Drug laws: reports, analysis, House Resolution 5484, status, correspondence, clippings, press release, statement from Senator Hecht, and notes

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