[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 117 (Tuesday, September 8, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9979-S9982]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. CLELAND:
  S. 2449. A bill to amend the Controlled Substance Act relating to the 
forfeiture of currency in connection with illegal drug offenses, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                     DRUG CURRENCY FORFEITURES ACT

 Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, there have been a series of recent 
cases in which courts have ruled against one of law enforcement's most 
effective anti-drug tools--asset forfeiture. Just consider:
  Law enforcement agents at an airport found almost $50,000 wrapped 
inside a pair of jeans. A drug dog responded positively to the presence 
of narcotics on the money, and the traveler, when confronted by the 
agents, produced a fake driver's license and offered other false 
evidence. United States v. $49,576.00 in U.S. Currency, l16 F.3d 425 
(9th Cir. 1997).
  In another instance, narcotics agents found $30,000 wrapped in 
bundles and stashed under the seat of a car. Despite the courier's 
demonstrably false explanation of the source of the money, the court 
nevertheless found insufficient evidence to establish probable cause 
for forfeiture. United States v. U.S. Currency, $30,060.00, 39 F.3d 
1039 (9th Cir. 1994).
  These are but two in a series of cases in which the courts found 
circumstantial evidence sufficient to establish that the money was 
derived from some form of criminal activity, but insufficient to 
establish that the illegal activity involved drug trafficking. The 
courts therefore ruled that the money seized was not subject to 
forfeiture, and the proceeds were returned to the trafficker. See also 
United States v. $13,570.00 in U.S. Currency, 1997 WL 722947 (E.D. La. 
1997) (seizure of cash at airport lacked probable cause despite dog 
sniff, evasive answers, fake ID, courier profile, and prior drug 
arrest); United States v. $14,876.00 in U.S. Currency, 1997 WL 722942 
(E.D. La. 1997) (same); United States v. $40,000 in U.S. Currency, 999 
F. Supp. 234 (D.P.R. 1998) (dog sniff, drug courier profile, quantity 
of currency and evasive answers are not sufficient to establish 
probable cause where government fails to establish any connection 
between claimant and any drug trafficker).
  Mr. President, these court decisions are coming at a time when drug 
sales in this country are generating $60 billion in illegal proceeds 
every year. Most of this drug money finds its way to drug kingpins in 
Mexico and Colombia. And the drugs find their way to Americans of all 
ages and walks of life. The consequences are devastating. Substance 
abuse is now the single largest preventable cause of death in this 
country, with illegal drugs and alcohol killing 120,000 Americans each 
year.
  It's an enemy that respects neither class nor age group. High school 
athletes, runaways, soccer players, gang members, and class 
valedictorians use and sell drugs. Nationwide, the percentage of teens 
reporting illegal drug use has doubled over the last 5 years. And now 
the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse reports that teen drug use 
rose in 1997, led by increasing marijuana smoking among teenagers who 
view it as a low-risk ``soft drug.'' It is no wonder that in survey 
after survey, Americans are reporting that illegal drugs top their list 
of national concerns.
  In recent testimony before the Senate Select Committee on 
Intelligence, a top official at the Drug Enforcement Administration 
(DEA) painted a chilling portrait of the powerful threat to the United 
States posed by international drug organizations. He said, and I quote, 
``These individuals, from headquarters located outside the U.S., 
influence the choices that many Americans make about where to live, or 
where they send their children to school. The drugs, and the attendant 
violence which accompanies the drug trade, have reached into every 
American community and, in essence, have robbed many Americans of the 
dreams they once cherished.''
  These organized crime leaders are sophisticated and possess the power 
that comes with unlimited resources. Because they are worth billions of 
dollars, these drug lords have at their disposal some of the world's 
most technically advanced airplanes, boats,

[[Page S9980]]

radar, and communications equipment. They possess weapons in quantities 
that, DEA testified, ``rival the capabilities of some legitimate 
governments.'' These drug kingpins send thousands of couriers into the 
United States who answer to them on a daily basis via faxes, cellular 
phones, or pagers.
  Since the disruption of the notorious Cali cartel leadership, we know 
that traffickers from Mexico have joined together with Colombian 
traffickers in an emerging alliance which has largely taken over U.S. 
heroin distribution from Asian organizations and is now producing some 
of the world's most potent heroin. The manufacture of the vast majority 
of cocaine in South America is still under the control of the Colombian 
cartels, which use commercial maritime vessels, containerized cargo and 
private aircraft to transport the cocaine from their laboratories in 
the jungles of southeast Colombia through Mexico and the Caribbean into 
U.S. border points of entry. In fact, 50 to 60 percent of all the 
cocaine, as well as 25 percent of the heroin and 80 percent or more of 
the meth coming into the United States, are transported into our 
country through the U.S.-Mexico border.
  The DEA testified that the influence of Colombian trafficking 
organizations in the Caribbean is ``overwhelming.'' Several Colombian 
drug syndicates have set up command and control bases in Puerto Rico 
and the Dominican Republic and use the Caribbean Basin to ferry tons of 
cocaine into the United States each year. According to the DEA, 
seizures of 500 to 2,000 kilos of cocaine in the Caribbean are now 
commonplace. Unlike the monopoly-like rule of the Cali cartel, many of 
the new Colombian cartels have chosen to franchise a large portion of 
their wholesale heroin and cocaine operations. As a result, criminals 
from the Dominican Republic have now become the dominant force in the 
wholesale cocaine and heroin trade on the East Coast of the United 
States.
  In addition to heroin and cocain, methamphetamine has become a 
growing threat within our borders. Methamphetamine trafficking, which 
until recently had been stopped west of the Mississippi River, is 
aggressively moving eastward and is now rapidly challenging cocaine as 
the primary focus of illegal drug trafficking in Georgia and other 
eastern seaboard States. According to the DEA Atlanta Field Division, 
Washington may soon declare Atlanta the meth capital of the Southeast.
  During February alone, DEA seized almost 90 pounds of methamphetamine 
in metropolitan Atlanta. Ten pounds of the drug was seized from 
passengers on buses originating in Texas and California. Acting on a 
tip, DEA agents found another 25 pounds stashed in hidden compartments 
in a vehicle. And law enforcement agents apprehended two Los Angeles 
passengers at Hartsfield Airport who had smuggled 20 pounds of meth 
into the State. These drugs are being ferried into my State by couriers 
employed by Mexican trafficking organizations operating out of Mexico 
and California. DEA has determined that a number of its recent meth 
seizures in Georgia are directly linked to the AMEZCUA drug trafficking 
organization--one of Mexico's principal drug cartels.
  The amounts of money generated by these illegal drug transactions are 
staggering. The DEA reported that one Mexican drug syndicate forwards 
$20 to $30 million to Colombia for each major drug operation, and makes 
tens of millions of dollars in profits each week. Moving this money 
from Mexico to Colombia, or from the U.S. to Mexico, is a relatively 
simple matter. The most popular method is to ship the currency in bulk 
by courier or cargo, or transport it overland or by air. Oftentimes, 
the same vehicle or even the same courier that originally transported 
the drugs into the United States will carry the drug proceeds out.
  It was not long ago that a Customs investigation made front page 
headlines. Three of Mexico's largest banks were indicted by the U.S. 
for laundering hundreds of millions of dollars in drug money from this 
country. The three-year sting was unprecedented on two counts. This was 
the largest money laundering case in the history of U.S. law 
enforcement. And it was the first time ever that Mexican banks and bank 
officials have been directly linked to laundering U.S. drug profits.
  The sting resulted in the arrest of 70 people, including 14 Mexican 
banking officials. Thirty-five million dollars in illegal drug proceeds 
was seized immediately. One hundred and twenty-two million dollars more 
is expected to be recovered from over 100 bank accounts frozen in this 
country and in Europe. While unprecedented, this operation netted only 
a drop in the bucket compared to the estimated $60 billion in illegal 
proceeds reaped from U.S. drug sales each year. Like most of the drug 
proceeds, this money was earmarked for drug lords in Mexico and 
Colombia. In this case, Mexican bankers allegedly aided the Juarez 
cartel in Mexico and the Cali cocaine and heroin syndicate in Colombia.
  If we ever expect to make in-roads in the so-called ``war on drugs,'' 
it is not enough just to apprehend the drug trafficker. We must seize 
his assets as well. Let me give just one example. The Rodriguez-
Orejuela brothers in Colombia once ran the most powerful international 
organized crime group in history. Based on evidence supplied by the 
U.S. Government, Miguel Rodriguez-Orejuela has been sentenced to 21 
years in prison, although it is expected that he will serve only 12. 
Last year his brother Gilberto was sentenced to 10\1/2\ years in prison 
on drug trafficking charges. Even now, the Rodriguez-Orejuela brothers 
are able to run their drug trafficking business from prison through the 
use of private quarters and telephones. They are by no means the 
exception. Last year the Colombia National Police took control of four 
maximum security prisons from the Bureau of Prisons, in an effort to 
halt jailed traffickers from continuing their illegal operations from 
behind prison walls. In the final analysis, the only way to destroy the 
drug cartels is to hit them where it hurts the most--their pocket 
books.
  The transportation and transmission (by electronic means) of drug 
proceeds are enormous problems for law enforcement, but they also 
present law enforcement with an enormous opportunity. Because drug 
proceeds in the form of cash occupy much more space than the drugs 
themselves--often filling suitcases, vehicles, and even airplanes--the 
movement of the cash is often the most vulnerable part of the drug 
operation. Indeed, law enforcement agents are frequently successful in 
intercepting such cash shipments by stopping couriers at airports, 
opening containers at Customs checkpoints, and encountering cars 
stuffed with cash during routine traffic stops.

  However, the ability of law enforcement to confiscate the money--and 
thus break the drug trafficking cycle--hinges on the government's 
ability to establish that the money is, in fact, drug proceeds, and not 
the proceeds of some other form of unlawful activity. Therefore, today 
the distinguished chairman of the Senate Caucus on International 
Narcotics Control, Senator Grassley, and I are introducing the Drug 
Currency Forfeitures Act. Our bill enhances the ability of law 
enforcement agents to interdict and confiscate the huge quantities of 
drug money that are being moved through our airports, up and down our 
major highways, through our ports, and in and out of financial 
institutions here and abroad--while at the same time it upholds Fourth 
Amendment constitutional protections against illegal searches and 
seizures. Specifically, our bill would create a ``rebuttable 
presumption'' that money is subject to forfeiture as drug proceeds in 
cases involving drug couriers carrying large amounts of cash through 
drug transit areas, and in cases involving international money 
laundering. The presumption would apply if any of the following factors 
is established by the government.
  Factor one: There is more than $10,000 in currency being transported 
in one of the transit places commonly used by drug traffickers--for 
example, an airport, an interstate highway, or port of entry--and any 
of the following circumstances commonly associated with the 
transportation of drug proceeds exists: the money is packaged in a 
highly unusual manner; or the courier makes a false statement to a law 
enforcement officer or inspector; or the money is found in close 
proximity to drugs; or a properly trained dog gives a positive alert.
  I note here that there has been much criticism of the use of drug 
dogs to

[[Page S9981]]

interdict drug money, on the ground that so much currency now in 
circulation in the U.S. is tainted with drug residue that the drug 
dog's positive alert is meaningless. Let me say, however, that recent 
scientific research has refuted this notion and indeed supports the 
proposition that a drug dog's alert to currency is highly relevant in a 
forfeiture case. A study by Dr. Kenneth Furton, Director of the 
Criminalistics Program in the Chemistry Department at Florida 
International University, has established that a properly trained drug 
dog does not alert to the cocaine residue on currency, but alerts 
instead to methyl benzoate--a highly volatile chemical by-product of 
the cocaine manufacturing process that remains on the currency only for 
a short period of time. Thus, even if it is true that a high percentage 
of our currency is contaminated with cocaine residue, the drug dogs are 
alerting only to money that has recently, or just before packaging, 
been in close proximity to a significant amount of cocaine. See K.G. 
Furton, Y.L. Hsu, N. Alvarez and P. Lagos, ``Novel Sample Preparation 
Methods and Field Testing Procedures Used to Determine the Chemical 
Basis of Cocaine Detection by Canines,'' Forensic Evidence and Crime 
Science Investigation, Proc. SPIE 2941, 56-62 (1997). I am attaching to 
my remarks an article describing Dr. Furton's work.
  Factor two: The property subject to forfeiture was acquired during a 
period of time when the person who acquired it was engaged in a drug 
trafficking offense, and there is no other likely source for the money. 
I note that this presumption already exists in criminal forfeiture 
cases. See 21 U.S.C. Sec.  853(d).
  Factor three: The property was involved in a transaction that 
occurred, in part, in a bank secrecy jurisdiction or was conducted by, 
to or through a shell corporation. These two factors appear repeatedly 
in cases involving international money laundering and therefore are 
highly indicative of illegal money laundering activity. However, to 
ensure that the presumption is focused narrowly on the problem this 
bill is designed to address, it would apply only where the money was 
being moved in or out of one of the countries the President has listed 
as a ``major drug-transit country,'' a ``major illicit drug producing 
country,'' or a ``major money laundering country,'' all of which are 
defined terms in the Foreign Assistance Act.
  Factor four: Any person involved in the transaction has been 
convicted of a drug trafficking or money laundering offense, or is a 
fugitive from prosecution for such an offense. This factor reflects the 
obvious fact that the movement of money by a convicted drug trafficker, 
money launderer or fugitive is highly likely to involve drug proceeds.
  The existence of any one of these four factors would be sufficient--
by itself, or in some cases, in combination with the facts and 
circumstances which led to the seizure of the money--to establish 
probable cause to believe that the money represents drug proceeds, and 
if left unrebutted, would be sufficient to establish that the money is 
subject to forfeiture under the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. 
Sec. 881(a)(6), or the Money Laundering Control Act, 18 U.S.C. Sec.  
981(a)(1), by a preponderance of the evidence. The owner of the money, 
of course, would be free to rebut the presumption by submitting 
admissible evidence that the money was derived from a legitimate 
source, and the government would have to respond either by impeaching 
the reliability of such evidence, or by offering admissible evidence of 
its own to support the forfeiture of the money. See United States v. 
$129,727.000 U.S. Currency, 129 F.3d 486 (9th Cir. 1997). In this way, 
legitimate owners of untainted money will be protected. However, drug 
traffickers and money launderers will no longer be able to rely on the 
ambiguities inherent in the movement of cash and electronic funds--as 
well as the ambiguities inherent in the standard of proof in civil 
forfeiture law--to win the release of their ill-gotten gains without 
having to come forward with any evidence whatsoever.
  On June 22, the Supreme Court handed down a highly controversial 
decision which is certain to have far-reaching ramifications on U.S. 
drug interdiction policy. That sharply divided ruling involved the case 
of Hosep Bajakajian, who had attempted to take $357,000 in undeclared 
cash to Syria, and who had lied about the amount of money he had with 
him when questioned by a Customs inspector. By ruling that the federal 
government cannot seize the money of a person trying to carry funds out 
of the country when that individual fails to declare it, unless the 
government can show it is tainted money, the High Court's decision may 
very well reinforce the recent lower court decisions against 
forfeiture--a critically important weapon in our drug interdiction 
arsenal. Our bill would address these adverse court decisions by 
providing needed statutory guidance on the important and contentious 
issue of property subject to seizure.
  Our bill has been endorsed by the Fraternal Order of Police, the 
International Association of Chiefs of Police, the International 
Brotherhood of Police Officers, and the Federal Law Enforcement 
Officers Association. I hope that my colleagues will support this bill.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of our bill be 
printed in the Record together with appropriate relevant materials.
  There being no objection, the items were ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2449

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Drug Currency Forfeitures 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. DRUG CURRENCY FORFEITURES.

       (a) In General.--Section 511 of the Controlled Substances 
     Act (21 U.S.C. 881) is amended by inserting after subsection 
     (j) the following:
       ``(k) Rebuttable Presumption.--
       ``(1) Definitions.--In this subsection--
       ``(A) the term `drug trafficking offense' means--
       ``(i) with respect to an action under subsection (a)(6), 
     any illegal exchange involving a controlled substance or 
     other violation for which forfeiture is authorized under that 
     subsection; and
       ``(ii) with respect to an action under section 981(a)(1)(B) 
     of title 18, United States Code, any offense against a 
     foreign nation involving the manufacture, importation, sale, 
     or distribution of a controlled substance for which 
     forfeiture is authorized under that section; and
       ``(B) the term `shell corporation' means any corporation 
     that does not conduct any ongoing and significant commercial 
     or manufacturing business or any other form of commercial 
     operation.
       ``(2) Presumption.--In any action with respect to the 
     forfeiture of property described in subsection (a)(6) of this 
     section, or section 981(a)(1)(B) of title 18, United States 
     Code, there is a rebuttable presumption that property is 
     subject to forfeiture, if the Government offers a reasonable 
     basis to believe, based on any circumstance described in 
     subparagraph (A), (B), (C), or (D) of paragraph (3), that 
     there is a substantial connection between the property and a 
     drug trafficking offense.
       ``(3) Circumstances.--The circumstances described in this 
     paragraph are that--
       ``(A) the property at issue is currency in excess of 
     $10,000 that was, at the time of seizure, being transported 
     through an airport, on a highway, or at a port-of-entry, 
     and--
       ``(i) the property was packaged or concealed in a highly 
     unusual manner;
       ``(ii) the person transporting the property (or any portion 
     thereof) provided false information to any law enforcement 
     officer or inspector who lawfully stopped the person for 
     investigative purposes or for purposes of a United States 
     border inspection;
       ``(iii) the property was found in close proximity to a 
     measurable quantity of any controlled substance; or
       ``(iv) the property was the subject of a positive alert by 
     a properly trained dog;
       ``(B) the property at issue was acquired during a period of 
     time when the person who acquired the property was engaged in 
     a drug trafficking offense or within a reasonable time after 
     such period, and there is no likely source for such property 
     other than that offense;
       ``(C)(i) the property at issue was, or was intended to be, 
     transported, transmitted, or transferred to or from a major 
     drug-transit country, a major illicit drug producing country, 
     or a major money laundering country, as determined pursuant 
     to section 481(e) of 490(h) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
     1961 (22 U.S.C. 2291(e) and 2291j(h)), as applicable; and
       ``(ii) the transaction giving rise to the forfeiture--
       ``(I) occurred in part in a foreign country whose bank 
     secrecy laws render the United States unable to obtain 
     records relating to the transaction by judicial process, 
     treaty, or executive agreement; or
       ``(II) was conducted by, to, or through a shell corporation 
     that was not engaged in any legitimate business activity in 
     the United States; or

[[Page S9982]]

       ``(D) any person involved in the transaction giving rise to 
     the forfeiture action--
       ``(i) has been convicted in any Federal, State, or foreign 
     jurisdiction of a drug trafficking offense or a felony 
     involving money laundering; or
       ``(ii) is a fugitive from prosecution for any offense 
     described in clause (i).
       ``(4) Other presumptions.--The establishment of the 
     presumption in this subsection shall not preclude the 
     development of other judicially created presumptions, or the 
     establishment of probable cause based on criteria other than 
     those set forth in this subsection.''.
       (b) Money Laundering Forfeitures.--Section 981 of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(k) Rebuttable Presumption.--In any action with respect 
     to the forfeiture of property described in subsection 
     (a)(1)(A), there is a rebuttable presumption that the 
     property is the proceeds of an offense involving the 
     felonious manufacture, importation, receiving, concealment, 
     buying, selling, or otherwise dealing in a controlled 
     substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled 
     Substances Act), and thus constitutes the proceeds of 
     specified unlawful activity (as defined in section 1956(c)), 
     if any circumstance set forth in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), 
     or (D) section 511(k)(3) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 
     U.S.C. 881(k)(3)) is present.''.
                                  ____

                                        Fraternal Order of Police,


                                 National Legislative Program,

                                   Washington, DC, August 6, 1998.
     Hon. Max W. Cleland,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Cleland: I am writing to advise you of the 
     strong support of the more than 272,000 members of the 
     Fraternal Order of Police for your draft legislation, ``The 
     Drug Currency Forfeitures Act.''
       This bill will amend the ``Controlled Substances Act'' as 
     it relates to the forfeiture of currency deemed to be in 
     connection with illegal drug trafficking or money laundering 
     operations. In order to stem the flow of drugs into the 
     United States, and to reduce the risks to law enforcement 
     officers, government at all levels must have the ability to 
     take away the resources of drug traffickers--whether it is 
     currency, property, or other ill-gotten gains from their 
     illegal narcotics transactions.
       One of the most frustrating aspects of law enforcement is 
     seeing those who poison our cities and neighborhoods with the 
     scourge of drugs amass sizable fortunes as a result of their 
     actions. Your legislation addresses this issue by taking 
     money away from those who threaten the lives of our children 
     and our nation's law enforcement officers, and is a major 
     step toward tackling the problems posed by drug traffickers 
     and their considerable financial resources.
       Forfeiture of drug money, and the assets of money 
     laundering operations, increases the penalty for drug dealing 
     and reduces the benefits of engaging in illegal drug 
     trafficking. On behalf of the more than 272,000 members of 
     the Fraternal Order of Police, I want to commend and applaud 
     your leadership on this issue. If I can be of any further 
     assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me, or 
     Executive Director Jim Pasco, at my Washington office, (202) 
     547-8189.
           Sincerely,
                                              Gilbert G. Gallegos,
     National President.
                                  ____

                                      International Brotherhood of


                                              POLICE OFFICERS,

                                    Alexandria, VA, July 13, 1998.
     Hon. Max Cleland,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Cleland: The International Brotherhood of 
     Police Officers (IBPO) is an affiliate of the Service 
     Employees International Union, the third largest union in the 
     AFL-CIO. The IBPO is the largest police union in the AFL-CIO.
       On behalf of the entire membership of the IBPO, I want to 
     thank you for introducing legislation that would create a 
     ``rebuttable presumption'' that money is subjected to 
     forfeiture as drug proceeds in cases involving drug couriers 
     carrying large amounts of cash through airports and on major 
     highways, and in cases involving international money 
     laundering. The IBPO officially endorses your legislation and 
     looks forward to working with you to see this bill become 
     law.
       Your legislation will hurt drug dealers in the most 
     effective way--in the pocketbook. Forfeiture of this money 
     will also benefit the many police departments across the 
     country who supplement their budgets with these types of 
     seizures.
       The IBPO wishes to thank you for all your support on behalf 
     of the law enforcement community. Be assured that the IBPO 
     will make your legislation a top priority in the 105th 
     Congress.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Kenneth T. Lyons,
     National President.
                                  ____


Comments of Bobby D. Moody, President of the International Association 
     of Chiefs of Police and Chief of the Marietta, Georgia Police 
                               Department

       One of the most effective weapons that law enforcement has 
     in the domestic drug war is the ability to deprive drug 
     dealers of the proceeds of their illegal activities or the 
     instruments used to commit their crime through the use of 
     civil asset forfeiture proceedings. Senator Cleland's 
     legislation will preserve and enhance law enforcement's 
     ability to seize the assets of drug dealers and their 
     associates. I want to thank my friend, and law enforcement 
     supporter, Senator Cleland for his efforts to protect the 
     most valuable tool law enforcement has in combating drug 
     traffickers and money launderers.


                             about the iacp

       Founded in 1893, the International Association of Chiefs of 
     Police is the world's oldest and largest organization of 
     police executives with more than 16,000 members in 102 
     countries. IACP's Leadership consists of operating chief 
     executives of federal, state, local and international 
     agencies of all sizes.
                                  ____

                                           Federal Law Enforcement


                                         Officers Association,

                               East Northport, NY, August 7, 1998.
     Hon. Max W. Cleland,
     U.S. Senator, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Cleland: On behalf of the over 14,000 members 
     of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association (FLEOA) I 
     wish to express FLEOA's views regarding your proposed 
     legislation concerning asset forfeiture. This proposed 
     legislation will enhance the ability of law enforcement 
     officers, at all levels, to seize the assets of drug dealer. 
     FLEOA wishes to inform you of our overwhelming support for 
     this legislation.
       FLEOA represents criminal investigators and special agents 
     from over fifty-five federal agencies, as listed on the left 
     masthead. We feel that legislation that creates a rebuttable 
     presumption that currency in excess of $10,000 is subject to 
     forfeiture as drug proceeds when transported through an 
     airport, on a highway, or at a port-of-entry, and is found in 
     close proximity to a measurable quantity of a controlled 
     substance would assist law enforcement in our fight against 
     narcotics.
       We would be pleased to meet with you, or your staff, to 
     discuss our views on this issue in more detail. I can be 
     reached at (516) 368-6117, or you may contact FLEOA's 
     Executive Vice President Walt Wallmark at (202) 433-9230.
           Thank you for your time.
                                                 Richard J. Gallo,
     President.

                          ____________________