Congressional Record, Volume 144 Issue 132 (Monday, September 28, 1998)

[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 132 (Monday, September 28, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11042-S11051]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. HARKIN:
S. 2521. A bill to amend the Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C.
App.) to provide that Offices of Inspector General shall be treated as
independent agencies in the preparation of the United States Budget,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.

inspector general act amendments

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I introduce a bill to establish a
more independent budget process for the Inspector Generals of each
federal Department.
Under our current budget process, each federal Department Secretary
has the power to determine the budget of its Inspector General or IG.
While our Department Secretaries generally do a fine job of overseeing
their respective Departments and agencies, I feel that it is a conflict
of interest for the head of an executive agency to also determine the
funding levels for an office whose main function is investigating that
agency. In the interest of proper checks and balances, I would hope
that we could establish true independence for the IGs budgets.
The IGs are our government watchdogs. Yet, too often, their budgets
have been cut back. The United States government is wrestling with
streamlining its programs and revamping how it does business. But it
has been the IG offices which have largely identified the waste, fraud,
and abuse in the federal government and allow this body to make
significant budget cuts in an effective manner. We need stronger
watchdogs, not weaker.
The offices of Inspectors General has served this country well in
making sure that the taxpayers' dollars are not misspent. This spring,
for example, the Department of Defense's IG, Eleanor Hill, testified
before the House Oversight Subcommittee. She described over $15 billion
in fiscal year 1996 funds that were put to better use as a result of IG
efforts. Hill pointed out that, ``At the Department of Defense, since
FY 1989, IG audit reports have identified almost $16 billion in agreed
upon savings. During the same period, monetary recoveries through
investigations by the Defense Criminal Investigative Service, the
criminal investigative arm

[[Page S11043]]

of my office, have totaled over $4.5 billion. Historically, our
criminal investigators alone have returned at least $15 in recoveries
and fines for every dollar spent on their operations.''
In her testimony, DOD Inspector General Eleanor Hill concludes with
what she feels are the greatest concerns for the future of the Office
of Inspector General. She points out examples of crimes on the
Internet, the overload of paperwork and false claims. But the biggest
problem, according to Ms. Hill, ``has been the continuing difficulties
we face in coping with programmed downsizing.'' As we attempt to cut
wasteful spending and streamline offices, it is the office of
Inspectors General which must not be put on the chopping block.
Unfortunately, the support for the IGs has been often reduced more
than for other parts of the government. For example, the Department of
Energy faced an 11% cut for FY 1996, but a 21% cut in its IG budget. It
is my fear that as we continue to cut budgets, the IGs will be first on
the chopping blocks at a time when we need them even more to identify
wasteful and outdated programs.
It should be obvious, Mr. President, that those who could be
investigated by the Inspectors General should not be given the
responsibility of developing and approving IG budgets. The Securities
and Exchange Commission's budget is not decided by Wall Street firms;
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's budget is not decided by the
nation's nuclear power companies. Congress must ensure that no
department secretary can take vengeance upon an aggressive IG office.
My bill aims to ensure an effective and independent federal Inspector
General system and allow each IG, in consultation with its parent
Department, to decide the budget of the IG's office. This bill would
provide greater autonomy for the office and prevent strong criticism of
a Department, or the singling out of wasteful programs, from affecting
watchdog funding.
We have seen repeatedly how a valuable resource like the Inspector
General's office has been able to bring this body's attention, and the
American public's attention, to some of the wasteful spending of the
federal government. I urge my colleagues to support this important
legislation.
______

By Mr. DeWINE (for himself, Mr. Coverdell, Mr. Graham, Mr.
Faircloth, Mr. Bond, Mr. D'Amato, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Helms, Mrs.
Feinstein, Mr. Mack, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Craig, Mr. Abraham, Mr.
Hutchinson, Mr. Allard, Mr. Frist, Mr. Murkowski, Mrs.
Hutchison, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Burns, Mr. Bennett,
Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Smith of Oregon, Mr.
Roberts, Mr. Cleland, and Mr. Grassley):
S. 2522. A bill to support enhanced drug interdiction efforts in the
major transit countries and support a comprehensive supply eradication
and crop substitution program in source countries; to the Committee on
Foreign Relations.

western hemisphere drug elimination act

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join with over 25 of
my Senate colleagues to reintroduce the Western Hemisphere Drug
Elimination Act. Our bipartisan legislation calls for an additional
$2.6 billion investment in international counter-narcotic efforts over
the next 3 years. With the additional resources provided in this
legislation, we can begin to restore a comprehensive eradication,
interdiction and crop substitution strategy.
I say ``restore,'' Mr. President, because we currently are not making
the same kind of effort to keep drugs from entering the United States
that we used to. Drugs are now easy to find, and easy to buy. As a
result, the amount of drugs sold on our streets, and the number of
people who use drugs, especially young people, is unprecedented.
The facts demonstrate this sobering trend. The August 1998 National
Household Survey on Drug Abuse report by the Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Administration list the following disturbing facts:
In 1997, 13.9 million Americans age 12-and-over cited themselves as
``current users'' of illicit drugs--a 7% increase of 1996's figure of
13 million Americans. That translates to nearly a million new users of
drugs each year.
From 1992-1997, the number of children aged 12-to-17 who are using
illegal drugs has more than doubled, and has increased by 27% just from
1996-1997 alone.
For kids 12-to-17, first time heroin use, which can be fatal surged
an astounding 875% from 1991-1996. The overall number of past month
heroin users increased 378% from 1993 to 1997.
We cannot in good conscience and with a straight face say that our
drug control strategy is working. It is not. More children are using
drugs. With an abundant supply, drug traffickers now are seeking to
increase their sales by targeting children ages 10 through 12. This is
nothing less than an assault on the future of our children, and the
future of the country itself. This is nothing less than a threat to our
national values, and yes, even our national security.
All of this begs the question: What are we doing wrong? Clearly,
there is no one simple answer. However, one thing is clear: our overall
drug strategy is imbalanced. To be effective, our national drug
strategy must have a strong commitment in the following three areas:
(1) demand reduction, which consists of prevention, treatment, and
education programs. These are administered by all levels of
government--federal, state and local--as well as non-profit and private
organizations; (2) domestic law enforcement, which again, has to be
provided by all three levels of government; and (3) international
eradication and interdiction efforts, which are the sole responsibility
of the Federal Government.

These three components are interdependent. A strong investment in
each of them is necessary for each to work individually and
collectively. For example, a strong effort to destroy or seize drugs at
the source or outside of the United States both reduces the amount of
drugs in the country, and drives up the street price. And as we all
know, higher prices will reduce consumption. This in turn helps our
domestic law enforcement and demand reduction efforts.
As any football fan will tell you, a winning team is one that plays
well at all three phases of the game--offense, defense, and special
teams. The same is true with out anti-drug strategy--all three
components have to be effective if our strategy is going to be a
winning effort.
While I think the current administration has shown a clear commitment
to demand reduction and domestic law enforcement programs, the same
cannot be said for the international eradication and interdiction
components. This was not always the case.
In 1987, the $4.79 billion federal drug control budget was divided as
follows: 29% for demand reduction programs; 38% for domestic law
enforcement; and 33% for international eradication and interdiction
efforts. This balanced approach worked. It achieved real success.
Limiting drug availability through interdiction drove up the street
price of drugs, reduced drug purity levels, and consequently reduced
overall drug use. From 1988 to 1991, total drug use declined by 13
percent--cocaine use dropped by 35 percent. And there was a 25 percent
reduction in overall drug use by adolescent Americans.
This balanced approach ended in 1993. By 1995, the $13.3 billion
national drug control budget was divided as follows: 35 percent for
demand reduction; 53 percent for law enforcement; and 12 percent for
international and interdiction efforts. Though the overall anti-drug
budget increased almost threefold from 1987 to 1995, the percentage
allocated for international eradication and interdiction efforts
decreased dramatically. This distribution only recently has started to
change, but the imbalance is still there. In the President's proposed
$17 billion drug control budget for 1999, 34 percent would be allocated
for demand reduction; 52% for law enforcement; and 14% for
international and interdiction efforts.
Those are the numbers, but what really matters are what these numbers
get you in terms of resources. The hard truth is that our drug
interdiction presence--the ship, air and man power dedicated to keeping
drugs from reaching our country--has eroded dramatically. Here are just
a few examples:

[[Page S11044]]

The Department of Defense funding for counter-narcotics decreased
from $504.6 million in 1992 to $214.7 million in 1995, a 57% decrease
in only three years. As a result, flight hours by Airborne Warning and
Control Systems--known as AWACs planes--dropped from 38,100 hours in
1992 to 17,713 hours by 1996, a 54% reduction.
At the beginning of the decade, the U.S. Customs service operated its
counter-narcotics activities around the clock. This made sense because
drug trafficking truly is a 7 day/24 hour enterprise. Today, the
Customs Service does not have the resources needed to maintain around-
the-clock operations. At a recent hearing on our original legislation,
a representative of the U.S. Customs Service testified that the Customs
service has 84 boats in the Caribbean conducting drug apprehension
efforts--down from 200 vessels in 1990. The Customs Service estimates
that they expect to have only half of the current fleet of 84 vessels
by the year 2000.
Mr. President, these are shocking statistics. And perhaps more than
the budget numbers themselves, these statistics demonstrate the
imbalance in our overall strategy. I have witnessed the lack of our
resources and commitment in the region fisthand. This past year I
traveled to the Caribbean several times to see our counter-narcotics
operations there. I met with the dedicated people on the frontlines of
our drug interdiction efforts. I witnessed our strategy in action, and
sat down with the experts--both military and civilian--who are charged
with carrying out the monitoring, detection and interdiction of drugs.
On one of my recent trips I saw that in particular, Haiti has become
an attractive rest-stop on the cocaine highway. It is strategically
located about halfway between the source country--Colombia--and the
United States. As the poorest country in the hemisphere, it is
extremely vulnerable to the kind of bribery and corruption that the
drug trade needs in order to flourish.
Not surprisingly, the level of drugs moving through Haiti has
dramatically increased. A U.S. government interagency assessment on
cocaine movement found that the total amount of cocaine coming to the
United States through Haiti jumped from 5 percent in 1996 to 19 percent
by the end of 1997.
In response, we initiated a US law enforcement operation called
Operation Frontier Lance, which utilized Coast Guard
Cutters, speedboats, and helicopters to detect and capture drug dealers
on a 24 hour per day basis. This operation was modeled after another
successful interdiction effort that was first done off the coast of
Puerto Rico, called Operation Frontier Shield.

Both these operations were done at two different time periods.
Operation Frontier Shield utilized nearly two dozen ships and aircraft;
and Operation Frontier Lance utilized more than a dozen ships and
helicopters. To make Frontier Lance work required that we borrow a few
ships and helicopters from operations elsewhere in the Caribbean.
Because of our scare resources, we had to rob Peter to help Paul.
These operations produced amazing results. The six month operation in
Puerto Rico resulted in the seizure of more than 32,900 pounds of
cocaine and 120 arrests. The three month operation in Haiti and the
Dominican Republic resulted in 2,990 pounds of cocaine seized and 22
arrests.
These operations demonstrate we can make a big difference if we
provide the right levels of material and manpower to fight drug
trafficking. One would think that these operations would serve as a
model for the entire region. Instead of maintaining these operations,
we ended them. This potential roadblock on the cocaine highway is no
more.
Now, in Puerto Rico we only have a combined total of 6 air and sea
assets doing maintenance operations.
In Haiti and the Dominican Republic, we have only 1 ship and 1
helicopter devoted for the drug operation. Keep in mind that since
refugees remain a major problem in this area, these very few vessels
are not dedicated solely to drug interdiction. Amazingly, no sooner
than we build an effective wall against drug traffickers, we tear it
down.
While in the region, I was surprised to learn that in the Eastern
Pacific, off the coast of Mexico and Central America, the coast is
literally clear for the drug lords to do their business. This is,
without any doubt, unacceptable.
Again, we have no presence there because we lack the resources. An
interdiction plan does exist for the region, which would involve the
deployment of several ships and planes in the region. This operation,
unfortunately, was canceled before it even got started because the
resources were needed elsewhere. To date, the coastal waters in the
Eastern Pacific remain an open sea expressway for drug business.
Mr. President, through my visits to the region, I have seen firsthand
the dramatic decline in our eradication and interdiction capability.
The results of this decline have been a decline in cocaine seizures, a
decline in the price of cocaine, and an increase in drug use. This has
to stop. It is a clear and imminent danger to the very heart of our
society.

That is why the legislation I am introducing today is timely. We need
to dedicate more resources for international efforts to help reverse
this trend. Now I want to make it very clear that I strongly support
our continued commitment in demand reduction and law enforcement
programs! In the end, I believe that reducing demand is the only real
way to permanently end illegal drug use. However, this will not happen
overnight. That is why we need a comprehensive counter drug strategy
that addresses all components of this problem.
There's another fundamental reason why the federal government must do
more to stop drugs either at the source or in transit to the United
States. If we don't, no one else will. Let me remind our colleagues
that our anti-drug efforts here at home are done in cooperation with
state and local governments and scores of non-profit and private
organizations. However, only the federal government has the
responsibility to keep drugs from crossing our borders.
It's not just an issue of responsibility--it's an issue of
leadership. The United States has to demonstrate leadership on an
international level if we expect to get the full cooperation of source
countries, such as Colombia, Peru and Bolivia, as well as countries in
the transit zone, including Mexico and the Caribbean island
governments. There's little incentive for these countries to invest
their limited resources, and risk the lives of their law enforcement
officers to stop drug trafficking, unless we provide the leadership and
resources necessary to make a serious dent in the drug trade.
Our bill is designed to provide the resources and demonstrate to our
friends in the Caribbean, and in Central and South America that we
intend to lead once again. With this legislation, we can once again
make it difficult for drug lords to bring drugs to our nation, and make
drugs far more costly to buy. It's clear drug trafficking imposes a
heavy toll on law abiding citizens and communities across our country.
It's time we make it a dangerous and costly business for drug
traffickers themselves. A renewed investment in international and
interdiction programs will make a huge difference--both in the flow and
cost of illegal drugs. It worked before and we believe it can work
again.
Mr. President, as I said at the beginning, my colleagues and I are
reintroducing this legislation. Since we introduced our original bill
in July, we have received a number of suggestions on ways to improve
the legislation, including several provided in conversations I
personally had with General Barry McCaffery, the Director of the Office
of National Drug Control Policy--otherwise known as the Drug Czar's
office. Some of these suggestions were incorporated in the House bill
first introduced by Congressmen Bill McCollum of Florida and Dennis
Hastert of Illinois. The House passed the McCollum/Hastert bill with
overwhelmingly bi-partisan support. The final vote was 384 to 39!
Clearly, the overwhelming, bipartisan show of support for the Western
Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act is a wake up call for leadership--it's
time the United States once again lead the way in a comprehensive and
balanced strategy to reduce drug use. And the time for leadership is
now.

Since House passage of the bill, I have reached out once again to
General McCaffrey, and to my friends on the Democrat side of the aisle,
on how we

[[Page S11045]]

can work together to pass this legislation before we adjourn. I made it
clear to General McCaffrey of my commitment to work with him and the
Administration to strengthen our drug interdiction efforts, and our
overall anti-drug strategy. Again, I received several suggestions to
improve the bill from the General, but the Administration has shown no
interest in getting this bill passed this year.
The resources we would provide in our legislation should be of no
surprise to General McCaffrey or anyone involved in our drug control
policies. The vast majority of the items in this bill are the very
items which the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Coast Guard and
Customs Service have been requesting for quite some time now. Many of
these items are detailed, practically item per item and dollar amount,
in a United States Interdiction Coordinator report, known as USIC,
which was requested by the General.
The bill we introduce today represents a good faith effort by the
sponsors of this legislation to get something done this year. It
includes almost all the changes made in the House-passed bill, and
incorporates virtually every suggestion made to me by General
McCaffrey. Of central concern to the General, as he expressed in his
recent testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was the
need for greater flexibility. The bill we introduce today provides
flexibility for the agencies to determine and acquire the assets best
needed for their respective drug interdiction missions. It also
provides more flexibility for the Administration in providing needed
resources to Latin American countries.
Mr. President, thanks to the suggestions we have received, the bill
we are introducing today is a better bill. It has far more bipartisan
support than the first version. Again, the growing support for this
legislation is not surprising. This is not a partisan issue--we need to
do more to fight drugs outside our borders.

Let's be frank--in this anti-drug effort--Congress is the anti-drug
funder, but the agencies represented here--the Drug Enforcement
Administration, Customs, Coast Guard, State and Defense Departments,
and the Drug Czar's office--they are the anti-drug fighters. The
dedicated men and women at these agencies are working to keep drugs out
of the hands of our kids, and all we're trying to do is to give them
the additional resources they have requested to make that work result
in a real reduction in drug use. This bill is just the first step in
our efforts to work with the agencies represented here. I expect to do
more in the future.
Finally, Mr. President, I want to make it clear that while this bill
is an authorization measure, I have already started the process to
request the money needed for this bill over three years. Even though we
introduced the bill for the first time in late July, we have already
secured $143 million through the Senate passed FY 1999 appropriation
measures. Senators Coverdell, Graham of Florida, Grassley, Bond,
Faircloth, and myself requested these funds through the various
appropriation measures.
The cosponsors of this bill also are requesting the assistance of
Senators Stevens and Byrd--the Chairman and Ranking Member of the
Senate Appropriations committee--in obtaining funding as part of any
emergency supplemental appropriations bill we may consider before we
adjourn. Given that it will take some time to dedicate some of our
larger assets, such as boats, airplanes, and helicopters, we need to
start our investment as soon as possible. I understand a similar effort
is underway in the House of Representatives.
Mr. President, I recognize that even as we finally are beginning to
balance our budget, we still have to exercise fiscal responsibility. I
believe effective drug interdiction is not only good social policy, it
is sound fiscal policy as well. It is important to note that seizing or
destroying a ton of cocaine in source or transit areas is more cost-
effective than trying to seize the same quantity of drugs at the point
of sale. But more important, are the short and long term costs if we do
not act to reverse the tragic rise in drug use by our children.
Let me remind my colleagues that there are more than twice the number
of children aged 12 to 17 using drugs today than there were five years
ago. With more kids using drugs, we have more of the problems
associated with youth drug use--violence, criminal activity and
delinquency. We will have more of the same unless we take action now to
restore a balanced drug control strategy. We have to have all the
components of our drug strategy working effectively again.
We did it before and we succeeded.
If we pass the Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Bill we can take
the first step toward success. We can provide the resources, and most
importantly, the leadership to reduce drugs at the source or in
transit.
In the end, Mr. President, that's what this bill is about--it's about
leadership--effective leadership. We have an opportunity with this
legislation to show and exercise leadership. I hope we can seize this
opportunity to stop drug trafficking, and more important, to save
lives.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 2522

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Western
Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings and statement of policy.

TITLE I--ENHANCED SOURCE AND TRANSIT COUNTRY COVERAGE

Sec. 101. Expansion of radar coverage and operation in source and
transit countries.
Sec. 102. Expansion of Coast Guard drug interdiction.
Sec. 103. Expansion of aircraft coverage and operation in source and
transit countries.

TITLE II--ENHANCED ERADICATION AND INTERDICTION STRATEGY IN SOURCE
COUNTRIES

Sec. 201. Additional eradication resources for Colombia.
Sec. 202. Additional eradication resources for Peru.
Sec. 203. Additional eradication resources for Bolivia.
Sec. 204. Miscellaneous additional eradication resources.
Sec. 205. Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement
Affairs.

TITLE III--ENHANCED ALTERNATIVE CROP DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT IN SOURCE ZONE

Sec. 301. Alternative crop development support.
Sec. 302. Authorization of appropriations for Agricultural Research
Service counterdrug research and development activities.
Sec. 303. Master plan for mycoherbicides to control narcotic crops.

TITLE IV--ENHANCED INTERNATIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING

Sec. 401. Enhanced international law enforcement academy training.
Sec. 402. Enhanced United States drug enforcement international
training.
Sec. 403. Provision of nonlethal equipment to foreign law enforcement
organizations for cooperative illicit narcotics control
activities.

TITLE V--ENHANCED DRUG TRANSIT AND SOURCE ZONE LAW ENFORCEMENT
OPERATIONS AND EQUIPMENT

Sec. 501. Increased funding for operations and equipment; report.
Sec. 502. Funding for computer software and hardware to facilitate
direct communication between drug enforcement agencies.
Sec. 503. Sense of Congress regarding priority of drug interdiction and
counterdrug activities.

TITLE VI--RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LAWS

Sec. 601. Authorizations of appropriations.

TITLE VII--CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECKS ON PORT EMPLOYEES

Sec. 701. Background checks.

TITLE VIII--DRUG CURRENCY FORFEITURES

Sec. 801. Short title.
Sec. 802. Drug currency forfeitures.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF POLICY.

(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Teenage drug use in the United States has doubled since
1993.
(2) The drug crisis facing the United States is a top
national security threat.
(3) The spread of illicit drugs through United States
borders cannot be halted without an effective drug
interdiction strategy.
(4) Effective drug interdiction efforts have been shown to
limit the availability of illicit

[[Page S11046]]

narcotics, drive up the street price, support demand
reduction efforts, and decrease overall drug trafficking and
use.
(5) A prerequisite for reducing youth drug use is
increasing the price of drugs. To increase price
substantially, at least 60 percent of drugs must be
interdicted.
(6) In 1987, the national drug control budget maintained a
significant balance between demand and supply reduction
efforts, illustrated as follows:
(A) 29 percent of the total drug control budget
expenditures for demand reduction programs.
(B) 38 percent of the total drug control budget
expenditures for domestic law enforcement.
(C) 33 percent of the total drug control budget
expenditures for international drug interdiction efforts.
(7) In the late 1980's and early 1990's, counternarcotic
efforts were successful, specifically in protecting the
borders of the United States from penetration by illegal
narcotics through increased seizures by the United States
Coast Guard and other agencies, including a 302 percent
increase in pounds of cocaine seized between 1987 and 1991.
(8) Limiting the availability of narcotics to drug
traffickers in the United States had a promising effect as
illustrated by the decline of illicit drug use between 1988
and 1991, through a--
(A) 13 percent reduction in total drug use;
(B) 35 percent drop in cocaine use; and
(C) 16 percent decrease in marijuana use.
(9) In 1993, drug interdiction efforts in the transit zones
were reduced due to an imbalance in the national drug control
strategy. This trend has continued through 1995 as shown by
the following figures:
(A) 35 percent for demand reduction programs.
(B) 53 percent for domestic law enforcement.
(C) 12 percent for international drug interdiction efforts.
(10) Supply reduction efforts became a lower priority for
the Administration and the seizures by the United States
Coast Guard and other agencies decreased as shown by a 68
percent decrease in the pounds of cocaine seized between 1991
and 1996.
(11) Reductions in funding for comprehensive interdiction
operations like OPERATION GATEWAY and OPERATION STEELWEB,
initiatives that encompassed all areas of interdiction and
attempted to disrupt the operating methods of drug smugglers
along the entire United States border, have created
unprotected United States border areas which smugglers
exploit to move their product into the United States.
(12) The result of this new imbalance in the national drug
control strategy caused the drug situation in the United
States to become a crisis with serious consequences
including--
(A) doubling of drug-abuse-related arrests for minors
between 1992 and 1996;
(B) 70 percent increase in overall drug use among children
aged 12 to 17;
(C) 80 percent increase in drug use for graduating seniors
since 1992;
(D) a sharp drop in the price of 1 pure gram of heroin from
$1,647 in 1992 to $966 in February 1996; and
(E) a reduction in the street price of 1 gram of cocaine
from $123 to $104 between 1993 and 1994.
(13) The percentage change in drug use since 1992, among
graduating high school students who used drugs in the past 12
months, has substantially increased--marijuana use is up 80
percent, cocaine use is up 80 percent, and heroin use is up
100 percent.
(14) The Department of Defense has been called upon to
support counter-drug efforts of Federal law enforcement
agencies that are carried out in source countries and through
transit zone interdiction, but in recent years Department of
Defense assets critical to those counter-drug activities have
been consistently diverted to missions that the Secretary of
Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
consider a higher priority.
(15) The Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, through the Department of Defense policy
referred to as the Global Military Force Policy, has
established the priorities for the allocation of military
assets in the following order: (1) war; (2) military
operations other than war that might involve contact with
hostile forces (such as peacekeeping operations and
noncombatant evacuations); (3) exercises and training; and
(4) operational tasking other than those involving
hostilities (including counter-drug activities and
humanitarian assistance).
(16) Use of Department of Defense assets is critical to the
success of efforts to stem the flow of illegal drugs from
source countries and through transit zones to the United
States.
(17) The placement of counter-drug activities in the fourth
and last priority of the Global Military Force Policy list of
priorities for the allocation of military assets has resulted
in a serious deficiency in assets vital to the success of
source country and transit zone efforts to stop the flow of
illegal drugs into the United States.
(18) At present the United States faces few, if any,
threats from abroad greater than the threat posed to the
Nation's youth by illegal and dangerous drugs.
(19) The conduct of counter-drug activities has the
potential for contact with hostile forces.
(20) The Department of Defense counter-drug activities
mission should be near the top, not among the last, of the
priorities for the allocation of Department of Defense assets
after the first priority for those assets for the war-
fighting mission of the Department of Defense.
(b) Statement of Policy.--It is the policy of the United
States to--
(1) reduce the supply of drugs and drug use through an
enhanced drug interdiction effort in the major drug transit
countries, as well support a comprehensive supply country
eradication and crop substitution program, because a
commitment of increased resources in international drug
interdiction efforts will create a balanced national drug
control strategy among demand reduction, law enforcement, and
international drug interdiction efforts; and
(2) develop and establish comprehensive drug interdiction
and drug eradication strategies, and dedicate the required
resources, to achieve the goal of reducing the flow of
illegal drugs into the United States by 80 percent by as
early as December 31, 2001.
TITLE I--ENHANCED SOURCE AND TRANSIT COUNTRY COVERAGE

SEC. 101. EXPANSION OF RADAR COVERAGE AND OPERATION IN SOURCE
AND TRANSIT COUNTRIES.

(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--Funds are authorized
to be appropriated for the Department of the Treasury for
fiscal years 1999, 2000, and 2001 for the enhancement of
radar coverage in drug source and transit countries in the
total amount of $14,300,000 which shall be available for the
following purposes:
(1) For restoration of radar, and operation and maintenance
of radar, in the Bahamas.
(2) For operation and maintenance of ground-based radar at
Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, Cuba.
(b) Report.--Not later than January 31, 1999, the Secretary
of Defense, in conjunction with the Director of Central
Intelligence, shall submit to the Committee on National
Security and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Armed
Services and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the
Senate a report examining the options available to the United
States for improving Relocatable Over the Horizon (ROTHR)
capability to provide enhanced radar coverage of narcotics
source zone countries in South America and transit zones in
the Eastern Pacific. The report shall include--
(1) a discussion of the need and costs associated with the
establishment of a proposed fourth ROTHR site located in the
source or transit zones; and
(2) an assessment of the intelligence specific issues
raised if such a ROTHR facility were to be established in
conjunction with a foreign government.

SEC. 102. EXPANSION OF COAST GUARD DRUG INTERDICTION.

(a) Operating Expenses.--For operating expenses of the
Coast Guard associated with expansion of drug interdiction
activities around Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin
Islands, and other transit zone areas of operation, there is
authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of
Transportation $151,500,000 for each of fiscal years 1999,
2000, and 2001. Such amounts shall include (but are not
limited to) amounts for the following:
(1) For deployment of intelligent acoustic detection buoys
in the Florida Straits and Bahamas.
(2) For a nonlethal technology program to enhance
countermeasures against the threat of transportation of drugs
by so-called Go-Fast boats.
(b) Acquisition, Construction, and Improvement.--
(1) In general.--For acquisition, construction, and
improvement of facilities and equipment to be used for
expansion of Coast Guard drug interdiction activities, there
is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of
Transportation for fiscal year 1999 the total amount of
$630,300,000 which shall be available for the following
purposes:
(A) For maritime patrol aircraft sensors.
(B) For acquisition of deployable pursuit boats.
(C) For the acquisition and construction of up to 15 United
States Coast Guard 87-foot Coastal Patrol Boats.
(D) For--
(i) the reactivation of up to 3 United States Coast Guard
HU-25 Falcon jets;
(ii) the procurement of up to 3 C-37A aircraft; or
(iii) the procurement of up to 3 C-20H aircraft.
(E) For acquisition of installed or deployable electronic
sensors and communications systems for Coast Guard Cutters.
(F) For acquisition and construction of facilities and
equipment to support regional and international law
enforcement training and support in Puerto Rico, the United
States Virgin Islands, and the Caribbean Basin.
(G) For acquisition or conversion of maritime patrol
aircraft.
(H) For acquisition or conversion of up to 2 vessels to be
used as Coast Guard Medium or High Endurance Cutters.
(I) For acquisition or conversion of up to 2 vessels to be
used as Coast Guard Cutters as support, command, and control
platforms for drug interdiction operations.

[[Page S11047]]

(J) For acquisition of up to 6 Coast Guard Medium Endurance
Cutters.
(K) For acquisition of up to 6 HC-130J aircraft.
(2) Continued availability.--Amounts appropriated under
this subsection may remain available until expended.
(c) Requirement To Accept Patrol Craft From Department of
Defense.--The Secretary of Transportation shall accept, for
use by the Coast Guard for expanded drug interdiction
activities, 7 PC-170 patrol craft offered by the Department
of Defense.

SEC. 103. EXPANSION OF AIRCRAFT COVERAGE AND OPERATION IN
SOURCE AND TRANSIT COUNTRIES.

(a) Department of the Treasury.--Funds are authorized to be
appropriated for the Department of the Treasury for fiscal
years 1999, 2000, and 2001 for the enhancement of air
coverage and operation for drug source and transit countries
in the total amount of $886,500,000 which shall be available
for the following purposes:
(1) For procurement of 10 P-3B Early Warning aircraft for
the United States Customs Service to enhance overhead air
coverage of drug source zone countries.
(2) For the procurement and deployment of 10 P-3B Slick
airplanes for the United States Customs Service to enhance
overhead air coverage of the drug source zone.
(3) In fiscal years 2000 and 2001, for operation and
maintenance of 10 P-3B Early Warning aircraft for the United
States Customs Service to enhance overhead air coverage of
drug source zone countries.
(4) For personnel for the 10 P-3B Early Warning aircraft
for the United States Customs Service to enhance overhead air
coverage of drug source zone countries.
(5) In fiscal years 2000 and 2001, for operation and
maintenance of 10 P-3B Slick airplanes for the United States
Customs Service to enhance overhead coverage of the drug
source zone.
(6) For personnel for the 10 P-3B Slick airplanes for the
United States Customs Service to enhance overhead air
coverage of drug source zone countries.
(7) For construction and furnishing of an additional
facility for the P-3B aircraft.
(8) For operation and maintenance for overhead air coverage
for source countries.
(9) For operation and maintenance for overhead coverage for
the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific regions.
(10) For purchase and for operation and maintenance of 3
RU-38A observation aircraft (to be piloted by pilots under
contract with the United States).
(b) Report.--Not later than January 31, 1999, the Secretary
of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of State and
the Director of Central Intelligence, shall submit to the
Committee on National Security, the Committee on
International Relations, and the Permanent Select Committee
on Intelligence of the House of Representatives and to the
Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on Foreign
Relations, and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the
Senate a report examining the options available in the source
and transit zones to replace Howard Air Force Base in Panama
and specifying the requirements of the United States to
establish an airbase or airbases for use in support of
counternarcotics operations to optimize operational
effectiveness in the source and transit zones. The report
shall identify the following:
(1) The specific requirements necessary to support the
national drug control policy of the United States.
(2) The estimated construction, operation, and maintenance
costs for a replacement counterdrug airbase or airbases in
the source and transit zones.
(3) Possible interagency cost sharing arrangements for a
replacement airbase or airbases.
(4) Any legal or treaty-related issues regarding the
replacement airbase or airbases.
(5) A summary of completed alternative site surveys for the
airbase or airbases.
(c) Transfer of Aircraft.--The Secretary of the Navy shall
transfer to the United States Customs Service--
(1) ten currently retired and previously identified
heavyweight P-3B aircraft for modification into P-3 AEW&C
aircraft; and
(2) ten currently retired and previously identified
heavyweight P-3B aircraft for modification into P-3 Slick
aircraft.
TITLE II--ENHANCED ERADICATION AND INTERDICTION STRATEGY IN SOURCE
COUNTRIES

SEC. 201. ADDITIONAL ERADICATION RESOURCES FOR COLOMBIA.

(a) Department of State.--Funds are authorized to be
appropriated for the Department of State for fiscal years
1999, 2000, and 2001 for the enhancement of drug-related
eradication efforts in Colombia in the total amount of
$201,250,000 which shall be available for the following
purposes:
(1) For each such fiscal year for sustaining support of the
helicopters and fixed wing fleet of the national police of
Colombia.
(2) For the purchase of DC-3 transport aircraft for the
national police of Colombia.
(3) For acquisition of resources needed for prison security
in Colombia.
(4) For the purchase of minigun systems for the national
police of Colombia.
(5) For the purchase of 6 UH-60L Black Hawk utility
helicopters for the national police of Colombia and for
operation, maintenance, and training relating to such
helicopters.
(6) For procurement, for upgrade of 50 UH-1H helicopters to
the Huey II configuration equipped with miniguns for the use
of the national police of Colombia.
(7) For the repair and rebuilding of the antinarcotics base
in southern Colombia.
(8) For providing sufficient and adequate base and force
security for any rebuilt facility in southern Colombia, and
the other forward operating antinarcotics bases of the
Colombian National Police antinarcotics unit.
(b) Counternarcotics Assistance.--United States
counternarcotics assistance may not be provided for the
Government of Colombia under this Act or under any other
provision of law on or after the date of enactment of this
Act if the Government of Colombia negotiates or permits the
establishment of any demilitarized zone in which the
eradication of drug production by the security forces of
Colombia, including the Colombian National Police
antinarcotics unit, is prohibited.

SEC. 202. ADDITIONAL ERADICATION RESOURCES FOR PERU.

(a) Department of State.--Funds are authorized to be
appropriated for the Department of State for fiscal years
1999, 2000, and 2001 for the establishment of a third drug
interdiction site in Peru to support air bridge and riverine
missions for enhancement of drug-related eradication efforts
in Peru, in the total amount of $3,000,000, and an additional
amount of $1,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2000 and 2001
for operation and maintenance.
(b) Department of Defense Study.--The Secretary of Defense
shall conduct a study of Peruvian counternarcotics air
interdiction requirements and, not later than 90 days after
the date of enactment of this Act, submit to Congress a
report on the results of the study. The study shall include a
review of the Peruvian Air Force's current and future
requirements for counternarcotics air interdiction to
complement the Peruvian Air Force's A-37 capability.

SEC. 203. ADDITIONAL ERADICATION RESOURCES FOR BOLIVIA.

Funds are authorized to be appropriated for the Department
of State for fiscal years 1999, 2000, and 2001 for
enhancement of drug-related eradication efforts in Bolivia in
the total amount of $17,000,000 which shall be available for
the following purposes:
(1) For support of air operations in Bolivia.
(2) For support of riverine operations in Bolivia.
(3) For support of coca eradication programs.
(4) For procurement of 2 mobile x-ray machines, with
operation and maintenance support.

SEC. 204. MISCELLANEOUS ADDITIONAL ERADICATION RESOURCES.

Funds are authorized to be appropriated for the Department
of State for fiscal years 1999, 2000, and 2001 for enhanced
precursor chemical control projects, in the total amount of
$500,000.

SEC. 205. BUREAU OF INTERNATIONAL NARCOTICS AND LAW
ENFORCEMENT AFFAIRS.

(a) Sense of Congress Relating to Professional
Qualifications of Officials Responsible for International
Narcotics Control.--It is the sense of Congress that any
individual serving in the position of assistant secretary in
any department or agency of the Federal Government who has
primary responsibility for international narcotics control
and law enforcement, and the principal deputy of any such
assistant secretary, shall have substantial professional
qualifications in the fields of--
(1) management; and
(2) Federal law enforcement or intelligence.
(b) Foreign Military Sales.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, upon the receipt by the Department of State of a formal
letter of request for any foreign military sales
counternarcotics-related assistance from the head of any
police, military, or other appropriate security agency
official, the principle agency responsible for the
implementation and processing of the counternarcotics foreign
military sales request shall be the Department of Defense.
(2) Role of state department.--The Department of State
shall continue to have a consultative role with the
Department of Defense in the processing of the request
described in paragraph (1), after receipt of the letter of
request, for all counternarcotics-related foreign military
sales assistance.
(c) Sense of Congress Relating to Deficiencies in
International Narcotics Assistance Activities.--It is the
sense of Congress that the responsiveness and effectiveness
of international narcotics assistance activities under the
Department of State have been severely hampered due, in part,
to the lack of law enforcement expertise by responsible
personnel in the Department of State.
TITLE III--ENHANCED ALTERNATIVE CROP DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT IN SOURCE ZONE

SEC. 301. ALTERNATIVE CROP DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT.

Funds are authorized to be appropriated for the United
States Agency for International Development for fiscal years
1999, 2000, and 2001 for alternative development programs in
the total amount of $180,000,000 which shall be available as
follows:
(1) In the Guaviare, Putumayo, and Caqueta regions in
Colombia.
(2) In the Ucayali, Apurimac, and Huallaga Valley regions
in Peru.
(3) In the Chapare and Yungas regions in Bolivia.

[[Page S11048]]

SEC. 302. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR AGRICULTURAL
RESEARCH SERVICE COUNTERDRUG RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES.

(a) In General.--There is authorized to be appropriated to
the Secretary of Agriculture for each of fiscal years 1999,
2000, and 2001, $23,000,000 to support the counternarcotics
research efforts of the Agricultural Research Service of the
Department of Agriculture. Of that amount, funds are
authorized as follows:
(1) $5,000,000 shall be used for crop eradication
technologies.
(2) $2,000,000 shall be used for narcotics plant
identification, chemistry, and biotechnology.
(3) $1,000,000 shall be used for worldwide crop
identification, detection tagging, and production estimation
technology.
(4) $5,000,000 shall be used for improving the disease
resistance, yield, and economic competitiveness of commercial
crops that can be promoted as alternatives to the production
of narcotics plants.
(5) $10,000,000 to contract with entities meeting the
criteria described in subsection (b) for the product
development, environmental testing, registration, production,
aerial distribution system development, product effectiveness
monitoring, and modification of multiple mycoherbicides to
control narcotic crops (including coca, poppy, and cannabis)
in the United States and internationally.
(b) Criteria for Eligible Entities.--An entity under this
subsection is an entity which possesses--
(1) experience in diseases of narcotic crops;
(2) intellectual property involving seed-borne dispersal
formulations;
(3) the availability of state-of-the-art containment or
quarantine facilities;
(4) country-specific mycoherbicide formulations;
(5) specialized fungicide resistant formulations; or
(6) special security arrangements.

SEC. 303. MASTER PLAN FOR MYCOHERBICIDES TO CONTROL NARCOTIC
CROPS.

(a) In General.--The Director of the Office of National
Drug Control Policy shall develop a 10-year master plan for
the use of mycoherbicides to control narcotic crops
(including coca, poppy, and cannabis) in the United States
and internationally.
(b) Coordination.--The Director shall develop the plan in
coordination with--
(1) the Department of Agriculture;
(2) the Drug Enforcement Administration of the Department
of Justice;
(3) the Department of Defense;
(4) the Environmental Protection Agency;
(5) the Bureau for International Narcotics and Law
Enforcement Activities of the Department of State;
(6) the United States Information Agency; and
(7) other appropriate agencies.
(c) Report.--Not later than March 1, 1999, the Director of
the Office of National Drug Control Policy shall submit to
Congress a report describing the activities undertaken to
carry out this section.
TITLE IV--ENHANCED INTERNATIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING

SEC. 401. ENHANCED INTERNATIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ACADEMY
TRAINING.

(a) Enhanced International Law Enforcement Academy
Training.--Funds are authorized to be appropriated for the
Department of Justice for fiscal years 1999, 2000, and 2001
for the establishment and operation of international law
enforcement academies to carry out law enforcement training
activities in the total amount of $13,400,000 which shall be
available for the following purposes:
(1) For the establishment and operation of an academy which
shall serve Latin America and the Caribbean.
(2) For the establishment and operation of an academy in
Bangkok, Thailand, which shall serve Asia.
(3) For the establishment and operation of an academy in
South Africa which shall serve Africa.
(b) Maritime Law Enforcement Training Center.--Funds are
authorized to be appropriated for the Department of
Transportation and the Department of the Treasury for fiscal
years 1999, 2000, and 2001 for the joint establishment,
operation, and maintenance in San Juan, Puerto Rico, of a
center for training law enforcement personnel of countries
located in the Latin American and Caribbean regions in
matters relating to maritime law enforcement, including
customs-related ports management matters, as follows:
(1) For each such fiscal year for funding by the Department
of Transportation, $1,500,000.
(2) For each such fiscal year for funding by the Department
of the Treasury, $1,500,000.
(c) United States Coast Guard International Maritime
Training Vessel.--Funds are authorized to be appropriated for
the Department of Transportation for fiscal years 1999, 2000,
and 2001 for the establishment, operation, and maintenance of
maritime training vessels in the total amount of $15,000,000
which shall be available for the following purposes:
(1) For a vessel for international maritime training, which
shall visit participating Latin American and Caribbean
nations on a rotating schedule in order to provide law
enforcement training and to perform maintenance on
participating national assets.
(2) For support of the United States Coast Guard Balsam
Class Buoy Tender training vessel.

SEC. 402. ENHANCED UNITED STATES DRUG ENFORCEMENT
INTERNATIONAL TRAINING.

(a) Mexico.--Funds are authorized to be appropriated for
the Department of Justice for fiscal years 1999, 2000, and
2001 for substantial exchanges for Mexican judges,
prosecutors, and police, in the total amount of $2,000,000
for each such fiscal year.
(b) Brazil.--Funds are authorized to be appropriated for
the Department of Justice for fiscal years 1999, 2000, and
2001 for enhanced support for the Brazilian Federal Police
Training Center, in the total amount of $1,000,000 for each
such fiscal year.
(c) Panama.--
(1) In general.--Funds are authorized to be appropriated
for the Department of Transportation for fiscal years 1999,
2000, and 2001 for operation and maintenance, for locating
and operating Coast Guard assets so as to strengthen the
capability of the Coast Guard of Panama to patrol the
Atlantic and Pacific coasts of Panama for drug enforcement
and interdiction activities, in the total amount of
$1,000,000 for each such fiscal year.
(2) Eligibility to receive training.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of law, members of the national police of
Panama shall be eligible to receive training through the
International Military Education Training program.
(d) Venezuela.--There are authorized to be appropriated for
the Department of Justice for each of fiscal years 1999,
2000, and 2001, $1,000,000 for operation and maintenance, for
support for the Venezuelan Judicial Technical Police
Counterdrug Intelligence Center.
(e) Ecuador.--Funds are authorized to be appropriated for
the Department of Transportation and the Department of the
Treasury for each of fiscal years 1999, 2000, and 2001 for
the buildup of local coast guard and port control in
Guayaquil and Esmeraldas, Ecuador, as follows:
(1) For each such fiscal year for the Department of
Transportation, $500,000.
(2) For each such fiscal year for the Department of the
Treasury, $500,000.
(f) Haiti and the Dominican Republic.--Funds are authorized
to be appropriated for the Department of the Treasury for
each of fiscal years 1999, 2000, and 2001, $500,000 for the
buildup of local coast guard and port control in Haiti and
the Dominican Republic.
(g) Central America.--There are authorized to be
appropriated for the Department of the Treasury for each of
fiscal years 1999, 2000, and 2001, $12,000,000 for the
buildup of local coast guard and port control in Belize,
Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua.

SEC. 403. PROVISION OF NONLETHAL EQUIPMENT TO FOREIGN LAW
ENFORCEMENT ORGANIZATIONS FOR COOPERATIVE
ILLICIT NARCOTICS CONTROL ACTIVITIES.

(a) In General.--The Administrator of the Drug Enforcement
Administration, in consultation with the Secretary of State,
may transfer or lease each year nonlethal equipment, of which
each piece of equipment may be valued at not more than
$100,000, to foreign law enforcement organizations for the
purpose of establishing and carrying out cooperative illicit
narcotics control activities.
(b) Additional Requirement.--The Administrator shall
provide for the maintenance and repair of any equipment
transferred or leased under subsection (a).
(c) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) all United States law enforcement personnel serving in
Mexico should be accredited the same status under the Vienna
Convention on Diplomatic Immunity as other diplomatic
personnel serving at United States posts in Mexico; and
(2) all Mexican narcotics law enforcement personnel serving
in the United States should be accorded the same diplomatic
status as Drug Enforcement Administration personnel serving
in Mexico.
TITLE V--ENHANCED DRUG TRANSIT AND SOURCE ZONE LAW ENFORCEMENT
OPERATIONS AND EQUIPMENT

SEC. 501. INCREASED FUNDING FOR OPERATIONS AND EQUIPMENT;
REPORT.

(a) Drug Enforcement Administration.--Funds are authorized
to be appropriated for the Drug Enforcement Administration
for fiscal years 1999, 2000, and 2001 for enhancement of
counternarcotic operations in drug transit and source
countries in the total amount of $58,900,000 which shall be
available for the following purposes:
(1) For support of the Merlin program.
(2) For support of the intercept program.
(3) For support of the Narcotics Enforcement Data Retrieval
System.
(4) For support of the Caribbean Initiative.
(5) For the hire of special agents, administrative and
investigative support personnel, and intelligence analysts
for overseas assignments in foreign posts.
(b) Department of State.--Funds are authorized to be
appropriated for the Department of State for fiscal year
1999, 2000, and 2001 for the deployment of commercial
unclassified intelligence and imaging data and a Passive
Coherent Location System for counternarcotics and
interdiction purposes in the Western Hemisphere, the total
amount of $20,000,000.
(c) Department of the Treasury.--Funds are authorized to be
appropriated for the United States Customs Service for fiscal
years 1999, 2000, and 2001 for enhancement of counternarcotic
operations in drug transit and source countries in the total
amount of

[[Page S11049]]

$71,500,000 which shall be available for the following
purposes:
(1) For refurbishment of up to 30 interceptor and Blue
Water Platform vessels in the Caribbean maritime fleet.
(2) For purchase of up to 9 new interceptor vessels in the
Caribbean maritime fleet.
(3) For the hire and training of up to 25 special agents
for maritime operations in the Caribbean.
(4) For purchase of up to 60 automotive vehicles for ground
use in South Florida.
(5) For each such fiscal year for operation and maintenance
support for up to 10 United States Customs Service Citations
Aircraft to be dedicated for the source and transit zone.
(6) For purchase of non-intrusive inspection systems
consistent with the United States Customs Service 5-year
technology plan, including truck x-rays and gamma-imaging for
drug interdiction purposes at high-threat seaports and land
border ports of entry.
(d) Department of Defense Report.--Not later than January
31, 1999, the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the
Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, shall
submit to the Committee on National Security and the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Armed Services and the
Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate a report
examining and proposing recommendations regarding any
organizational changes to optimize counterdrug activities,
including alternative cost-sharing arrangements regarding the
following facilities:
(1) The Joint Inter-Agency Task Force, East, Key West,
Florida.
(2) The Joint Inter-Agency Task Force, West, Alameda,
California.
(3) The Joint Inter-Agency Task Force, South, Panama City,
Panama.
(4) The Joint Task Force 6, El Paso, Texas.

SEC. 502. FUNDING FOR COMPUTER SOFTWARE AND HARDWARE TO
FACILITATE DIRECT COMMUNICATION BETWEEN DRUG
ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES.

(a) Authorization.--Funds are authorized to be appropriated
for the development and purchase of computer software and
hardware to facilitate direct communication between agencies
that perform work relating to the interdiction of drugs at
United States borders, including the United States Customs
Service, the Border Patrol, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, the Drug Enforcement Agency, and the
Immigration and Naturalization Service, in the total amount
of $50,000,000.
(b) Availability.--Funds authorized pursuant to the
authorization of appropriations in subsection (a) shall
remain available until expended.

SEC. 503. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING PRIORITY OF DRUG
INTERDICTION AND COUNTERDRUG ACTIVITIES.

It is the sense of Congress that the Secretary of Defense
should revise the Global Military Force Policy of the
Department of Defense in order--
(1) to treat the international drug interdiction and
counter-drug activities of the Department as a military
operation other than war, thereby elevating the priority
given such activities under the Policy to the next priority
below the priority given to war under the Policy and to the
same priority as is given to peacekeeping operations under
the Policy; and
(2) to allocate the assets of the Department to drug
interdiction and counter-drug activities in accordance with
the priority given those activities.
TITLE VI--RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LAWS

SEC. 601. AUTHORIZATIONS OF APPROPRIATIONS.

The funds authorized to be appropriated for any department
or agency of the Federal Government for fiscal years 1999,
2000, or 2001 by this Act are in addition to funds authorized
to be appropriated for that department or agency for fiscal
year 1999, 2000, or 2001 by any other provision of law.
TITLE VII--CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECKS ON PORT EMPLOYEES

SEC. 701. BACKGROUND CHECKS.

(a) Background Checks.--Upon the request of any State,
county, port authority, or other local jurisdiction of a
State, the Attorney General shall grant to such State,
county, port authority, or other local jurisdiction access to
information collected by the Attorney General pursuant to
section 534 of title 28, United States Code, for the purpose
of allowing such State, county, port authority, or other
local jurisdiction to conduct criminal background checks on
employees, or applicants for employment, at any port under
the jurisdiction of such State, county, port authority, or
other local jurisdiction.
(b) Port Defined.--In this section, the term ``port'' means
any place at which vessels may resort to load or unload
cargo.
TITLE VIII--DRUG CURRENCY FORFEITURES

SEC. 801. SHORT TITLE.

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

SEC. 802. 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) or 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
``(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.''.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join my
colleagues from both sides of the aisle in reintroducing the Western
Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act of 1998. This legislation authorizes a
$3 billion, three year initiative to enhance international drug
eradication, interdiction and crop substitution efforts.
The other body has already adopted a companion version of this bill
in a 384-39 vote. That level of support reflects, I believe, a growing
recognition by members of Congress that our current approach to the
drug war is not working. While treatment and education and other demand
reduction activities are vital to an overall drug strategy,

[[Page S11050]]

you do not win a war by only treating the wounded. A balanced strategy
is essential and we have in recent years neglected the interdiction and
international components of our counterdrug efforts.
The result has been a flood of drugs into our streets and schools and
neighborhoods and disturbing increases in drug use.
On August 21, 1998, the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse,
conducted by the Substance Abuse & Mental Health Administration, was
released. That report indicates that in 1997, 13.9 million Americans
12-and-over cited themselves as ``current users'' of illicit drugs--a 7
percent increase from 1996. Current illicit drug use among our nation's
youth continues to increase at an alarming rate. From 1992-1997, youth
aged 12-to-17 using illegal drugs has more than doubled (120 percent)--
with a 27 percent increase from 1996-1997 alone.
On September 1, 1998, the Back to School 1998: CASA Teen Survey,
conducted by the National Center on Addiction & Substance Abuse at
Columbia University, was released. A majority (51 percent) of high
school students say the drug problem is getting worse. For the fourth
straight year, both middle and high school students say that drugs are
their biggest concern. More than three-quarters of high school teens
report that drugs are used, sold and kept at their schools--an increase
from 72 percent in 1996 to 78 percent in 1998.
This newly drafted version of the Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination
Act reflects testimony heard at the joint hearing of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee and the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics
Control held on September 15. General Barry McCaffrey, Director of the
Office of National Drug Control Policy, as well as officials from the
Departments of State and Defense, the Drug Enforcement Administration,
the U.S. Customs Service and the United States Coast Guard testified.
The committees also heard from experts of the General Accounting Office
and the Institute for Defense Analysis.
General McCaffrey in particular asked for greater flexibility in the
provisions of the bill and we have granted that request. Our
legislation still authorizes new aircraft, cutters, and ``go-fast''
boats for the Coast Guard and Customs Service. But we give these
agencies the flexibility to prioritize from a menu of option and
determine for themselves which are the greatest needs.
The bill supports increased eradication and interdiction efforts in
Bolivia, Colombia, Peru, and Mexico, as well as assistance for
alternative crop development support in the Andean region. But again,
we have tailored its provisions to give the State Department needed
flexibility in determining priorities and adjusting to changing
conditions.
The bill also provides for development of international law
enforcement training and improvements in drug transit and source zone
law enforcement operations and equipment.
Mr. President, the Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act of 1998 is
a bipartisan effort to restore a balanced drug strategy. I urge all
Senators to support it.
Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues
as original co-sponsor of the revised Western Hemisphere Drug
Elimination Act of 1998. This bill reflects a balanced approach in
curbing the flow of narcotics over our borders; to stop the drugs
before they arrive in the United States.
Illegal drug use by our children and youth is taking an enormous toll
on families and communities all over the country. A study released by
the National Institute on Drug Abuse found that cocaine and marijuana
use among high school seniors has increased 80% since 1992. Even more
alarming is that heroin use among twelfth graders doubled.
The effects of drugs are astounding. It is estimated that drug-
related illness, death and crime cost the United States approximately
$67 billion a year. That is $1,000 for every man, woman and child in
America. The resources we spend to combat drugs could have been used
for so many other valuable social and economic development programs.
That is why, after decades of trying to combat the scourge of drugs, we
must finally put a stop to it.
New York State is no stranger to the plight created by illegal drugs.
Last year, almost 40% of the heroin seized at our international borders
was seized in the New York metropolitan area. This disproportionate
amount of drugs destined for New York communities underscores my
intention to do what is necessary to end the flow of drugs into our
country.
An effective counter-narcotics control strategy should be balanced
and coordinated--including interdiction, prevention and law
enforcement. But a disturbing trend has emerged. Since 1987, the
percentage of the national drug control budget earmarked for
interdiction and international efforts has decreased from 33% to just
12%. That is a trend we intend to reverse with this bill.
This is an opportunity to make a commitment to substantially reducing
drug availability in the United States. In this spirit, the sponsors of
this bill have consulted with the Office of National Drug Control
Policy to improve on certain aspects of this legislation. But one thing
won't change. This bill will provide the necessary resources, $2.6
billion over three years, to increase our interdiction efforts. We can
all agree on one thing--we have to stop the drugs before they reach our
communities. And it's important to mention that the House of
Representatives overwhelmingly approved a similar bill.
The Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act of 1998 reaches that goal
by providing a comprehensive eradication, interdiction and crop
substitution strategy. This initiative will make supply reduction a
priority again--guaranteeing valuable equipment for our law enforcement
including speed boats at least as fast as those belonging to the drug
lords. Our radars and early warning aircraft will be improved so that
they will detect the small and elusive drug planes that smuggle tons of
narcotics destined for out streets. This initiative will restore
balance to the drug control strategy and make significant inroads
towards keeping drugs from reaching our neighborhoods, and more
importantly, our children.
This initiative recognizes that drug availability can be decreased by
operating against every level of the drug process--from the growing
fields to the clandestine laboratories to the trafficking. By
continuing to work with reputable law enforcement in narcotic source
and transit countries, we may be able to eradicate drugs at their
origin.
The importance of this legislation cannot be underestimated.
Everyday, our men and women of law enforcement, at the federal, state
and local levels, make great sacrifices as they face the heavy burden
of fighting the drug war. They protect the citizens of this country and
we should respond by providing them with all the tools they need to get
the job done. These people have committed themselves to eliminating
illegal drugs from our streets. Now we must demonstrate to them that we
will support them in their struggle--a struggle they carry on to
protect us.
I commend the sponsors of this bill for working toward an agreement
on this bill and I urge my colleagues to support its enactment.
Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 2341, the
Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act, introduced by Senator DeWine,
myself and twenty-nine of our distinguished colleagues.
Research shows that increased Federal, State and local efforts are
needed to enforce the already existing laws, as well as to pass pro-
active legislation to deal with ever changing trends in substance
abuse. Unfortunately, there is compelling evidence that over the past
decade the changing trends indicate that drug use has increased,
particularly among young people. My colleagues and I believe that the
growth in drug use has some connection to the decline in resources
dedicated to drug interdiction efforts outside our borders over this
period. While previous budgets have appropriately devoted resources to
demand and domestic law enforcement programs, evidence also shows that
there must be a returned focus on interdiction and eradication
programs. I have continued to support a continued federal commitment to
demand reduction and law enforcement

[[Page S11051]]

programs since ultimately these activities drive the drug trade in the
United States. However, we can not reverse the disturbing increases in
drug use unless we also dedicate more funds to drug interdiction and
restore a more balanced drug control strategy.
Mr. President, I believe that this $2.6 billion over 3 years
initiative to enhance international eradication, interdiction and crop
substitution efforts targets the threat to the United States caused by
drug lords. Furthermore, by addressing the very highlights of the bill
and appropriating the necessary monies, drug lords and drug traffickers
will be more clearly targeted. While this bill is very detailed, let me
mention a few of the highlights:
It would improve our aircraft, maritime and radar coverage of both
drug-source and drug-transit countries;
It would enhance drug-eradication and interdiction efforts in source
countries;
It would enhance the development of alternative crops in drug-source
countries; It would support international law enforcement training;
It would enhance law enforcement interdiction operations.
Mr. President, all too often, the drug smugglers have the upper hand
with state-of-the-art boats and aircraft. I might add the United States
specifically lacks adequate surface assets and is using aircraft with
1990 technology. I believe that this bill will help turn the tide in
the war on drugs by equipping the Coast Guard, Customs, DEA, DOD and
other law enforcement agencies with the latest in proven technology.
Mr. President, I want my colleagues to take note of the fact that an
identical bill H.R.4300 has already been passed in the House of
Representatives by a vote of 384-39. I urge my colleagues to support
the Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act and make it far more
difficult for drug lords to bring drugs to our nation. I believe that
increasing funds for eradication and interdiction efforts will make a
difference.
______

By Mr. HATCH:
S. 2524. A bill to cofidy without substantive change laws related to
Patriotic and National Observances, Ceremonies, and Organizations and
to improve the United States Code; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

U.S. CODE REVISIONS

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to introduce today a bill to amend
title 36 of the U.S. Code, to codify certain laws related to patriotic
and national organizations that were enacted after the cut-off date for
the title 36 codification recently enacted by Public Law 105-225. The
bill makes technical corrections in title 36 and repeals obsolete and
unnecessary provisions.

____________________