Skip to main content

Search the Special Collections and Archives Portal

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

Document

Information

Date

1984 to 1988

Description

Folder of documents from the Senator Chic Hecht Political Papers (MS-00003) -- Subject Files -- Judiciary file.

Digital ID

sod2023-064
    Details

    Citation

    sod2023-064. Senator Chic Hecht Political Papers, 1943-1988. MS-00003. Special Collections and Archives, University Libraries, University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Las Vegas, Nevada. http://n2t.net/ark:/62930/d1k071s10

    Rights

    This material is made available to facilitate private study, scholarship, or research. It may be protected by copyright, trademark, privacy, publicity rights, or other interests not owned by UNLV. Users are responsible for determining whether permissions are necessary from rights owners for any intended use and for obtaining all required permissions. Acknowledgement of the UNLV University Libraries is requested. For more information, please see the UNLV Special Collections policies on reproduction and use (https://www.library.unlv.edu/speccol/research_and_services/reproductions) or contact us at special.collections@unlv.edu.

    Standardized Rights Statement

    Digital Provenance

    Digitized materials: physical originals can be viewed in Special Collections and Archives reading room

    Digital Processing Note

    OCR transcription

    Language

    English

    Format

    application/pdf

    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