[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.

                          ____________________