amount of lysergic
acid difltAptomide ILSDl;
"Ivil 40 grams or more of a mixture or
subsfonce contofninp a detectable amount
of N-phenyl-N-ll-l2-phenyleth.yll-4-piperidinylj
propanamide or 10 grams or more of
a mixture or substance containing a delectable
amount of any analogue of N-phenyl-Nll-(
2-phenylethyli-4-piperidinylj propanamide;
or
"Iviil 100 kilograms or more of a mixture
or substance containing a detectable
amount of marihuana;
such person shall be sentenced to a term of
imprisonment which may nol be less than 5
years and not more than 40 years and if
death or serious bodily injury results from
the use of such substance shall be nol less
than 20 years or more than life, a fine not to
exceed the greater of that authorised in accordance
with the provisions of title 18.
United States Code, or 82.000.000 if the defendant
is on indiuiduo/ or 85.000.000 if the
defendant is other than an individual, or
both. If any person commits such a violation
after one or more prior convictions for
an offense punishable under this paragraph,
or for a felony under any other provision of
tAis title or title HI or otAer law of a State,
the United States, or o foreign country relating
to narcotic drugs, marihuana, or depressant
or stimulant substances, have become
final, such person shall be sentenced to a
term of imprisonment which may not be less
than 10 years and not more tAon life imprisonment
and if deotA or serious bodily injury
results from the use of such substance shall
be sentenced to life imprisonment, a fine not
to exceed Ihe greater of twice that authorised
in accordance with the provisions of
title IS, United States Code, or 84.000.000 if
the defendant is on individual or
810.000.000 if the defendant is otAer tAun an
indii'iduat. or both. Any sentence imposed
under this subparagraph shall, in the absence
of such a prior conviction, include a
term of supervised release of at least 4 years
in addition to such term of imprisonment
ond shall, if there was such a prior conviction,
include a term of supervised release of
at least 8 years in addiCion to such term of
imprisonment NoLwilhslanding any other
provision of law. the court shall nol place
on probation or suspend the sentence of any
person sentenced under this subparagrapli
No person sentenced under this subparagraph
shall be eligible for parote durinp the
term of imprisonment imposed therein.
"(CI In the case of a controZied substance
in schedule I or 11 except as provided in subparagraphs
lAl. IBI, and tDi. such person
shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment
of not more than 20 years and if death
qr serious bodily injury results from ike use
0/ such substance sAoii be sentenced to a
term of imprisonment of not less than
tkienty years or more tAan life, a fine not to
Exceed the preater of thai authorized in acdordance
with the provisions of title 18.
United States Code, or 81.000.000 if the defendant
is an individual or 85.000.000 if the
defendant is other than an individual, or
both. If any person commits such a violation
after one or more prior convictions for
on offense punishable under this paragraph,
or for a felony under any other provision of
this title or title III or otAer law of o Stale,
the United Stales or a foreign country relating
to narcotic drugs, marihuana, or depressant
or stimulant substances, have become
final, such person shall be sentenced to a
term of imprisonment of nol more tAon 30
years and if death or serious bodily injury
results from the use of such substance shall
be sentenced to life imprisonment, a fine not
to exceed the greater of twice that authorized
in accordance with the provisions of
titU 18. United Stotes Code, or 82.000,000 if
Ihe defendant is an individual or
810.000,000 if the defendant is other than an
individual, or both. Any sentence imposing
a term of imprisonment under this paragraph
shall, in the absence of sucA o prior
conviction, impose a term of supewised release
of at least 3 years in addition to such
term of imprisonment and shall, if there was
such a prior conviction, impose a term of
supervised release of at least 6 years in addition
to such term of imprisonment Notwithstanding
any other provision of Zoic, tAe
court shall not place on probation or suspend
the sentence of any person sentenced
under the provisions of this subparagraph
which provide for a mandatory term of imprisonment
if deotA or serious bodily injury
results, nor shall a person so sentenced be eligible
for parole durinp tAe term of such a
sentence.
A'KC. IMS. OTHER AHENDIHENTS TO THE C0\.
TROLLED StflSr4iVr£.S- ,40:
lal Section 401 of the Controlled Substances
Act 121 U.S.C. 8411 is further amended
as follows:
I I I I n s u b s e c t i o n I b l , poraprapA IlllDI, as
redesignated, is amended by—
lAi striking out "a fine of not more than
October 17, 1986 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 11221
tSO.OOO" and inserting in lieu ther^ "a fine
not to exceed the greater of that tnOiorized
In accordance luifh the prootsioni entitle IS,
United States Code, or S2S0,0g0 if the defendant
is an individual or Sl.000,000 if the
defendant is other Jftan an individual":
IB) striking out "o fine of not more than
flOO.OOO" and inserting in lieu thereof "a
fine not to exceed the greater of ticice tAat
authorised in accordance icitA the provisions
of title IS. United States Code, or
SS00,000 if the defendant is an individual or
$2,000,000 if the defendant is other than an
individual": and
(C) inserting "arcept in the case of 100 or
more marihuana plants regardless of
weight," after "marihuana," the first place
it appears,
12) In subsection lb), peroffrapft 12) is
amended by striking out "a fine of not more
than $25,000" and inserting in lieu thereof
"a fine not to exceed the greater of that authorised
in accordance with the provisions
of title IS, United States Code, or $250,000 if
the defendant is an individual or $1,000,000
if the defendant is other than an individual",
and bp striking out "a fine of not more
Bum $50,000" and inserting in iieu thereof
"a fine not to exceed the greater of twice
that authorised in accordance with the provisions
of title IS. United States Code, or
$500,000 if the defendant is an individual or
$2,000,000 if Che defendant is oilier than an
individual".
13) In subsection lb), paragraph 13) is
amended by striking out "a fine of not more
than $10,000" and inserting in lieu thereof
"a fine not to exceed the greater of that authorised
in accordance with the provisions
of title 18. United States Code, or $100,000 if
the defendant is an individual or $250,000 if
the defendant is other than an individual",
and by striking out "a fine of not more t/ion
$20,000" and inserting in lieu thereof "a fine
not to exceed the greater of ticice that oathorised
in accordance with the provisions
of title 18, United Stales Code, or $200,000 if
the defendant is an individual or $500,000 if
the defendant is other than an individual".
14) In subsection lb), paragraj^ 14) is
amended by striking out "HO" ond inserting
"IID)" in lieu thereof.
15) In subsection lb), paragraph IS) is
amended to read as follows:
"IS) Any person who uiotates subsection
la) of Uiis section by cultivating a eontrolled
substance on Federal property shall
be imprisoned as provided in this subsection
and shall be fined any amount not to
exceed—
"lA) the amount authorized in accordance
with this section:
"IB) the amount authorized in accordance
with the provisions of title IS, United States
Code;
"lO $500,000 if the de^ndant is an individual;
or
"ID) $1,000,000 if the defendant is other
than an individual;
or both.
IS) Subsection Id) is amended by striking
out "a fine of not more than $15,000" and
inserting in lieu thereof "a fine not to
exceed the greater of that authorized in accordance
with the provisions of title 18.
United Stales Code, or $250,000 if the defendant
is on individual or $1,000,000 if the
defendant is other than on individual".
lb) Section 102 of the Controlled Substances
Act 121 U.S.C. 802) is amended—
II) by inserting the following new paragraph
after paragraph 124):
"125) The term 'serious bodily injury'
means bodily injury which involves—
"(A) a substantial risk of deaOi;
"IB) protracted and obvious disfigurement:
or
"to protracted ioss or impairment of the
function of a bodily member, organ, or
mental faculty.": and
12) by renumbering the following paragraphs
accordingly.
.VIC. ies4. ELIH.V.ITIOh OFSPkCML P.iROLE TEILIlii
la) The Controlled Substances Act and the
Controlled Substances Import and Export
Act are amended by striking out "special
parole term" each space it oppcars and inserting
"term of supervised release" in lieu
thereof.
lb) The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on the date of the taking
effect of section 3583 of title 18, United
States Code.
SEC- IMS. AHENIrmST 7V THE COMPREHF.SStyE
CRIHE COSTROL ACT OP I3H4.
la) Subsection la) of section 224 of the
Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 is
amended—
11) by inserting "and" after the semicolon
in paragraph 14); and
12) by striking out paragraphs H), 12), 13).
and IS) and redesignating the other paragraphs
accordingly.
<b) Section 224 of the Comprehensive
Crime Control Act of 1984 is amended—
ID by striking out sttSseetion lb): and
12) by redesignating subsection Ic) as subsection
lb).
icJ Section 225 of the Conipreftenstve
Crime Control Act of 1984 is amended to
read as follows:
"SEC. 225. Section 1515 of the Controlled
Substances Import and Export Act <21
U.S.C. 9S0) is amended by repealing subsection
(c).
SEC. im. mSCEllAEEOVS TECMMCAL AI4BSDMEhTS.
la)tlJ Subsection la) of section 3583 of
title 18, United Slates Code, is amended by
inserting ". except that the court shall inciude
as a part of the sentence a reguirement
that the defendant be placed on a term of supervised
release if such a term is required by
statute." after "imprisonment" the second
place it appears.
12) Subsection lb) of section 3583 of title
18, United States Code, is amended try striking
out "The" and inserting in lieu tftereat
"Except as otherwise provided, the".
13) Subsection let of section 3583 of title
18, United States Code, is amended—
(A) so that the catchline reads as follows:
"Modification of conditions or revocation.
IB) in paroprapA 12) by striking out "or"
after the semicolon;
IC) in paragraph 13) by striking out
"title." and inserting "title: or" in lieu thereof'
and
ID) by inserting the following new paragraph
after paragraph (3):
"14) revoke a term of swpervised release,
and reguire the person to serve in prison all
or part of the term of supervised release
without credit for time previously served on
postrelease supervision, if it finds by a preponderance
of the evidence that the person
pioiated a condition of supervised release,
pursuant to the provisions of the Federot
Rules of Criminal Procedure that are applicable
to probation reoocafion and to the
provisions of applicable policy statements
issued by the Sentencing Commission.
14) The amendments made by this subsection
shall take effect on the date of the
taking effect of section 3583 of title 18,
United States Code.
lb) Paragraph 13) of section 9941a) of title
28. United States Code, is amended by inserling
"and revocation of supervised release"
after "supervised release".
Ic) Section 511 of title II of the Comprehensive
Drug Abuse Prevention Act of 1978
121 U.S. C- 881) is amended—
ID in subsection If) by inserting "or U"
after "I" each place it appears:
(2) by redesignating subsection (f) as subsection
Iftlt); and
13) by inserting the following new paragraph
after subsection lf)il) as so redesignated:
"<2) The Attorney General may direct the
destruction of all controlled substances in
schedule I or II seized for violation of this
title under such circumstances os the Attorney
General may deem necessary.
SEC. Htff). AMEEDklEST TO TITLE tS OF THE I.VITED
STATE.'I CODE.
la) Section 3553 of title IS. United States
Code, is amended by adding the following at
the end thereof:
"le) LIMITED AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE A SSHTESCE
BELOW A STATUTORY MMIMUM.—Upon
motion of the Government, the court shall
have the authority to impose a sentence
below a level established by statute as minimum
sentence so as to reflect a defendant's
substantial assistance in the investigation
or prosecution of another person who has
com-milied an offense. Such sentence shall be
imposed in accordance with the guidelines
and policy statements issued by the Sentencing
Commission pursuant to section 994 of
title 28, United States Code.".
lb) The amendment made by this section
shall take effect on the date of the taking
effect of section 3553 of title 18. United
States Code.
SEC. I«0E AMEEDMENT TO TITLE 18 OF THE tEtTEO
STATES CODE.
Section 994 of title 28 of the United States
Code is amended by—
ID inserting the following after subsection
Iml:
"In) The Commission shall assure that the
guidelines reflect the general appropriateness
of imposing a lower sentence than
would olherwise be imposed, inciudins' o
sentence that is lower than that estoAiisAed
by statute as minimum sentence, to take
into account a defendant's substantial assistance
in iAe investigation or prosecution
of anoVter person who has committed an offense.
and
12) redesignating subsections In), to), (p),
Ig), Ir), Is), It), luJ, Iv), and Iw) as suAsections
to), Ipl, Ig), Ir), Is), It), <u), Iv), Iw),
and <i), respectively.
.SEC lees. A.QE,\OME.\'T TO THE FEDERAL RI LES OF
CRIMI.SAL PROCEDURE
la) Rule 351b} of the Federal fiuies of
Criminal Procedure is amended by striking
out "Co Che extent" and all that follows
through the end and inserting in lieu thereof
the following: "in accordance with the
guidelines and policy statements issued by
the Sentencing Commission purs'uant to seclion
994 of lille 28. United Stales Code. The
court's authority to iouier o sentence under
this subdivision includes the authority to
lower such sentence to a level below that established
by statute as a minimum sentence.
lb) The amendment made by this section
shall take effect on the date of the taking
effect of rule 35ib) of the Federal Rules of
Criminal Procedure, as amended by section
II11222 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
215>bJ of the Comprehensive Crime Control
Act 0/IS84.
Subtille It—Drug Possession Penally Act of 1986
SKC. mi. SHORT TITLK.
This subtitle may be cited as the "Drug
Possession Penalty Act ofl9S6".
SRC. mi. PKSA LTY FOR SI.HPLR POSSFSSIOS.
Section 404 of the Controlled Substances
^cf 121 U.S.C. 844) is amended to read as follows:
"PENALTY FOR SIHPLS POS.SESS/ON
"SEC. 404. fa) It shall be unlawful for anj*
person knowingly or intentionally to possess
a controlled substance unless such, substance
was obtained direettjr, or pursuant to a
valid prescription or order, from a practitiouer,
while acting in the course of his professional
practice, or except as otherwise authorised
by this title or title III. Any person
who violates this subsection may be sentenced
to a term of imprisonment of not
more than I year, and shall be fined a minimum
of SI.OOO but not more than $5,000, or
both, except that if he commits such offense
after a prior conviction under this title or
title III, or a prior conviction far any drug
or narcotic offense chargeable under the law
of any State, has become final, he shall be
sentenced to a term of imprisonment for not
less than 1$ days but not more than 2 years,
and shall be fined a minimum of $2,500 but
not more than $10,000. except, further, thai
if he commits such offense after two or more
prior convictions under this title or title III,
or two or more prior convictions for any
drug or narcotic offense chargeable under
the law of any Slate, or a combination of
two or more such offenses have become final,
he shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment
for not less than 90 days but not more
than 3 years, and shall be fined a minimum
of $5,000 but not more than $25,000. The imposition
or execution of a minimum sentence
required to be imposed under this subsection
shall not be suspended or deferred.
Further, upon conutction. a person who violates
this subsection shall be fined the reasonable
costs of the investigation and prosecution
of the offense, including the costs of
prosecution of an offense as defined in sections
1918 and 1920 of title 28. United Stales
Code, except that this sentence shall not
apply and a fine under this section need not
be imposed if the court determines under the
provision of tiUe 18 that the defendant lacks
the ability to pay.
"(b/H) If any person who has not previously
been convicted of violating subsection
<a> of this section, any other provision of
this subchapter or subchapter II of this
chapter, or any other law of the United
Slates relating to narcotic drugs, marihuana,
or depressant or stimulant substances, is
found guilty of a violation of subsection 'a/
of this section after trial or upon a plea of
guilty, the court may. without entering a
judgment of guilty and with the consent of
suc/i person, defer further proceedings and
place him on probation upon such reasonable
conditions as it may require and for
such period, not to exceed one year, as the
court, may prescribe. Upon violatiori of a
condition of the probation, the court may
enter an adjudication of guilt and proceed
OS otherwise provided. The court may. in its
discretion, dismiss the proceedings against
such person and discharge him from probation
before the expiration of the maximum
period prescritied for such person's probation.
If duririg the period of his probation
such person does not violate any of the conditions
of the probation, then upon expiralion
of such period the court shall discharge
such person and dismiss the proceedings
against him. Discharge and dismissal under
this subsection shall be without court adjudication
of guilt, but a nonpublic record
thereof shall be re^a!7^ed bv the Department
of Justice solely for the purpose of use by the
courts in determining whether or not, in
subsequent proceedings, such person qualifies
under this subsection. Such discharge or
dismissal shall not be deemed a conviction
for purposes of disqualifications or disabilities
imposed by law upon conviction of a
crime lincluding the penalties prescribed
under this part for second or subsequent
convictions) or for any other purpose. Discharge
and dismissal under this section may
occur only once with respect to any person.
"12) Upon the discharge of such person
and dismissal of the proceedings against
him under paragraph (1) of this subsection,
such person, if he was not over twenty-one
years of age at the time of the offense, may
apply to the court for an order to expunge
from all official records lother than the nonpublic
records to be retained by the Department
of Justice under paragraph ID) all recordation
relating to his arrest, indictment
or information, trial, finding of guilty, and
dismissal and discharge pursuant to this
section. If the court determines, after hearing,
that such person was dismissed and the
proceedings against him discharged and
thai he icas not oi'er twenty-one years of age
at the time of the offense, it shall enter such
order. The effect of sucJi order shall be to restore
such person, in the contemplation of
the law, to the status he occupied before
such arrest or indictment or information
No person as to whom such order has been
entered shall be held thereafter under any
provision of any law to be guilty of perjury
or otherwise giving a false statement by
reason of his failures to recite or acknowledge
such orrest, or indictment or information,
or trial in response to any inquiry
made of him for any purpose.
"icJ As used in this section, the term 'drug
or narcotic offense' means any offense
which proscribes the possession, distribution,
manufacture, cultivation, sale, transfer.
or the attempt or conspiracy to possess,
distribute, manufacture, cultivate, sell or
transfer any substance the possession of
which is prohibited under this title.",
Subtille C—Jaienilc Drug Traffieblng Ado/1986
SRC. nOL .SHORT TITLE.
This subtille may be cited as the "Juvenile
Drug Trafficking Act of 1986".
SRC. /Its. OFFRSSR.
Part D of the Controlled Substances Act is
amended by adding after section 405A a new
section as follows:
"gMFLOYMENT OR VSE OF PERSONS UNDER IS
YEARS OF AGE IN DRVC OPERATIONS
"SEC. 40SB. (a) It shall be unlawful for any
person at least eighteen years of age to
knowingly and intentionally—
"ID employ, hire, use, persuade, induce,
entice, or coerce, a person under eighteen
years of age to Dictate any provision of this
title or title III; or
"121 employ, hire, use, persuade. Induce,
entice, or coerce, a person under eighteen
years of ajre to assist in avoiding detection
or apprehension for any offense of this title
or title HI by any Federal. Stale, or local
law enforcement official.
"lb) Any person who violates subsection
la) is punishable by a term of imprisonment
up to twice that otherwise authorised, or up
to twice the fine otherwise authorized, or
both, and at least twice any term of super-
Dised release otherwise authorized for a first
offense. Except to the extent a greater minimum
sentence is ofhenctse provided, a term
of imprisonment under this subsection shall
not be less than one year.
"ic) Any person who violates subsection
la) after a prior conviction or convictions
October 17, 1986
under subsection la) of this section have
become final, is punishable by a term of imprisonment
up to three limes that otherwise
authorized, or up to three times the fine otherwise
authorized, or both, and of least three
times any term of superuised release otherwise
authorized for a first offense. Sicept to
the extent a greater minimum sentence is
otherwise provided, a term of imprisonment
under this subsection shall not be less than
one year.
"Id) Any person who violates section
40SBIal ID or 12)
"ID by knowingly providing or distributing
a controlled substance or o controlled
substance analogue to any person under
eighteen years of age; or
"12) if the person employed, hired, or used
is fourteen years of age or younger,
shall be subject to a term of imprisonment
for not more than five years or a fine of not
more than $50,000, or both, in addition to
any other punishment authorized by this
section.
"le) In any case of any sentence imposed
under this section, imposition or execution
of such sentence shall not be suspended and
probation shall not be granted. An individual
convicted under this section of an offense
for which a mandatory minimum term
of imprisonment is applicable shall not be
eligible for parole under section 4202 of title
18. United States Code, untit the individual
has served the mandatory term 0/imprisonment
required by section 4011b) as enhanced
by this section,
"IfJ Except as authorized by this title, it
shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly
or intentionally provide or distribute
any controlled substance to a pregnant individual
in violation of any provision of this
title. Any person who uiotcfes this subsection
shall be subject to the provisions of subsections
lb), (c). and le).
SEC. I IB}. TKCHSICAL AMESDMRNTS.
la) Section 40lib) of the Controlled Substances
Act <21 U.S.C. 8411b)) is amended by
striking out "or 4gSA" and inserting in lieu
thereof ", 40SA. or 405B
fb; Section 4011c) of the Controlled Substances
Act 121 U-S.C. 8411c)) is amended by
striking out "40SA" each place it appears
and inserting in lieu thereof 405A, or
405B".
SEC. Iim. .HAM'FACTt'RINC A CONTROURD SVRSTANCE
irm/t.v I.M FF.F.T OF A VOLLRHE.
la) Section 405A of the Controlled Substances
Act 121 U.S.C. 84Sa) is amended by
inserting "or manufacturing" after "distributing"
wherever it appears and by striking
out "a public or private elementary or secondary
school" wherever it appears and inserting
in lieu thereof "a public or private
elementary, vocational, or secondary school
or a public or priDote college, junior cottepe,
or university".
lb) Section iOSAla) of the Controlled Substances
Act 121 U.S.C 84Sala)j is amended
by striking out 'involving the same controlled
substance and schedule".
ic) Section 405Aib) of the Controlled Substance
Act <21 U.S.C. 845albl) is amended by
striking out "ID by" and all that follows
through the end and inserting the following
in lieu thereof:
"ID by the greater of <A) a term of imprisonment
of not less than three years and not
more than life imprisonment or IB) a term
of imprisonment of up to three times that
authorized by section 401<b) of this title for
a first offense, or a fine up to three times
that authorized by section 40ttb) of this title
for a first offense, or both, and 12) at least
three times any term of supervised release
October 17. '986
auOtorUea by section 40I(bJ of a&» title for
a first offense.".
SEC. IIOS. IMPRIS0K.WE,\7\
<a) Section 405faJ of the Conlmlted Substances
Act '21 U.S.C. 845taJJ is amended by
adding the foUovnng at the end thereof:
"Except to the extent a greater minimum
sentence is otherwise provided by section
401(b). a term of tmpmonmewi under this 5u&scciion shall be less than one year "
tb) Section 40S<bt of the Controlled Substances
Act '21 U.S.C. aisib)) is amended by
adding the following at Ike end thereof:
"Except to (he extent a greater minimum
sentence is otherwise provided by section
401(b). a term of imprisonment under this
subsection shall be not less than one year.
The mandatory minimum sentencing provisions
of this paragraph shall not apply to offenses
involving 5 grams or less of marihuana.
ic) Section 40SAfaJ of the Controlled Substances
Act <21 U.S.C. S4Sala)) is amended
by adding the following at the end. thereof:
'Except to the extent a greater minimum
sentence is otherwise provided by section
4011b), a term of imprisonment under this
subsection shall be not less than one year.
The mandatory minimum sentencing provisions
of this paragraph shall not apply to offenses
involving S grams or less of marihuana.".
Subtitle D—Assets Forfeiture Amendments Art of
me
SEC list. SHORT TIT/.E.
This subtitle may be cited as the "Department
of Justice Assets Forfeiture Fund
A mendments Act of 19S6
SEC. list. ASSETEORFEnVRE FVNHS.
lain) DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ASSETS FORFEiryiiE
FUND.—Suftseciion <c> of section 524
of title 28, United States Code, is amended—
(2) by inserting at the end of subparagraph
LA) of paragraph (1) the following:
"Such payments may also include those,
made pursuant to regulations promulgated
by the Attorney General, that are necessary
and direct program-related expenses for the
purchase or lease of automatic data processmo
eguipment 'not less than 90 percent of
which use will be program related), frainino,
printing, contracting for services directly related
to the processing of and accounting for
forfeitures, and the storage, protection, and.
destruction of controlled substances;":
<3) by inserting after subparagraph (A) of
paragraph 11) the following new subparagraph
and renumbering the subsequent subparagraphs
appropriately;
"IB) the payment of awards for information
or assistance cfirectta; retotinp to violations
of the criminal drug laws of the United
States;";
14) by o'li.rnding newly tfesignoted! subparagraph
/ of paragraph H) to read as
follows:
"'F) for nipping for drug law enforcement
funclums any government-owned or
leased vessels, vehicles, and aircraft available
for official use by the Drug Enforcement
Admimslralion, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, the Immigration and Naturalization
Service, or the United Slates Marshals
Service; and";
15) by striking out in paragraph (4) "remaining
after payment of expenses for forfeiture
and sale authorized by law" and inserting
in lieu thereoT'. except all proceeds
of forfeitures nuaitaftfe for use by the Secretary
of the Treasury or the Secretary of the
inteHor pursuant to section ll'd)) of the
Endangered Species Act lie U.S.C I540<d))
or section 6ld) of the Laccy Act Amendments
of 1981 <16 V.S.C. 3375id))"; and
<6) by striking out paragraph 18) and renumbering
paragraph (9) as porasrapti ts)
lb) CUSTOMS FoRFEtrvRE FUND.—
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
ID Section 613a of the Tariff Act of 1930
<19 U.S.C, 1613a) as added by Public Law
98-473. is amended—
<B) by amending paragraph (3) of subsection
'a) to read as follows:
"<3) for equipping for law enforcement
functions any government-owned or leased
vessels, vehicles, and aircraft available for
official use by the United States Customs
Service: and": and
to by striking out subsection <h).
<2) Section 6I3a of the Tariff Act of 1930
'19 U.S.C. 1613b) OS added by Public Ldw
98-573, is repealed.
SEC. IISX Sl BSTITtTE ASSET&
la) Section 1963 of title 18 is amended by
adding at the end thereof a new subsection,
as follows:
"In) If any of the property described in
subsection la), as a result of any act of omission
of the defendant—
"ID cannot be located upon the eiercise of
due diligence;
"12) has been transferred or sold to, or deposited
with, a third party;
"<3) has been placed beyond the jurisdiction
of the court;
"(4) has been su6st«ntiatty diminished in
value; or
"<5) has been commingled with other property
which cannot be divided without difficulty;
the court shall order the forfeiture of any
other property of the defendant up to the
value of any property described in paragraphs
Hi through <S).
lb) Section 413 of title II of the Comprehensive
Drug Abuse Prevention and Control
Act of 1975 is amended—
<1) by redesignating subsection "<p)" as
subsection "Iqi"; and
<2) by adding a new subsection tp) as follows:
"ip) If any of the property described in
subsection (a), os a result of any act or
omission of the defendant—
"ID cannot be located upon the exercise of
due diligence;
"12) has been transferred or sold to, or deposited
with, a third parly;
"<3) has been placed beyond the jurisdiction
of the court;
"14) has been substantially diminished in
value: or
"IS) has been commingled with other property
which cannot be divided without difAcully;
the court shall order the forfeiture of any
other property of the defendant up to the
value of any property described in paragraphs
ID through <5).".
Subtitle E—Contrvlled Substance Analogue
Enforcement Act of 1986
SEC. not. SHORT TITI.E
This subtitle may be cited as the "Controlled
Substance Analogue Enforcement Act
of 1986".
SEC. net TREATMEST OF COSTROLISD SUBSTANCE
ANALOUVES.
Part B of the Controlled Substances Act is
amended by adding ot the end the following
new section:
"TREATMENT OF CONTROU.ED SUBSTA-VCE
ANALOA VSS
"SEC. 203. A controlled substance analogue
all or part of which is intended for tiuman
consumption shall be freoted, for the purposes
of this title and title III as a controlled
substance in schedule I.
SEC tm. DEFI.NITIO.V.
Section 202 of the Controtted SaSstonces
Act <21 U.S.C. 802) is amended by adding at
the end thereof the following:
"<32)IA) Except as provided in subparagraph
IB), the term 'controlled saftstance
analogue' means a substance—
H11223
"IV the chemical structure of which is substantially
similar to the ctiemicat structure
of a controlled substance in schedate I or //;
"Hi) which has a stimulant, depressant, or
hallucinogenic effect on the central nervous
system that is substantially similar to or
greater than the stimvlenl, depressant, or
hallucinogenic effect on the central nervous
system of a controlled substance in schedule
J or II:
Hii) with respect to a particular person,
which such person represents or intends to
have a slimulcnt, depressant, or hallucinogenic
effect on the central nervous system
that is substantially similar to or preoter
than the stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic
effect on the central nervous system
of a controlled substance in schedule I or II.
"IB) Such term does not include
"(i) a controlled substance:
"Hi) any substance for which there is an
approved new drug application;
"liiU with respect to a particular person
any substance, if an exemption is in effect
for investigational use, for that person,
under section 505 of the Federal Food, Drug
and Cosmetic Act <21 U.S.C. 355) to the extent conduct with respect to such substance
is pursuant to such exemption; or
"Hv) any substance to the extent not intended
for human consumption before such
an exemption lakes effect with respect to
that substance.".
SEC. 1291. CLERKAt, AMENDMENT.
The table of contents of the CompreJiensive
Drug ,4buse Prevention and Control Act
of 1970 is amended by inserting after the
item relating to section 202 the following
new item:
"Sec. 203. Treatment of controlled substance
analogues.
Subtitle F—Continuing Drug Enterprise Act of
1986
SEC ISSI. SHORT TITI.S.
This subtitle may be cited as the "Continuing
Drug Enterprises Act of 1986".
SEC. I2SX INCREASED PENALTIES.
Section 4081a) of the Controlled Substances
Act 121 U.S.C. S48ia)) is amended-
H) by striking out "to a fine of not more
than 1100,000," and inserting in lieu thereof
"to a fine not to exceed the greater of that
authorised in accordance with the provisions
of title 18. United States Code, or
$2,000,000 if the defendant is an individual
or $5,000,000 if the defendant is other than
an individual,"; and
12) by striking out "to a fine of not more
than $200,000," and inserting in lieu thereof
"to a fine not to exceed the greater of twice
the amount authorized in accordance with
the proj'isioas of title 18. United Slates
Code, or $4,000,000 if the defendant is an individual
or $10,000,000 if the defendant is
other than an individual,".
SEC. issa. CONTINCI.NG CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE ENHANCEIt
PE.IALTIES.
Section 408 of the Controlled Substances
Act <21 U.S.C, 848) is further amended—
H) by redesignating subsections <b) and
<c) as subsections id) and <e), respectively;
and
12) by inserting the following new subsection
after subsection (a);
"lb) Any person who engages in a continuing
criminal enterprise shall be imprisoned
for life and fined in accordance with subsection
la), if—
"ID such person is the principal administrator.
organiser, or teoder of the enterprise
or is one oj several such principal administrators,
organizers, or leaders; and
"I2)IA) the violation referred to in subsection
(dXD incoived ot least 300 limes the
H11224 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE October 17. 1986
quantity of a substance described in sub^ection
401fbJrviB/ of this Act. or
"<B> the enterprise, or any other enterprise
in which the defendant was the principal or
one of several principal administrators, orpanUers,
or leaders, received SIO miltion
dollars in gross receipts during any twelvemonffi
periotJ of its existence for the manufacture,
importation, or distribution of a
STibsfance described in section 401(b)il/'B)
of this AcL "
Subtitle G—Controlled Substance* Import and
Export Act Penalties EnbancemenI Act of ISbS
St'C. JSU. S/IVAT TJTLB.
This suiiiUe may be cited as the "Controlled
Substances Import and Export Penalties
Enhancement Act oflSSS.
.neC. tstt g,VH*NCt:D PENALTIES.
(a) Section lOldibl of the Controlled Substances
Import and Export Act 111 U.S.C.
iBOfbJt is amended—
11/ by redesignating paragraph 13/ as
paragraph 141: and
121 by striking out paragraphs 11/ and 12/
and inserting the following in lieu thereof:
"11/ In the case of a iiiotation of subsection
la/ of this section involving—
"lA/ 1 kilogram or more of a mixture or
substance containini7 a delectable amount
of heroin;
"IBI 5 leSograms or more of a mixture or
substance containing a detectable amount
of—
"lU coca teares, except coca leaves and extracts
of coco leaves from which cocaine, ecgonine,
and derioaiives of ecgonine or their
salts have been removed;
"tUJ cocaine, its salts, opttaai and geometric
isomers, and salts or isomers;
"liii/ ecgonine. Us derivatives, their salts,
isomers, and salts of isomers; or
"tiv/ any compound, mixture, or preparation
which contains any quantity cfany of
the substances r^erred to in clauses li>
through Hiil:
" f C / SO grams o r more of a mixture or substance
described in subparagraph IB/ which
contains cocaine base;
"ID/ 100 grams or more of phencyclidine
IPCP/ or 1 kilogram or more of a mixture or
substance containing a detectable amount
of phencyclidine IPCP/:
"IE/10 grams or more of a mixture or substance
containing a detectable amount of lysergic
acid diethylamide ILSD/;
"IF/ 400 grams or more of a mixture or
substance containing a detectable amount
of N-phenyl-N-{l-/2-jAenyleihyt/-4-$>ipeTitUnylJ
propanamide or 100 grams or more of
a mixture or substance containing a detectoMe
amount of any analogue of N-phenyl-Nfl-
i2-phenvleihyl/-4-ptpeTidinyll propanamide:
or
"I G/ 1000 kilograms or more of a mixture
or substance containing a detectable
amount of marihuana;
the person committing such violation shall
be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of
not less than 10 years and not more than life
and if death or serious bodily Injury results
from the use of such substance shall be sentenced
to a term of imprisonment of not less
than 20 years and not more than life, a fine
not to exceed the greater of that authorized
in accordance with the provisions o/tifZ« IE,
United Stales Code, or 34,000,000 if the defendant
is an individual or tlO.000.000 if
the defendant is oiher than an individual,
or both If any person commits suck a violation
after one or more prior convictions for
an offense punishable under this subsection,
or for a felony under any other provision of
this title or title II or other law of a State,
the United Slates, or a foreign country relating
to narcotic drufts, marihuana, or depressant
or stimulant substances, have become
final, such person shall be sentenced to a
term of imprisonment of not less than 20
years and not more than life imprisonment
and if death or serious bodily injury results
from the use of such substance shall be sentenced
to life imprisonmertU a fine not to
exceed the greater of twice that authorized
in accordance with the provisions of title IS.
United Slates Code, or tS.OOO.OOO if the defendant
is an individual or S20,000,000 if
the defendant is other than an individual,
or both. Any sentence under this paragraph
shall, in the absence of such a prior conriction.
impose a special term of suspervised
release of at least 5 yeors in addition to such
term of xmprisonrrtent and shall, if there was
such o prior conviction, impose a special
term of suspervised release of ot least iO
years in addition to such term of imprisonment
Notwithstanding any other provision
Of law, the court shall not ptace on probation
or suspend the sentence of any person
sentenced under this paragraph. No person
sentenced under this paragraph shall be eligible
for parole during the term of imprisonment
imposed iherein.
"12/ la the case of a violation of subsection
la/ of this section involving—
"lAJ 100 grams or more of a mixture or
substance containing a detectable amount
of heroin;
"IB/ 500 grams or mare of a mixture or
substance containing a detectable amount
of—
"1i/ coca leaves, except coca leaves and extracts
of coca leaves from which cocaine, ecgonine,
and derivatives of ecgonine or Oieir
salts have been removed;
"Hi/ cocaine, its salts, optical and geometric
isomers, and salts or isomers;
"liii/ ecgonine, its derivatives, their salts,
isomers, and salts of isomers; or
"liv/ any compound, mixture, or preparation
which contaiTts any quantity of any of
the substances referred la in clauses IV
through liii);
"ICJ S grams or more of a mixture or substance
d^cribed in subparagraph IB) which
contains cocaine base;
"IDJ 10 proms or moj« of phencyclidine
IPCP/ or 100 grams or more of a mixture or
substance containing a delectable amount
of phencyclidine IPCP/;
"lEJ 1 gram or more of o mixture or substance
containing a detectable amount of lysergic
acid diethylamide /LSD/;
"(F) 40 grams or more of a mixture or substance
containing a detectobte amount of Nphenyl-
N-{t-i2-pkenylethyl/-4-piperidinylj
propanamide or 10 grams or more of a mixture
or substance containing a detectobte
amount of any analogue of N-phenvl-N-fl-12-
phenylethyl/-4-piperidinyl] propanamide; or
"IG/ 100 kilograms or more of a mixture
or substance containing a detectable
amount of marihuana;
the person committing such violation shall
be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of
not less than 5 years and not more than 40
years and if death or serious bodily injury
results from the use of such substance shall
be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of
not less than twenty years and not more
than life, a fine not to exceed the greater of
that authorized in accordance with the provisions
of title IS, United States Code, or
12.000,000 if the defendant is an individual
or 35,000,000 if the defendant is other than
an individual, or both. If any person commits
such a violation after one or more
prior convictions for an offense punishable
under this subsection, or for a felony under
any other provision of this title or title II or
other law of a Slate, the United Slates, or a
foreign country retotinp to narcotic drugs,
marihiuma, or depressant or stimulant substances.
have become final, such person
shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment
of not less than 10 years and not more
than life imprisonment and if death or serious
bodily injury results from the use of
such substance shall be sentenced to life imprisonment,
a fine not to exceed the greater
of twice that authorized in accordance with
the provisions of title IS. United Stales
Code, or 34,000.000 if the defendant is an individual
or 320.000.000 if the defendant is
other than an individual, or boti j4ny sentence
imposed under this paragraph shall,
in the absence of such a prior conviction,
include a term of suspervised release of at
least 4 years in addition to such term of imprisonment
and shall, if there was such a
prior conviction, include a term of saspervised
release of at least S years in addition
to such term of imprisonment. Notwithstanding
any otber provision of tam the
court shall not place on probation or suspend
the sentence of any person sentenced
under this paropra^ No person sentenced
under this paragraph shall be eligible for
parole during the term of imprisonment imposed
tberein.
"13/ In the case of a violation under subsection
la/ of this section involving a controlled
substance in schedule I or II, the
person committing such violation shall,
except as proiHded in paragraphs II/, 12/.
and 14). be sentenced to a term of imprisonment
of not more than 20 years and if death
or serious bodily injury results from the use
of such substance shall be sentenced to a
term of imprisOTiment of not less than
twenty years and not more than life, a fine
not to exceed the greater of that authorized
i n accordance w i t h t h e provisions o f t i t l e I S ,
United Stales Code, or 31,090,000 if the defendant
is an individual or 35,000,000 if the
defendant is other than on individual, or
both. If any person eommils such a violation
after one or more prior convictions for
on offense punishable under this subsection,
or for a felony under any other provision of
this title or title U or other law of a Stote,
the United Stales or a foreign country retotinp
to narcotic drugs, marihuana, or depressant
or stimulant substances, have become
final, such person shall be sentenced to a
term of imprisonment of not more than 30
years and if death or serious bodily injury
results from the use of such substance shall
be sentenced to life imprisonment, a fine not
to exceed the greater of tieiee that authorized
in accordance with the provisions of
title IS, United States Code, or 32,000,000 if
the defendant is an individual or
310,000,000 if the defendant is other than an
individual, or bot/L Any sentence imposing
a term of imprisonment under this paragraph
shall, in the absence of such a prior
conviction, impose a term of suspervised release
of at least 3 years in addition to such
term of imprisonment and shall, if there was
such a prior conviction, impose a term of
suspervised release of at least 6 years in addition
to such term of imprisonment. Notwithstanding
the prior sentence, and notwithstanding
any other provision of law,
the court shatt not ptace on probation or
suspend the sentence of any person sentenced
under the provisions of this paragraph
which provide for a mandatory term
of imprisonment if death or serious bodily
injury results, nor shall a person so sentenced
be eligible for parole during the term
of such a sentence.
lb) Section 1010lb/l4/ of the Controlled
Substances Import and Export Act 121
D,S.C. 9eoib)l4//. as redesignated, is amended—
t l j b y s t r i k i n g o u t except a s provided i n
paragraph 14/":
12/ by striking out "fined net more than
350,000" and inserting in lieu thereof "fined
not to exceed the greater of that authorized
October 17,1986 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H11225
in occordonoc with the provistoiis of title IS,
United States Code, or S2S0.000 V the defendant
U an individual or Sl.OOO.OOO if the
defendant is oiAer than an individual"; end
131 t)y inserting "except in the case of 100
or more marihuana plants regardless of
weight," after "marihuana,
Subtitle U—Maneii Laundering Control Act of I9SS
sue. nsi. SHORT TITLE.
This su6fti/c may be cited as the "Money
Laundering Control Act of 1988".
SIX. liSL .SEW OFFESSE FOR L.tl XPERMC OF MO.VET.
tRy i.vsTRt.uEym
'at Chapter 95 of title 18. United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end
thereof the following:
"S1956. lesuedering of manrtary Instruments
"la/'l/ Whoever, knowing that the property
involved in a financial transaction represents
the proceeds of same form of unlawful
activity, conducts or attempts to conduct
such a financial Ironsaction which in fact
tjit'oli'ps the proceeds of specified unlawful
activity—
"(A) with the intent to promote the carrying
on of specified unlawful activity; or
"IB) knowing thai the transaction is designed
in whole or in part—
"H) to conceal or disguise the nature, the
location, the source, the oujners/iip. or the
control of the proceeds of specified unlawful
activity; or
"liil to avoid a transaction reporting requirement
under State or Federal law.
shall be sentenced to a fine of not more Chan
3500.000 or ticice the value of the property
involved in the transaction, whichever is
greater, or imprisontTient for not more than
twenty years, or both.
"<2J Whoever transports or attempts to
transport a monetary instrument or funds
from a place in the United States to or
through a place outside the United States or
to a place in the United States from or
through a place outside the United States—
"lA) with the intent to promote the carrying
on of specified unlawful activity; or
"IBI fcnoicinp that the monetary instrument
or funds involved in the transportation
represent the proceeds of some form of
unlawful activity and knowing that such
transportation is designed in whole or in
part—
"(i) to conceal or disguise the nature, the
location, the source, the ownership, or the
control of the proceeds of specified unlawful
activity; or
"IW to avoid a transaction reporting requirement
under Stale or Federal law,
shall be sentenced to a fine of 3500,000 or
twice the value of the monetary instrument
or funds involved in the transportation,
whichever is greater, or imprisonment for
not more thon twenty years, or both.
"lb) Whoever conducts or attempts to conduct
a transaction descritwd in subsection
lalll) or Ia)l3). or a transportation descnbed
in subsection Ia)l2>, is liable to the
United Stales for a cMl penalty of not more
than the greater of—
"ID the value of the property, funds, or
monetary instruments involved in the transaction;
or
"(21 310.000.
"Id As used in this section—
"ID the term 'knowing that the property
involved in a financial transaction represents
the proceeds of some form of unlawful
activity' means that the person knew the
property involved in the transaction represented
proceeds from some form, though not
necessarily which form, of activity that constitutes
a felony under State or Federal law,
regardless of whether or not such activity is
specified in paragnph I?);
"12) the term 'conducts' inetudrs initiating,
concluding, or participating in initiating.
or concluding a transaction,'
"13) the term 'transaction' inciudes a purchase.
sale, loan, pledge, gift, traiw^cr, delivery,
or other disposition, and with respect to
a financial institution includes a deposit,
withdrawal, transfer between accounts, exchange
of currency, loan, extension of
credit, purchase or sale of any stock, bond,
certificate of deposit, or other monetary instrument.
or any other payment, transfer, or
deli-very by. Uirough, or to a financial instituiion,
by whatever means effected;
"(4) Uie term 'financial transaction'
means a transaction involving the movement
of funds by wire or other means or involving
one or more monetary instruments,
which in any way or degree affects interstale
or foreign commerce, or a transaction
involving the use of a financial institution
which is engaged in, or the activities of
which affect, interstate or foreign commerce
in any way or degree."
"(5) the term "monetary instruments'
means coin or currency of Che United Stales
or of any other country, travelers' checks,
personal checks, bank checks, money orders,
investment securities in bearer form or otherwise
in such form that title thereto passes
upon delivery, and negotiable instruments
in bearer form or oibemcise in such form
that title thereto posses upon delivery;
"16) the term 'financial institution' has
the definition given that term in section
S312ia)l2J of liUe 31. United States Code,
and the regulations promulgated t/icreunder;
"(7) the term 'specified unlawful activity'
means—
"(A) any act or activity constituting on offense
listed in section 19S1ID of this title
except an act which is indictable under the
Currency and Foreign JVunsactions Reporting
Act;
"IBJ with respect to a financial transaction
occurring in whole or in part in the
United States, an offense against a foreign
nation involving the manufacture, importation,
sale, or distribution of o controlled
substance (as such term is defined for the
purposes of the Controlled Substances Act);
"lO any act or acts constituting a continuing
criminal enterprise, as that term is
defined in section 408 of the Controlled Substances
Act 121 U.S.C. 848); or
"ID) an offense under section 152 Irelaling
to concealment of assets: false oaths and
claims; bribery), section 215 (relating to
commissions or gifts for procuring loans),
any of sections 500 through 503 (relating to
certain counterfeiting offenses), section SIl
Irelaling to securities of States and private
entities), section 543 (relating to smuggling
goods into the United States), section 841
Irelaling to public money, property, or
records), section 656 Irelaling to theft, embeeelement,
or misapplication by bank officer
or employee), section 686 'relating to
theft or bribery concerning programs receiving
Federal funds), section 793, 794. or 798
frelaiing to espionage), section 875 Irelaling
to interstate communications), section 1201
(relating to kidnaping), section 1203 (relating
to hostage taking), section 1344 Irelaling
to bank fraud), or section 2113 or 2114 (relating
to bank and postal robbery and th^t)
of this title, section 38 of the Arms Tiport
Control Act 122 U.S.C. 2778). section 2 (relating
to criminal penalties) of the Export Administration
Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. App.
2401), section 203 (relating to criminal soncitonsi
of the /n/cmational Emergency Economic
Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1702), or seclion
3 (relating to crimfnot violations) of
the TVoding with the Enemy Act (50 U.S.C.
App. 3).
"(d) Nothing In this section shall supersede
any provision of Federal, Slate, or other
law imposing criminal penalties or affording
civil remedies in addition to those provided
for in this section.
"(e) Violations of this section may be investigated
by such components of the Department
of Justice as the Attorney General
may direct, and by such components of the
Department of the Treasury as the Secretary
of the Treasury may direct, as appropriate.
Such authority of the Secretary of the Treasury
shall be exercised in accordance with an
agreement which shall be entered into by the
Secretary of the Treasury and the illiomey
(General.
"(f> There is extraterritorial iurisdiclion
over the conduct prohibited by this section
if-
"(D the conduct is by a United States citieen
or, in the case of a non-United States
citixen, the conduct occurs in pari in the
United States: and
"(2/ the transaction or series of related
transactions involves funds or monetary inslruments
of a valtie exceeding 310,000.
"S 1957, Engaging In monetary transactions
In property derived from specified
unlawful activity
"(a) Whoever, in any of the circumstances
set forth in subsection (d), knowingly engages
or attempts to engage in a monetary
transaction in criminally derited property
of a value greater than 310.000 and is derived
from specified unlawful activity, shall
be punished as provided in subsection lb).
"(b)(D Except as provided in paragraph
12), the punishment for an offense under this
section is a fine under title 18, United Stales
Code, or imprisonment for not more than
ten years or both.
"12) The court may impose on alternate
fine to that imposable under paragraph (1)
of not more than twice the amount of the
criminally derived property involved in the
transaction.
"Id In a prosecution far an offense under
this section, the Government is not required
to prove the defendant knew that Che offense
from which the criminally derived property
was derived was specified unlawful activity.
"(d) The circumstances referred to in subsection
(a) are—
"ID that the offense under this section
takes place in the United Slates or in the
special maritime and territorial jurisdiction
of the United Slates; or
"12) that the offense under this section
takes place outside the United States and
sucA special jurisdiction, but the defendant
is a United States person (as defined in section
3077 Of this title, but excluding the class
described in paragraph 121(D) of such section).
"le) Violations of this section may be investigated
by such components of the Department
of Justice OS the ilttomey General
may direct, and by sucA components of the
Department of the Treasury as the Secretary
of the Treasury may direct, as appropriate.
Such authority of the Secretary of the Treasury
shall be exercised in accordance with an
agreement which shall be entered into by the
Secretary of the Treasury and the Attorney
General
"If) As used in this section—
"(1) the term "monetary transaction'
means the deposit, withdrawal, transfer, or
exchange, in or affecting interstate or foreign
commerce, of funds or a monetary instrument
(as defined for the purposes of subchapter
I! of cAopter 53 of title 3D by.
through, or to a financial institution las defined
in section 5312 of title 31);
"12) the term 'criminally derived property'
means any property constituting, or derfced
from, proceeds obtained from a criminal offense:
and
H11226 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE October 17, 1986
"<3) the term 'specified uniaioful activity'
has the meaning given that term in section
19S6 of this title.".
tbj The table of sections at the beginning
of chapter 95 of Htle 18 is amended by
adding at the end thefoUovnng new items:
"1956. Laundering of monetary instruments".
"1857. Engaging in monetary transactions
in property derived from specified
unlawful activity".
sec /JM AIENDMENTS TO THE HICHT TO FISANClAL
PRIVACY ACT.
ta) CLARITLCATTON OF RIGHT OF FINAHCIAL INsmvTiofis
To REPORT SUSPECTED VIOLAnoNS.—
Section 11031c/ of the Right to Financial
Privacy Act of 1978 ilZ V.S.C.
StOZicD is amended by adding at the end
thereof the following new sentences: "Such
information may include oniy the name or
other identifying information concerning
any individual or account involved in and
the nature of any suspected illegal activity.
Such information may be disclosed notwithstanding
any constitution, law, or regulation
of any Stale or political subdivision
thereof to the contrary. Any financial instiluUon.
or officer, employee, or agent thereof,
making a disclosure of information pursuani
to this subseciion. shall not liable to
the customer under any law or regulation of
the Untied States or any constitution, law,
or regulation of any State or political subdivision
thereof, for such disclosure or for any
failure to notify the customer of such disclosure.
".
lb) Section lllSliJ of the Right to Financial
Privacy Act of 1978 (12 U.S.C. 3413fiJ)
is amended by inserting immediately before
the period at the end thereof a comma and
the fodowing: "except that a court shall
have authority to order a financial irxstitulion,
on which a grand jury subpoena for
customer records has been served, not to
notify the customer of the existence of the
subpoena or information that has been furnished
to the grand jury, under the circumstances
and for the period specified and pursuant
to the procedures established in section
]109 of the Right to Financial Privacy
i4cto/J97S 112 U.S.C. 34091".
SBC ISU. STRVCniUNG TRANSACTWSS TO EVADE
REPOETIEC UigVIREmESTS PROHIBITED.
taJ IN GENERAU—Subchapter IJ of chapter
S3 Of title 31. United Stales Code 'rating to
records and reports on monetary instruments
transactions) is amended by adding
at the end thereof the following neic section:
"§5324. Structuring trunsactions to evade reporting
reguirement prohibited
"No person shall for the purpose of evading
the reporting requirements of section
5313lal with respect to such transoction—
"ID cause or attempt to cause a domestic
financial institution to fail to file a report
required under section 5313ia):
"<2> cause or attempt to cause a domestic
financial institution to file o report required
under section 53131a/ that contains a
material omission or misstatement of fact;
or
"(3) structure or ossist in structuring, or
attempt to structure or assist in structuring,
any transaction with one or more domestic
financial institutions.".
lb) CLERICAI AMENDMENT.—The table of sections
for chapter S3 of title 31. United States
Code, is amended bp adding at the end
thereof the following new item;
"5324. Structuring transactions to evade reporting
requirement prohibited.".
SEC. ISSS. SEIZIIRB AND CIVIL PORFEITVRE OP MONETARY
INSTRLMENTS AND RELATED
PROVISIONS.
la) CUSTOMS AUTHORJTY TO CONDUCT
SEARCHES AT BORDER.—Section 53I7'b/ of
title 31, United States Code, is amended to
read as follows:
"<b> SEARCHES AT BORDER.—For purposes of
ensuring compliance with the requirements
of section S3IS, a customs officer may stop
and searcK at the border and without a
seoreh ujarrant, any vehicle, vessel, aircraft,
or other conveyance, any envelope or other
container, and any person entering or departing
from the United States.
lb) FAILURE TO REPORT EXPORT OR IMPORT
OF MONETARY INSTRUMENT.—The first sentence
of section 5317(c) of title 31, United
States Code (relating to seizure and forfeiture
of monetary instruments in foreign commerce)
is amended to read as follows: "If a
report required under section 5316 with respect
to any monetory instrument is not
filed (or if filed, contains a material omission
or misstatement of fact), the instrument
and any interest in property, including
a deposit in a financial institution,
traceable to sucA instrument may be seized
and forfeited to the United States Government.
".
.SEC IJSf. CVMPLfANCEALTHOBirrPORSErRETARr
OP THE TREASURY A.ND RELATED MATTERS
la) Su/HMONS POWER.—Section 5318 of title
31. United Stofes Code, is amended—
M by inserting "(a) GENERAL POWERS or
SECRETARY.—" before "The Secretary of the
Treasury":
12) in paragraph (1), by inserting "except
as provided in subsection IbJfZ/," b^re
"delegate":
13) by strifcinff out "ond" ot the end of
paragraph t2);
14) by inserting after paragraph 12) the following
neuj paragraphs:
"13/ examine any boofcs. papers, records,
or other data of domestic financial institutions
relevant to the recordkeeping or reporting
requirements of this subchapter;
"(4) summon a financial institution, an
officer or employee of o financial institution
(including a former officer or employee).
or any person having possession, custody.
or care of the reports and records required
under this subchapter, to appear
before the Secretary of the Tyeasury or his
delegate at a time and place named in the
summons and to produce such books,
papers, records, or other data, and to give
testimony, under oath, as may be relevant or
material to an investigation described in
subsection lb); and";
15) by redesignating paragraph (3J as
paragraph (51; and
(6) by adding at the end thefoUawing new
subsections:
"(b) LIM/TAR/oNs OA SUMMONS POWER.—
"111 SCOPE or POWER.—The Secretary of the
Treasury may take any action describ&i in
poraffrapA 13) or 14) of subsection ta) only
in connection with investigations for the
purpose of civil enforcement of violations of
this subchapter, section 21 of the Federal Deposit
Insurance Act, section 411 of the National
Housing Act. or chapter 2 of Public
Law 91-508 112 U.S.C. 1951 et seq.) or any
regulation under any such provision.
"12) AUTHORITY TO ISSUE.—A summons may
be issued under subsection /a)l4) only by, or
with the approval of. the Secretary of the
Treasury or a supervisory level delegate of
the Secretary of the Treasury,
"to ADMINISTRATIVE ASPECTS OF SUMMONS.—
"ID PRODUCTION AT DESIGNATED SITE.—A
summons issued pursuant to tAis section
may require tAat books, papers, record* or
other data stored or maintained at any
place be produced at any designated location
in any State or in any territory or other
place subject to (Ae iurtsdictlon of the
United States not more than 500 miles distant
from any place where the financial institution
operates or conducts business in
the United States.
"121 FEES AND TRAVEL EXPENSES.—Persons
summoned under this section shall be paid
the same fees and mileage for travel in the
United Stales that are paid witnesses in the
courts of the United States.
"<2) No UABIUTY FOR BXPENEBS.—The
United States shall not be liable for any expense,
otAer tAan an expense described in
paragraph I2l, incurred in connection with
the production of books, papers, records, or
other data under this section.
"idJ SERVICE or SUMMONS.—Service of a
summons issued under this section may be
by registered mail or in such other manner
calculated to give actual notice as the Secretary
may prescribe by repuiation.
"lei CONTUMACY OR REFUSAL.—
"(D REFERRAL TO ATTORNEY GENERAL.—In
case of contumacy by a person issued a summons
under paragraph (3) or lit of subsection
la) or a refusal by such person to obey
such summons, the Secretary of the Treasury
shall refer the matter to the Attorney GeneroL
"12) JURISDICTION or COURT.—The Attorney
General may invoke the aid of any court of
the United States within the jurisdiction of
which—
"(A) the investigation which gave rise to
the summons is being or has been carried
on;
"(BJ the person summoned is an InAabitanU
or
"Id the person summoned carries, on business
or may be found,
to compel compliance with the summons.
"(3/ COURT ORDER.—The court may issue
an order requiring the person summoned to
appear before the Secretary or his delegate
to produce books, papers, records, and other
data, to give testimony as may be necessary
to explain how such material was compiled
and maintained, and to pay the costs of the
proceeding.
"(41 FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ORDER.—Any
failure to obey the order of the court may be
punished by the court as a contempt thereof.
"(5) SERVICE OF PROCESS.—All process in
any case under this subsection may be
served in any judicial district in which such
person may be found.".
lb) AMENDMENT RELATINO TO EXEMPTIONS
GRANTED FOR MONETARY TRANSACTION REPORTING
REOVIREMENTS.—Section 5318 of
title 31, United States Code, is amended by
adding after subsection (e) (as added by subsection
(a) of this section) the following new
subsection;
"(f) WiRtrre* AND SIGNED STATEMENT REOVFRBD.—
No person sAoiZ qualify for on exemption
under subsection (a)l5i unless the
relevant financial institution prepares and
maintains a statement which—
"ID descT-ibes in detail the reasons why
such person is qualified for sucA exemption;
and
"(2) contains the signature of such
person.
(c) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—
(1) Sections 5321 and 5322 of title 31,
United States Code, are each amended by
striking out "5318(2!" eooA ptooe sucA term
appears and inserting in lieu thereof
"5318(aJ(2)".
(21 The heading of section 5311 of title 31,
United States Code, is amended to re^ as
follows:
October 17. 1986 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H11227
"SSIIS. Complianie. rsfmption*. and sammona au-
Iherily
idl CLERJCAL AMENM^sm.—The table oj sections
JOT chapter 53 of title 31. United Slates
Code, is amended by striking out the item
relating to section 5313 and inserting in tieu
thereof the following:
"5318. Compliance, exemptions, and summons
authority.
sec. I3S7.1'es.tiTY eeni i.sio.\s.
(a! CIVIL MONEY PENALTY FOR STRUOTTMSD
TRANSACTION VIOLATION.—Section 532Ua) of
title 31. United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end thereof the following new
paragraph:
"141 STRUCTURED TRANSACTION VIOLATION.—
"LAI PENALTY AUTHORIZED.—The Secretary
of the Treasury may impose a civil money
penalty on any person who willfully violates
any proinsion of section 5324.
"IBJ MAXIMUM AMOUNT UMTTATJON.-The
amount of any civil money penally imposed
under subparagraph 'A) shall not exceed the
amount of the coins and currency lor such
other monetary instruments as the Secretary
may prescribe! involved in the Iransaelian
with respect to which such penalty m imposed.
"Id COORDINATION VHTH FORFEITURE PROVISION.—
The amount of any civil money penalty
imposed by the Secretary under subparagraph
lAi shall be reduced by the amount of
any forfeiture to the United States under
section 5317idJ in connection with the
transaction with respect to which such penally
is imposed.".
(bJ INCREASE IN AMOUNT OF PENALTY POR FINANCIAL
fNsrmmoNs.—Section S32l<a>nt of
title 31. United Slates Code, is amended—
11) by striking out "ilO.OOO" and inserting
in lieu thereof "the greater of the amount
Inoi to exceed tlOO.OOO! involved in the
transaction or 325.000": and
12) by striking out "section S315" each
place such term appears and inserting in
lieu thereof "sections 5314 and S315'.
ic) SEPARATE CIVIL MONEY PENALTY FOR VIOLATION
OF SECTION 5314.—Section 53211a) of
title 31. United States Code, is amended by
inserting after paragraph 14) las added by
subsection la) of this section) the following
new paragraph:
"IS) FOREIGN FINANCIAL AGENCY TRANSACTION
ViotAnoN.—
"LAI PENALTY AUTHORIZED.—The Secretary
of the Treasury may impose a ^vil money
penally on any person who willfully violates
any provision of section 5314.
"IB) MAXIMUM AMOUNT LIMITATION.—TTie
amount of any civil money penally imposed
under subparagraph lA) shall not exceed—
"H) in the case of violation of such section
involving a transaction, the greater of—
"ID the amount inot to exceed $100,000) of
the transaction: or
"111) $25,000; and
Hi) in the case of violation of such section
involving a failure to report the existence of
an account or any identifytng information
required to be protHded with respect to such
account, the greater of—
••(I) an amount mot to exceed $100,000)
equal to the balance in the account at the
time of the violation: or
"HD $25,000.".
Id) SEPARATE CIVIL MONEY PENALTY FOR
NEGLIGENT VIOLATION OF SUBCHAPTER.—Section
S321ia) of title 31. United States Code,
is amended by inserting after paragraph IS)
las added by subsection Id) of this section)
the following new parotrrapA.-
"16) NEGUOENCE.—Tke Secretary of the
Treasury may impose a civil money penalty
of not more than $500 on any financial institution
which negligently oioiates any provision
of this subchapter or any regulation
prescribed under this subchapter.".
let EXTENSION OF TIME LIMITATIONS FOR ASSESSMENT
OF CIVIL PENALTY.—Section 53211b)
of title 31. United States Code, is amended
to read as follows:
"lb) TIMS LIMITATIONS FOR ASSESSMENTS AND
COMMENCEMENT OF CI VIL A CTIONS. —
"HI ASSESSMENTS.—The Secretary of the
Treasury may assess a civil penalty under
subsection la) at any time before the end of
the 6-year period beginning on the date of
ike transaction with respect to which the
penalty is assessed.
"12) CIVIL ACTIONS.—The Secretary may
commence a civil action to recover a civil
penalty assessed under subsection la) at any
time before the end of the 2-year period beginning
on the later of—
"LA) the dale the penalty was assessed: or
"IB) the date any judgment becomes final
in any criminal action under section 5322
in connection with the same transaction
with respect to which the penalty is assessed.".
If) CLARIFICATION OF RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
CIVIL PENALTY AND CRIMINAL PENALTY.—Section
5321 of title 31. United States Code, is
amended by adding at fAe end thereof the
following new subsection:
"Id) CRIMINAL PENALTY NOT EXCLUSIVE OP
CIVIL PENALTY.—A ciinl money penalty may
be imposed under subsection la) with respect
to any violation of this saftcAapter
notwithstanding the fact that a criminot
penalty is imposed with respect to the same
violation.
ig) AMENDMENTS TO CRIMINAL PENALTY FOR
CERTAIN OFFENSES.—Section 5322ib) of title
31, United Stales Code, is amended—
I J ) b y s t r i k i n g o u t " i l l e g a l a c t i v i t y i n v o l v ing
transactions of and inserting in lieu
thereof "any illegal activity involving";
12) by striking out "5 years" and inserting
in ilea thereof "10 years".
ih> CONFORMING AMEND.VENT.—Section
S32JIC) of title 31. United States Code, is
amended by striking out "section 53171b)"
and inserting in tieu thereof "suftsectlon lc>
or Id) of section 5317".
SEC. )3.tS. MOXETAIiY TKANSACTION REPORTING
AMENDMENTS.
f a ) CLOSELY RELATED EVENTS.—Section 5316
of title 31, United Slates Code, is amended
Ay oddiny at the end the following new subsection;
"Idl CUMULATION OF Ctosciy RELATED
EVENTS.—The Secretary of the Treasury may
prescribe regulations under this section defining
the term 'at one time' for purposes of
subsection la). Such regulations may permit
the cumulation of closely related events in
order that such ei'ents may collectively be
considered to occur at one lime for the purposes
of subsection la).".
lb) INCHOATE OFFENSE.—Section S316ia)ll)
of title 31. United Stales Code, is amend^—
11) by striking out "or attempts to transport
or have transported,". and
12) by inserting is about to transport,"
after "transports".
ic> TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—
Section S316la)l2) of title 31, United
Stales Code, is amended by striking out
"$5,000" and inserting in lieu thereof
"$10,000".
SBC. list. BANFA.VG REGILATORY AGENCY SDPERYI.
SIO.V OF RECORDXEEPING SYSTEMS
la) INSURED BANKS.—
I I ) IN OENERAL.—Section S of the federal
Deposit Insurance Act 112 U.S.C. 1818) is
amended by adding at the end thereof the
following new subsection:
"Is) COMPLIANCE WITH MONETARY TRANSACTION
RECORDKEEPING AND REPORT REQUIREMENTS.—
"ID COMPUANCB PROCEDURES REQUIRED.—
Each appropriate Federal banking agency
shall prescribe regulations requiring insured
banks to estaWisA and maintain procedures
reasonably designed to assure and monitor
the compliance of such banks with the requirements
of subchapter U of cAapter 53 of
title 31. United States Code.
"12) E.XA.VINATIONS OF BANK TO INCLUDE
REVIEW OF COMPLIANCE PROCEDURES.—
"lAi IN GENERAL.—Each examination of an
insured bank by the appropriate Federal
banking agency shall include a review of the
procedures required to be established and
maintained under paragraph ID.
"IB) EXAM REPORT REQUIREMENT.—The
report of examination shall describe any
problem with the procedures maintained by
the insured bank.
"13) ORDER to coAfpti' WITH REQUIREMENTS.—
If the appropriate Federal banking
agency determines tAat an insured bank—
"lAJ has failed to establish and maintain
the procedures described in paragropA ill;
or
"IB) Aas failed to correct any problem
with the procedures maintained by such
bank which was previously reported to the
bank by such agency,
the agency shall issue an order in the
manner prescribed in subsection lb) or Ic)
requiring such bank to cease and desist from
its violation of this subsection or regulations
prescribed under this subsection.".
12) CtVIL MONEY PENALTIES FOR FAILURE TO
MAINTAIN COMPUANCB PROCEDURSS.—SecHon
8ii)l2)li) of the Federal Deposit Insurance
Act 112 U.5.C. 18iaiVI2)iil) is amended by
striking out "subsection lb) or Ic)" and insetting
in lieu thereof "subsection lb). Ic). or
Is)".
lb) INSTITVTTONS REGULATED sr THE BANE
BOARD.—
11) IN GENERAL.—Section 5idJ of the Home
Owners'Loan Act oflP33 112 V.S.C. 14B4ld))
is amended by adding at the end thereof the
following nevi paragraph:
"1161 CoMPUAHCs WITH MOHETARY TRANSACTION
RECORDKEEPING AND REPORT REQUIREMENTS.—
"lAi COMPLIANCE PROCEDURES REQUIRED.—
The Board shall prescribe regulations requiring
associations to establish and maintain
procedures reasonably designed to
assure and monitor the compliance of such
associations with the requirements of subchapter
II of chapter S3 Of title 31. United
States Code.
"IB) EXAMINATIONS OF ASSOCIATIONS TO INCLUDE
REVIEW OF COMPLIANCE PROCEDURES.—
" l i ) IN GENERAL.—Each examination of an
association by the Board shall include a
review of the procedures required to be established
and maintained under subparagraph
I A).
" H i ) EXAM REPORT REQUIREMENT.—The
report of examination shall describe any
problem with the procedures maintained by
tAe association.
"IC) ORDER TO COMPLY WITH REQUIREMENTS.—
If the Board determines thai an association—
"liJ has failed to estobtisA and maintain
the procedures described in subparagraph
I A); or
" H i ) h a s f a i l e d to correct any problem
witA the procedures maintained by sucA association
which was previously reported to
the association by the Board,
the Board shall issue an order in the
manner prescribed in paragraph 12) or 13)
requiring such association to cease and
desist from its violation of this paragraph
or regulations prescribed under this paragraph.".
12) CIVIL MONEY PENALTIES FOR FAILURE TO
MAINTAIN COMPUANCB PROCEDURES.—SeCtiOn
5ld)l8>IB)HI of the Home Owners' Loan Act
of 1933 112 U.S.C. 1464ld>l8)IB>n)) is
H11228 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
emended by $tTilcing out "paragraph 121 or
(3)" and inserting in lieu thereof "paragraph
(2>. 13), or net".
to iNSVRED THRTFT iNSTITimONS.—
M IN QENERAL.—Section 407 of the National
Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1730) is amended
by actding at the end thereof the following
new subsection:
"(s) COKPUANCE WITH MONSTAFTY TRANSACTION
RECORPKEEPINO AND REPORT REQUIREMENT,
S.—
"(II COMPLIANCE PROCEDURES REQUIRED.—
The Corporation shall prescribe regulations
requiring insured institutions to establish
and maintain procedures reasonably designed
to assure and monitor the compliance
of such institutions with the requirements
of subchapter II of chapter 53 of title
31, United States Code,
"(2) EXAMlNATrONS or INSTtTUTIONS TO INCLUDE
REVIEW OF COMPLIANCE PROCEDURES,—
"(A! IN OENERAL.-Each examination of an
injured insiiiution by the Corporation shall
include a review of the procedures required
to be established and maintained under
paragraph ill.
"(BI EXAM REPORT REQUIREMENT.—The
report of examination shall describe any
problem with the procedures maintained by
the insured institution.
"(31 ORDER TO COMPLY WITH REQUIREMENis.—
If the Corporation determines that
an insured institution—
"(A! has failed to establish and maintain
the procedures described in paragraph (II:
or
"(BI has failed to correct any problem
with the procedures maintained by such institution
which was previously reported to
the institution by the Corporation,
the Corporation shall issue an order in the
manner prescribed in subsection felor (fj requiring
such institution to cease and desist
from its violation of this subsection or regulations
prejcrtbed under this subsection.".
(2) CIVIL MONEY PENALTIES FOR FAILURE TO
MAINTAIN COMPLIANCE PROCEDURES.—SECHON
407(kll3l(A) of the A'afionai Housing Act (12
V.S.C. I730(kl(3l(A)) is amended by striking
out "subsection (e) or (ft of this section shall
forefit" and inserting in lieu thereof "subsection
(e). (f), or (s) of this section shall forfeit".
(d! INSURED CREDIT UNIONS,-
(H IN OENERAL.—Section 205 of the Eederal
Credit Union Act 112 U.S.C. I786I is amended
by adding at the end thereof the following
new subsection:
"iqi COMPLIANCE WITH MONETARY TRANSACTION
RECORDKEEPING AND REPORT REQUIREMENTS.—
"(II COMPLIANCE PROCEDURES REQUIRED.
The Board shall prescribe repa/aftons requiring
insured credit unions to establish
and maintain procedures reasonably designed
to assure and monitor the compliance
of such credit unions with the requirements
of subchapter II of chapter S3 of title
31. United States Code.
"(21 EXAMINATIONS OF CREDIT UNIONS TO INCLUDE
REVIEW OF COMPLIA.VCE PROCEDURES.—
"lAi IN GENERAL.—Each examination of an
insured credit union by the Board shall include
a review of the procedures required to
be established and maintained under paragraph
(I).
"(BI EXAM REPORT REQUIREMENT—The
report of examination shall describe any
problem with the procedures maintained by
the credit union,
"(31 ORDER TO COMPLY WITH REQUIREMENTS.—
If the Board determines that an insured
credit union—
"(A) has failed io establish and maintain
the procedures described in paragraph (I)'
or
"IBI has failed to correct any problem
with the procedures maintained by such
credit union which was previously reported
to the credit union by the Board,
the Board shall issue an order in the
manner prescribed in subsection (el or (ft requiring
such credit union to cease and
desist from its violation of this subsection
or regulations prescribed under this subsection,
(2) CIVIL MONEY PENALTIES FOR FAILURE TO
MAINTAIN COMPLIANCE PROCEDURES.—SCCHON
206lkl(2)IA) of the Federal Credit Union Act
(22 U.S.C. l786(k)(2i(A/) (as in effect on September
I, 1986) is amended by stiiking out
"subsection (e) or (fl" and inserting in lieu
thereof "subsection (e). (ft, or (q>".
SBC. use CHANGE /,V B-l.V* CONTROL ACT AMENDMENTS.
(a) ADDITIONAL REVIEW TIMS,—
(U INITIAL EXTENSION AT DISCRETION OF
AGENCY.—The first sentence of section Iljllli
of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12
V.S.C. 1817(jifll) is amended by striking out
"or extending up to another thirty days"
and inserting in lieu thereof "or, in the discretion
of the agency, extending for an additional
30 days".
(21 ADDITIONAL EXTENSIONS IN CASE OF INCOMPLETE
OR INACCURATE NOTICE OR TO CONTTNUE
INVESTIGATION.—The second sentence of
section HjKl) of the Federal Deposit Insurance
Act (12 U.S.C. ISntjXlH is amended to
read as follows: "The period for disapproval
under the preceding sentence may be extended
not to exceed 2 additional times for
not more than 45 days each time if—
"(A! the agency determines that any acquiring
party has not furnished all the information
required under paragraph (6):
"(BI in the agency's judgment, any material
information submitted is substantiaitp
inaccurate;
"(C) the agency has been unable to complete
the investigation of an acquiring party
under paragraph '2I(BI because of any delay
caused by. or the inadequate cooperation of,
such acquiring party: or
"(D) the agency determines that additional
time is needed to investigate and determine
that no acquiring party has a record of
failing to comply with the requirements of
subchapter It of chopter 53 of title 31.
United States Code.".
(b) DUTY TO INVESTIGATE APPLICANTS FOR
CHANGS IN CONTROL APPROVAL.—Section
7(ji(2l of the Federal Deposit Insurance Art
(12 U.S.C. I817(j)(2)) is amended—
(t) by striking out "(21" and inserting in
lieu thereof "(2I(AI NOTICE TO STATE
AGENCY.-": and
(2! by adding at the end thereof the following
new subparagraphs:
"(B) INVESTIGATION OF PRINCIPALS REQUIRED.—
Upon receiving any notice under
this subsection, the appropriate Federal
banking agency shall—
"(i) conduct an investigation of the competence.
experience, integrity, and financial
atnlity of each person named in a notice of
a proposed acquisition as a person by whom
or for whom such acquisition is to be made:
and
"(ii) make an independent determination
of the accuracy and completeness of any information
described in paragraph 16) with
respect to such person.
"(C) REPORT.—The appropriate Federal
banking agency shall prepare a written
report of any investigation under subparagraph
(B> which shall contain, at o minimum,
o summary of the results of such investigation.
The agency shall retain such
written report as a record of the agency.".
(c) PUBLIC COMMENT ON CHANGE OF CONTROL
Afor/CES.—Section 7ljll2t of the Federal
Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(2»
is amended by adding after subparagraph
(C) (as added by subsection (b) of this section)
the following new subparagraph:
October 17, 1986
"(D) PUBLIC COMMENT.— Upon receiving
notice of a proposed acquisition, the appropriate
Federal banking agency shall, within
a reasonable period of time—
"(U publish the name of the insured bank
proposed to be acquired and the name of
each person identified in such notice as a
person by whom or for whom such acquisition
is to be made; and
"(iil solicit public comment on such proposed
acquisition, particularly from persons
in the geographic area where the bank proposed
to be acquired is located, be/ore final
consideration of such notice by the agency,
unless the agency determines in writing that
such disclosure or solicitation would seriously
threaten the safety or soundness of
such bank.
(d) INVESTIGATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT.—Section
7(jl of the Federal Deposit Insurance
Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(1)) is amended—
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (15) and
(16) as paragraphs (16) and (17). respectively;
and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (14) the
following new paragraph:
"(15) INVESTIGATIVE AND ENFORCEMENT AVTHORiry.
—
"(A) iNVEsnoATJONs.—The appropriate
federot banfcino agency may exercise any
authority vested in such agency under section
Slni in the course of conducting any investigation
under paragraph I2IIBI or any
other investigation which the agency, in its
discretion, determines is necessary to determine
ichether any person has filed inaccurate,
incomplete, or misleading information
under this subsection or otherwise is violating,
has violated, or it about to violate any
provision of this subsection or any regulation
prescribed under this subsection.
"(BI ENFORCEMENT. —Whenever it appears
to the appropriate Federal banking agency
that any person is violating, has violated, or
is about to violate any provision of this subsection
or any regulation prescribed under
this subsection, the agency may. in its discretion,
apply to the appropriate district
court of the United States or the United
States court of any territory for—
"(i) a temporary or permanent injunction
or restraining order enjoining such person
from violating this subsection or any regulation
prescribed under this subsection; or
"(HI such other equitable relief as may be
necessary to prevent any such violation (including
divestiture).
"(C) JURISDICTION.—
"(i) The district courts of the United
States and the United Stales courts in any
territory shall have the same jurisdiction
and power in connection with any exercise
of any authority by the appropriate Federal
banking agency under subparagraph (A) as
such courts have under section Sin).
"Hi) The district courts of the United
States and the United Slates courts of any
territory shall have jurisdiction and power
to issue any injunction or restraining order
or grant any equitable relief described in
subparagraph IBI. When appropriate, any
injunction, order, or other equitable relief
granted under this paragraph shall be granted
without requiring the posting of any
bond.".
SEC ISSI. Cll.i.SGE IN SAVINGS A.\D LOA.V COXTROL
ACT A.ME.NDMENTS.
(a) ADDITIONAL REVIEW TIME.—
(1) INITIAL EXTENSION AT DISCRETION OF
AGENCY.—The first sentence of section
407iqii]) of the National Housing Act 112
V.S.C. I730iql(l!i is amended by striking
out "or extending up to another thirty days"
and inserting in lieu thereof "or, in the discretion
of the Corporation, extending for an
additional 30 days".
October 17, 1986 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD —HOUSE H 11229
("2; ADOmONAL EXTENSIONS IN CiEE OF INCOMPLETE
Oft INACCURATE NOTICE OR TO CONTINUE
iNvssTioATioN.—The second sentence of
section 407iq)i2j of the Na.lional Housing
Act HZ U.S.C. t730iq)ll>l is amended to read
as follows: "The period for disapproval
under the preceding sentence may be extended
not to exceed 2 additional limes for
not more than 45 days each time if—
"lAi the Corporation determines that any
acquiring party has not furnished all the information
required under paragraph (6J;
"IB/ in the Corporation's judgment, any
material in/ormalton submitted is substantially
inaccurate;
"iCJ the Corporation has been unable to
complete the investigation of an accutrinff
party under paragraph I2IIB) because of
any delay caused by. or the inadequate cooperation
Q/. such acquiring parly; or
"ID/ the Corporation determines that additional
time is needed to investigate and
determine that no acquiring party has a
record of failing to comply with the requirements
of subchapter II of chapter 53 of title
31. United States Code."
lb/ DUTY TO INVESNAATE APPUCANTS FOR
CHANGE /N CONTROL APPROVAX..—Section
407iq/iz/ of the National Housing Act <12
U.S.C. nsOiq/lZ// <« amencfcd—
n/ by striking out "12/" and inserting in
lieu thereof "12/LA/ NonvE TO STATS
AGENCY.—and
(2/ by adding at the end thereof the foUowing
new subparagraphs:
"IB/ INVESTIGATION OF PRINCIPALS REQU/
NED.—Upon receiving any notice under
this subsection, the Corporation shall—
"HI conduct an innestigation of the competence.
experience, integrity, and financial
ability of each person named in a notice of
a proposed acquisition as a person by whom
or for whom such acquisition is to be made;
and
"HV make on independent determination
of the accuracy and completeness of any information
described in paragraph ISI with
respect to such person.
"ICL REPORT.—The Corporation shall prepare
a written report of any investigation
under subparagraph IB/ which shall contain,
at a mintmum, a summary of the results
of such investigation. The Corporation
shall retain such written report as a record
of the Corporation.".
ic/ PUBLIC COMMENT ON Ch.iwgc OF CONTROL
NOTICES.—Section 407lq/f2J of the National
Housing Act (12 U.S.C. t730lq/l2/l is
amended by adding after subparagraph ICl
las oddeif by subsection (bl of this section/
the following new subparagraph:
"ID/ PUBLIC COMMENT.—Upon receiving
notice of a proposed acquisition, the Corporation
shall wilhin a reasonable period of
time—
"HI publish the name of the insured institution
proposed to be acquired and the
name of each person identified in such
notice aa a person by whom or for whom
such arguisltion is to be made: and
"Hi/ solicit public comment on such proposed
acquisition, particularly from persons
in the geographic area where the institution
proposed to be acquired is located, before
final consideration of such notice by the
Corporation.
unless the Corporation determines in writing
that such disclosure or solicilalton
would seriously threaten the safety or
soundness of such institution.".
fdi INVESTIGATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT.—Section
40?iq) of the National Housing Act 112
U.S.C. 1730/Q/l is amended—
11/ by redesignating paragraphs 116/ and
117/ as paragraphs (17/ and IIS/, respectively:
and
(21 by inserting after poroffraph (ISI the
foUowing new paragraph:
"(16/ INVESTIGATIVE AND ENFORCBI-IENT AVTHORITY.—
"(A/ INVESTIOATIONS.—The Corporation
tnav exercise any authority vested in Che
CoDoration under paragraph (2/ or (3/ of
subsection (ml in the course of conducting
any investigation under paragraph (ZKB! or
any other Inifestisation which the Corporation.
in its discretion, determines is necessary
to determine whether any person has
filed inaccurate, incompiefe, or misleading
information under this subsection or otherwise
is violating, has violated, or is about to
violate any provision of this subsection or
ony repulafton prescribed under this subsectiOTL
"(B) ENFORCEMENT.—'Whenever it appears
to the Corporation that any person is viotating,
has violated, or is about to violate any
provision of this subsection or any regulation
prescribed under this subsection, the
agency may. in its discretion, apply to the
appropriate district court of the United
Stales or the United States court of any territory
for—
"HI a temporary or permanent injunction
or restraining order enjoining such person
from violating this subsection or any regulation
prescribed under this subsection; or
"Hi/ such other equitable relief as map be
necessary to prevent any such violation (including
divestiture/.
"(CI JURJSDll~nON.—
"(iJ The district courts of the United
States and the United States courts in any
territory shall have the same jurisdiction
and poicer in connection with any exercise
of any authority by the Corporation under
subparagraph (A! as such courts have under
paragraph I2I or (3/ of subsection (ml.
"(lil The district courts of the United
Slates and the United Stales courts of any
territory shall ftave jurisdiction and power
Lo issue any injunclion or restraining order
or grant any equitable relief described in
subsiaragraph IB/. When appropriaCe, any
injunction, order, or other equitable relief
under this paragraph shall be granted teilhout
requiring the posting of any bond
SEC. /set. AMENOUENTS TO DEFIS'ITWNH.
(a/ UNITED STATES AGENCIES INCLUDES THE
POSTAL SERVICE.—Section 5312iaJi2/iUi of
title 31, United States Code (defining financial
institutions/ (as redesignated by subsection
(a// is amended by inserting before the
semicolon at the end. the following: inctudinp
the United States Postal Service".
(bl UNITED STATES INCLUDES CERTAIN TERRITORIES
AND PossEssiONS.—Seclion S312(a/($/
of title 31, United States Code, is amended
by inserting "the Virgin Islands, Guam, the
JVortftem Mariana Islands, American
Samoa, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands,"
after "Puerto Rico".
SEC. ms. INTF.RSATIONAL INtVUUATION EXCH.
l.VCE Sr.lTE.H: srVl/r OF FOREHiS
HR.ASCHES OF DOMESTIC ISSTITVTIII.
SK
(a! DISCUSSIONS ON INFERNATIONAL INFORMATION
EXCHANOE SYSTEM.—The Secretary of
the Treasury, in consultation with the
Board of Oovemors of the Federal Reserve
System, shall initiate discussions with the
central banks or other appropriate governmental
authorities of other countries and
propose that an information exchange
system be established to assist the efforts of
each parlicipaling country to eliminate the
international flow of money derived from illicit
drug operations and other criminal aclivUies.
(bl REPORT ON DISCUSSIONS REQUIRED.—
Before the end of the 9-month period beginning
on the date of the enactment of this
Act, the Secretary of the Treasury shall prepare
and transmit a report lo the Committee
on Banking. Finance and Urban Affairs of
the House of Representatives and the Committee
on Banking, Housing, and Urban Ajfairs
of the Senate on the results of discissions
initiated pursuant to subsection (al
(cJ STUDY OF MONEY LAUNDERING THROUGH
FOBEIQN BRANCHES OF £>ov£sr/c FINANCIAL INSTMRRIONS
REQUIRED.—The Secretary of the
Treasury, in consultation with the Attorney
General and the Board of Governors of the
Federal fteseri'e System, shall conduct o
study of—
(1/ the extent to which foreign branches of
domestic institutions are used—
(A! to facilitate illicit transfers of coins,
currency, and other monetary instrurnents
las such term is defined in section
S312la/I3// of title 31, United States Code/
into and out of the United States: and
(BJ to erode reporting requirements with
respect to any transfer of coins, currency.
and other monetary instruments (as so defined/
into and out of the United States:
(2/ the eitent to which Che law of the
United States is applicable to the activities
of such foreign branches; and
13/ methods for obtoininy the cooperation
of the country in which any such foreign
branch is located for purposes of eriforcing
the law of the United States with respect to
transfers, and reports on transfers, of such
monetary instruments into and out of the
United States.
(d! REPORT ON STUD Y OF FOREION BRANCHES
RF.QVIRED.—Before the end of the 9-manth
period beginning on the date of the enactment
of this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury
shall prepare and transmit a report lo
the Committee on Banking, Finance and
Urban Affairs and the Committee on the Judiciary
of the Jiouse of Representatives and
the Committee on Banfring. Housing, and
Urban Affairs and the Committee on ttie yudiciary
of the Senote on the results of the
study conducted pursuant to subsection (d.
SEC I3ti EFFEir/yK DATE.%
(al The amendment made by section 13S4
shall apply with respect to transactions for
the payment, receipt, or transfer of United
States coins or currency or otfter monetary
instruments completed after the end of the 3-
month period beginning on the date of the
enactment of this AcL
(bl The amendments made by sections
1355(b/ and l3S7(al shall apply with respect
to violations committed after the end of the
3-nionlh period beginning on the dale of the
enactment of this Act
(cl The amendnienta made by section 1357
(other than subsection (aj of such section/
shall apply with respect to violations committed
after the date of the enactment of
this Act,
(dl Any regulation prescribed under the
amendments made by section 1359 shall
apply with respect to transactions completed
after the effective dale of such regulation.
(el The regulations required to be prescribed
under the amendments made by section
13S9 shall take effect at the end of the 3-
month period beginning on the date of the
enactment of this AcL
(f! The amendments made by sections 1360
and 1381 shall apply with respect to notices
of proposed acquisitions filed after the date
of the enactment of this AcL
SEC. lies. FREniCATEOFFESSES.
(al Subsection (bl of section 1952 of title
18, United States Code, is amended by striking
out "or" before "(21", and by striking
out the period at the end thereof ond inserting
in lieu thereof the foUowing: or (3/
any act which is indictable under subchapter
II of chapter S3 of title 31, United States
Code, or under section 1956 or 1957 of this
title.".
(b/ Subsection dJ of section 1961 of tiUe
19, United Stoics Code, is amended by inH
11230 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE October 17, 1986
sfr/mg "seclion I9SS (relating to the laundering
of rrionetayy inslrumentsl, section
J957 (relating to engaging in monetary
Iransaclions in property derived from specified
unlawful activity/," after "section 1955
(relating to the prohibition of illegal gambling
businesses/.
(c/ Subsection (1/ of seclion 2516 of title
13. United States Code, is amended in paragraph
(c/ by inserting "section 1956 (laundering
of monetary instruments/, section
1957 (relating to engaging in monetary
transactions in property derived from specified
unlawful activity/," after "section 1955
(prohibition of relating to business enterprises
of gambling),
SEC. isee. FORFEtTCRE.
(a/ Title 13 of the United Stales Code is
amended by adding after chapter i5 a new
chapter 46 as follows:
"CHAPTER 4S—E0RFEITCRE
"Sec.
"981. Civil Forfeiture.
"982. Criminal Forfeiture.
"SSSI. Civil/orCeitart
"(a/ri/ Except as provided in paragraph
(2). the folloicing properly is subject to forfeiture
to the United States:
"(A/ Any property, real or personal, which
represents the gross receipts a person obtains,
directly or indirectly, as o result of a
violation of section 1956 or 1957 of this title,
or which is traceable to such gross receipts.
"(B/ Any properly within the jurisdiction
of the United States, which represents the
proceeds of an offense against a foreign
nation involving the manufacture, importation,
sale, or distribution of a controlled
substance (as such term is defined for the
purposes of the Controlled Substances Act),
within whose jurisdiction such offense or
aclU'Uy would be punishable by death or imprisonment
for a term exceeding one year
and which would be punishable by imprisonment
for a term exceeding one year if
such act or activity had occurred within the
jurisdiction of the United States,
"(C/ Any coin and currency (or other monetary
instrument as the Secretary of the
Treasury may prescribe/ or any interest in
other property, including any deposit in a
financial institution, traceaSfe to such coin
or currency involved in a transaction or attempted
transaction in violation of section
5313(a/ or 5324 of title 31 may be seised and
forfeited to the United States Government
No property or interest in properly shall be
seized or forfeited if the violation is by a tfomestic
financ^al institution examined by a
Federal bank supervisory agency or a financial
institution regulated by the Securities
and Exchange Commission or a partner, director.
officer or employee thereof."
"(2/ No properly shall be forfeited under
this section to the extent of the interest of an
owner or lienholder by reason of any act or
emission established by that owner or lienholder
to have been committed without the
knowledge of that owner or lienholder.
"(b/ Any property subject to forfeiture to
the United States under subsection (a/(l/(A/
or (a/dXB/ of this section may be seized by
the Attorney (General or, with respect to
property involved in a violation of section
1956 or 1957 of this title investigated by the
Secretary of the JVeoeury, may be seized by
the Secretary of the Treasury, and any property
subject to forfeiture under subsection
(a/(l/(C/ of this section may be seized by the
Secretary of the TYcasury, in each case upon
process issued pursuant to the Supplemental
Rules for certain Admiralty and Maritime
Claims by any district court of the United
Slates having jurisdiction over the property,
except that seizure without such process
may be made when—
"(1/ the seizure is pursuant Co a lawful
arrest or searcb; or
"(2/ the Attorney General or the Secretary
of the Treasury, as the case may be, has obtained
a warrant for such seizure pursuant
to the federot Rules of Criminal Procedure.
in which event proceedings under subsection
(d/ of Ihis section shall be instituted
promptly.
"(c/ Property taken or detained under this
section shall not be repleviabie. but shall t>e
deemed to be in the custody of the Attorney
General or the Secretary of the Treasury, as
the case may be. subject only to the oilers
and decrees of the court or the official
hax<ing jurisdiction thereof. Whenever property
is seized under this subsection, the Attorney
General or the Secretary of the Treasury.
as the case may be, may—
"(2/ place the property under seal:
"(2/ remove Che property to a place designated
by him: or
"(3/ reguire chat the General Services Administration
take custody of Che property
and remove it, if practicable, to an appropriate
location for disposition in accordance
loith law.
"(d/ For purposes of this section, the provisions
of the customs laws relating to the
seizure, summary and judicial forfeiture,
condemnation of property for yioiation of
the customs laws, the disposition of such
property or the proceeds from the sale of this
section, the remission or mitigation of such
forfeitures, and Che compromise of claims
(19 U.S.C. 1602 et seg./, insofar as they are
applicable and not inconsistent with the
provisions of this section, shall apply to seizures
and forfeitures incurred, or alleged to
have been incurred, under this section,
except that such duties as are imposed upon
the customs officer or any other person with
r€sp<xt to the seizure and forfeiture of properly
under the customs laws shall be performed
with respect to seizures and forfeitures
of property under this section by such
officers, agents, or other persons as may be
authorized or designated for thai purpose by
the Attorney General or the Secretary of the
Treasury, as the case may be.
"(el Notwithstanding any other provision
of the law. except seclion 3 of the And Drug
Abuse Act of 1936, the Attorney General or
the Secretary of the Treasury, as the case
may be, is authorized to retain property forfeited
pursuant to this section, or to transfer
suck property on such terms and conditions
as he may determine to—
"(1/ any other Federal agency: or
"(2/ any State or local law enforcement
agency which participated directly in any of
the acts which led to the seizure or forfeiture
of the properly.
The Attorney General or the Secretary of the
Treasury, as the case may be, shall ensure
the equitable transfer pursuant to paragraph
(2/ of any forfeited properly to the appropriate
Slate or local law enforcement
agency so as to reflect generally the contribution
of any such agency participating directly
in any of the acts which led to the seizure
or forfeiture of sucA property, A decision
by the Attorney General or the Secretary
of the Treasury pursuant to paragraph
(2/ shall not be subject to review. The United
States shall not be liable in any action arising
out of the use of any property tAe custody
of which was transferred pursuant to this
section to any non-Federal agency. The Attorney
General or the Secretary of the Treasury
may order the discontinuance of any
forfeiture proceedings under this section in
favor of the inslHution of forfeiture proceedings
by State or local authorities under on
appropriate Stale or local statute. After the
filing of a complaint for forfeiture under
this section, the Attorney General may seek
dismissal of the complaint in fai'or of forfeiture
proceedings under State or local law.
Whenever forfeiture proceedings are discontinued
by the United States in favor of Stale
or local proceedings, the United States may
transfer custody and possession of the seized
property to the appropriate State or local official
immediately upon the initiation of Ike
proper actions by such officials. Whenever
forfeiture proceedings are discontinued by
the United States in favor of State or local
proceedings, notice shall be sent to all
known interested parties advising them of
the discontinuance or dismissal. The United
States shall not be liable in any action arising
out of the seizure, detention, and transfer
of seized property to State or local officials.
"(f/ All right, title, and interest in property
described in subsection (a/ of this section
shall vest in the United States upon commission
of the act giving rise to forfeiture under
this section.
"(g/ The filing of an indictment or information
alleging a violation of law uiAicA is
afso related to a forfeiture proceeding under
tAis section shall, upon motion of the United
States and for good cause shown, slay the
forfeiture proceeding.
"(h) In addition to the venue provided for
in section 1395 of title 28 or any other provision
of law, in the case of property of a defendant
charged with a violation thai is the
basis for forfeiture of the property under
this section, a proceeding for forfeiture
under this section may be brought in the judicial
district in icAicA the defendant
owning such property is found or in the judicial
district in uiAicA the criminal prosecution
is broupAt.
"(ii In the case of property subject to forfeiture
under subsection (a/d/tB). the following
additional proeisforis shall, to the
extent provided by treaty, apply:
"(1) A'otu>itAstandinp ony other provision
of taio, except section 3 of the Anti Drug
Abuse Act of 1986, whenever property is civilly
or criminally forfeited under the Controlled
Substances Acl, the <4ftomey General
may, with the concurrence of the Secretary
of Slate, equitably transfer any conveyance.
currency, and any other type of personal
property which the Attorney General may
designate by regulation for equitable transfer,
or any amounts realized by the United
Stales from the sale of any real or personal
property forfeited under the Controlled Substances
Act to an appropriate foreign country
to reflect generally the contribution of
any such foreign country participating directly
or indirectly in any acts which led Co
the seizure or forfeiture of such property.
Such pTOperiy when forfeited pursuant to
subsection (a/(li(B/ of this section may also
be transferred to a foreign country pursuant
to a treaty providing for the transjer of forfeited
property to sucA foreign coxtntry. A decision
by tAe Attorney General pursuant to
this paragraph shall not be subject to
review. The foreign country shall, in the
ei'ent of a transfer of property or proceeds of
sale of property under this subchapter, bear
all expenses incurred by the United States in
the seizure, maintenance, inventory, storage,
forfeiture, and disposition of the property,
and all transfer costs. The payment of
all such expenses, and the transfer of assets
pursuant to this paragraph, shall be upon
such terms ond conditions as the Attorney
General may, in his discretion, set Transfers
may be made under this subsection
during a fiscal year to a country that is subject
to paragraph (1/tA/ of section 481(h/ of
the Foreign Assistance Act of 1962 (relating
to restrictions on United States assistance/
only if there is o certification in effect with
October 17, 1986 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H11231
re$pect to OiaL country for that fiscal year
under parayrap/t f2i of that section.
"tZJ The provisions of this section shall
not be construed as limiting or superseding
any other authority of the United States to
provide assistance to a foreign country in
obtaining property related to a crime committed
in the foreign country, including
property which is sought as evidence of a
crime committed in the foreign country.
"fjt A certified order or judgment of forfeiture
by a court of competent jurisdiction
of a foreign country concerning property
which is the subject of forfeiture under this
section and was determined by such court to
be the type of properly described in subsection
taiilJiBJ of this section, and any certified
recordings or transcripts of testimony
taken in a foreign judicial proceeding concerning
suck order or judgment of forfeilure,
shall be admissible in evidence in a proceeding
brought pursuant to this section. Such
certified order or judgment of forfeiture,
when admitted into evidence, shall constitute
probable cause thai IJie property forfeited
by such order or judgment of forfeiture is
sH6;ect to forfeiture under this section and
creates a rebutlabte presumption of the forfeitability
of such properly under this seclion.
"t4J A certified order or judgment of conviction
by a court of competent jurisdiction
of a foreign country concerning an unlawful
drug actiirity which gives rise to forfeilure
under this section and ony certified recordings
or transcripts of testimony taken in a
foreign judicial proceeding concerning such
order or judgment of conviction shall be admissible
in evidence in a proceeding brought
pursuant to this section. Such certified
order or judgment of convicliori, when admitted
into evidence, creates a rebuttable
presumption that the unlawful drug actiiHly
giving rise to forfeiture under this section
has occurred.
"fSJ The provisions of paragraphs 13) and
<4/ of this subsection shall not be construed
as limiting the admissibility of any evidence
otherwise admissible, nor shall they limit
the otii/ity of the United States to establish
probable cause that property is subject to
forfeiture by any evidence otherwise admissible.
"tjj For purposes of this section—
"(11 the term 'Attorney General' means the
Attorney General or his delegate; and
"(2) the term 'Secretary of the Treasury'
means the Secretary of the Treasury or his
delegate.
"S SB2. Criminal forfeiture
"(a! The court, in imposing sentence on a
person convicted of an offense under section
23S6 or 19S7 of this title shall order that the
person forfeit to the United States any property.
real or personal, which represents the
gross receipts the person oftfained, directty
or indirectly, as a result of such offense, or
which is traceable to such gross receipts.
"IbJ The provisions o/subsections 413 (c)
and <€) through tot of the Comprehensive
Drug i46use Prevention and Control Act of
1970 (21 U.S.C. 953 (c) and (e)-(o» shall
apply to property subject to forfeilure under
this section, to any seteure or disposition
thereof, and to any administrative or judicial
proceeding in relation thereto, if not inconsistent
with this section.".
(bJ The chapter analysis of part I of title
IS, United States Code, is amended by inserting
after the item for chapter 45 the fallowing:
"JS. Forfeiture 981".
SKC iSSr. SEIERABILITr Cl.iVSE.
If any provision of this subtitle or any
amendment made by this Act, or the application
thereof to any person or circumstances
is held invalid, the provisions of
every other part, and their application, shall
not be affected thereby.
Subtitle I—Armed Career Criminals
SEC. HOI. SHORT TITLE
This subtitle may be cited as the "Career
Criminals Amendment Act of 1989".
SEC net E.VP.l V.s/f/.V OF PREIIK A TE OFFEhSES FOR
ARMED C.iREKR CRIMINAL PENALTIES.
(a> IN GENERAL.—Section 924<eJril of title
18. United States Code, is amended by striking
out "for robbery or burglary, or both."
and inserting in lieu thereof "for a piofent
felony or a serious drug offense, or both,".
ibi DEFINITIONS.—Section 924leM2) of fitte
18. United States Code, is amended by striking
out subparagraph (A! and all that follows
through subparoffrapii (B) and inserting
in lieu thereof the following:
"lAl the term 'serious drug offense'
means—
"HI an offense under the Controlled Substances
Act (21 U.S.C. 901 et seg.l. the Controlled
Substances Import and £iport Act
(21 U.S.C. 951 et seg.l, or the first section or
section 3 of Public Law 96-350 (21 U.S.C.
9S5a et seg.l, for which a maximum term of
imprisonment of ten years or more is prescribed
by law: or
"(iU an offense under State law, involving
manufacturing, distributing, or possessing
with intent to manufacture or distribute, a
controlled substance las defined in section
102 of the Controlled Substances Act 121
U.S.C, 90211, for which a maiimum term of
imprisonment of ten years or more is prescribed
by law: and
"(Bl the term 'violent felony' means any
crime punishable by imprisonment for a
term exceediny one year that—
"HI has as an element the use, attempted
use, or ttireatened use of physical force
against the person of another; or
"Hi! is burglary, arson, or extortion involves
use of explosives, or otherwise involves
conduct that presents a serious potential
risk of physical injury to another.
Subtitle J—Auihorhation of Appropriation for
Drug Law Enfprcemeat
SEC. I4SI. ACTHUHlZATmN OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a! There is authorised to be appropriated
for fUcal year 1997 for the Department of
Justice for the Drug Enforcement Administralion
960.000,000: except, that notwithstanding
section 1345 of title 31, United
States Code, funds mode available to the Department
of Justice for the Drug Enforcement
Administration in any fiscal year may
be used for travel, transportation, and subsistence
expenses of State, county, and local
officers attending conferences, meeftnys,
and trainfny courses at the FBI Academy,
Quantico, Virginia.
(bl The Drug Enforcement Administration
of the Department of Justice is hereby authorixed
to plan, construct, renorafe. maintain,
remodel and repair buildings and purchase
equipment incident thereto for an All
Source Intelligence Center: "Provided, That
the existing El Paso Intelligence Center shall
remain in Texas.".
(cl There is authorised to be appropriated
for fiscal year 1997 for the Department of
Justice for the Federal Prison System,
9124,500,000, of which 996,500.000 Shall be
for the construction of Federal penal ond
correctional institutions and 929,000,000
shait be for salaries and expenses.
idl There is authorised to be appropriaicd
for fiscal year 1387 for the Judiciary for Defender
Services, $19,000,000.
(el There is authorised to be appropriated
Jtr fiscal year 1987 for the Judiciary for Fees
and Expenses of Jurors and Commissioners,
97,500.000.
(fl 'There is authorised to be appropriated
for fiscal year 1987 for the Deportment of
Justice for the OJJice of Justice Assistance.
95.000,000 to carry out a pilot prison capacity
program.
(gl There is authorised to be appropriated
for fiscal year 1987 for the Department of
Justice for support of United States prisoners
in non-Federal Institutions, 95.000,000.
(hi There is authorised to be appropriated
for fiscal year 1987 for the Department of
Justice for the Offices of the United States
attorneys, 931,000.000.
(U There is autAoriecd to be appropriated
for fiscal year 1987 for the Department of
Justice for the United States Marshals Service,
S17.000.000.
"Ijl Authorisations of appropriations for
fiscal year 1987 contained in this section
are in addition to those amounts agreed to
in the conference agreement reached on
Title I of H.J. Res. 738."
del In addition to any other amounts that
may be authorised to be appropriated for
fiscal year 1987, the following sums are authorised
to be appropriated to procure
secure voice radios:
Federal Bureau of Investigation
92,000.000
Secret Service 95,000.000.
(U This section may be cited as the "Drug
Bn/orcement Enhancement Act of 1986".
Subtitle K—Stale and Loral .\arcoties Control
Aasiatanee
SEC. ISSI. SHORT TITLE.
This subline may be cited as the "State
and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Act
of 1986".
SEC. ISii. BVREAV OF JVsflCE ASSISTANCE DREG
GRANT PROGR.IMS.
(al Title I of the Omnibus Crime Control
and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3712
et seg. I is amended—
( I I by redesignating part M as part N,
(21 by redesignating section 1301 as section
1401, and
(31 by inserting after part L the following
new part'
"PART »—CRANTS FOR DRUG LA W
ENFORCEMENT PROGRAMS
"FUNCTION OP THE DIRECTOR
"SEC. 1301. The Director shall provide
funds to eligible Slates and units of local
government pursuant to this part
"DESCR/FT/ON OFDRVa LAW ENFORCEMENT
ORJINT PROORAM
"SEC. 1302. The Director is authorized to
make grants to States, for the use of States
and units of local government in the States,
for the purpose of enforcing State and local
laws that establish offenses similar to offenses
established in the Controlled Substances
Act <21 U.S.C. 801 et seg.l, and to—
"III provide additional personnel, eguipment,
facilities, personnel training, and supplies
for more widespread apprehension of
persons who violate Stale and local taws relating
to the production, possession, and
transfer of controtted substances and to pay
operating expenses (including the purchase
of evidence and information! incurred as a
result of apprehending such persons;
"(21 provide additional personnel, eguipment.
faeililies (including upgraded and additional
law enforcemenl crime laboratories),
personnef training, and supplies for
more widespread prosecution of persons accused
of violaling such State and local laws
and to pay operating expenses in connection
with such prosecution;
"(31 provide additional personnel (including
judges), equipment, personnel training,
ond suppiies for more widespread adjudication
of cases involving persons accused of
violating such Stale and local laws, to pay
operatiny expenses in connection with such
adjudication, and to provide quickly tempoH11232
rary facilities in which to conduct adjudications
of such cases;
"(4) provide additional public correctional
resources for the detention of persons convicted
of violating Stale and local laws relating
to the production, possession, or
transfer of controlled substances, and to establish
and improve treatment and rehabilitative
counseling provided to drug dependent
persons convicted of violating State and
local laws;
"(5! conduct programs of eradication
aimed at destroying wild or illicit growth of
plant species from which controlled substances
may be extracted;
"fSJ provide programs which identify and
meet the needs of drug-dependent offenders;
and
"(7) conduct demonstration programs, in
conjunction with local law enforcement officials.
in areas in ui/ilcft there is a high incidence
of drug abuse and drug trafficking to
expedite the prosecution of major drug offenders
by providing additional resources,
such as investigators and prosecutors, to
identify major drug offenders ond mot'e
these offenders expeditiously through the judicial
system.
"APPUCATIONS TO HECEIVE GRAHTS
"SEC. 1303. To reguest a grant under section
1302, the chief executive officer of a
State shall submit to the Director an application
at such time and in such form as the
Director may reouire. Such application shall
include—
"Hi a statewide strategy for the enforcemen!
of State and local laws relating to the
production, possession, and transfer of controlled
substances;
"'2i a certification that Federal funds
made available under section 1302 of this
title will not be used to supplant State or
local funds, but will be used to increase the
amounts of such funds that would, in the
absence of Federal funds, be made available
for drug law enforcement activities;
"I3J a certification that funds required to
pay the non-federat portion of the cost of
each program and project for which such
grant is made shall be in addition to funds
that would otherwise be made available for
drug law enforcement by the recipients of
grant funds;
"(4) an assurance that the Stale application
described in this sectioTi, arid any
amendment to such application, has been
submitted for review to the State legislature
or designated body (for purposes ^ this
section, such application or amendment
shall be deemed to be revieived if the State
legislature or such body does not review
such application or amendment within the
Sd-day period beginning on the date such
application or amendment is so submitted/;
and
"(5/ an assurance that the Stale application
and any amendment thereto teas made
public before submission to Che Bureau and,
to the extent prottidcd under State law or established
procedure, an opportunity to comment
thereon was provided to citixens and
to neighborhood and community groups.
Such strategy shall be prepared after consultation
with State and local ofAcials whose
duty it is to enforce such laws. Such strategy
Shalt include an assurance that following
the first fiscal year covered by an application
and each fiscal year thereafl^, the applicant
shall submit to Che Director or to the
State, as the case may be. a performance
report concerning the activities carried out
pursuant to section 1302 of this title.
"REvrsw or APptrcATtoN.s
"SEC. 1304. la/ The Bureau shall provide
financial assistance to each State applicant
under section 1392 of this title to carry out
the programs or projects submitted by such
applicant upon determining that-~
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE October 17. 1986
"11/ the application or amendment thereto
is consistent with the requirements of this
title: and
"12/ before the approval of the application
and any amendment thereto the Bureau has
made an affirmative finding in writing that
the program or project has been reviewed in
accordance with section 1303 of this title.
Each application or amendment made and
submitted for approval to the Bureau pursuant
to section 1303 shall be deemed approved,
in whole or in part, by the Bureau
not later than sixty days after first received
unless the Bureau informs the applicant of
specific reasons for disapproval.
"lb/ Grant funds awarded under section
1302 of this title shall not be used for land
acquisition or construction pro;eefs. other
than penal and correclional institutions.
"Ic/ The Bureau shall not finally disapprove
any application, or any amendment
thereto, submitted to the Director under this
section icithoat/irst affording the applicant
reasonable notice and opportunity for reconsideration.
"ALLOCATJON AND DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS
UNDER rORm/LA GRANTS
"SEC. 1305. la/ Of the total amount appropriated
for this part in any fiscal year, SO
per centum sAott be set aside for section
1302 and allocated to States as follows;
"11/ SSOO.OOO shall be aflocoted to each of
the participating States.
"12/ Of the total funds remaining after the
allocation under paragraph (1/, there shall
be allocated to each State an amount which
hears the same ratio to the amount of remaining
funds described in this paragraph
as the population of such Slate bears to the
population of all the States.
"(b/llJ Each State which receives funds
under subsection la/ in a fiscal year shall
distribute among units of local government,
or combinations of units of local government,
in such State for the purposes specified
in section 1302 of this title that portion
of such funds which bears the same ratio to
the aggregate amount of such funds as the
amount of funds expended by all units of
local government for criminal justice in the
preceding fiscal year bears to the aggregate
amount of funds expended by the State and
all units of local government in such State
far criminal justice in such preceding fiscal
year.
"(2/ Any funds not distributed to units of
local government under paragraph (1/ shatt
be available for expenditure by the State tnvolved
"13/ For purposes of determining the distribution
of funds under paragraph II), the
most accurate and complete data available
for the fiscal year involved shall be used. If
data for such fiscal year are not available,
then the most accurate and complete data
available far the most recent fiscal year preceding
such fiscal year shall be used.
"Ic/ No funds allocated to a State under
subsection la) or received by a State for distribution
under subsection lb) may be distributed
by the Director or by the State involved
for any program other than a program
contained in an approved application.
"Id/ If the Director determines, on the
basis of in/omation available to it during
any fiscal year, that a portion of the funds
allocated to a State for Oiat fiscal year will
not be required or that a Stale will be unable
to qualify or receive funds under section
1302 of this title, or that a Slate chooses not
to participate in the program established
under such section, then such portion shall
be awarded by the Director to urban, rural,
and suburban units of local government or
combinations thereof within such State
giving priority to those jurisdictions with
greatest need.
"te) Any funds allocated under subsection
la) that are not dislribuied under this section
shall be available for obligation under
section 1309 of this title.
"REPORTS
"SEC. 1306. la) Each State which receives a
grant under section 1302 of this title shall
submit to the Director, for each year in
which any part of such grant is expended by
a Slate or unit of local government, a report
which contains—
"(1/ a summary of the activities carried
out with such grant and an assessment of
the impact of such activities on meeting the
needs identified in the State strategy submitted
under section 1303 of this title;
"12/ a summary of the activities carried
out in such year wUh any grant received
under section 2309 of this title by such State;
and
"13/ such other information as the Director
may require by rule.
Such report shall be submitted in such form
and by such time as the Director may require
by rule.
"lb/ Not later than ninety days after the
end of each fiscal year far lohich grants are
made under section 1302 of this UlU. Vie Director
shall submit to the Speaker of the
House of Represeniatioes and the President
pro tempore of the Senate a report that includes
with respect to each State—
"11/ Ike aggregate amount of grants made
under sections 1302 and 1309 of this title to
such State for such fiscal year;
"12/ the ainount of such grants expended
for each of the purposes specified in section
1302; and
"13/ a summary of the information provided
in compliance with paragraphs 11/ and
12/ of subsection la/.
"EXPENDnVBE OF ORANTS: RECORDS
"SEC. 1307. la/ A grant made under section
1302 of this title may not be expended for
more than 75 per centum of Ihe cost of the
identified uses, in the aggregate, jbr which
such grant is received to carry out any purpose
specified in section 1302, except that in
the case of funds distributed to an Indian
tribe which performs law enforcement functions
las determined by the Secretary of the
Interior) for any such program or project,
the amount of such prant shall be equal to
100 per centum of such cost The non-Federal
portion of the expenditures for such uses
shall be paid in cash.
"lb/ Not more than 10 per centum of a
grant made under section 1302 of this title
may be used for costs incurred to administer
such grant
"Ic/ll/ Each State which receives a grant
under section 1302 of this title shall keep,
and shall require units of local government
which receitie any part of such grant to
keep, such records as the Director may require
by rule tofaciUtale an effective audit
"12/ The Director and the Comptroller
General of the United Stales shall have
access, for the purpose of audit and exaniination,
to any books, documents, and
records of States which receive grants, and
of units of local government tohich receice
any part of a grant made under section
1302. if in the opinion of the Director or the
Comptroller General, such books, documents,
and recortts ore retaCed to the r«;eipt
or use of any such grunt
"STATE OFFICE
"SEC. 1308. la) The chief executive of each
participating State shall designate a State
office for purposes of—
"11/ preparing on application to obtain
funds under section 1302 of this title; and
"12/ administering funds received under
such section from the Director, including receipt
review, processinp, monitoring.
October 17, 1986 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD —HOUSE H 11233
progress andfinancial report review, technical
assistance, grant adjvstmenla, accounting,
auditing, and fund disbursements.
"ibi An office or agencg performing other
functions within the executive t>ranch of a
Stale may be designated to carry out the
functions specified in eubseciion fa/.
"PISCFTSRIO.WARY GRANTS
"Sec. 1309, The Director is authorized to
make grants to public agencies and private
nonprofit organtzalions for any pappose
specified in section 1302 of this title. The Director
shall have final authority over all
grants awarded under this seciion.
"APPUCATION REOmnSUENTS
"SF.V. 1310. fa/ No grant may be made
under section 1309 of this title unless on application
has been submitted to the Director
in which the applicant—
"<t> sets forth o program or project which
is eligible for funding pursuant to section
1309 of this title; and
"(2) describes the services to be provided,
performance, goals, and the jnonner in
which the program is to be carried out.
"fb/ Each applicant for funds under section
1309 of this title shall certify that its
program or project meets all the reguirenwnis
of this section, that all the information
contained in the application is correct,
and that the applicant will comply with all
the provision Of this title and all other applicable
Federal laws. Such certification
shall be made in a form acceptable to the Director.
"ALLOCATION OF FUNDS FOR DISCRETIONARY
GRANTS
"SEC. 1311. Of the total amount appropriated
for this part in onv fiscal year, 20 per
centum shall be reserned and set aside for
section 1309 of this title in a special discretionary
fund for use by the Director in carrying
out the purposes specified in seefion
1302 of this title. Grants under section 1309
may be made for amounts up to 100 per
centum of the costs of the propranis or
projects contained in the approved appZicaiion.
"UUITATION ON USE OF DISCRETIONARY GRANT
FUNDS
"SEC. 1312. Grant funds awarded under
section 1309 of this title shall not be used for
land acguisition or construclion projects.
(bid/ Subsections (a) and lb/ of section
401 of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control
and Safe Streets Act of 1963 (42 U.S.C. 3741/
are each amended by striking out "part E"
and inserting in lieu thereof "paris E end
M'\
(2! Section 6011b/ of title I of the Omnibus
Crime (Control and Safe Streets Act of 1966
142 V.S.C. 2762fb/J is amended by striking
out "parts D and E" and inserting in lieu
thereof "parts D. E. and W".
(3/ Section 6021b/ of title I of the Omnibus
Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1966
(42 U.S.C. 3?83(b/l is amended by inserting
"or M" after "part D".
(4/ Section 606 of title I of the Omnibus
Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1966
(42 U,.S.C. 3789/ is amended by inserting "or
1306, as the case may be," after "section
408".
15/ The table of contents of title t of the
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act
of 1966 (42 V.S.C. 3711 et seq./ is amended
by striking out the items relating to part M
and section 1301, and inserting in tieu
thereof the following new items:
"PART M—GRANTS FOR DRUG LAW
ENFORCEMENT PROGRAMS
"Sec. 1301. funciion o/Wie director.
"Sec. 1302. Description of drug'law enforcement
grant program.
"Sec. 1303. Applications to receive grants.
"Sec. 1304. Review of applications.
"Sec. 1305. Allocation and distribution of
funds under formula grants.
"Sec. 1306. Reports.
"Sec. 1307. Expenditure of ijranis; records.
"Sec. 1306. State office.
"Sec. 1309. Discretionary grants,
"Sec. 1310. Application requirements.
"Sec. 1311. Allocation of funds for discretionary
grants.
"Sec. 1312. Limitation on use of discretionary
grant funds.
"PART N—TRANSITION—EFFECTIVE DATE—
REPEALER
"Sec. 1401. Continuation of rules, authorities,
and proceedings.".
Ic/ Section 1001 of title I of the Omnibus
Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968
(42 V.S.C. 3793/ is amended—
ID in subsection (at-
(A) in paragraph (3/ by striking out "and
L" and inserting in lieu thereof "L. and M",
IB/ by redesignating paragraph 16/ as
paragraph 17/. and
<C/ by inserting after parapraph tS/ the
following new paragraph:
"16/ There are authorized to be appropriated
$230,000,000 for fiscal year 1967,
$230,000,000 for fiscal year 1968, and
$230,000,000 for fiscal year 1969, to carry
out the programs under part M of this title."
. . a n d
12/ in subsection lb/ by striking out "and
iEf"" . and inserting in lieu thereof E, and
Subtitle L^Study on the Use of Existing Federal
Buildings as Prisons
SEC leoi. STLOY REQUIRED.
la/ Within 90 days of the dale of enactment
of this Act, the .Secreiarp of Defense
shall provide to the Attorney General—
n/ a list of all sites under the Jurisdiction
of the Department of Defense including facilities
beyond the excess and surplus property
inventories whose facilities or a portion
thereof could be used, or are being used, as
detention facilities for felons, especially
those who are a Federal responsibility such
OS illegal alien felons and major narcotics
traffickers;
12/ a statement of fact on how such facilities
could be used as detention facilities
with detailed descriptions on Iheir actual
daily percentage of use; their capacities or
rated capacities; the time periods they could
be utilized as detention facilities; the cost of
converting such facilities to detention facilities;
and, the cost of maintaining them as
such; and
13/ in consultation with the Attorney General,
a statement showing how the Department
of Defense and the Department c!^/asiice
toouZd administer and provide staffing
responsibilities to convert and maintain
such detention facilities.
lb/ Copies of the report and analysis required
by subsection la/ shall be provided to
the Congress.
Subtitle lU—Narcalles TrafHckers Deportation Act
SEC. I-SL. A.UE.VD.WB.\T TO TUB IMMIGRATION AND
NATWNAUrr ACT.
lal Section 212ia/i23/ of the Immigration
and Nationality Act 18 U.S.C. I182la/I23// is
amended—
11/ by striking out "any taw or regulation
relating to" and all that follows through
"addiction-sustaining opiate" and inserting
in lieu thereof "any law or regulation of a
State, the United States, or a foreign country
relating to a controlled substance las defined
in section 102 of the Controlled SubstancesAct
121 V.S.C. 802//";and
12) by striking out "any of the aforementioned
drugs" and inserting in lieu thmcf
"any such conZrofied substance".
lb/ Section 24IiaJillJ of such Act 18 U.S.C.
12Slia/lII// is amended by striking out
"any law or regulation relating to" and all
that follows through "addiction-sustaining
opiate" and inserting in lieu thereof "any
law or regulation of a State, the United
States, or a foreign country relating to a
controlled substance (as defined in section
102 of the Controlled SubsZanees Act (21
U.S.C. 602//".
fc) The amendments made by this subsections
(a/ and ib/ of this section shall apply
to convictions occurring before, on, or after
the date of the enactment of this section,
and the amendments made by subsection (a/
shall apply to aliens entering the United
States after the dale of the enactment of this
section.
(dl Section 287 of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1357/ is amended
by adding at the end the following new subsection:
"(d/ In the case of an alien who is arrested
by a Federal. State, or local law enforcement
Official for a violation of any law relating lo
controlled substances, if the official (or another
official/—
"(1/ has reason to believe that the alien
may not have been lawfully odmiited io the
United States or oiAertoise is not lawfully
presenZ in the United States,
"(2/ expeditiously informs an appropriate
off icer or employee of the Service authorized
and designated by the Attorney General of
the arresZ and of facts concerning the sZaZus
of the alien, and
"(3/ requests the Service to determine
promptly wheOier or not to issue a detainer
to detain the alien, the officer or employee of
the Service shall promptly determine whether
or not to issue such a deZoiner. If such a
detainer is issued and the alien is not otherwise
detained by Federal, Stale, or local officials,
the Attorney General shall effectively
and expeditiously take custody of the
alien.
(e/iD From the sums appropriated to
carry out this Act, the Attorney General,
through the Investigative Division of the
Immigration and Naturalization Service,
shall provide a pilot program in 4 cities to
establish or improve the computer capabilities
of the local offices of the •Service and of
ZocaZ law enforcement agencies to respond to
inquiries concerning aliens who have been
arrested or convicted for, or are the subject
to criminal investigation relating lo, a utolation
of any law relating to controlled sabstances.
The Attorney General shall select
cities in a manner that provides special consideration
for cities located near the land
borders of the United States and for large
cities which have major concentrations of
aliens. Some of the sums made cvaiJabie
under the pilot program shall be used lo increase
the personnel level of the Investigative
Division.
(2) At the end of the first year of the pilot
program, the Attorney General shall provide
for an evaluation of the effectiveness of the
prosjram and shall report to Congress on
such evaluation and on whether the pilot
program should be extended or expanded.
Subtitle N—Freedom of Information Act
SEC mi. SHORT TITLE.
This subtitle may be cited as the "Freedom
ofln/ormalion Reform Act of 1986".
SEC 1801. LAW ENFORCEMENT.
la) £*ejtfj'77ow,—.Section S52lb/l7J of title
5, United States Code, is amended to read as
follows:
"17/ records or information compiled for
Jaw enforcement purposes, but only to the
extent that the production of such law enforcement
records or information lA/ coidd
reosDTiabZy be expected to interfere with ehforcemenl
proceedings. IB/ would deprive a
person of a right to a fair trial or en imparH11234
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE October 17, 198$
lial adjudicalion. <C1 could reasonably be
eipecled to coTisiituie an untoarranted invasion
of personal privacy, (D> Could reasonably
be erpecled to duc/ose the idenlity of a
confidential source, including a Stale, local,
or foreign agency or auOiorily or any private
institution which furnished information
on a corifidential basis, and. in the case
of a record or iriformation compiled by
criminal law enforcemenl authority in the
covTsr of a criminal investigation or by an
agency conducting a lawful national security
intelligence investigation, information
furnished by a coriHdential source, lEJ
would disclose techniques and procedures
for law enforcemenl investigations or prosecutions.
or would disclose guidelines for
law enforcement investigations or prosecutions
if such disclosure could reasonably be
expected to risk circumvention of the law, or
IFJ could reasonably be expected to endanger
the life or physical safety of any inaividuaU".
lb) ExcLvsKms.—Section SS2 of title 5,
United States Code, is amended In redesignating
subsections to), idl. and te) as subsections
idJ, lei. and ifl respectively, and by inserting
after subsection tbJ the following
new srdisection:
"ic/ill Whenever a request is made which
involves access to records describe in subsection
rbXTHA) and—
"(A) the invesiSgation or proceeding involves
a possible violation of criminal lawt
and
"ISJ there is reason to believe that fiJ the
subject of the invesiiyatton or proceeding is
not aware of ita pendency, and (iH disclosure
of the eTisUmee of the recoil could reasonably
expected to interfere with enforcement
proceedings,
the agerwy may, during only such lime as
that circumstance continuss. treat the
records as not subject to Ore requirements of
this section.
"121 Whenever informas^ records maintained
by a criminal law eriforcement
agency under an informant's name or persotial
identifier are requested by a third
parly according to the informant's name or
personal identifier, the agency may treat the
records as not subject to the requirements of
this section unless the informant's status as
an irtformant has been officially confirmed.
"131 Whenever a request is made which involves
access to records maintained by the
Federal Bureau of Investigation pertaining
to foreign intelligence or counterinlelligence,
or international terrorism, and the
existence of Uie records is classified information
as provided in subsection IbKIJ, the
Bureau may. as long os the erjstence of the
records remains classified in/ormalion,
treat the records as not subject to the requirements
of this section.".
SEC MW. FEES FEE tTAIVEKS.
Paragraph I41IAI of section SSFia) of title
5. Vailed States Code, is amended to read as
follows:
"<4JIAllil In order to carry out the provisions
of this section, each agency shall promulgate
regulations, pursuant to notice and
receipt of public comment, specifying the
schedule of fees applicable to the processing
of reguests under this section and establishing
procedures and guidelines for determining
when such fees should be waived or reduced.
Such schedule shall conform to the
guidelines icfiicA shall be promulgated, pursuant
to notice ond receipt of public comment.
by the Director of the Office of management
and Budget and which shall provide
far a uniform schedule of fees for all
agencies.
"(ii) Such agency regulaUotis shall provide
that—
"III fees shaU be limited to reasonable
standard charges for document uarcK duplication,
and review, when records are requested
for commercial use;
"(III fees shall be limiled to reasonable
standard charges for document duplication
when records are not sought for commercial
use and the request is mode by an educationat
or noncommercial scientific institution,
whose purpose is scholarly or scientific
reseorch; or a represeniative of the news
media: and
"<UII for any regaest not described in ill
or (lU. fees shall be limited to reasonable
standard charges for document search and
duplication.
"HW Documents shall be furnished without
any charge or at a charge reduced tiefou'
tAe fees estaUished under clause (HI if disclosure
of the information is in the public
interest because it is likely to contribute significantly
to public understanding of the operations
or activities of the government and
is not primarily in tfie commercial interest
of the requester.
"(iv! Fee schedules sfcotl provide for the recovery
of only the direct costs of search, duplication.
or review. Review costs shall include
only the direct costs incurred during
the initial examination of a document for
the purposes of determining whether the
documents must be disctosed under this section
and for the purposes of UJitftftotdiny
any portions exempt from disclosure under
this section Review costs may not include
any costs incurred in resolving issues of law
or policy that may be raised in the course of
processing a request under this section No
fee may be eJtaryed by any agency under this
section—
"ftl if the costs o