[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 152 (Tuesday, November 2, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H11218-H11231]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1145
FOREIGN NARCOTICS KINGPIN DESIGNATION ACT
Mr. GILMAN. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 3164) to provide for the imposition of economic sanctions on
certain foreign persons engaging in, or otherwise involved in,
international narcotics trafficking.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 3164
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Foreign Narcotics Kingpin
Designation Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND POLICY.
(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Presidential Decision Directive 42, issued on October
21, 1995, ordered agencies of the executive branch of the
United States Government to, inter alia, increase the
priority and resources devoted to the direct and immediate
threat international crime presents to national security,
work more closely with other governments to develop a global
response to this threat, and use aggressively and creatively
all legal means available to combat international crime.
(2) Executive Order No. 12978 of October 21, 1995, provides
for the use of the authorities in the International Emergency
Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) to
target and apply sanctions to 4 international narcotics
traffickers and their organizations that operate from
Colombia.
(3) IEEPA was successfully applied to international
narcotics traffickers in Colombia and based on that
successful case study, Congress believes similar authorities
should be applied worldwide.
(4) There is a national emergency resulting from the
activities of international narcotics traffickers and their
organizations that threatens the national security, foreign
policy, and economy of the United States.
(b) Policy.--It shall be the policy of the United States to
apply economic and other financial sanctions to significant
foreign narcotics traffickers and their organizations
worldwide to protect the national security, foreign policy,
and economy of the United States from the threat described in
subsection (a)(4).
SEC. 3. PURPOSE.
The purpose of this Act is to provide authority for the
identification of, and application of sanctions on a
worldwide basis to, significant foreign narcotics
traffickers, their organizations, and the foreign persons who
provide support to those significant foreign narcotics
traffickers and their organizations, whose activities
threaten the national security, foreign policy, and economy
of the United States.
SEC. 4. PUBLIC IDENTIFICATION OF SIGNIFICANT FOREIGN
NARCOTICS TRAFFICKERS AND REQUIRED REPORTS.
(a) Provision of Information to the President.--The
Secretary of the Treasury, the Attorney General, the
Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, and the
Director of Central Intelligence shall consult among
themselves and provide the appropriate and necessary
information to enable the President to submit the report
under subsection (b). This information shall also be provided
to the Director of the Office of National Drug Control
Policy.
(b) Public Identification and Sanctioning of Significant
Foreign Narcotics Traffickers.--Not later than June 1, 2000,
and not later than June 1 of each year thereafter, the
President shall submit a report to the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence, and the Committees on the
Judiciary, International Relations, Armed Services, and Ways
and Means of the House of Representatives; and to the Select
Committee on Intelligence, and the Committees on the
Judiciary, Foreign Relations, Armed Services, and Finance of
the Senate--
(1) identifying publicly the foreign persons that the
President determines are appropriate for sanctions pursuant
to this Act; and
(2) detailing publicly the President's intent to impose
sanctions upon these significant foreign narcotics
traffickers pursuant to this Act.
The report required in this subsection shall not include
information on persons upon which United States sanctions
imposed under this Act, or otherwise on account of narcotics
trafficking, are already in effect.
(c) Unclassified Report Required.--The report required by
subsection (b) shall be submitted in unclassified form and
made available to the public.
(d) Classified Report.--(1) Not later than July 1, 2000,
and not later than July 1 of each year thereafter, the
President shall provide the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence of the House of Representatives and the Select
Committee on Intelligence of the Senate with a report in
classified form describing in detail the status of the
sanctions imposed under this Act, including the personnel and
resources directed towards the
[[Page H11219]]
imposition of such sanctions during the preceding fiscal
year, and providing background information with respect to
newly identified significant foreign narcotics traffickers
and their activities.
(2) Such classified report shall describe actions the
President intends to undertake or has undertaken with respect
to such significant foreign narcotics traffickers.
(3) The report required under this subsection is in
addition to the President's obligation to keep the
intelligence committees of Congress fully and completely
informed of the provisions of the National Security Act of
1947.
(e) Exclusion of Certain Information.--
(1) Intelligence.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this section, the reports described in subsections (b) and
(d) shall not disclose the identity of any person, if the
Director of Central Intelligence determines that such
disclosure could compromise an intelligence operation,
activity, source, or methods of the United States.
(2) Law enforcement.--Notwithstanding any other provision
of this section, the reports described in subsections (b) and
(d) shall not disclose the name of any person if the Attorney
General, in coordination as appropriate with the Director of
the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Administrator of the
Drug Enforcement Administration, and the Secretary of the
Treasury, determines that such disclosure could reasonably be
expected to--
(A) compromise the identity of a confidential source,
including a State, local, or foreign agency or authority or
any private institution that furnished information on a
confidential basis;
(B) jeopardize the integrity or success of an ongoing
criminal investigation or prosecution;
(C) endanger the life or physical safety of any person; or
(D) cause substantial harm to physical property.
(f) Notification Required.--(1) Whenever either the
Director of Central Intelligence or the Attorney General
makes a determination under subsection (e), the Director of
Central Intelligence or the Attorney General shall notify the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of
Representatives and the Select Committee on Intelligence of
the Senate, and explain the reasons for such determination.
(2) The notification required under this subsection shall
be submitted to the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence of the House of Representatives and the Select
Committee on Intelligence of the Senate not later than July
1, 2000, and on an annual basis thereafter.
(g) Determinations Not To Apply Sanctions.--(1) The
President may waive the application to a significant foreign
narcotics trafficker of any sanction authorized by this title
if the President determines that the application of sanctions
under this Act would significantly harm the national security
of the United States.
(2) When the President determines not to apply sanctions
that are authorized by this Act to any significant foreign
narcotics trafficker, the President shall notify the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and the
Committees on the Judiciary, International Relations, Armed
Services, and Ways and Means of the House of Representatives,
and the Select Committee on Intelligence, and the Committees
on the Judiciary, Foreign Relations, Armed Services, and
Finance of the Senate not later than 21 days after making
such determination.
(h) Changes in Determinations To Impose Sanctions.--
(1) Additional determinations.--(A) If at any time after
the report required under subsection (b) the President finds
that a foreign person is a significant foreign narcotics
trafficker and such foreign person has not been publicly
identified in a report required under subsection (b), the
President shall submit an additional public report containing
the information described in subsection (b) with respect to
such foreign person to the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence, and the Committees on the Judiciary,
International Relations, Armed Services, and Ways and Means
of the House of Representatives, and the Select Committee on
Intelligence, and the Committees on the Judiciary, Foreign
Relations, Armed Services, and Finance of the Senate.
(B) The President may apply sanctions authorized under this
Act to the significant foreign narcotics trafficker
identified in the report submitted under subparagraph (A) as
if the trafficker were originally included in the report
submitted pursuant to subsection (b) of this section.
(C) The President shall notify the Secretary of the
Treasury of any determination made under this paragraph.
(2) Revocation of determination.--(A) Whenever the
President finds that a foreign person that has been publicly
identified as a significant foreign narcotics trafficker in
the report required under subsection (b) or this subsection
no longer engages in those activities for which sanctions
under this Act may be applied, the President shall issue
public notice of such a finding.
(B) Not later than the date of the public notice issued
pursuant to subparagraph (A), the President shall notify, in
writing and in classified or unclassified form, the Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence, and the Committees on the
Judiciary, International Relations, Armed Services, and Ways
and Means of the House of Representatives, and the Select
Committee on Intelligence, and the Committees on the
Judiciary, Foreign Relations, Armed Services, and Finance of
the Senate of actions taken under this paragraph and a
description of the basis for such actions.
SEC. 5. BLOCKING ASSETS AND PROHIBITING TRANSACTIONS.
(a) Applicability of Sanctions.--A significant foreign
narcotics trafficker publicly identified in the report
required under subsection (b) or (h)(1) of section 4 and
foreign persons designated by the Secretary of the Treasury
pursuant to subsection (b) of this section shall be subject
to any and all sanctions as authorized by this Act. The
application of sanctions on any foreign person pursuant to
subsection (b) or (h)(1) of section 4 or subsection (b) of
this section shall remain in effect until revoked pursuant to
section 4(h)(2) or subsection (e)(1)(A) of this section or
waived pursuant to section 4(g)(1).
(b) Blocking of Assets.--Except to the extent provided in
regulations, orders, instructions, licenses, or directives
issued pursuant to this Act, and notwithstanding any contract
entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the
date on which the President submits the report required under
subsection (b) or (h)(1) of section 4, there are blocked as
of such date, and any date thereafter, all such property and
interests in property within the United States, or within the
possession or control of any United States person, which are
owned or controlled by--
(1) any significant foreign narcotics trafficker publicly
identified by the President in the report required under
subsection (b) or (h)(1) of section 4;
(2) any foreign person that the Secretary of the Treasury,
in consultation with the Attorney General, the Director of
Central Intelligence, the Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement
Administration, the Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary
of State, designates as materially assisting in, or providing
financial or technological support for or to, or providing
goods or services in support of, the international narcotics
trafficking activities of a significant foreign narcotics
trafficker so identified in the report required under
subsection (b) or (h)(1) of section 4, or foreign persons
designated by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to this
subsection;
(3) any foreign person that the Secretary of the Treasury,
in consultation with the Attorney General, the Director of
Central Intelligence, the Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement
Administration, the Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary
of State, designates as owned, controlled, or directed by,
or acting for or on behalf of, a significant foreign
narcotics trafficker so identified in the report required
under subsection (b) or (h)(1) of section 4, or foreign
persons designated by the Secretary of the Treasury
pursuant to this subsection; and
(4) any foreign person that the Secretary of the Treasury,
in consultation with the Attorney General, the Director of
Central Intelligence, the Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement
Administration, the Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary
of State, designates as playing a significant role in
international narcotics trafficking.
(c) Prohibited Transactions.--Except to the extent provided
in regulations, orders, instructions, licenses, or directives
issued pursuant to this Act, and notwithstanding any contract
entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the
date on which the President submits the report required under
subsection (b) or (h)(1) of section 4, the following
transactions are prohibited:
(1) Any transaction or dealing by a United States person,
or within the United States, in property or interests in
property of any significant foreign narcotics trafficker so
identified in the report required pursuant to subsection (b)
or (h)(1) of section 4, and foreign persons designated by the
Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to subsection (b) of this
section.
(2) Any transaction or dealing by a United States person,
or within the United States, that evades or avoids, or has
the effect of evading or avoiding, and any endeavor, attempt,
or conspiracy to violate, any of the prohibitions contained
in this Act.
(d) Law Enforcement and Intelligence Activities Not
Affected.--Nothing in this Act prohibits or otherwise limits
the authorized law enforcement or intelligence activities of
the United States, or the law enforcement activities of any
State or subdivision thereof.
(e) Implementation.--(1) The Secretary of the Treasury, in
consultation with the Attorney General, the Director of
Central Intelligence, the Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement
Administration, the Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary
of State, is authorized to take such actions as may be
necessary to carry out this Act, including--
(A) making those designations authorized by paragraphs (2),
(3), and (4) of subsection (b) of this section and revocation
thereof;
(B) promulgating rules and regulations permitted under this
Act; and
(C) employing all powers conferred on the Secretary of the
Treasury under this Act.
(2) Each agency of the United States shall take all
appropriate measures within its authority to carry out the
provisions of this Act.
[[Page H11220]]
(3) Section 552(a)(3) of title 5, United States Code, shall
not apply to any record or information obtained or created in
the implementation of this Act.
(f) Judicial Review.--The determinations, identifications,
findings, and designations made pursuant to section 4 and
subsection (b) of this section shall not be subject to
judicial review.
SEC. 6. AUTHORITIES.
(a) In General.--To carry out the purposes of this Act, the
Secretary of the Treasury may, under such regulations as he
may prescribe, by means of instructions, licenses, or
otherwise--
(1) investigate, regulate, or prohibit--
(A) any transactions in foreign exchange, currency, or
securities; and
(B) transfers of credit or payments between, by, through,
or to any banking institution, to the extent that such
transfers or payments involve any interests of any foreign
country or a national thereof; and
(2) investigate, block during the pendency of an
investigation, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void,
prevent, or prohibit any acquisition, holding, withholding,
use, transfer, withdrawal, transportation, placement into
foreign or domestic commerce of, or dealing in, or exercising
any right, power, or privilege with respect to, or
transactions involving, any property in which any foreign
country or a national thereof has any interest,
by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to
the jurisdiction of the United States.
(b) Recordkeeping.--Pursuant to subsection (a), the
Secretary of the Treasury may require recordkeeping,
reporting, and production of documents to carry out the
purposes of this Act.
(c) Defenses.--
(1) Full and actual compliance with any regulation, order,
license, instruction, or direction issued under this Act
shall be a defense in any proceeding alleging a violation of
any of the provisions of this Act.
(2) No person shall be held liable in any court for or with
respect to anything done or omitted in good faith in
connection with the administration of, or pursuant to, and in
reliance on this Act, or any regulation, instruction, or
direction issued under this Act.
(d) Rulemaking.--The Secretary of the Treasury may issue
such other regulations or orders, including regulations
prescribing recordkeeping, reporting, and production of
documents, definitions, licenses, instructions, or
directions, as may be necessary for the exercise of the
authorities granted by this Act.
SEC. 7. ENFORCEMENT.
(a) Criminal Penalties.--(1) Whoever willfully violates the
provisions of this Act, or any license rule, or regulation
issued pursuant to this Act, or willfully neglects or refuses
to comply with any order of the President issued under this
Act shall be--
(A) imprisoned for not more than 10 years,
(B) fined in the amount provided in title 18, United States
Code, or, in the case of an entity, fined not more than
$10,000,000,
or both.
(2) Any officer, director, or agent of any entity who
knowingly participates in a violation of the provisions of
this Act shall be imprisoned for not more than 30 years,
fined not more than $5,000,000, or both.
(b) Civil Penalties.--A civil penalty not to exceed
$1,000,000 may be imposed by the Secretary of the Treasury on
any person who violates any license, order, rule, or
regulation issued in compliance with the provisions of this
Act.
(c) Judicial Review of Civil Penalty.--Any penalty imposed
under subsection (b) shall be subject to judicial review only
to the extent provided in section 702 of title 5, United
States Code.
SEC. 8. DEFINITIONS.
As used in this Act:
(1) Entity.--The term ``entity'' means a partnership, joint
venture, association, corporation, organization, network,
group, or subgroup, or any form of business collaboration.
(2) Foreign person.--The term ``foreign person'' means any
citizen or national of a foreign state or any entity not
organized under the laws of the United States, but does not
include a foreign state.
(3) Narcotics trafficking.--The term ``narcotics
trafficking'' means any illicit activity to cultivate,
produce, manufacture, distribute, sell, finance, or transport
narcotic drugs, controlled substances, or listed chemicals,
or otherwise endeavor or attempt to do so, or to assist,
abet, conspire, or collude with others to do so.
(4) Narcotic drug; controlled substance; listed chemical.--
The terms ``narcotic drug'', ``controlled substance'', and
``listed chemical'' have the meanings given those terms in
section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802).
(5) Person.--The term ``person'' means an individual or
entity.
(6) United states person.--The term ``United States
person'' means any United States citizen or national,
permanent resident alien, an entity organized under the laws
of the United States (including its foreign branches), or any
person within the United States.
(7) Significant foreign narcotics trafficker.--The term
``significant foreign narcotics trafficker'' means any
foreign person that plays a significant role in international
narcotics trafficking, that the President has determined to
be appropriate for sanctions pursuant to this Act, and that
the President has publicly identified in the report required
under subsection (b) or (h)(1) of section 4.
SEC. 9. EXCLUSION OF PERSONS WHO HAVE BENEFITED FROM ILLICIT
ACTIVITIES OF DRUG TRAFFICKERS.
Section 212(a)(2)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act
(8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)(C)) is amended to read as follows:
``(C) Controlled substance traffickers.--Any alien who the
consular officer or the Attorney General knows or has reason
to believe--
``(i) is or has been an illicit trafficker in any
controlled substance or in any listed chemical (as defined in
section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C.
802)), or is or has been a knowing aider, abettor, assister,
conspirator, or colluder with others in the illicit
trafficking in any such controlled or listed substance or
chemical, or endeavored to do so; or
``(ii) is the spouse, son, or daughter of an alien
inadmissible under clause (i), has, within the previous 5
years, obtained any financial or other benefit from the
illicit activity of that alien, and knew or reasonably should
have known that the financial or other benefit was the
product of such illicit activity,
is inadmissible.''.
SEC. 10. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Act shall take effect on the date of enactment of this
Act.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). Pursuant to the rule, the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Crowley) each will control 20 minutes.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I rise to claim the time in opposition
since I gather that both gentlemen from New York, Mr. Gilman and Mr.
Crowley, are in support.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley)
in favor of the motion?
Mr. CROWLEY. Yes, I am, Madam Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. On that basis, pursuant to clause 1(c) of
rule XV, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) will control the 20
minutes reserved for the opposition.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman).
Mr. GILMAN. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 10 minutes to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum), and I ask unanimous consent that
he be permitted to control the time as he may deem appropriate.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, since this side ought to be represented in
support also, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Crowley), and I ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to control
that time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
General Leave
Mr. GILMAN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks on H.R. 3164.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. GILMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) and the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) and our leadership are to be
complimented on moving forward on H.R. 3164. This important effort
improves the tools needed to tackle the critical problem of
international drug traffickers and those who knowingly transact and do
business with these kingpins.
This bill, by expanding and regularizing the authority for the
President to routinely block the property of major drug kingpins, after
the required June 1 listing of these kingpins, deprives them of access
to the United States market and to our financial system. It makes it
clear that our Nation is serious about confronting the threat that they
pose to our Nation and to its people.
After this bill becomes law, it is no longer going to be business as
usual for these global drug kingpins, for their relatives and business
associates and front companies.
Today we are moving forward with an important new initiative in our
war on drugs. Now we will routinely implement the application of
blocking assets
[[Page H11221]]
and denying these global drug traffickers and their associates access
to our markets and to our financial services.
There can be no more important tools in our arsenal against
international drug traffickers who target our Nation and its young
people than asset forfeiture, disruption of their business transaction
and their dealings.
With regard to the drug traffickers, there must be no safe havens or
untouched illicit assets for those who would destroy our communities
and the lives of our young people by shipping their poisons into our
Nation.
Three Presidents have called illicit drug trafficking a serious
national security threat to our Nation. Such a threat warrants a
serious response, including this expanded authority to maintain
economic pressure on these drug traffickers.
Greater international cooperation, the ability to bring to justice
here in the United States those who would violate our laws and would
destroy our communities, and taking away their illicit assets and
ability to do business are all vital tools in our war on drugs. These
tools must be expanded and enhanced even further in our fighting drugs.
Whether these drug kingpins be from Thailand, from Colombia, from
Mexico, or elsewhere around the globe, they must be held accountable to
the American people, to our institutions, and to all the laws they
violate, making us the targets of their criminal activity.
These drug traffickers, their families and business associates should
certainly not be able to benefit financially in their drug trade, for
example, seeking to enroll their children in our best schools and our
institutions of higher learning with their illicit proceeds from the
destruction they visit on our society.
Denying them the fruits of their crimes and entry visas for their
families to come to our Nation is another significant way to help
ensure that their illicit practice will be ended.
This bill will provide overall help, improve our efforts to hold
these major drug kingpins accountable. It will help take the profit and
benefit out of their deadly drug trade. For those relatives,
associates, and businesses that transact with these drug kingpins, the
bill before us indicates that our Nation is prepared to act and to take
the profit out of the drug trade.
Madam Speaker, I was honored to be an original cosponsor of this
proposal that has previously passed the Senate, and I am pleased to
help move forward with this proposal before we adjourn this first
session of the 106th Congress. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to
join with us in this important initiative.
Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. McCollum), and I ask unanimous consent that he be
permitted to control that time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation which I
believe possesses the threat of turning what Members of this House
would consider a laudable goal, cracking down on drug dealers, into a
much more dangerous enterprise.
This bill allows the President or the FBI or the Treasury Department
or the CIA to designate any person in the world as a drug kingpin, to
seize his or her assets, and to make an average American subject to a
decade in prison for doing business with such people.
The bill sets no standards for such a designation. The designation
requires no proof. The designation cannot, according to this bill, be
challenged or reviewed by a court of law. There is simply no way
provided to make the Government provide the proof we expect.
It also appears to bar the family, the American families of any such
individuals from entering the United States. Is this the America we
want, an America in which the President or some Federal bureaucrat can
simply designate someone as a bad guy and exclude American-born
individuals from the country, and freeze the assets of anyone they
desire, some of the assets which may be owed to law-abiding citizens?
Can we really suspend all judicial review and say to hell with due
process? What is the remedy if the bureaucracy gets the wrong person?
It would have been nice to have had a hearing on this bill and to
look at some of these questions in committee, but we did not. This bill
was not reviewed by the Committee on the Judiciary or by the
Subcommittee on the Constitution. It was rushed to the floor with no
adult supervision, which seems to mark every aspect of Republican rule
on Capitol Hill these days.
Real people will have to live with this bill. We owe all Americans a
duty to be careful and conscientious in the work we do, not to endow
the executive with untrammeled power over individual liberty in order
to make a statement.
This bill is an embarrassment to this House and a danger to our
freedoms. Constitutional liberty and due process are precious to this
country. Millions of our citizens have fought and died for liberty. In
the 1950s, the fear of Communism was used to justify invasions of our
traditional liberties. The Supreme Court overturned some of those
invasions.
Now that international Communism is no longer a threat to us, fear of
drugs is leading us down the same sad road to overturn our
constitutional liberties, to overturn the due process that alone
protects us and differentiates us from the Communist tyrannies we
opposed. In the name of the war against drugs, we should not overturn
liberty.
How can we say that the President or some bureaucrat can designate
anyone they want without any evidence, without any proof, without any
standards, and say that person will have his property seized, that
person can go to no court, can get no review, can confront no
witnesses? The court of Star Chamber would have been ashamed, and this
House should be ashamed and not pass this bill.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Madam speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, H.R. 3164, the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation
Act of 1999, is a bill to identify, expose, isolate, and incapacitate
the businesses and the agents of major drug traffickers all over the
world and deny them access to the United States financial system and to
the benefits of trade and transactions involving U.S. businesses and
individuals.
United States individuals and companies are prohibited from engaging
in unlicensed transactions, including any commercial or financial
dealings, with any designated major drug trafficker or kingpin.
Properties and assets of these drug kingpins located in the United
States are blocked or frozen.
This bill is the product of several months of consultations involving
the Select Committee on Intelligence, Committee on International
Relations, the Committee on the Judiciary, and the Committee on Ways
and Means, as well as the detailed negotiations with the National
Security Council, the Treasury Department, the State Department, the
Justice Department, and the intelligence community. The Clinton
administration has carefully reviewed this legislation and now supports
this bill.
Madam Speaker, the gentleman from New York (Chairman Gilman) of the
House Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from Illinois
(Chairman Hyde) of the Committee on the Judiciary have each waived
jurisdiction and consideration of the bill in committee so that it can
come to the floor today prior to the conclusion of this session.
Although it did not receive referral on H.R. 3164, the Committee on
Ways and Means staff were consulted and offered language changes which
were incorporated into this bill.
I introduced an earlier version of this language with the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Goss), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), and
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) last May. Senators Coverdell
and Feinstein did likewise on the Senate side and were successful in
attaching the proposal to the Intelligence Authorization bill by
unanimous consent of the Senate.
Unfortunately, the intelligence conference has been stalled due to
other
[[Page H11222]]
issues. In order to move the important national security legislation
that is involved here, the sponsors decided last week to offer this
bill as a stand-alone for consideration of all the Members.
Unlike earlier and more limited sanctions initiatives, the kingpins
bill is global in scope and focuses on major narco-trafficking groups
in Mexico, Colombia, the Caribbean, Southeast Asia, and Southwest Asia.
The legislation is carefully designed to focus our government's efforts
against the specific individuals most responsible for trafficking
illegal narcotics by attacking their sources of income and undermining
their efforts to launder their drug profits in legitimate business
activities.
The precedent for H.R. 3164 was the highly successful application of
sanctions since 1995 against the Cali Cartel narco-trafficking
organization and its key leaders. Executive Order 12978, issued by the
Clinton administration in October of 1995, has had the effect of
dismantling and defunding numerous business entities tied to the Cali
Cartel. The Specially Designated Narcotics Trafficker sanctions program
has been renewed every year, most recently this year, and has had
significant impact on both the Cali and the North Coast drug cartels in
Colombia.
As of October 21, 1999, the Colombian Special Designated Narcotics
Trafficking list totals 496 traffickers, comprised of 5 principals, 195
entities, and 296 individuals, with whom financial and business
dealings are prohibited and whose assets are blocked under Executive
Order 12978.
Of the 195 business entities designated, nearly 50 of these with an
estimated aggregate income of some $210 million had been liquidated or
were in the process of liquidation. These specific results augment the
less quantifiable but significant impact of denying the designated
individuals of entities of the Colombian drug cartels access to the
United States financial and commercial facilities.
Madam Speaker, I include for the RECORD the text of Executive Order
12978 of October 21, 1995, as well as a June 1998 Treasury document
entitled ``Impact of the Specially Designated Narcotics Traffickers
Program'' as follows:
[From the Federal Register, October 24, 1995]
Executive Order 12978 of October 21, 1995: Blocking Assets and
Prohibiting Transactions With Significant Narcotics Traffickers
By the authority vested in me as President by the
Constitution and the laws of the United States of America,
including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50
U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (IEEPA), the National Emergency Act (50
U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), and section 301 of title 3, United
States Code.
I, WILLIAM J. CLINTON, President of the United States of
America, find that the actions of significant foreign
narcotics traffickers centered in Colombia, and the
unparalleled violence, corruption, and harm that they cause
in the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the
United States, and hereby declare a national emergency to
deal with that threat.
Section 1. Except to the extent provided in section 203(b)
of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)) and in regulations, orders,
directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this
order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any
license or permit granted prior to the effective date, I
hereby order blocked all property and interests in property
that are or hereafter come within the United States, or that
are or hereafter come within the United States, or that are
or hereafter come within the possession or control of United
States persons, of:
(a) the foreign persons listed in the Annex to this order:
(b) foreign persons determined by the Secretary of the
Treasury, in consultation with the Attorney General and the
Secretary of State:
(i) to play a significant role in international narcotics
trafficking centered in Colombia; or
(ii) materially to assist in, or provide financial or
technological support for or goods or services in support of,
the narcotics trafficking activities of persons designated in
or pursuant to this order; and
(c) persons determined by the Secretary of the Treasury in
consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of
State, to be owned or controlled by, or to act for or on
behalf of, persons designated in or pursuant to this order.
Sec. 2 Further, except to the extent provided in section
203(b) of IEEPA and in regulations, orders, directives, or
licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and
notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or
permit granted prior to the effective date. I hereby prohibit
the following:
(a) any transaction or dealing by United States persons or
within the United States in property or interests in property
of the persons designated in or pursuant to this order:
(b) any transaction by any United States person or within
the United States that evades or avoids, or has the purpose
of evading or avoiding, or attempts to violate, any of the
prohibitions set forth in this order.
Sec. 3. For the purposes of this order:
(a) the term ``person'' means an individual or entity;
(b) the term ``entity'' means a partnership, association,
corporation, or other organization, group or subgroup;
(c) the term ``United States person'' means any United
States citizen or national, permanent resident alien, entity
organized under the laws of the United States (including
foreign branches), or any person in the United States:
(d) the term ``foreign person'' means any citizen or
national of a foreign state (including any such individual
who is also a citizen or national of the United States) or
any entity not organized solely under the laws of the United
States or existing solely in the United States, but does not
include a foreign state; and
(e) the term ``narcotics trafficking'' means any activity
undertaken illicitly to cultivate, produce, manufacture,
distribute, sell, finance or transport, or otherwise assists,
abet, conspire, or collude with others in illicit activities
relating to, narcotic drugs, including, but not limited to,
cocaine.
Sec. 4. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with
the Attorney General and the Secretary of State, is hereby
authorized to take such actions, including the promulgation
of rules and regulations, and to employ all powers granted to
the President by IEEPA as may be necessary to carry out this
order. The Secretary of the Treasury may redelegate any of
these functions to other officers and agencies of the United
States Government. All agencies of the United States
Government are hereby directed to take all appropriate
measures within their authority to carry out this order.
Sec. 5. Nothing contained in this order shall create any
right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable by
any party against the United States, its agencies or
instrumentalities, its officers or employees, or any other
person.
Sec. 6. (a) This order is effective at 12:01 a.m. Eastern
Daylight Time on October 22, 1995.
(b) This order shall be transmitted to the Congress and
published in the Federal Register.
William J. Clinton,
The White House, October 21, 1995.
____
Impact of the Specially Designated Narcotics Traffickers Program
U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control,
International Programs Division, June 1998
the specially designated narcotics traffickers program
Executive Order 12978, signed by President Clinton on
October 21, 1995 under authority of the International
Emergency Economic Powers Act (``IEEPA''), found that the
activities of significant foreign narcotics traffickers
centered in Colombia and the unparalleled violence,
corruption, and harm that they cause constitute an unusual
and extraordinary threat to the United States' national
security, foreign policy and economy. Treasury's Office of
Foreign Assets Control (``OFAC'') enforces the narcotics
trafficking sanctions under Executive Order 12978. The
principal tool for implementing the sanctions is OFAC's list
of Specially Designated Narcotics Traffickers (``SDNTs'').
That list, known as ``la Lista Clinton'' (the Clinton list)
in Colombia, is developed by OFAC in close consultation with
the Justice and State Departments.
Companies and individuals are identified as SDNTs and
placed on the SDNT list if they are determined, (a) to play a
significant role in international narcotics trafficking
centered in Colombia, (b) to materially assist in or provide
financial or technological support for, or goods or services
in support of, the narcotics trafficking activities of
persons designated in or pursuant to the executive order, or
(c) to be owned or controlled by, or to act for or on behalf
of, persons designated in or pursuant to Executive Order
12978. The objectives of the SDNT program are to identify,
expose, isolate and incapacitate the businesses and agents of
the Colombian cartels and to deny them access to the U.S.
financial system and to the benefits of trade and
transactions involving United States businesses and
individuals.
U.S. individuals and companies are prohibited from engaging
in unlicensed transactions, including any commercial or
financial dealings, with any of the SDNTs. After designation
as an SDNT, all SDNT assets subject to U.S. jurisdiction are
blocked. This includes bank accounts, other property, and
interests in property. Violations carry criminal penalties of
up to $500,000 per violation for corporations and $250,000
for individuals, as well as imprisonment of up to 10 years.
Civil penalties of up to $11,000 per violation may be imposed
administratively.
summary
OFAC has listed 451 companies and individuals as SDNTs
against which the prohibitions and blocking authorities of
Executive Order 12978 apply. Since the inception of the SDNT
program in October 1995, OFAC has issued seven lists
identifying SDNTs. On May 26, 1998, the SDNT list was
expanded to
[[Page H11223]]
reach beyond the Cali cartel and now includes the names of
one of the leaders of Colombia's North Coast cartel, Julio
Cesar Nasser David, and 18 associated businesses and
individuals that Treasury has determined are acting as fronts
for the North Coast cartel. Work is underway on naming more
SDNTs.
The SDNT list is currently comprised of the four Cali
cartel kingpins named by President Clinton as significant
narcotics traffickers, the newly-designated significant North
Coast trafficker, Julio Cesar Nasser David, 154 companies,
and 292 additional individuals involved in the ownership or
management of the Colombian drug cartels' ``legitimate''
business empire. the SDNT businesses include a drugstore
chain, a supermarket chain, pharmaceutical laboratories, a
clinic, hotel and restaurant service companies, radio
stations, a communications company, poultry farms and
distributors, construction firms, real estate firms,
investment and financial companies, cattle ranches, and other
agricultural businesses. As a result of the SDNT program:
SDNTs have been forced out of business or are suffering
financially. Over 40 SDNT companies, with estimated combined
annual sales of over $200 million, were liquidated or in the
process of liquidation by February 1998.
DNTs are denied access to banking services in the U.S. and
Colombia, including bank accounts, loans, and credit cards;
and existing SDNT accounts have been terminated. OFAC has
identified nearly 400 closed Colombian accounts affecting
over 200 SDNTs.
SDNTs have been isolated and denied access to the benefits
of trade and transactions involving U.S. businesses, and
existing SDNT business relationships with U.S. firms have
been terminated. U.S. businessmen in Colombia have termed the
SDNT program as ``a good preventive measure'' that helps them
steer clear of the cartels' fronts and agents.
Individuals designated as SDNTs have suffered a ``civil
death.'' Many individuals named as SDNTs have lost their jobs
and have been blocked from entering the U.S. after their U.S.
visas were revoked. In addition, being an SDNT in Colombia
carries the overwhelming social stigma of being associated
with the drug cartels. Many Colombian businessmen have re-
evaluated their relationships with cartel fronts and agents
as a result of the sanctions.
SDNTs Forced Out of Business
SDNTs have been forced out of business or are suffering
financially since the implementation of the SDNT program in
October 1995. Over 40 SDNT companies, with estimated combined
annual sales of over U.S. $200 million, were liquidated or in
the process of liquidation by February 1998. Some SDNT
companies have attempted to continue operating through
changes in their company names and/or corporate structures.
To date, OFAC has placed a total of 18 of these successor
companies on the SDNT list under their new company names.
Copservir, the successor company to Drogas La Rebaja,
continues to suffer, even though its employees ostensibly
purchased the drugstore chain from Gilberto and Miguel
Rodriguez Orejuela and reorganized it under the new name.
Copservir has stated that it is forced to operate on a cash
basis and suffers financially because of the sanctions.
The SDNT poultry businesses owned by Helmer Herrera
Buitrago, among the largest poultry firms in Colombia, have
been forced to change names and reorganize in order to
continue operating. For example, one Herrera SDNT poultry
business, Valle de Oro S.A., with sales exceeding U.S. $8.5
million in 1995, has changed its name to Procesadora de
Pollos Superior S.A. and currently operates at a loss and is
deficient in working capital.
Six pharmaceutical laboratories owned by Miguel and
Gilberto Rodriguez Orejuela and designated as SDNTs have
liquidated or are in the process of liquidation. Three of the
six pharmaceutical laboratories reorganized under new company
names and corporate structures. OFAC listed these three
companies, Farmacoop, Pentacoop, and Cosmepop, as SDNTs in
April 1997. These three companies, however, all have a
reduced net worth and incomes and are deficient in working
capital.
An ``Iron Curtain'' between SDNTs and Financial Institutions
SDNTs are denied access to banking services in both the
U.S. and Colombia, including bank accounts, loans, and credit
cards; and existing SDNT accounts have been terminated. These
effects are in addition to the as yet unquantified, but very
real, costs to the SDNT companies and individuals of being
denied access to the U.S. financial and commercial systems.
As one prominent financial institution told OFAC, the SDNT
list has created an ``iron curtain'' between SDNTs and banks.
OFAC has identified nearly 400 closed accounts affecting
over 200 SDNTs. Anecdotal evidence points to hundreds more
closed accounts affecting SDNTs. This suggests that, in the
financial community as a whole, the vast majority of SDNTs
have lost access to banking services in Colombia as well as
in the U.S.
The Rodriguez Orejuela businesses of the Cali cartel have
been particularly damaged by the banks' actions. Copservir,
the successor company to SDNT Drogas La Rebaja, is now
operating largely on a cash basis because most banks refuse
to provide it services. Blocking actions by U.S. banks were
the primary reason for the liquidation of Laboratorios
Kressfor. Laboratorios Genericos Veterinarios de Colombia's
bank accounts were closed because of the sanctions, and the
company is now in liquidation.
Most Colombian banks have incorporated the SDNT list into
their internal compliance programs.
SDNTs are Isolated Commercially
SDNT have been isolated and denied access to the benefits
of trade and transactions involving U.S. businesses, and
existing SDNT business relationships with U.S. firms have
been terminated since the sanctions went into effect in
October 1995. U.S. businessmen in Colombia have termed the
SDNT program as ``a good preventive measure'' that helps them
steer clear of the cartels' fronts and agents. Copservir has
stated that, ``As a result of the economic sanctions . . . no
United States entity would conduct any business with the
[Drogas La Rebaja] chain stores.'' Specific examples of the
impact of the sanctions program on SDNT business
relationships include:
Alert letters sent by OFAC to major U.S. companies, both to
the parents in the U.S. and to their subsidiaries in
Colombia, resulted in the cooperation of U.S. subsidiaries in
terminating business relationships with SDNTs. One company
sought OFAC's assistance in identifying companies trying to
hide their connections to SDNTs, U.S. firms, including
subsidiaries, have complied with the requirements of the SDNT
program.
Alert letters sent by OFAC to nearly 5000 Colombian firms,
suppliers of SDNTs prior to the implementation of sanctions
in October 1995, resulted in pledges of cooperation and
promises of compliance from many of the recipients. One
Colombian chemical company, with several U.S. chemical
manufacturing licenses, directed its subsidiaries to
terminate all dealings with SDNTs.
A U.S. pharmaceutical company declined a purchase request
from a suspect Colombian firm, based on information published
in the SDNT list. A major European pharmaceutical company
publicly announced that it would review its business
relationship with an SDNT, after the press reported that it
was selling drugs to an SDNT.
SDNT Individuals Suffer a ``Civil Death''
Individuals designated as SDNTs have suffered a ``civil
death.'' Before an individual is permitted to open a new
account, banks check ``the Clinton list.'' Many individuals
named as SDNTs have lost their jobs. Many Colombian
businessmen have re-evaluated their relationships with cartel
fronts and agents as a result of the sanctions.
SDNTs have been blocked from entering the U.S. after losing
their U.S. visas. Under State Department procedures, U.S.
visas of newly-designated individuals will be revoked and any
application for a U.S. visa for an SDNT individual may be
denied.
Being an SDNT in Colombia carries the overwhelming social
stigma of being associated with the drug cartels. William
Rodriguez, the son of imprisoned Cali cartel leader Miguel
Rodriguez Orejuela, has publicly stated that ``being a
Rodriguez these days (i.e., being on the SDNT list) is worse
than having AIDS.''
The Drogas La Rebaja drugstore chain, listed as an SDNT
business since the inception of the SDNT program in October
1995, has been the lynchpin of the ``legitimate'' business
activity of imprisoned Cali cartel leaders Gilberto and
Miguel Rodriguez Orejeula. The Drogas La Rebaja drugstore
chain, with annual profits for 1995 of over U.S. $16.3
million, saw its profits plummet in 1996. By early July 1996,
William Rodriquez, the son of Cali cartel leader Miguel
Rodriguez Orejuela, told a Colombian news magazine that
cartel-linked companies cannot get service at local banks and
said ``businesses like Drogas La Rebaja . . . may have shut
down.''
In an effort to evade the sanctions and distance itself
from its cartel owners, Drogas La Rebaja was ostensibly sold
to its 4,000 employees for approximately U.S. $32 million on
July 31 1996. Copservir, the new name of the employee-owned
drugstore chain, continued to use Drogas La Rebaja as a trade
name and attempted to open local bank accounts and establish
business ties with U.S. firms after the purchase. In April
1997, OFAC listed Copservir as an SDNT. As a result of the
sanctions, Copservir is forced to operate on a cash basis and
suffers financially.
DROGAS LA REBAJA'S EARNINGS
[In millions of US dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sales Profits
-----------------------------------
1995 1996 1995 1996
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drogas La Rebaja (Eight regions).... 139.1 111.3 16.3 4.9 *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 1996 data for Cali region is unavailable.
Source: Public records.
Madam Speaker, the administration has indicated that this list will
continue to be expanded to include additional drug trafficking
organizations centered in Colombia and their fronts.
Madam Speaker, I include for the Record the October 19, 1999, message
from the President transmitting notification that the national
emergency regarding significant narcotics traffickers centered in
Colombia is to continue for an additional year, as well as the October
20, 1999, message from the President transmitting a 6-month periodic
report on significant narcotics traffickers centered in Colombia, as
follows:
[[Page H11224]]
National Emergency Regarding Significant Narcotics Traffickers Centered
in Colombia
message from the president of the united states transmitting
notification that the emergency declared with respect to significant
narcotics traffickers centered in Colombia is to continue in effect for
one year beyond October 21, 1999, pursuant to 50 u.s.c. 1622(d):
To the Congress of the United States:
Section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C.
1622(d)) provides for the automatic termination of a national
emergency unless, prior to the anniversary date of its
declaration, the President publishes in the Federal Register
and transmits to the Congress a notice stating that the
emergency is to continue in effect beyond the anniversary
date. In accordance with this provision, I have sent the
enclosed notice to the Federal Register for publication,
stating that the emergency declared with respect to
significant narcotics traffickers centered in Colombia is to
continue in effect for 1 year beyond October 21, 1999.
The circumstances that led to the declaration on October
21, 1995, of a national emergency have not been resolved. The
actions of significant narcotics traffickers centered in
Colombia continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat
to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the
United States and to cause unparalleled violence, corruption,
and harm in the United States and abroad. For these reasons,
I have determined that it is necessary to maintain in force
the broad authorities necessary to maintain economic pressure
on significant narcotics traffickers centered in Colombia by
blocking their property subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States and by depriving them of access to the United
States market and financial system.
William J. Clinton.
The White House, October 19, 1999.
Notice
Continuation of Emergency With Respect to Significant Narcotics
Traffickers Centered in Colombia
On October 21, 1995, by Executive Order 12978, I declared a
national emergency to deal with the unusual and extraordinary
threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy
of the United States constituted by the actions of
significant foreign narcotics traffickers centered in
Colombia, and the unparalleled violence, corruption, and harm
that they cause in the United States and abroad. The order
blocks all property and interests in property of foreign
persons listed in an Annex to the order, as well as foreign
persons determined to play a significant role in
international narcotics trafficking centered in Colombia, to
materially assist in, or provide financial or technological
support for or goods or services in support of, the narcotics
trafficking activities of persons designated in or pursuant
to the order, or to be owned or controlled by, or to act for
or on behalf of, persons designated in or pursuant to the
order. The order also prohibits any transaction or dealing by
United States persons or within the United States in such
property or interests in property. Because the activities of
significant narcotics traffickers centered in Colombia
continue to threaten the national security, foreign policy,
and economy of the United States and to cause unparalleled
violence, corruption, and harm in the United States and
abroad, the national emergency declared on October 21, 1995,
and the measures adopted pursuant to respond to that
emergency, must continue in effect beyond October 21, 1999.
Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National
Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing the
national emergency for 1 year with respect to significant
narcotics traffickers centered in Colombia.
This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and
transmitted to the Congress.
William J. Clinton.
The White House, October 19, 1999.
____
Six Month Periodic Report on Significant Narcotics Traffickers Centered
in Colombia
message from the president of the united states transmitting a 6-month
periodic report on the national emergency with respect to significant
narcotics traffickers centered in colombia that was declared in
executive order no. 12978 of october 21, 1995, pursuant to 50 u.s.c.
1703(c)
To the Congress of the United States:
As required by section 401(c) of the National Emergencies
Act, 50 U.S.C. 1641(c), and section 204(c) of the
International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), 50
U.S.C. 1703(c), I transmit herewith a 6-month periodic report
on the national emergency with respect to significant
narcotics traffickers centered in Colombia that was declared
in Executive Order 12978 of October 21, 1995.
William J. Clinton.
The White House, October 20, 1999.
PRESIDENT'S PERIODIC REPORT ON THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY WITH RESPECT TO
SIGNIFICANT NARCOTICS TRAFFICKERS CENTERED IN COLOMBIA
I hereby report to the Congress on the developments since
my last report concerning the national emergency with respect
to significant narcotics traffickers centered in Colombia
that was declared in Executive Order No. 12978 of October 21,
1995. This report is submitted pursuant to section 401(c) of
the National Emergencies Act, 50 U.S.C. 1641(c), and section
204(c) of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act
(``IEEPA''), 50 U.S.C. 1703(c).
1. On October 21, 1995, I signed Executive Order 12978,
``Blocking Assets and Prohibiting Transactions with
Significant Narcotics Traffickers'' (the ``Order'') (60 Fed.
Reg. 54579, October 24, 1995). The Order blocks all property
subject to U.S. jurisdiction in which there is any interest
of four significant foreign narcotics traffickers, two of
whom are now deceased, who were principals in the so-called
Cali drug cartel centered in Colombia. These four principals
are listed in the annex to the Order. The Order also blocks
the property and interests in property of foreign persons
determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation
with the Attorney General and the Secretary of State: (a) to
play a significant role in international narcotics
trafficking centered in Colombia; or (b) materially to assist
in or provide financial or technological support for, or
goods or services in support of, the narcotics trafficking
activities of persons designated in or pursuant to the Order.
In addition, the Order blocks all property and interests in
property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of persons determined
by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the
Attorney General and the Secretary of State, to be owned
or controlled by, or to act for or on behalf of, persons
designated in or pursuant to the Order (collectively
``Specially Designated Narcotics Traffickers'' or
``SDNTs'').
The Order further prohibits any transaction or dealing by a
United States person or within the United States in property
or interests in property of SDNTs, and any transaction that
evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, or
attempts to a violate, the prohibition contained in the
Order.
Designations of foreign persons blocked pursuant to the
Order are effective upon the date of determination by the
Director of the Department of the Treasury's Office of
Foreign Assets Control (``OFAC'') acting under authority
delegated by the Secretary of the Treasury. Public notice of
blocking is effective upon the date of filing with the
Federal Register, or upon prior actual notice.
2. On October 24, 1995, the Department of the Treasury
issued a Notice containing 76 additional names of persons
determined to meet the criteria set forth in Executive Order
12978 (60 Fed. Reg. 54582, October 24, 1995). Additional
Notices expanding and updating the list of SDNTs were
published on November 29, 1995 (60 Fed. Reg. 61288), March 8,
1996 (61 Fed. Reg. 9523), and January 21, 1997 (62 Fed. Reg.
2903).
Effective February 28, 1997, OFAC issued the Narcotics
Trafficking Sanctions Regulations (``NTSR'' or the
``Regulations''), 31 C.F.R. Part 536, to further implement
the President's declaration of a national emergency and
imposition of sanctions against significant foreign narcotics
traffickers centered in Colombia (62 Fed. Reg. 9959, March 5,
1997).
On April 17, 1997 (62 Fed. Reg. 19500, April 22, 1997),
July 30, 1997 (62 Fed. Reg. 41850, August 4, 1997), September
9, 1997 (62 Fed. Reg. 48177, September 15, 1997), and June 1,
1998 (63 Fed. Reg. 29608, June 1, 1998), OFAC amended
appendices A and B to 31 C.F.R. chapter V, revising
information concerning individuals and entities who have been
determined to play a significant role in international
narcotics trafficking centered in Colombia or have been
determined to be owned or controlled by, or to act for or on
behalf of, or to be acting as fronts for the Cali cartel in
Colombia.
On May 27, 1998 (63 Fed. Reg. 28896, May 27, 1998), OFAC
amended appendices A and B to 31 C.F.R. chapter V, by
expanding the list for the first time beyond the Cali cartel
by adding the name of one of the leaders of Colombia's North
Coast cartel, Julio Cesar Nasser David, who has been
determined to play a significant role in international
narcotics trafficking centered in Colombia, and 14 associated
businesses and four individuals acting as fronts for the
North Coast cartel. Also added were six companies and one
individual that have been determined to be owned or
controlled by, or to act for or on behalf of, or to be acting
as fronts for the Cali cartel in Colombia. These changes to
the previous SDNT list brought it to a total of 451
businesses and individuals.
On June 25, 1999, OFAC amended appendix A to 31 C.F.R.
chapter V by adding the names of eight individuals and 41
business entities acting as fronts for the Cali or North
Coast cartels and supplementary information concerning 44
individuals already on the list (64 Fed. Reg. 34984, June 30,
1999). The entries for four individuals previously listed
as SDNTs were removed from appendix A because OFAC had
determined that these individuals no longer meet the
criteria for designation as SDNTs. These actions are part
of the ongoing interagency implementation of Executive
Order 12978 of October 21, 1995. The addition of these 41
business entities and eight individuals to appendix A (and
the removal of four individuals) brings the total number
of SDNTs to 496 (comprised of five principals, 195
entities, and 296 individuals) with whom financial and
business dealings are prohibited and whose assets are
blocked under the 1995 Executive Order. The SDNT list will
continue to be expanded to include additional drug
trafficking organizations centered in Colombia and their
fronts.
[[Page H11225]]
3. OFAC has disseminated and routinely updated details of
this program to the financial, securities, and international
trade communities by both electronic and conventional media.
In addition to bulletins to banking institutions via the
Federal Reserve System and the Clearing House Interbank
Payments Systems (CHIPS), individual notices were provided to
all relevant state and federal regulatory agencies, automated
clearing houses, and state and independent banking
associations across the country. GFAC contacted all major
securities industry associations and regulators. It posted
electronic notices on the Internet, more than ten computer
bulletin boards and two fax-on-demand services, and provided
the same material to the U.S. Embassy in Bogota for
distribution to U.S. companies operating in Colombia.
4. As of September 15, 1999, GFAC had issued 14 specific
licenses pursuant to Executive Order No. 12978. These
licenses were issued in accordance with established Treasury
policy authorizing the completion of pre-sanction
transactions, the receipt of payment of legal fees for
representation of SDNTs in proceedings within the United
States arising from the imposition of sanctions, and certain
administrative transactions. In addition, a license was
issued to authorize a U.S. company in Colombia to make
certain payments to two SDNT-owned entities in Colombia
(currently under the control of the Colombian government) for
services provided to the U.S. company in connection with the
U.S. company's occupation of office space and business
activities in Colombia.
5. The narcotics trafficking sanctions have had a
significant impact on the Colombian drug cartels. SDNTs have
been forced out of business or are suffering financially. Of
the 195 business entities designated as SDNTs as of September
7, 1999, nearly 50, with an estimated aggregate income of
more than $210 million, had been liquidated or were in the
process of liquidation. Some SDNT companies have attempted to
continue to operate through changes in their company names
and/or corporate structures. OFAC has placed a total of 27 of
these successor companies on the SDNT list under their new
company names.
As a result of OFAC designations, Colombian banks have
closed nearly 400 SDNT accounts, affecting nearly 200 SDNTs.
One of the largest SDNT commercial entities, a discount
drugstore with an annual income exceeding $136 million, has
been reduced to operating on a cash basis. Another large SDNT
commercial entity, a supermarket with an annual income
exceeding $32 million, entered liquidation in November 1998
despite changing its name to evade the sanctions. An SDNT
professional soccer team was forced to reject and invitation
to play in the United States, two of its directors resigned,
and the team now suffers restrictions affecting its
business negotiations, loans, and banking operations.
These specific results augment the less quantifiable but
significant impact of denying the designated individuals
and entities of the Colombian drug cartels access to U.S.
financial and commercial facilities.
Various enforcement actions carried over from prior
reporting periods are continuing and new reports of
violations are being aggressively pursued. Since the last
report, OFAC has collected no civil monetary penalties but is
continuing to process a case for violations of the
Regulations.
6. The expenses incurred by the Federal Government in the
six-month period from October 21, 1998 through April 20,
1999, that are directly attributable to the exercise of
powers and authorities conferred by the declarations of the
national emergency with respect to Significant Narcotics
Traffickers, are estimated at approximately $650,000.
Personnel costs were largely centered in the Department of
the Treasury (particularly in the Office of Foreign Assets
Control, the U.S. Customs Service, and the Office of the
General Counsel, the Department of Justice, and the
Department of State. These data do not reflect certain costs
of operations by the intelligence and law enforcement
communities.
7. Executive Order 12978 provides this Administration with
a tool for combating the actions of significant foreign
narcotics traffickers centered in Colombia and the
unparalleled violence, corruption, and harm that they cause
in the United States and abroad. The Order is designed to
deny these traffickers the benefit of any assets subject to
the jurisdiction of the United States and to prevent United
States persons from engaging in any commercial dealings with
them, their front companies, and their agents. Executive
Order 12978 and its associated SDNT list demonstrate the
United States' commitment to end the damage that such
traffickers wreak upon society in the United States and
abroad. The SDNT list will continue to be expanded to include
additional Colombian drug trafficking organizations and their
fronts.
The magnitude and the dimension of the problem in
Colombia--perhaps the most pivotal country of all in terms of
the world's cocaine trade--are extremely grave. I shall
continue to exercise the powers at my disposal to apply
economic sanctions against significant foreign narcotics
traffickers and their violent and corrupting activities as
long as these measures are appropriate, and will continue to
report periodically to the Congress on significant
developments pursuant to 50 U.S.C. 1703(c).
Madam Speaker, H.R. 3164 is closely modeled on the precedents and
procedures established under the Executive Order just mentioned. The
kingpins bill codifies the interagency designation process and ensures
proper and timely congressional oversight of such designations by the
various committees of jurisdiction and is involved in this matter.
Our intent is to use the success of the Colombia Specially Designated
Narcotics Traffickers program to apply these methods on a global basis
against all the significant drug traffickers.
The bill blocks or freezes all property or assets subject to U.S.
jurisdiction with which there is any interest of significant foreign
narcotics traffickers.
{time} 1200
It also blocks the property and interests in property of foreign
persons determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation
with the Attorney General, the Director of Central Intelligence, the
Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Administrator of
the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Secretary of State, and the
Secretary of Defense, A, to play a significant role in international
narcotics trafficking; or, B, to materially assist in or provide
financial or technological support for, or goods or services in support
of, the narcotics trafficking activities of persons designated by the
executive branch or pursuant to this legislation.
In addition, the bill blocks all property and interests in property
subject to U.S. jurisdiction of foreign persons determined by the
Secretary of Treasury to be owned or controlled by, or to act for or on
behalf of persons designated bay the executive branch pursuant to this
legislation.
The bill carries criminal penalties of up to 10 years in prison and
$10 million in fines for somebody who violates this act, or for anyone
who refuses or willfully neglects to comply with any presidential order
under the bill. Officers or agents of corporations or other entities
could get up to 30 years in prison, and there are civil fines.
The kingpins bill will ensure congressional input and oversight of
this designation in the sanctions process. Starting next June 1, and
every June 1 thereafter, the President will be required to submit to
Congress an unclassified report that publicly identifies the foreign
persons that the President determines are appropriate for sanctions
under the act and publicly details the President's intent to impose
sanctions on these significant foreign narcotics traffickers.
The President will further be required to submit a classified report
to the congressional intelligence committees on July 1 of each year
detailing the status of the sanctions, including personnel and
resources directed toward the imposition of such sanctions during the
preceding year, with background information with respect to newly
identified significant foreign narcotics traffickers and their
activities. This report, the classified one, will describe any and all
actions the President intends to undertake or has undertaken against
such narcotics traffickers.
The kingpins process is carefully structured to protect intelligence
and law enforcement community sources and methods from exploitation by
persons linked to these groups. Designations of foreign persons blocked
pursuant to the legislation will be effective upon the date of
determination by the director of the Treasury's Office of Foreign
Assets Control, acting under the authority of the Secretary of the
Treasury. Public notice of the blocking is effective upon the date of
the filing with the Federal Register or upon actual notice. The Office
of Foreign Assets Control has disseminated and routinely updates
details of the Colombian program and certainly can do so here as well.
With respect to the Colombian program that exists now, the Office of
Foreign Assets Control contacted all major securities industry
associations and regulators, posted electronic notices on the Internet
and computer bulletin boards, and two fax-on-demand services, and
provided the same material to the U.S. Embassy in Bogota, and I would
expect them to do so under this bill.
The kingpins process is intended to supplement not replace United
States policy of annual certification of countries based on their
performance in
[[Page H11226]]
combating narcotics trafficking. Its sponsors' intent is that the
implementation of this bill will require additional resources in
personnel from intelligence and law enforcement communities to make it
a truly global process. It is my hope the administration will request
additional funding for fiscal year 2001 for all of those concerned to
make this process work. The success of the Colombian program has
largely been the product of close U.S. cooperation with Colombian law
enforcement and regulatory agencies, and we would expect the same with
all of the other countries today.
I strongly urge the support of this bill and the adoption of it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Rangel).
(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I have been in the Congress for close to 3
decades. I have heard more presidents declare war against drugs, and
the results really have been declaring war against young people.
If we were to take a look at the results of this war, we will find
that we have about 2 million young people locked up in jail. Most all
of these people come from minority communities that have been addicted
to drugs, they have been arrested and, in most cases, have had
mandatory sentences, where judges do not even consider the facts and
circumstances surrounding the violation of the law.
These are not drug traffickers or kingpins or people that we were
supposed to declare war against. And more often than not, we find that
the public school systems located in the areas where we find the most
arrests are systems that are not providing education to these people.
Is it right? Is it legal? Of course not. Should it be dealt with? Of
course it should. But the war that has not been declared is the war
against those people that manipulate our republic, that manipulate the
bank system, that are able to do these things because they have the
funds and they do not end up in jail.
It seems to me that what this legislation says, which I am an
original sponsor of, is that we are going to declare war against those
people that not only violate our law but are a threat to our national
security. When before have we heard that we are reaching out for the
strong resources of these United States, the President, the Justice
Department, which includes the FBI, and we are talking about the CIA
and all of the forces that are supposed to protect the United States of
America, to get to the people, like terrorists, who do not deserve the
support of the United States Constitution? We are asking the President
to declare war, to bring in the Department of Defense, and not to allow
people to use our system in order to bring the poison into the United
States where weak people and untrained people become the ultimate
person that is being destroyed.
We see right now that we are building more jails than we are schools,
and State legislatures all over the country are fighting for prisons to
be located in their rural districts rather than support for farmers.
And what we are seeing right now is that international drug traffickers
who use our banks, who use our systems are a threat to our system.
Now, we can get some people who want to find out what their
constitutional rights are, but I tell my colleagues this, it just seems
to me that we should not just concentrate on those who violate the laws
on our streets and are arrested in the streets, but those who violate
our national law and the international law. The people that we find
doing the 5 and the 10 and the 20 and the 30 years are not the people
who are banking and financing the drug trafficking in this country.
They do not grow the drugs, they do not manufacture the drugs, they do
not process the drugs, they do not use our banking system. They are
guilty. They are guilty of using the drugs and selling the drugs in
order to maintain their habits, and they should go to jail. But that
should not be the direction in which we have our national drug policy.
We should go after the worst of the lot; those who are sober, those
who have clear thinking, those who have no regard at all for their
fellow man, those that use the system, make the money, hire the lawyers
and manipulate the United States of America. I hope what this means is
when the President declares war, he is bringing all of the people that
have the intelligence, that have the power to take these people, take
their assets, and let them know, ``Not in our country can they do
that.''
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel)
put his finger on several of the aspects of this bill. He is quite
right, we should not be jailing drug users for 20 and 30 years. Those
are silly laws. And we should go after the drug kingpins, clearly. But
then he said we should declare war against people who do not deserve
the protection of the United States Constitution, unquote.
Everybody deserves the protection of the United States Constitution,
Mr. Speaker. Everybody who is in this country or has property in this
country deserves the protection of the United States Constitution. That
is the basis of constitutional liberty. Once we say that someone, no
matter how heinous a criminal or vile a villain does not deserve due
process of law, once we say that we can tear down the laws that we have
erected for the protection of our liberties to get at the devil, then,
as Sir Thomas More says, there is no protection for anybody.
That is what this bill does. This bill says that if the President or
the Secretary of the Treasury declares so-and-so a drug kingpin, we
will seize that person's property, without any due process of law,
without any hearing, without any evidence or without any proof. And he
has no recourse. No lawyer on his behalf may go into court and say the
Secretary's wrong; that they have the wrong person, there is no
evidence he is a drug kingpin. Perhaps the President really designated
him because he did not like his political views or he did not give a
large enough campaign contribution, assuming some future villainous
president.
The fact is there has to be due process, no matter how vile the
villain. We do not believe in lynch laws. We do not string up the
rapist until after he has a fair trial. And this bill goes against
this.
The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) said, ``They are guilty.''
Yes, the drug kingpins are guilty, but is the individual designated
really a drug kingpin? Do we not need evidence; do we not need some due
process?
Again, in the name of wars, we often destroy liberty. In the name of
the drug war, we are going further and further down a road to destroy
the liberty that we hold so precious. This bill is a large step in that
direction.
Why does the bill say there shall be no judicial review of the
designation or the determination by the President; because we do not
trust the courts or because we want to cut corners, and getting a drug
kingpin is more important than protecting our liberty? If we did not
have that paragraph in this bill, if judicial review were allowed to
people whose property is going to be seized because the President or
the Secretary of State thinks they are a drug kingpin, maybe this bill
would be defensible. But as it is, it is simply a bill that says let us
tear up the Constitution, let us go back before the Magna Carta, the
king is always right, no one can question him, the President is a king.
This bill should not be passed.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Goss), coauthor of this bill and chairman of the Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence.
(Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleague, the
distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum), in offering H.R.
3164, the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act, for the House's
consideration this morning. It is an important piece of legislation.
Since its attachment by Senators Coverdell and Feinstein to the
Senate version of the intelligence authorization bill last July, the
kingpins bill has been the subject of extensive negotiation among the
committees of jurisdiction and the Clinton administration.
[[Page H11227]]
Because this provision has now been caught up with some unrelated
problems in the intelligence conference and the intelligence bill, we
felt it important that the extensive work that has been done to perfect
this legislation not be lost in the waning days of this session and,
thus, here we are.
As a result, the House today has a chance to endorse an even better
bill, sending a strong signal that we intend to win the war on drugs by
going after the criminals who make themselves rich at the expense of
America's young people and so many other unsuspecting victims and
helpless addicts around the world.
The kingpins legislation takes the successful model of the Colombia
kingpin program that was established under Executive Order 12978 in
1995, and creates an annual kingpin designation process, global in
scope and subject to rigorous congressional oversight. I repeat,
rigorous congressional oversight. The kingpins list will be the result
of a tested and continuing interagency review process that incorporates
verifiable information from the law enforcement and intelligence
communities on the illicit activities of significant foreign narcotics
trafficking entities.
The process includes safeguards that are present to protect the
innocent. An unclassified listing of kingpins, their business
associates, and their related entities will be sent to the Congress on
an annual basis beginning on June 1, 2000. A classified report on the
specific activities and findings of the kingpins program will be
provided to the intelligence committees beginning on July 1, 2000.
Our goal is simple: To identify kingpins and their supporting
organizations in Latin America, the Caribbean, Southeast and Southwest
Asia, Europe, the former Soviet Union, Africa, and elsewhere. Following
identification, the process will then seek to disrupt and dismantle
these foreign criminal cartels.
In my view, the kingpins mechanism represents a proven and a powerful
capability for the President and the Congress to improve the counter-
drug performance of ourselves and our allies in the war against drugs.
As important, it intensifies the legal and financial pressure on
significant multinational criminal organizations. And, third, it
encourages greater cooperation and information sharing between the
United States agencies and our foreign counterparts, who are indeed
very helpful on the war on drugs.
In the case of Colombia, for example, the program has been singularly
successful against the Cali cartel because of the assistance furnished
by Colombian law enforcement and regulatory agents.
Mr. Speaker, I will insert for the Record an August 27, 1999 op-ed
from the New York Times on the kingpins bill and an October 13, 1999
letter to Senator Coverdell on the kingpins provision be included in
the Record. These are especially instructive pieces of commentary.
In a recent Southwest Florida town meeting on what our communities
can do to better fight the war on drugs, I stressed the many levels on
which we need to wage battle.
{time} 1315
We have to look at the demand and we have to look at supply and
everything in between and what is going on in our community and what is
happening halfway around the world. So we have this bill today which
sends a very clear strong message to our kids that we will go to the
mat for them, that we are sending a clear signal to the narcotics bad
guys that we are coming after them where it hurts them most, in their
pocketbook, going after their profits. I think that is sort of
critical.
I wish to commend all those who have worked in this effort, starting
particularly at the very top with the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker
Hastert), whose leadership and consistent commitment to this effort has
been unwavering, as has been his support.
I urge all Members to take a good close look at this resolution. I
cannot imagine any reason in the world to vote against it. I think
there is every reason to vote for it. I urge their support after their
careful consideration.
Mr. Speaker, I include the following statements for the Record:
[From the New York Times, August 27, 1999]
Vote on Drugs
(By A.M. Rosenthal)
Notice to the public:
Vote now on drugs, one of the only two ways.
1. If you support the war against drugs, vote now for
pending Congressional legislation designed to wound major
drug lords around the world. It cuts them off from all
commerce with the U.S., now a laundry for bleaching the blood
from drug-trade billions and turning them into investments in
legitimate businesses.
Vote by telling your members of Congress that when the
House-Senate bill authorizing intelligence funds comes up for
final decision, probably next month, you want them to vote
for the section called ``blocking assets of major narcotics
traffickers.''
Insist they start now to tell the Administration not to try
to water it down to satisfy any country for diplomatic or
economic reasons--including Mexico, the biggest drug entry
point for America, already complaining about ``negative
consequences'' of the proposal.
Turn yourself and your civil, labor or commercial
organization, or religious congregation, into lobbies for the
bill--counterweight to the lobbies of drug-transfer nations
and American companies beholden to them.
2. If you are against the war on drugs or just don't care
about what drugs are doing to our country, then don't do a
thing. That is a vote, too.
That's the way it is in Washington. Members of Congress
introduce legislation, committees discuss it for months,
votes are taken and then when the time comes to work out
House-Senate differences, administrations on the fence and
under professional lobbyists' pressure use their power to try
to mold the legislation to their liking. That is exactly the
time for ordinary Americans around the country to do their
own lobbying.
The bill targeting drug lords extends throughout their
vicious world the economic sanctions already directed at
Colombian drug lords, by President Clinton's executive order.
It will prohibit any U.S. commerce by specifically named drug
operators, seize all their assets in the U.S., and ban
trading with them by American companies.
The bill specifies that every year the U.S. Government list
the major drug lords of the world, by name and nation. The
lists are certain to include top drug traders from countries
such as Afghanistan, Jamaica, the Dominican Republic,
Thailand and Mexico.
In the Senate it was introduced by Paul Coverdell, a
Georgia Republican, and Dianne Feinstein, Democrat from
California, and passed with bipartisan support. In the House
it also has support in both parties, including Porter Goss of
Florida, a Republican and chairman of the House Intelligence
Committee, and Charles Rangel, the New York Democrat. It
waits the final September House-Senate Joint Intelligence
Committee vote.
For awhile I heard from within the Administration the kind
of mutters that preceded the Clinton certification last year
that Mexico was carrying out anti-drug commitments
satisfactorily, which was certainly a surprise to Mexican
drug lords.
Then, yesterday, the White House told me that it favored
some target sanctions.
Its objection to the bill was that the Administration would
have to list all major drug lords for the President to choose
targets, and that could endanger investigations. The White
House said it would be better for the President to select
targets without having to choose from a list.
Bit of a puzzle. The bill already gives him the right to
decide which of the drug lords to target from the
Administration's unpublished list. But some members of
Congress think the motive is to avoid a list that might
include just a little too many from a ``sensitive country.''
No one bill will end the drug war. Only the determination
of Americans to use every sort of resource will do that--
parental teaching, law enforcement with some compassion
toward first offenders and none for career drug criminals,
enough money for therapy in and out of jails, targeting drug
lords--and passionate leadership.
That would preclude Presidential candidates who mince
around about whether they used drugs when they were younger--
unless they grow up publicly and quickly.
Dr. Mitchell S. Rosenthal, head of the Phoenix House
therapeutic communities, says that the bill ``reflects the
kind of values that we don't hear enough these days.'' So
vote--one way or the other.
____
Department of the Treasury,
Washington, DC, October 13, 1999.
Hon. Paul Coverdell,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Coverdell: You have requested the views of the
Office of Foreign Assets Control regarding two specific
provisions in draft legislation to impose sanctions against
significant foreign narcotics traffickers contained in the
intelligence Authorization Bill (that has been characterized
to us as the Senate Intelligence Committee version). We
discuss each of those below without addressing the larger
issues of the proposed legislation that are being addressed
separately by the Administration.
``knowing'', Willful'', or ``Intentional''
We object to the addition of any of the following words
into the administrative process
[[Page H11228]]
for identifying significant foreign narcotics traffickers and
their organizations: ``knowing'', ``willful'', or
``intentional''. It has been proposed to insert ``knowing and
willful'' (alternatively ``intentional'') into section
703(a)(1)(A) [page 4, line 20], and into the definition of
``significant foreign narcotics trafficker'' in section
708(5) [page 20, lines 25-26].
The use of ``knowing'', ``willful'', or ``intentional''
would impose an unreasonable additional obstacle to the
designation of foreign narcotics kingpins and their
organizations. It sets a higher evidentiary threshold, making
it more difficult for the Secretary to compile a sufficient
record upon which to recommend significant foreign narcotics
traffickers and their organizations for designation by the
President. Documenting the state of mind of a foreign
narcotics trafficker is likely to be difficult, if not
impossible, even when there is, in fact, no doubt about that
person's narcotics trafficking activities. In the case of a
trafficker's organization, there is no viable means to assert
that an organization has a ``state of mind'' much less to
prove what constitutes that organization's ``state of mind.''
We believe that the existing standards for designation are
rigorous enough to avoid arbitrary and capricious actions
under the proposed law.
The findings and purpose provisions of sections 701 and 702
make clear that the proposed sanctions legislation is
attempting to follow the model established by the IEEPA
program against Colombian cartels. Such sanctions are not
aimed at proving or prosecuting the specific narcotics
trafficking cases of other crimes of the kingpins and their
organizations. They are directed at denying the traffickers
and their organizations (including their business enterprises
and agents) access to the benefits of trade and transactions
involving the United States and, specifically, U.S.
businesses and individuals. To accomplish this sanctions
objective, we need to identify and prohibit transactions with
the kingpins and their organizations, not because they are
engaged in narcotics trafficking or other crimes per se, but
because the totality of their activities poses a threat to
the national security, foreign policy and economy of the
United States.
judicial review
We also object to the judicial review provision as drafted.
The judicial review exception in paragraph (f)(2) of section
704 is too broadly drawn. As drafted, the provision allows
the U.S. person to seek review of the blocking of any assets
of its foreign partner, whether or not those assets are
jointly owned. Thus, in the guise of a process for review of
an assets blocking involving a U.S. party's interests, it
would permit judicial review of the Treasury secretary's
designation determination regarding that foreign party. This
would circumvent the limitations on that review that are
provided in subsection (f)(1). The Administrative Procedure
Act already provides for judicial review of final agency
actions; and, therefore, additional judicial review
provisions are unnecessary.
I am at your disposal to discuss these or any other matters
relating to the pending bill or to the Specifically
Designated Narcotics Traffickers program being used against
the Colombian drug cartels under E.O. 12978 and IEEPA. My
telephone number is 202-622-2510.
Sincerely,
R. Richard Newcomb,
Director, Office of Foreign Assets Control.
____
Office of Foreign Assets Control, U.S. Department of the Treasury
Evidentiary Requirements for the SDNT Program, September 16, 1999
All Specially Designated Nationals (``SDN'') programs
require that our designations pass an ``arbitrary and
capricious'' test; and all designations are based upon a non-
criminal standard of ``reasonable cause to believe'' that the
party is owned or controlled by, or acts, or purports to act,
for or on behalf of the sanctioned country or non-state
party. Furthermore, the IEEPA-SDNT Executive order has an
additional designation basis for foreign firms or individuals
that ``materially . . . assist in or provide financial or
technological support for or goods or services in support of,
the narcotics trafficking activities'' of the named drug
kingpins or other, already designated SDNTs.
In implementing the Colombia IEEPA-SDNT program, OFAC
analysts identify and research foreign targets that can be
linked by evidence to individuals or entities already
designated pursuant to E.O. 12978. To establish sufficient
linkage, OFAC initially was dependent upon a significant body
of documentary evidence developed through criminal law
enforcement raids and seizures. For most of the continuing
designations under E.O. 12978 (that now total 496 with the
June 8 addition of 41 entities and 8 individuals to the SDNT
list), OFAC has not used criminal law enforcement information
and instead has depended upon OFAC's own research and
information collection.
The President's involvement was required in the designation
of only the original four Cali cartel kingpins named in the
annex to E.O. 12978. Additional kingpins are developed by
close coordination between OFAC and Justice, and the
preponderance of the SDNTs are designated as the result of
OFAC's research and collection efforts.
OFAC reaches designation determinations after extensive
reviews of the evidence internally and with the Department of
Justice. In the SDNT program, E.O. 12978 requires that the
State and Justice Departments be consulted by Treasury prior
to a designation; and, as noted above, Justice is deeply
involved in examining the sufficiency of the evidence that
occurs before any parties are added to the list.
OFAC regulations provide for post-designation review and
remedies. The usual forum for considering removal of a
designation (such as a change in circumstances or behavior)
is one in which the named party petitions OFAC for removal.
Most petitioners initiate the review process simply by
writing us.
Exchanges of correspondence, additional fact-finding, and,
often, meetings occur before OFAC decides whether there is a
basis for removal. Most parties seeking removal have followed
this approach. Although a number of persons have been removed
through this means, overall only a very few parties on the
SDNT and other SDN lists have ever petitioned for removal.
Federal courts have held that no pre-deprivation hearing is
required in blocking of assets because of the Executive
Branch's plenary authority to act in the area of foreign
policy and the obvious need to take immediate action upon
designation to avoid dissipation of affected assets.
OFAC actions are reviewable in Federal court under the
Administrative Procedure Act. There have been few such cases
in the history of the SDN programs; and no court has struck
down any of OFAC's designations. A U.S. District Court case
(Copservir v. Newcomb) brought on behalf of SDNT companies of
the Rodriguez-Orejuela cartel (Miguel and Gilberto Rodriguez-
Orejuela, ``MRO-GRO'') was dismissed. It has now been
appealed. An associated SDNT lawsuit involving 21 individual
SDNTs connected to the MRO-GRO businesses (Arbelaez v.
Newcomb), is currently pending before the same Federal court
that dismissed the Copservir case. Under the APA, the
Government must demonstrate that OFAC's action was neither
arbitrary nor capricious.
Evidence to support designations is acquired through
research and investigation by OFAC and other Federal
agencies; and it involves a broad spectrum of sources. All of
OFAC's designation programs adhere to a process of thorough
evidentiary development and review and are consistent with
U.S. statutes and the decisions of our courts. Designation
decisions are coordinated in all programs. In the IEEPA-SDNT
program against Colombian traffickers, the State and Justice
Departments must be consulted prior to a designation; and
OFAC works closely with them and with other interested
investigative and information-collecting agencies.
____
OFAC's Current Practices
Designations, notice and awareness. The IEEPA-SNDT program
against Colombian traffickers is our working model for a
procedure. Designations of foreign persons under this
program, particularly the derivative designations of foreign
businesses, are kept secret until they have occurred to
ensure that assets within U.S. jurisdiction may be blocked
and that the designation investigation about the entity and
related inquiries about other persons are not compromised.
When a designation is effected, several actions occur
either simultaneously or in close sequence to one another.
After concurrence from Justice and State, OFAC's director
makes the designation. Shortly thereafter, the following will
occur:
Actual notice. OFAC provides actual notice of blocking and
designation to specific financial institutions or other
businesses that are believed to have accounts or other assets
of the designated narcotics trafficker or to be handling or
engaging in transactions involving that target.
Cyberspace notice. OFAC simultaneously initiates a set of
electronic notifications, including updates to the SDNT list
and public information brochures on its web site, that notify
the financial community and the public at large that these
parties have been designated and that the prohibitions of the
program are in effect with respect to them. Specific steps
include:
Electronic Fedwire alert to 5,000 on-line financial
institutions.
Electronic CHIPS alert to the 250 money center banks.
Uploading of the OFAC web site SDNT list with the new names
and an updated comprehensive SDNT list (a visual alert to new
SDNTs is featured on the web site) and updated OFAC public
information brochures.
Uploading of the new designations and the expanded SDNT
list to other web sites (Treasury Electronic Library; GPO
Federal Bulletin Board; Commerce's Economic Bulletin Board;
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency's fax-on-demand
service; Commerce's STAT-USA/FAX, a fax-on-demand service.
Updating OFAC's own fax-on-demand service.
Telephone and/or fax notifications to federal bank
regulatory agencies.
Federal Register publication. Constructive legal notice is
effected through publication of the new SDNTs in the Federal
Register.
Publicity. Press announcement by Treasury or the White
House is common in order to have the broadest effective
notice and impact on the targeted foreign parties.
Counter-narcotics community. Other federal counter-narcotic
elements are notified, too. Commonly, classified cables have
been sent in advance to U.S. embassies in affected foreign
countries to make them aware that an SDNT action is about to
occur. In the Colombia SDNT context, the U.S. embassy and
[[Page H11229]]
OFAC (which has an officer assigned to Bogota) coordinate
closely throughout the process.
Host government. To the extent feasible, the USG
coordinates carefully with the host government concerning the
designated parties, and it works cooperatively with
appropriate host government authorities to pursue additional
measures and leads against the significant foreign narcotics
traffickers and the SDNTs.
U.S. businesses. When U.S. firms are believed to have on-
going, previously lawful dealings with the designated foreign
party, they are notified promptly by OFAC, directed to cease
the now prohibited activities and to block any SDNT assets
within their control, and advised of their rights and
responsibilities under IEEPA and OFAC's regulations.
Relationships between U.S. firms and SDNTs have usually been
discovered after the fact, and there have been very few cases
where post-designation transactions were discovered. In
helping U.S. firms comply with the SDNT program., OFAC has
followed a practice of disseminating:
Program awareness letters to U.S. businesses that are
starting to do business with Colombian firms. (To date, three
such letters have been sent in the SDNT program.)
Specific awareness letters to U.S. firms and their
Colombian subsidiaries that are believed to have had pre-
designation dealings with SDNTs. (To date, 32 such letters
have been sent.)
Specific alert letters, including cease and desist
instructions, to U.S. firms and their foreign subsidiaries
that have been found to have post-designation dealings with
SDNT companies or their successor firms. (To date, 15 such
letters have been sent to U.S. firms and their foreign
subsidiaries.)
In the rare case where apparently willful post-designation
dealings by a U.S. firm with an SDNT were to be discovered, a
referral for preliminary criminal investigation would be made
to U.S. Customs.
With regard to U.S. businesses, banks and individuals, the
purpose of the SDNT program is not to create criminal
jeopardy for unwitting U.S. businesses; it is to inform U.S.
persons of the identities of the prohibited foreign parties.
OFAC works to identify and expose the SDNTs in order to
prevent prohibited transactions and dealing with the SDNTs,
to block their identifiable assets, and to deny the SDNTs
access to the U.S. financial and commercial systems and to
the benefits of trade and transactions involving U.S.
businesses and individuals.
Legitimate foreign banking and business sector. OFAC also
seeks voluntary compliance with the U.S. sanctions programs
by the legitimate foreign banks and businesses in Colombia.
OFAC's director and officers have met regularly with
Colombian bankers and business groups from the beginning of
the SDNT program in a successful effort to develop a
cooperative working relationship and voluntary compliance
with the U.S. sanctions in isolating the drug kingpins and
their business enterprises and operatives. These measures,
which are being expanded upon, have included:
More than 450 general alert letters to Colombian firms that
had pre-sanctions supply or other business relationships with
SDNT firms.
Other specific alert letters to Colombian banking
authorities about SDNT accounts.
Numerous meetings with Colombian bankers and businessmen.
Ownership and control. Designations under OFAC's SDNT
program and its other nine programs that employ the SDN
concept are based upon a non-criminal standard of
``reasonable cause to believe'' that the party is owned or
controlled by, or acts, or purports to act, for or on behalf
of the sanctioned country or, as in the case of the
significant narcotics traffickers centered in Colombia, the
sanctioned non-state party. The IEEPA/SDNT narcotics
Executive order has an additional designation basis where
foreign persons ``materially . . . assist in or provide
financial or technological support for or goods or services
in support of, the narcotics trafficking activities'' of one
of the named drug kingpins or another of the already-named
SDNTs (emphasis supplied).
OFAC has an established practice for reaching
determinations of ownership or control. It is not an
inflexible formula but is, rather, a judicious assessment of
the nature and quality of the indicia of control drawn from
the totality of available information about the entity in
question. Prominent, but not exhaustive, criteria used in
determining SDNT control of and entity are:
Exercise of voting power: size of equity holdings; direct
and indirect shareholding percentages; existence of voting
trusts, supermajority voting requirements, or other
mechanisms to consolidate voting power or block initiatives
of other shareholders.
Exercise of managed authority: identities of the board of
directors, executive committees, and other managed bodies
controlling the business policies of the entity; ability to
designate officers or directors.
Exercise of operating authority: identities of major
officials and senior managers with day-to-day operating
authority or control over the types of transactions conducted
by the business.
History of operations: objective indications that the
business is run for the benefit of SDNTs.
The courts have held that OFAC's interpretations are
consistent with the premise of the Executive Order, which
lies in the recognition that the four principal narcotics
traffickers named in the annex to the E.O. have invested
their vast drug fortunes in ostensibly legitimate companies.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume;
and I rise in support of H.R. 3164, the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin
Designation Act.
Mr. Speaker, the legislation before the House today is part of our
constant battle to get a grip on the flow of illegal narcotics into the
United States.
This bill will give the President additional tools to combat
international narcotics traffickers, to freeze their assets in the
U.S., to prohibit them from conducting business in the U.S., and
exclude them from entering this country.
Given the negative impact of illegal drug use on our citizens, this
legislation could not come at a more appropriate time. Illegal drug use
is destroying our children and ruining lives, making our streets
unsafe, and contributing to the substantial growth of the U.S. prison
population.
Illegal drug use in the U.S. has also generated huge profits for
international drug cartels. These cartels then use that money to branch
out into other areas of international crime and to destabilize foreign
governments that seek to crack down on illegal drug production.
In short, the U.S. must continue to move aggressively to crack down
on the international narcotics kingpins which keep the drugs flowing
into the U.S.
The bill before us today will help the President wage that war. The
legislation requires the Secretaries of Treasury, Defense, and State,
the Attorney General, and the CIA Director to provide a list to the
President of significant foreign narcotics traffickers. The President
would then be required to impose sanctions against narcotics
traffickers on the list and others that lend them material support,
including freezing the traffickers' assets in the U.S., blocking
transactions between U.S. citizens and the drug traffickers, and
prohibiting the traffickers from receiving visas to come to our
country.
It would also provide the President with a national security interest
waiver, as well as the ability to provide information to Congress in a
classified format to protect intelligence and law enforcement
information.
The administration supports this legislation, in part because it is
based on a similar initiative launched by President Clinton against
Colombian narcotics traffickers.
In October of 1995, President Clinton issued an executive order which
targeted and applied sanctions to four international narcotics
traffickers and organizations that operate out of Colombia. The bill
before us today will expand that initiative to other countries, as
well.
I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3164, the Foreign Narcotics
Kingpin Designation Act.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the
bill not because I do not support the objective of trying to cut back
on drugs and illegal drug activity in this country, but because I am
concerned that we are giving the President and the administration far,
far too much authority and subjecting them to far, far too little
review.
The notion that we in this Congress can oversee the designation of
who is designated a drug kingpin effectively is just nonsense. We do
not have the ability to do that. The appropriate place to do that is
not in the Congress of the United States. The appropriate place to do
that is in the courts of the United States.
This provision, which denies any judicial review to the
determinations made by the administration under this bill, is just un-
American. I mean, I have never seen the ability of the President to
take and block assets of people who are living in this country and then
say in a law the determinations, identifications, findings, and
designations made pursuant to section 4 and subsection (b) of this
section shall not be subject to judicial review.
That is what the courts are for. We are not saying that there should
not be a designation. But if the designation is
[[Page H11230]]
wrong, the people have to have the right to the court.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson).
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation for a couple of
reasons. We have to look very carefully as to what it does.
First of all, it directs the Secretary of the Treasury to designate
foreign narco-traffickers. A very simple designation. The argument was
made by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), well, there ought
to be some review of this.
The second step is what is reviewable. And that is that those so
designated would not be permitted to own or transfer property in the
United States or engage in U.S. financial transactions. That, under the
Administrative Procedures Act, would be appealable, would be
reviewable. And so, if the administration maintained a list of narco-
traffickers, which they are entitled to do, which is appropriate to do,
then if they seize those assets, then that would be subject to
administrative review.
The third thing that is very, very important is that it only applies
to foreign individuals and entities. This is the linchpin of this
legislation, is not to American citizens but it is to foreign entities
and individuals. If their assets are blocked, then, once again, that
would be subject to administrative review.
Why is all of this important? It is important because we are
attacking the sources of income and the ability to launder money.
I have been down to Colombia. I have been to Puerto Rico. I have been
through these hearings. And whether we talk to the DEA or whether we
talk to the narco-traffickers, they indicate that the other side, the
narco-traffickers, have greater resources and we have to hit them where
it hurts and where we can make a difference.
The third thing I think that is important is that it has been proven
to be successful. We are not experimenting in the dark here. The 1995
sanctions against the Cali cartel were successful. They had the effect
of dismantling the business entities tied to the Cali cartel. And that
is what we are trying to do, not just in Colombia but worldwide. We are
looking at the foreign entities that we can determine are engaged in
trafficking.
I want to express my appreciation to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Rangel) for the comment that he made that this is exactly the direction
that we go in. So I ask my colleagues to support it.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman was incorrect in his statement to the
bill. The bill says the determinations, identifications, findings, and
designations made pursuant to, et cetera, shall not be subject to
judicial review. Designating an individual as a significant foreign
trafficker is not, under this bill, subject to judicial review.
So the President or the bureaucrat has the absolute authority to say
he is a foreign narcotics trafficker. If he thinks he is not, his
lawyers in the United States cannot appeal it in court and no evidence
is necessary. And that is simply, as was said before, un-American.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time we have
remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sununu). The gentleman from New York
(Mr. Crowley) has 3 minutes remaining. The gentleman from New York (Mr.
Nadler) has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Florida (Mr.
McCollum) has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Rangel).
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I did not mean to infer that he wanted to
bend the Constitution so badly that we would suffer from it now and in
the future. But in the period of time that we are living today, where
terrorism is actually a threat to our everyday life, I cannot imagine
that we would apply to a court in order to find out how we can keep
some of these bums out of our country or to keep them from destroying
our property and our lives.
I take this war on drugs pretty seriously. We have lost lives not
only to drug addiction but to our prison system. There is no question
in my mind that most Americans believe if we wanted to stop this that
we can but that big dollars prevent us from doing it. We go all over
the world telling other countries that they really are not going after
their drug traffickers, they will not extradite, they will not put them
in jail, they will not do anything.
Now is the time for us to do something. Now is the time to bring the
best minds that we have in the United States, those who have the
constitutional mandate to protect the American citizens.
Obviously, the President has overlooked this legislation, the
Judiciary has overlooked the legislation, and they feel that we stand
on sound constitutional ground. But the whole idea that we cannot
protect ourselves against those people who use our system, who infringe
upon our rights to bring this poison into the United States, who
threaten our national security, who have 2 million people locked up, at
least over half of them for drug-related crimes, it seems to me that we
are yielding to legal questions rather than questions that in times of
war we find answers to.
So I think this is a giant step forward. And if there are problems
with it, I hope they come back to this House and to the Congress so
that we can deal with it. But I think the mere fact that we are going
to pass this law sends a message to the foreign drug traffickers.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, Amendment 5 of the Bill of Rights says that
``no person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous
crime unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury except,''
and then it goes on to say, ``nor to be deprived of life, liberty, or
property without due process of law.''
Now, the designation by the President is not due process of law.
Usually we have a trial. There is no judicial review in this situation.
And even the designation as a foreigner, if they happen to be a citizen
and are designated as a foreigner, they have no judicial review and no
rights under this bill.
We ought to go back to the normal process of due process. If we are
going to go after criminals, we ought to go after criminals with the
normal process of having a trial.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have
remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Each of the gentlemen from New York have 1
minute remaining.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Nadler).
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) is
recognized for 2 minutes.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, we seem to have a fact in this country that,
if we declare something a war, some people think we can suspend the
Constitution in order to fight that war.
We did that, to our regret, with communism in the 1950s. We may have
done that with terrorism. And now we are being asked to do that with
the war on drugs.
{time} 1230
Yes, we must protect ourselves, in the 1950s and 1960s and 1970s
against potential Communist aggression, against terrorism, against the
drug lords. But we must not destroy our liberty or our Constitution in
doing so. We have done this in the past and we have regretted it.
There is nothing that says we cannot crack down on these drug
kingpins and allow them their day in court, that lets us seize the
property but allow them to protest in court and have our traditional
notions of due process. But this bill will not do that. This bill makes
the President or the Secretary a dictator, a king. This bill says he
can seize someone's property and you have no recourse. It goes against
the fifth amendment and the 14th amendment, you cannot deprive a person
of life, liberty or property without due process of law.
[[Page H11231]]
This would make an American citizen who has any kind of dealing with
someone that some bureaucrat thinks is a drug kingpin a criminal if
that citizen has some dealing with him even if that citizen thinks that
this person is perfectly innocent, and there is no opportunity in court
to dispute whether that person is innocent or in fact a drug kingpin.
That is not the American way.
Yes, we should crack down on drugs; yes, we should protect ourselves,
but we should not do so by eliminating all our Anglo-Saxon traditions
of due process and fair play. Someone accused of a crime always is
entitled to a day in court. Someone the President says is a drug
kingpin is entitled to say in court, ``No, I'm not, you've got the
wrong man.'' This bill goes against that.
As I said, the people who passed Magna Carta would understand why
this bill is pernicious and destructive of our Constitution and on our
system of values in this country and why this bill should be rejected.
Let me say one other thing. We never saw this bill in the Committee
on the Judiciary. It has not been considered by the Committee on the
Judiciary. I spoke to the Deputy Attorney General at 9 o'clock last
night. He had never heard of it.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
First of all, I want to make a point about this bill, and that is
that it deals with foreign drug kingpins who are killing and poisoning
our kids. The bottom line is it deals with the worst of the worst. It
deals with people who have already been indicted in our court system
but probably have never come here and never will come here for trial.
It deals with freezing their assets, choking their ability to get the
rewards of money and property out of the drug dealings they have been
doing. And, yes, it does provide a support level for an already
existing and already court-tested process whereby under national
security guidelines, the President of the United States may designate
these foreign drug kingpins as people whose property will be frozen and
who cannot have financial dealings and business transactions in the
United States.
It is perfectly constitutional, it is perfectly appropriate and the
Administrative Procedures Act once they are designated does govern the
process itself in the seizure of property and the disposition of it.
Fifteen thousand of our fellow citizens died last year from illegal
drug overdoses. Hundreds of thousands of American families had to cope
with the challenges posed by addictions to their loved ones. It seems
to me that it is long overdue that we have a bill like this. Sadly, we
have discovered in this Congress that we are not insulated from the
efforts of the kingpins to buy influence and corrupt our political
institutions. Their narco-lobbyists were paid well to try to shape and
gut this bill through this process. Well, they have not succeeded,
fortunately.
An overwhelming vote of this House in favor of this bill, H.R. 3164,
will send the kingpins an unmistakable message: We do not fear their
power, we cannot be bought, and we will not rest until they are jailed
and their organizations disrupted.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sununu). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) that the House
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3164.
The question was taken.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
____________________