[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 165 (Friday, November 19, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S14951-S14960]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000--CONFERENCE 
                           REPORT--Continued

  Mr. DASCHLE. I might also say, I heard the distinguished Chair talk 
about the service provided to this committee and to the Senate by the 
distinguished ranking member, the Senator from Nebraska. I will make a 
full statement at a later time, but let me say for the record now, no 
one has served this committee, this caucus, and this Senate more 
effectively, taking his intelligence responsibility more seriously, 
than the distinguished Senator from Nebraska. He has been an 
extraordinary leader, an extraordinary Member, and one who has taken 
his responsibilities on this committee as seriously as anybody has to 
date.
  He departs with the actions taken today. He will leave the committee 
as a result of the statute requiring a certain limit of time for each 
Senator. I know I speak for all Senators in expressing our gratitude to 
him and our admiration for a job very well done, I yield the floor.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if I may take a moment of my leader time to 
join Senator Daschle in those remarks.
  This is a very important committee. It is a committee that operates 
in the best tradition of total bipartisanship, nonpartisanship. 
Chairman Shelby has been doing an outstanding job. It really makes the 
leaders feel good when we see two Senators of two parties work together 
for our national interests and our intelligence community. Senator 
Kerrey certainly has been just outstanding, the way he has handled that 
job. He has been cooperative, nonpartisan.
  These two Senators, Senator Shelby and Senator Kerrey, have worked 
together the way it is supposed to be done. I hope your successors will 
only do as well. I thank you for your service.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. KERREY. I thank both leaders for their kind remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I start by thanking the Senator from 
Nebraska for the extraordinary service he has rendered to the 
Intelligence Committee. I have served with him on that committee for a 
very short period of time, but I have seen the way he, working with 
Senator Shelby, has been able to bring bipartisan leadership to this 
committee that is so essential for the working of this committee.
  I say to our colleagues--I know Senator Shelby has and as I know 
every member of the committee feels--Senator Kerrey has made a unique 
and extraordinary contribution to the committee. He has attempted to 
strengthen the intelligence community every step of the way. He has 
done so in a bipartisan way. I commend him on his service. I know he is 
being rotated out of the committee, but that is what our rules provide. 
He will be missed.
  The conference report to H.R. 1555, the Fiscal Year 2000 Intelligence 
Authorization Act, includes legislation under title 8 entitled 
``Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act.''
  Title 8 is intended to strengthen the Government's efforts to 
identify the assets, financial networks, and business associates of 
major foreign narcotics trafficking groups in an effort to disrupt 
these criminal organizations and bankrupt their leadership. I think all 
Senators agree with that laudable goal of combating the insidious 
effects of drug trafficking. In fact, an earlier version of this 
legislation was seen as being so without controversy that it was added 
by the Senate to the intelligence authorization bill in July of this 
year with little debate and on a voice vote.
  Senators should be aware, however, that title 8, as it is now 
written, does have a significant national security, law enforcement, 
judicial, and drug trafficking implication that belie the legislation's 
simple design and are somewhat different from the original amendment 
that was offered, I believe, by Senator Coverdell and by Senator 
Feinstein.
  I am not aware, however, despite the implications of this new 
language added in conference, of any committee of jurisdiction in 
either the Senate or the House having held a single hearing on the 
provision contained in title 8. The Senate Intelligence Committee has 
not had a hearing on title 8. The Senate Judiciary Committee has not 
had a hearing. Not a single legal or national security expert inside or 
outside of Government has testified before a congressional hearing as 
to whether title 8 should or should not become law, and if it does, how 
the legal rights of Americans might be changed as a result.
  Except for the recent and very perfunctory House of Representatives 
debate and vote on this provision, the only public debate on the 
complexities of title 8 has occurred in the press. The way the issue 
has been characterized in press reports erroneously suggest that if you 
are ready to sign up to title 8 as now set forth after this conference 
committee in H.R. 1555, then you are being tough on foreign drug 
traffickers. If, however, you are troubled by the effect that the title 
8 language would have on currently existing due process protections 
afforded innocent Americans, you are described by some in the press as 
doing the bidding of narcolobbyists.
  This simplistic characterization is not only false, it is an insult 
to Members of this body, and it obscures a vitally important civil 
liberties issue which is at the core of title 8, which is the rights of 
innocent American citizens to challenge in our courts the taking of 
their property.

  As a member of the Intelligence Committee, I was a conferee. I did 
not sign the conference report accompanying the bill because of the 
contradiction existing between the stated legislative intent of title 8 
and the actual language contained in the bill, a contradiction which I 
attempted but failed in conference to correct by amendment.

[[Page S14952]]

  Specifically, my objection is that title 8, as presently written, 
would undermine the due process protections now afforded a U.S. citizen 
or business that has interests or assets blocked under title 8 to 
challenge the legality of the blocking under the Administrative 
Procedures Act.
  This is what the conference report before us says about title 8:

       There is no intention that this legislation affect 
     Americans who are not knowingly and willfully engaged in 
     international narcotics trafficking, nor is it intended in 
     any way to derogate from existing constitutional and 
     statutory due process protections for those whose assets are 
     blocked or seized pursuant to law.

  That is the stated intent. That is well and good, and I commend the 
authors on that intent. The problem is that the words of the bill 
before us do not, I am afraid, comport with that stated intention.
  According to the Department of Treasury, which is tasked in title 8 
with developing the list of significant foreign narcotics traffickers, 
due process protections exist in law today for those U.S. citizens to 
challenge the legality of the blocking of assets in court.
  On November 8, I wrote a letter to the Secretary of Treasury Lawrence 
Summers requesting an opinion on two legal questions concerning title 
8. The first question was the following:

       What existing constitutional and statutory due process 
     protections would allow an American citizen who has an 
     interest blocked by executive branch action to challenge the 
     blocking?

  Question 2 was:

       If H.R. 1555 is enacted into law, how would these existing 
     constitutional and statutory due process protections be 
     changed?

  In his November 10 reply to me, Richard Newcomb, who is Director of 
the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control, or OFAC, stated the 
following with regard to currently existing judicial review of the 
blocking of American assets:

       The Administrative Procedures Act, or the APA, provides for 
     judicial review of final agency action.

  Mr. President, 5 U.S. Code 702 is the citation.

       In existing sanctions programs administered by the Office 
     of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) the final agency action 
     related to blocking are subject to challenge by affected 
     parties through judicial review afforded by the 
     Administrative Procedures Act.

  Then they go on to say:

       Because of normal rules of standing and other 
     jurisdictional principles, a U.S. citizen may, in many cases, 
     not be able directly to challenge the blocking of a foreign 
     person's assets pursuant to APA. However----

  However, and this is the key line----

     as discussed below, agency review by OFAC, followed by 
     judicial review under APA of any resulting final agency 
     action as to that citizen may still be available. In addition 
     to any statutory review available under the APA, a U.S. 
     citizen may also seek judicial review of constitutional 
     claims or challenges related to blockings under existing OFAC 
     sanctions programs.

  Under the process that is currently in place, OFAC determines who is 
a foreign drug kingpin after an internal Department of Treasury review 
of the evidence and evidentiary review that is coordinated with the 
Department of Justice.
  Under Executive Order 12978 issued in 1995, the State Department and 
Justice Department are required to be consulted by Treasury prior to 
that designation and prior to the blocking of assets. After designation 
is made and assets are blocked, OFAC regulations allow for a named 
party to petition OFAC--
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. Under the 
previous order, we will proceed to H.R. 1180.
  Mr. LEVIN. Parliamentary inquiry. I did not realize I was acting 
under a time constraint.
  Mr. SHELBY. Parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state his inquiry.
  Mr. KERREY. The majority leader did not complete his unanimous 
consent request as a consequence of some observations.
  Mr. SHELBY. He was going to complete it after this.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The agreement provided we go to this bill at 3 
o'clock, and it is now 3 o'clock.
  Mr. LEVIN. I ask unanimous consent to be yielded 30 seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered. The Senator from Michigan is granted 30 seconds.
  Mr. KERREY. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator be given an 
additional minute and the Senator from Georgia be given 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, the time 
had been set at 5 o'clock for the beginning of the votes. There are a 
number of us who have commitments to depart, and have had for some 
time. Ordinarily it would not be a matter of concern to this Senator, 
but if we are to complete the arrangements which have been made with a 
great many Senators, I understand from the Parliamentarian that under 
the prevailing order, debate will resume on this matter but at the 
conclusion of the votes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. KERREY. An additional 5 minutes for the Senator from Georgia 
right now would not affect the 5 o'clock vote.
  Mr. ROTH. Reserving the right to object, we do have a number of 
people who want to speak. We only have an hour.
  Mr. LEVIN. If I could just have----
  Mr. KERREY. I have a unanimous consent request for time for the 
Senator from Michigan and the Senator from Georgia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. I am not going to complete my speech now. I simply want to 
apologize to my colleagues. I did not realize there was a unanimous 
consent agreement that would trigger a 3 o'clock debate on a different 
bill. That is all I had to say.
  I am perfectly happy to pick up my speech after whatever is scheduled 
is completed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia has 5 minutes.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I will try to do this in 2 minutes.
  First, I compliment the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, and 
the ranking member, the cochairs, for their diligent work on the 
overall bill and for their efforts that dealt with the Narcotic Kingpin 
Designation Act. There have been some legitimate and reasonable 
differences of opinion. I am obviously, as a sponsor of the Narcotic 
Kingpin Designation Act, pleased that it is proceeding to passage.
  To make my point, in deference to the difficulties with time here, I 
simply ask unanimous consent that the letter to Senator Levin of 
November 17 from the Department of the Treasury, by Richard Newcomb, 
Director, Office of Foreign Assets Control, which says, ``. . .we 
believe that the proposed law would not deny a U.S. citizen any rights 
he previously would have had to raise constitutional claims,'' be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                   Department of the Treasury,

                                Washington, DC, November 17, 1999.
     Hon. Carl Levin,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Levin: I received your November 12 letter to 
     Secretary Summers requesting our position on the following 
     question: Do you support maintaining the present right 
     afforded a United States citizen who has an interest in 
     assets blocked by Executive Branch action to challenge the 
     blocking under the Administrative Procedure Act?
       In my October 13 letter to Senator Coverdell, the 
     Department has indicated that it would not oppose judicial 
     review of Treasury decisions. However, we also can work with 
     the text of Title VIII of H.R. 1555 as finalized by the 
     conference committee. The proposed statute does not eliminate 
     all avenues for seeking relief. I want to emphasize that as 
     the program under the proposed legislation is implemented, 
     the Office of Foreign Assets Control's (OFAC) traditional 
     administrative mechanisms will be employed. Thus, a U.S. 
     citizen whose interests have been blocked will be able, if he 
     chooses, to avail himself of OFAC's licensing authority. In 
     current OFAC-administered programs, this mechanism has served 
     to minimize the adverse impact on innocent U.S. citizens 
     while vigorously implementing sanctions against targeted 
     foreign persons. Additionally, a U.S. citizen will be able to 
     petition OFAC for the unblocking of his interest in blocked 
     property. Similarly, we believe that the proposed law would 
     not deny a U.S. citizen any rights he previously would have 
     had to raise constitutional claims.

[[Page S14953]]

       We hope that this information is of assistance.
           Sincerely,
                                               R. Richard Newcomb,
                       Director, Office of Foreign Assets Control.

  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter 
from the Department of the Treasury dated November 10 to Senator Levin 
of Michigan by Richard Newcomb, Director, Office of Foreign Assets 
Control, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                   Department of the Treasury,

                                Washington, DC, November 10, 1999.
     Hon. Carl Levin,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Levin: This letter responds to your letter to 
     Secretary Summers of November 8, 1999, concerning Title VIII 
     of H.R. 1555, the Fiscal Year 2000 Intelligence Authorization 
     Act, entitled the ``Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation 
     Act'' (the ``Act''). You requested an opinion concerning two 
     questions arising under sections 804 and 805 of the proposed 
     legislation: What existing constitutional and statutory due 
     process protections would allow An American citizen who has 
     an interest in assets blocked by Executive Branch action to 
     challenge the blocking? If H.R. 155 is enacted into law, how 
     would these existing constitutional and statutory due process 
     protections be changed?
       As noted in my October 13, 1999 letter to Senator 
     Coverdell, the Administrative Procedure Act (the ``APA'') 
     provides for judicial review of final agency action. 5 U.S.C. 
     702. In existing sanctions programs administrated by the 
     Office of Foreign Assets Control (``OFAC''), final agency 
     actions related to blocking are subject to challenge by 
     affected parties through judicial review afforded by the APA. 
     Because of normal rules of standing and other jurisdictional 
     principles, a U.S. citizen may in many cases not be able 
     directly to challenge the blocking of a foreign person's 
     assets pursuant to the APA. However, as discussed below, 
     agency review by OFAC, followed by judicial review under the 
     APA of any resulting final agency action as to that citizen, 
     may still be available. In addition to any statutory review 
     available under the APA, a U.S. citizen also may seek 
     judicial review of constitutional claims or challenges 
     related to blockings under existing OFAC sanctions programs.
       If H.R. is enacted, section 805(f) presumably would 
     foreclose U.S. citizens from bringing a claim under the APA 
     to challenge a blocking. Such statutory preclusion of 
     judicial review under the APA is expressly provided for in 
     the APA itself. 5 U.S.C. 701(a)(1). Despite the limitation on 
     judicial review in section 805(f), however, a U.S. citizen 
     would not be foreclosed from other meaningful avenues of 
     review.
       First, even when assets are properly blocked under the law, 
     a U.S. citizen can petition OFAC for a license unblocking the 
     U.S. citizen's interest in blocked assets. OFAC has a long-
     established practice of utilizing its licensing authority in 
     sanctions programs to minimize the adverse impact on innocent 
     U.S. persons while vigorously implementing the sanctions 
     against targeted foreign persons. OFAC regulations in every 
     major sanctions program contain licensing authority. The Act 
     would provide the Treasury Department with similar authority. 
     The ability of OFAC (or even a reviewing court, if judicial 
     review were available) to grant relief would, of course, 
     depend on the nature of the U.S. citizen's interest in 
     blocked assets.
       Second, a U.S. citizen would have recourse to agency 
     reviewing of the blocking. If the U.S. citizen believed that 
     its interest in the foreign person's assets is mistakenly or 
     wrongfully blocked, that U.S. citizen could petition OFAC to 
     have the interest unblocked. OFAC has the authority pursuant 
     to section 805(b) of the proposed legislation to unblock 
     assets.
       Also, as section 805(f) must be read to avoid any 
     Constitutional problems, a U.S. citizens would not be 
     precluded by that section from pursuing any Constitutional 
     claims.
       Finally, one point in your November 8 letter requires 
     clarification. Paragraph three refers to my October 13 letter 
     to Senator Coverdell. That letter was written in response to 
     the Senate draft of H.R. 1555 received in this office on 
     October 13. My reference to judicial review, quoted only in 
     part in your letter, addressed not the current provisions of 
     the Act, but provisions (section 704(f), and in particular, 
     704(f)(2) of the October 13 draft) that were subsequently 
     deleted. We believe it is important to understand the context 
     of my letter, as well as to examine my statement in its 
     entirety: ``The Administrative Procedure Act already provide 
     for judicial review of final agency actions; and, therefore, 
     additional judicial review provisions are unnecessary'' 
     (emphasis supplied). That statement reflected the 
     Department's position that judicial review did not need to be 
     addressed separately in the proposed legislation.
       We hope this information is of assistance.
           Sincerely,
                                               R. Richard Newcomb,
                       Director, Office of Foreign Assets Control.

  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President I ask unanimous consent the New York 
Times op-ed written by A.M. Rosenthal, of August 27, 1999, be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the New York Times, August 27, 1999]

                            (A.M. Rosenthal)

                       On My Mind--Vote on Drugs

       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 of 
     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.

  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I yield back my time in accordance to 
the pressure of the moment here.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the conference report to H.R. 1555, the 
Fiscal Year 2000 Intelligence Authorization Act, include legislation 
under Title VIII of the bill entitled the ``Foreign Narcotics Kingpin 
Designation Act.'' Title VIII is intended to strengthen U.S. Government 
efforts to identify the assets, financial networks and business 
associates of major foreign narcotics trafficking groups in an effort 
to disrupt these criminal organizations and

[[Page S14954]]

bankrupt their leadership. No doubt all Senators would agree with this 
laudable goal of combating the insidious effects of drug trafficking. 
In fact, an earlier version of this legislation was seen as being so 
without controversy that it was added by the Senate to the Intelligence 
Authorization bill in July of this year with little debate and on a 
voice vote.
  Senators should be aware, however, that Title VIII as it is now 
written has significant national security, law enforcement, judicial, 
and drug trafficking implications that belie the legislation's simple 
design. Yet, I am not aware of any committee of jurisdiction in either 
the Senate or the House having held a single hearing on the provisions 
contained in Title VIII. The Senate Intelligence Committee has not held 
a hearing. The Senate Judiciary Committee has not held a hearing. Not a 
single legal or national security expert, inside or outside government, 
has testified before a congressional hearing as to whether Title VIII 
should or should not become law, and, if it does, how would the legal 
rights of Americans be changed as a result.
  Except for recent and perfunctory House of Representatives debate on 
the provision, the only public debate on the complexities of Title VIII 
has occurred in the press. The way that the issue has been 
characterized in press reports erroneously suggests that if you are 
ready to sign up to Title VIII as set forth in H.R. 1555, you are tough 
on foreign drug traffickers. If, however, you are troubled by the 
effect that the Title VIII language would have on currently existing 
due process protections afforded innocent Americans, you are described 
as doing the bidding of ``narco-lobbyists.''
  This simplistic characterization is not only false and an insult to 
the Members of this body, it obscures a vitally important civil 
liberties issue at the core of Title VIII: the rights of innocent 
American citizens to challenge in our Courts the taking of their 
property.
  As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I was a conferee to 
H.R. 1555. However, I did not sign the conference report accompanying 
the bill because of the contradiction existing  between the stated 
legislative intent of Title VIII and the actual language contained in 
the bill, a contradiction I attempted but failed in conference to 
correct by amendment.

  Specifically, my objection is that Title VIII, as presently written, 
would undermine the due process protections now afforded to a U.S. 
citizen or business who has interest in assets blocked under Title VIII 
to challenge the legality of the blocking under the Administrative 
Procedure Act.
  This is what the conference report accompanying H.R. 1555 says about 
Title VIII:
  ``There is no intention that this legislation affect Americans who 
are not knowingly and willfully engaged in international narcotics 
trafficking. Nor is it intended in any way to derogate from existing 
constitutional and statutory due process protections for those whose 
assets are blocked or seized pursuant to law.'' That's the stated 
intent. But what do the words of this CR do?
  According to the Department of Treasury, which is tasked in Title 
VIII with developing the list of significant foreign narcotics 
traffickers, due process protections exist today for those U.S. 
citizens to challenge the legality of the blocking of assets in court.
  On November 8th, I wrote a letter to Secretary of the Treasury 
Lawrence Summers requesting an opinion on two legal questions 
concerning Title VIII.
  The first question was: ``What existing constitutional and statutory 
due process protections would allow an American citizen who has an 
interest blocked by Executive Branch action to challenge the 
blocking?''
  The second question was: ``If H.R. 1555 is enacted into law, how 
would these existing constitutional and statutory due process 
protections be changed?''
  In his November 10, 1999 reply to me, Mr. Richard Newcomb, Director 
of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (or ``OFAC''), 
stated the following with regard to currently existing judicial review 
of the blocking of American assets:
  ``. . . the Administrative Procedure Act (the ``APA'') provides for 
judicial review of final agency action. 5 U.S.C. 702. In existing 
sanctions programs administered by the Office of Foreign Assets Control 
(``OFAC''), the final agency actions related to blocking are subject to 
challenge by affected parties through judicial review afforded by the 
APA. Because of normal rules of standing and other jurisdictional 
principles, a U.S. citizen may in many cases not be able directly to 
challenge the blocking of a foreign person's assets pursuant to APA. 
However, as discussed below, agency review by OFAC, followed by 
judicial review under APA of any resulting final agency action as to 
that citizen, may still be available. In addition to any statutory 
review available under the APA, a U.S. also may seek judicial review of 
constitutional claims or challenges related to blockings under existing 
OFAC sanctions programs.''
  Under the process currently in place, OFAC determines who is a 
foreign drug kingpin after an internal Department of Treasury review of 
the evidence, an evidentiary review that is coordinated with the 
Department of Justice. Executive Order 12978, issued in 1995, requires 
that the State and Justice Departments be consulted by Treasury prior 
to this designation and blocking of assets. After designation is made 
and assets are blocked, OFAC regulations allow for a named party to 
petition OFAC to have its designation removed through an administrative 
appeal. Most petitioners initiate this administrative review process 
simply by writing OFAC. Exchanges of correspondence, additional fact-
finding, and, often, meetings occur before OFAC decides whether there 
is a basis for removing the designation and unblocking assets. Once the 
named party has exhausted this administrative remedies process, OFAC's 
final decision can be challenged in federal court under the 
Administrative Procedure Act.

  To repeat, the Administrative Procedure Act, or APA, provides some 
due process protection under current law for an American to challenge 
the blocking of his or her assets pursuant to a Department of Treasury 
OFAC agency decision.
  However, a straightforward reading of section 805 of Title VIII makes 
clear that these existing statutory due process protections, referenced 
in the conference report as being unaffected by the bill, could well 
be, in fact, foreclosed if H.R. 1555 becomes law in its present form.
  More specifically, section 805(a) of the bill states, in part: ``A 
significant foreign narcotics trafficker publicly identified . . . 
shall be subject to any and all sanctions as authorized.''
  Section 805(b) of the bill provides that ``all property and interests 
in property within the United States, or within the possession or 
control of any United States person'' are blocked effective as of the 
date of a report designating the significant foreign narcotics 
traffickers.
  And then the critically important language of section 805(f): ``The 
determinations, identifications, finding, and designations made 
pursuant to section 804 and subsection (b) of this section shall not be 
subject to judicial review.''
  In sum, under Title VII, designation in the drug kingpin report 
automatically results in the blocking of assets, including any assets 
held by innocent U.S. citizens and businesses unaware of the 
association the foreign business entity allegedly has with narcotics 
trafficking. The blocking of assets, in turn, is not subject to 
judicial review, according to section 805(f) of the bill. Thus, Title 
VII would limit the statutory opportunity that exists today under the 
APA for innocent Americans to petition the courts to challenge the 
blocking of assets.
  Could American citizens and businesses with no knowledge of, or 
participation in, foreign narcotics trafficking find their assets 
blocked under Title VIII of this bill? Certainly. For example, an 
American business involved in a joint venture agreement with a foreign 
shipping firm could find its assets blocked under the provisions of 
Title VIII. Or, American citizens owning stock in a company found to be 
owned or operated by drug traffickers and money launderers could have 
their assets blocked and suffer devastating economic loss as a result, 
despite being innocent of any wrongdoing themselves.

[[Page S14955]]

  Under current law, the scenarios I have described resulting in the 
blocking of assets under the control of U.S. citizens, if not remedied 
in the administrative appeals process, could be challenged in federal 
court. Title VIII will have the effect of taking away this judicial 
appeal opportunity, thereby enhancing the authority federal bureaucrats 
have to not only hear but decide all challenges to Department of 
Treasury designation and asset blocking decisions.
  The Department of Treasury confirms this change in statutory due 
process protections in its November 10th letter to me:
  ``If H.R. 1555 is enacted, section 805(f) presumably would foreclose 
U.S. citizens from bringing a claim under the APA to challenge the 
blocking.''
  That is what the Department of Treasury, the agency empowered under 
current law as expanded by Title VIII to block assets, says about how 
this bill will foreclose currently existing statutory due process 
protections.
  Mr. President, at this point I ask that both my November 8, 1999 
letter to Secretary Summers and the November 10, 1999 reply from OFAC 
be printed in the Record in their entirety.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1.)
  A different section of Title VIII provides perhaps the most 
conclusive evidence that this legislation is being brought to a vote in 
haste and without the careful consideration it needs. Section 810 of 
the bill, creates a Judicial Review Commission on Foreign Asset 
Control.
  The conference report includes six judicial review and due process 
questions the prospective Commission is being asked to examine and 
report on to Congress in the next year. I am going to read each of the 
six questions and, as I do so, I ask that my colleagues consider 
whether we should have the answers to these important legal questions 
before approving Title VIII of H.R. 1555:
  ``(1) Whether reasonable protections of innocent U.S. businesses are 
available under the regime currently in place that is utilized to carry 
out the provisions of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act 
(``IEEPA'').''
  Should not the Senate know the answer to this question before we act 
on Title VIII?
  ``(2) Whether advance notice prior to blocking of one's assets is 
required as a matter of constitutional due process''
  Should not the Senate know the answer to this question before we act 
on Title VIII?

  ``(3) whether there are reasonable opportunities under the current 
IEEPA regulatory regime and the Administrative Procedure Act for an 
erroneous blocking of assets of mistaken listing under IEEPA to be 
remedied''
  We know the most important part of the answer already. The Department 
of Treasury confirms that Americans would no longer be able to use the 
Administrative Procedure Act and a court appeal from an agency 
determination under that act to remedy an erroneous blocking of assets 
or mistaken listing. Should not the Senate have the answer to this 
question before we act on Title VIII?
  ``(4) whether the level of proof that is required under the current 
judicial, regulatory, or administrative scheme is adequate to protect 
legitimate business interests from irreparable financial harm''
  Should not the Senate know the answer to this question before we act 
on Title VIII?
  ``(5) whether there is constitutionally adequate accessibility to the 
courts to challenge agency actions under IEEPA, or the designation of 
persons or entities under IEEPA''
  We know that section 805(f) of Title VIII will foreclose the 
statutory access to the courts to challenge agency actions, but should 
not the Senate know the complete answer to this question before we act 
on Title VIII?
  ``(6) whether there are remedial measures and legislative amendments 
that should be enacted to improve the current asset blocking scheme 
under IEEPA or this title [Title VIII]''
  Should not the Senate know the answer to this question before we act 
on Title VIII?
  These are crucially important questions and strike to the very 
essence of due process protections afforded to U.S. citizens. So 
important are these questions that I believe the Senate as a body 
should know the answers to them before approving a law with potentially 
far-reaching legal consequences. These questions deserve careful 
consideration through a hearing process in the Judiciary Committee, the 
Intelligence Committee and other committees of jurisdiction. We should 
know the answers before we vote on the bill before us.
  As it stands today, the Senate is being asked to approve a new law 
which will foreclose a currently existing statutory right of judicial 
appeal without the benefit of this hearing record and without a 
complete understanding of how this change in due process protections 
could harm innocent Americans.
  Senators should be aware that the original drug kingpin amendment to 
the Intelligence Authorization Act--the Coverdell-Feinstein amendment--
approved by the Senate on July 21st on a voice vote, did not eliminate 
or alter the existing judicial review avenue afforded innocent 
Americans under the Administrative Procedure Act to challenge the 
legality of the blocking of assets. The Coverdell-Feinstein amendment 
was silent on the issue. Only at the insistence of the House conferees 
during conference on the bill was the language contained in section 
805(f) foreclosing statutory review of final agency actions included in 
the final conference agreement. So Senators should be clear that this 
significant difference exists between the original Coverdell-Feinstein 
amendment approved by the Senate in July and what we are being asked to 
adopt today.
  Because the House approved the conference report to H.R. 1555 last 
week, the rules of the Senate preclude a motion to recommit the bill 
back to conference with instructions to remove the provision of Title 
VIII eliminating current review of final agency actions under the 
Administrative Procedure Act.
  Realistically, the conference report to H.R. 1555, even with this 
offending provision, will pass overwhelmingly given the signatures on 
the conference report. The only way to minimize the damage it could do 
to innocent U.S. citizens is to attempt to amend Title VIII after it 
becomes law. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent to be allowed to speak 
in morning business for the purpose of introducing a bill to do just 
that.
  Mr. President, I send a bill to the desk on behalf of myself, Senator 
Shelby, Senator Kerrey of Nebraska, and Senator Roberts.
  This bill would restore the right that U.S. citizens are about to 
lose under section 805(f) of H.R. 1555 to challenge in court under the 
Administrative Procedure Act an illegal blocking of their assets by 
Executive Branch decision.
  Based on my reading of the conference report language accompanying 
H.R. 1555, the conferees may not have intended or fully understood that 
Title VIII would foreclose a currently existing avenue of judicial 
review under the Administrative Procedure Act. It wasn't until after 
the conference on H.R. 1555 was concluded did any one in either 
Congress or the Executive Branch state in writing that this would be 
the bill's effect. I argued this position at the conference called 
immediately before the conferees voted. Therefore, I am hopeful that 
this significant flaw in H.R. 1555 can be corrected soon and that the 
American people will be assured that the United States Congress is not 
taking away rights of Americans to challenge the wrongful taking of 
their property by bureaucratic action. Because of this flaw, if there 
had been a recorded vote on the conference report before us, I would 
have voted ``no''.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit 1

                                                      U.S. Senate,


                                  Committee on Armed Services,

                                 Washington, DC, November 8, 1999.
     Hon. Lawrence H. Summers,
     Secretary of the Treasury,
     Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Secretary: On Friday, Senate and House of 
     Representatives conferees completed work on H.R. 1555, the 
     Fiscal Year 2000 Intelligence Authorization Act. The 
     conference agreement which has yet to be passed by either 
     body, contains Title VIII, the ``Foreign Narcotics Kingpin 
     Designation Act.''
       I have a concern that Title VIII, as presently written, 
     would undermine the due

[[Page S14956]]

     process protections now afforded to an innocent U.S. citizen 
     or business who has interest in assets blocked under this Act 
     to challenge the blockage under the Administrative Procedure 
     Act of any other avenue of judicial review.
       According to the October 13, 1999 letter from Mr. R. 
     Richard Newcomb, Director of the Department of Treasury's 
     Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) to Senator Paul 
     Coverdell, the Administrative Procedure Act ``already 
     provides for judicial review of final agency actions'' 
     concerning the blocking of assets. The report accompanying 
     H.R. 1555 adds that Title VIII is not ``intended in any way 
     to derogate from existing constitutional and statutory due 
     process protections for those whose assets are blocked or 
     seized pursuant to law.''
       However, a straightforward reading of section 805 of H.R. 
     1555 raises significant concerns that these ``existing 
     constitutional and statutory due process protections'' may be 
     eroded if the Act becomes law.
       More specifically, section 805(a) of the bill states, in 
     part: ``A significant foreign narcotics trafficker publicly 
     identified . . . shall be subject to any and all sanctions as 
     authorized.'' Section 805(b) goes on to state that ``all 
     property and interests in property within the United States, 
     or within the possession or control of any United 
     States person'' are blocked effective as of the date of 
     Treasury's report. Finally, section 805(f) states: ``The 
     determinations, identifications, findings, and 
     designations made pursuant to section 804 and subsection 
     (b) of this section shall not be subject to judicial 
     review.''
       In sum, designation in the Treasury report automatically 
     results in the blocking of assets. The blocking of assets, in 
     turn, is not subject to judicial review, according to section 
     805(f) of the Act. Thus, H.R. 1555 would seem to limit the 
     opportunity that exists today for innocent American citizens 
     and businesses to petition the courts to challenge the 
     blocking of assets.
       Because H.R. 1555 may come before the Senate for 
     consideration in short order, I asked that the Department of 
     Treasury, in consultation with the Department of Justice, 
     provide a written legal opinion to me answering two important 
     questions:
       (1) What existing constitutional and statutory due process 
     protections would allow an American citizen who has interest 
     in assets blocked by Executive Branch action to challenge the 
     blocking?
       (2) If H.R. 1555 is enacted into law, how would these 
     existing constitutional and statutory due process protections 
     be changed?
       Your immediate response to my request is appreciated.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Carl Levin,
     Ranking Minority Member.
                                  ____



                                   Department of the Treasury,

                                Washington, DC, November 10, 1999.
     Hon.Carl Levin,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Levin: This letter responds to your letter to 
     Secretary Summers of November 8, 1999, concerning Title VIII 
     of H.R. 1555, the Fiscal Year 2000 Intelligence Authorization 
     Act, entitled the ``Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation 
     Act'' (the ``Act''). You requested an opinion concerning two 
     questions arising under sections 804 and 805 of the proposed 
     legislation:
       What existing constitutional and statutory due process 
     protections would allow an American citizen who has an 
     interest in assets blocked by Executive Branch action to 
     challenge the blocking?
       If H.R. 1555 is enacted into law, how would these existing 
     constitutional and statutory due process protections be 
     changed?
       As noted in my October 13, 1999 letter to Senator 
     Coverdell, the Administrative Procedure Act (the ``APA'') 
     provides for judicial review of final agency action. 5 U.S.C. 
     702. In existing sanctions programs administered by the 
     Office of Foreign Assets Control (``OFAC''), final agency 
     actions related to blocking are subject to challenge by 
     affected parties through judicial review afforded by the APA. 
     Because of normal rules of standing and other jurisdictional 
     principles, a U.S. citizen may in many cases not be able 
     directly to challenge the blocking of a foreign person's 
     assets pursuant to the APA. However, as discussed below, 
     agency review by OFAC, followed by judicial review under the 
     APA of any resulting final agency action as to that citizen, 
     may still be available. In addition to any statutory review 
     available under the APA, a U.S. citizen also may seek 
     judicial review of constitutional claims or challenges 
     related to blockings under existing OFAC sanctions programs.
       If H.R. 1555 is enacted, section 805(f) presumably would 
     foreclose U.S. citizens from bringing a claim under the APA 
     to challenge a blocking. Such statutory preclusion of 
     judicial review under the APA is expressly provided for in 
     the APA itself. 5 U.S.C. 701(a)(1). Despite the limitation on 
     judicial review in section 805(f), however, a U.S. citizen 
     would not be foreclosed from other meaningful avenues of 
     review.
       First, even when assets are properly blocked under the law, 
     a U.S. citizen can petition OFAC for a license unblocking the 
     U.S. citizen's interest in blocked assets. OFAC has a long-
     established practice of utilizing its licensing authority in 
     sanctions programs to minimize the adverse impact on innocent 
     U.S. persons while vigorously implementing the sanctions 
     against targeted foreign persons. OFAC regulations in every 
     major sanctions program contain licensing authority. The Act 
     would provide the Treasury Department with similar authority. 
     The ability of OFAC (or even a reviewing court, if judicial 
     review were available) to grant relief would, of course, 
     depend on the nature of the U.S. citizen's interest in 
     blocked assets.
       Second a U.S. citizen would have recourse to agency review 
     of the blocking. If the U.S. citizen believed that its 
     interest in the foreign person's assets is mistakenly or 
     wrongfully blocked, that U.S. citizen could petition OFAC to 
     have the interest unblocked. OFAC has the authority pursuant 
     to section 805(b) of the proposed legislation to unblock 
     assets.
       Also, as section 805(f) must be read to avoid any 
     Constitutional problems, a U.S. citizen would not be 
     precluded by that section from pursuing any Constitutional 
     claims.
       Finally, one point in your November 8 letter requires 
     clarification. Paragraph three refers to my October 13 letter 
     to Senator Coverdell. That letter was written in response to 
     the Senate draft of H.R. 1555 received in this Office on 
     October 13. My reference to judicial review, quoted only in 
     part in your letter, addressed not the current provisions of 
     the Act, but provisions (section 704(f), and in particular, 
     704(f)(2) of the October 13 draft) that were subsequently 
     deleted. We believe it is important to understand the context 
     of my letter, as well as to examine my statement in its 
     entirety. ``The Administrative Procedure Act already provides 
     for judicial review of final agency actions; and, therefore 
     additional judicial review provisions are unnecessary'' 
     (emphasis supplied). That statement reflected the 
     Department's position that judicial review did not need to be 
     addressed separately in the proposed legislation.
       We hope this information is of assistance.
           Sincerely,
                                               R. Richard Newcomb,
     Director, Office of Foreign Assets Control.
                                  ____

                                                      U.S. Senate,


                                  Committee on Armed Services,

                                Washington, DC, November 12, 1999.
     Hon. Lawrence H. Summers,
     Secretary of the Treasury,
     Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Secretary: Thank you for your November 10, 1999 
     reply to my letter requesting a legal opinion of Title VIII 
     of H.R. 1555, the Fiscal Year 2000 Intelligence Authorization 
     Act, entitled the ``Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation 
     Act.'' Your reply was not only prompt but responsive to the 
     questions I posed.
       Paragraph three of your letter contains the following 
     conclusion about how H.R. 1555, if enacted into law, would 
     change existing statutory due process protections:
       ``If H.R. 1555 is enacted, section 805(f) presumably would 
     foreclose U.S. citizens from bringing a claim under the APA 
     [Administrative Procedure Act] to challenge a blocking.''
       I do not believe this current existing avenue for judicial 
     review of final agency action should be foreclosed. 
     Therefore, I am requesting that you forward to me a written 
     answer to the following question before the Senate considers 
     the conference report to H.R. 1555 next Tuesday:
       Do you support maintaining the present right afforded a 
     United States citizen who has an interest in assets blocked 
     by Executive Branch action of challenge the blocking under 
     the Administrative Procedure Act?
       Your immediate response to my request is appreciated.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Carl Levin,
     Ranking Minority Member.
                                  ____



                                   Department of the Treasury,

                                 Washington, DC, November 17 1999.
     Hon. Carl Levin,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC
       Dear Senator Levin: I received your November 12 letter to 
     Secretary Summers requesting our position on the following 
     question:
       Do you support maintaining the present right afforded a 
     United States citizen who has an interest in assets blocked 
     by Executive Branch action to challenge the blocking under 
     the Administrative Procedure Act?
       In my October 13 letter to Senator Coverdell, the 
     Department has indicated that it would not oppose judicial 
     review of Treasury decision. However, we also can work with 
     the text of Title VIII of H.R. 1555 as finalized by the 
     conference committee. The proposed statute does not eliminate 
     all avenues for seeking relief. I want to emphasize that as 
     the program under the proposed legislation is implemented, 
     the Office of Foreign Assets Control's (OFAC) traditional 
     administrative mechanisms will be employed. Thus, a U.S. 
     citizen whose interests have been blocked will be able, if he 
     chooses, to avail himself of OFAC's licensing authority. In 
     current OFAC-administered programs, this mechanism has served 
     to minimize the adverse impact on innocent U.S. citizens 
     while vigorously implementing sanctions against targeted 
     foreign persons. Additionally, a U.S. citizen will be able to 
     petition OFAC for the unblocking of his interest in blocked 
     property. Similarly, we believe that the proposed law would 
     not deny a U.S. citizen any rights he previously would have 
     had to raise constitutional claims.

[[Page S14957]]

       We hope that this information is of assistance.
           Sincerely
                                               R. Richard Newcomb,
                       Director, Office of Foreign Assets Control.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate today will 
pass S. 1515, an important bill to make some much needed changes to the 
Radiation Exposure Compensation Act. I am pleased to join my 
colleagues, including the Chairmen of the Senate Judiciary and Indian 
Affairs Committees, in support of this legislation.
  Mr. President, my home state of New Mexico is the birthplace of the 
atomic bomb. One of the unfortunate consequences of our country's rapid 
development of its nuclear arsenal was that many of those who worked in 
the earliest uranium mines became afflicted with terrible illnesses.
  I noticed this problem more than twenty years ago, when I learned 
that miners had contracted an alarmingly high rate of lung cancer and 
other diseases commonly related to radiation exposure.
  Many of the miners were Native Americans, mostly members of the 
Navajo Nation, with whom the United States government has had a 
longstanding trust relationship based on the treaties and agreements 
between our country and the tribes. Some 1,500 Navajos worked in the 
uranium mines from 1947 to 1971. Many of them have since died of 
horrible radiation-related illnesses.
  All of the uranium miners, including the Navajos, performed a great 
service out of patriotic duty to this country. Their work helped us to 
win the Cold War. Unfortunately, our Nation failed to fulfill its duty 
to protect the miners' health. After hearing of the problem, I began 
the effort the miners' health. After hearing of the problem, I began 
the effort to see that the miners and their families received just 
compensation for their illnesses.
  Mr. President, I want to take a moment to recognize a person who has 
been a champion in the hearts of uranium miners and their families 
throughout the Colorado Plateau. This person, a former uranium miner 
himself, has worked tirelessly in advocating many of the reforms we 
have established within this bill.
  Mr. President, Paul Hicks of Grants, New Mexico deserves a large 
amount of credit for bringing attention to this legislation in the 
United States Senate. Paul is President of the New Mexico Uranium 
Workers Council and he has spearhearted the grassroots effort that is 
responsible for several of these much needed reforms.
  Paul was a uranium miner for over twelve years in New Mexico. He 
later worked as a lead miner, a shift boss, and ended his mining career 
as a mine foreman. But as Paul will tell you, ``it takes about ten 
years to make a good miner, but only ten minutes to make a good 
foreman.'' Mr. President, Paul Hicks is and will always be a miner at 
heart.
  Paul has fought this effort for the miners of the Navajo nation, 
Acoma Pueblo, Grants, New Mexico, and Dove Creek and Grand Junction, 
Colorado. Paul Hicks is truly a hero in the heart's of the many people 
along the Colorado Plateau that have been adversely affected by 
exposure to uranium.
  Unfortunately Mr. President, Paul is now facing another battle. That 
is fight against cancer. Paul was diagnosed last week with bone cancer 
and now, he must endure massive radiation treatments for the next six 
weeks. It will be a tough fight, but one I know he'll win. Simply, 
because I know Paul Hicks.
  Way back in 1979, I held the first field hearing on this issue in Mr. 
Hicks' hometown of Grants, New Mexico to learn about the concerns and 
the health problems faced on uranium miners. In later years, I traveled 
to Shiprock, New Mexico and the Navajo Nation Indian Reservation to 
gather more information about the uranium miners and their families.
  Twelve years after I introduced that first bill, President Bush 
signed RECA into law. At the time, RECA was intended to provide fair 
and swift compensation for those miners and downwinders who had 
contracted certain radiation-related illnesses.
  Since the RECA trust fund began making awards in 1992, the Department 
of Justice has approved a total 3,135 claims valued at nearly $232 
million. In my home state of New Mexico, there have been 371 claims 
approved with a value of nearly $37 million. For that work, the 
Department of Justice is to be commended.
  The original RECA was a compassionate law which unfortunately has 
come to be administered in a bureaucratic, dispassionate and often 
unfair manner. Many claims have languished at the Department of Justice 
for far too long.
  Miners and their families, particularly Navajos, often have waited 
many years for their claims to be processed. Many claims were denied 
because the miners were smokers and could not prove that their diseases 
were related solely to uranium mining. In other cases, miners faced 
problems establishing the requisite amount of working level months 
needed to make a successful claim. Native American claims by spousal 
survivors often were denied because of difficulties associated with 
documenting Native American marriages.
  This bill makes some important, common-sense changes to the radiation 
compensation program to address the problems I have outlined. First, it 
expands the list of compensable diseases to include new cancers, 
including leukemia, thyroid and brain cancer. It also includes certain 
non-cancer diseases, including pulmonary fibrosis. Medical science has 
been able to link these diseases to uranium mining in the 10 years 
since the enactment of the original RECA. We now know that prolonged 
radiation exposure can cause many additional diseases. This bill uses 
the best available science to make sure that those who were injured by 
radiation exposure are compensated.
  The bill also extends eligibility to above-ground and open-pit 
miners, millers and transport workers. The latest science tells us that 
the risks of disease associated with radiation exposure were not 
necessarily limited to those who worked in unventilated mines.
  Most importantly, the bill requires the Department of Justice to take 
Native American law and customs into account when deciding claims. I 
have heard countless stories about the inequities faced by the spouses 
of Navajo miners who have been unable to successfully document their 
traditional tribal marriages to the satisfaction of the Justice 
Department under current law and regulations. This bill will change 
that, and make it easier of spousal survivors to make successful 
claims.
  Mr. President, I am pleased to support this important legislation. 
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the bill will cost close 
to $1 billion over the next 21 years. That is far less than some of the 
other proposals floated in the House and Senate during the past few 
years. This is a common-sense approach, which addresses many of the 
problems with the existing program, without unnecessarily expanding the 
scope of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act. The Chairman of the 
Senate Judiciary Committee has done a fine Job crafting this bill and I 
have been pleased to work with him in that regard. I yield the floor.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, today marks a major breakthrough in our 
War on Drugs. H.R. 1555, the Intelligence Reauthorization bill, 
contains a provision authored by myself and Senator Diane Feinstein, 
which is designed to put drug kingpins out of business. Enactment of 
our Drug Kingpin legislation represents the most dramatic change in our 
Nation's drug laws since the drug certification process was established 
in 1986.
  The Drug Kingpin legislation, which Senator Feinstein and I 
introduced earlier this year as a free-standing bill, targets major 
drug kingpins by blocking their assets in the U.S. and by preventing 
their access to U.S. markets. Our objective is to use U.S. economic 
power to undercut the financial base of the cartels and their kingpins, 
thereby providing a tool that directly targets a major security threat 
to this country. Simply stated, we are hitting drug traffickers where 
it hurts them most--in their wallets.
  This legislation codifies and expands an existing Presidential 
Executive Order which has had remarkable success in financially 
isolating and weakening Colombian drug cartels. In 1995, President 
Clinton signed Executive Order 12978, exercising the International 
Emergency Economic Powers

[[Page S14958]]

Act (IEEPA) against four major drug kingpins affiliated with Colombia's 
Cali cartel. The Executive Order blocks any financial, commercial and 
business dealings with any entity associated with the four named drug 
traffickers, recognizing that drug traffickers who pump cocaine and 
heroin into our communities pose a threat to our national security.
  The Coverdell-Feinstein initiative expands the President's Executive 
Order to include all foreign narcotics traffickers deemed as threats to 
our national security and enhances congressional oversight of this 
important and effective program. Here's how it works: As under the 
President's Executive Order, the Treasury Department's Office of 
Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) would develop a list of Specially 
Designated Foreign Narcotics Traffickers in consultation with the 
Department of Justice, the Department of State, and other executive 
branch agencies. Any foreign entity which appears on the list would be 
prohibited from conducting any economic activity with the United 
States. American firms or individuals who violate this prohibition 
would be subject to significant financial penalties and, potentially, 
prison terms.
  Mr. President, this program's track record in Colombia is impressive. 
The United States targeted over 150 companies and nearly 300 
individuals involved in the ownership and management of the Colombian 
drug cartels' non-narcotics business empire, which included a variety 
of companies ranging from drugstores to poultry farms. Once labeled as 
drug-linked businesses, these companies found themselves financially 
isolated. Banks and legitimate companies chose not to do business with 
the blacklisted firms, choking off key revenue streams to the cartels. 
Over 40 drug-funded companies, with estimated combined sales of over 
$200 million, were liquidated or in the process of liquidation by 
February 1998. I am submitting for the Record a recent Treasury 
Department Impact Summary on the Colombia program.

  The best part of this approach to fighting foreign drug kingpins is 
that it supports the efforts of foreign governments who need our help 
to take down the cartels. To that end, it is essential that 
implementation of this program occurs with the cooperation and 
participation of the host country. Indeed, in the case of Colombia, the 
participation and high level of cooperation by the Colombian government 
and the Colombian Banking Association were crucial to the success of 
the program. It is our hope and intention that as this program is 
expanded in legislation, a similar framework of cooperation and 
participation is developed with other countries.
  One of our principle intentions with this legislation is to avoid the 
country-to-country confrontation that often occurs and to focus instead 
on the bad actors who are producing and trafficking the illegal drugs 
and who are causing so much damage to our nation. At the same time, it 
is designed to be a supplement, not a replacement for the current drug 
certification process.
  The Coverdell-Feinstein provision is not country specific. It is a 
global initiative which targets foreign drug kingpins and their 
associates regardless of nationality and location--from Burma to 
Nigeria to Colombia.
  Despite the proven track-record of this program, some raised concerns 
that this legislation would not adequately protect U.S. business 
interests. I disagree. So do the vast majority in both Houses of 
Congress, the Department of Treasury that implemented the successful 
Colombia program and the National Security Council. This legislation 
has been thoroughly vetted and painstakingly examined by the experts in 
Congress and in the Executive Branch. Since its unanimous passage in 
July 1999 as an amendment to the Intelligence Reauthorization bill, 
important changes were made which perfected and refined this provision 
that will be soon signed into law.
  It is important to remember that this bill targets foreign drug 
traffickers and their front companies, not U.S. entities. This program 
is implemented so as to minimize the possibility of unfairly tarnishing 
the reputation of an individual or company. If a U.S. company is 
knowingly or unknowingly conducting business with drug traffickers or 
their associates, they are warned by the Treasury Department before any 
further steps are taken. According to Treasury Department practice, 
alert letters are sent by Treasury to U.S. entities who are potentially 
conducting business with a designated foreign narcotics trafficker or 
their associates. Often, a Treasury Department representative will 
personally warn the U.S. entity. Actions would only be taken if the 
U.S. entity continues the business relationship with the narcotics 
trafficker.
  The purpose is not to harm unwitting U.S. businesses. Instead, it is 
to inform U.S. persons of the identities of the prohibited foreign 
parties. In the case of the Colombia program, U.S. businessmen have 
termed this program as ``a good preventative measure'' that helps them 
steer clear of the cartels' front and agents. If a U.S. entity does 
happen to be adversely affected, it has recourse to administrative 
remedies through the Treasury Department, and of course has access to 
U.S. courts--as would any U.S. citizen under the Constitution. I am 
submitting for the Record a copy of several Treasury Department letters 
on this issue which should put this matter to rest once and for all. In 
addition, at the suggestion of Senator Richard Shelby and Senator Bob 
Kerrey, the legislation provides for a commission to examine a range of 
legal issues that could arise through implementation of the program.

  As for the foreign drug kingpins, this legislation treats them for 
what they really are: a national security threat. Many of these 
criminals, who peddle their wares on our streets and in our school 
yards, are already under indictment in the U.S. These are the thugs 
responsible for thousands of deaths each year. In several cases tried 
before U.S. district courts since 1995, U.S. federal judges have found 
the designation process to be appropriate and applicable to the named 
foreign entities.
  The provision unanimously passed the Senate as an amendment to the 
Intelligence Authorization Bill in July. It then passed the House on 
November 2 as a free-standing bill by a vote of 385-26. The provision 
was accepted in the Intelligence Conference on November 5. And then, 
last week, the House unanimously passed the Intelligence Conference 
Report, which included this provision. And, today, this provision 
received final approval in the Senate and will soon be sent to the 
President for his signature.
  This provision is time-tested, has had extraordinary success in 
Colombia, and will continue to be an effective tool when applied on a 
global basis. This is a tough but fair measure. It punishes some of the 
worst criminals alive today, and at the same time protects the rights 
of innocent U.S. citizens.
  Take legitimate U.S. dollars out of drug dealers' pockets is a vital 
step in destroying their ability to traffic narcotics across our 
borders. This is a bold but necessary tool to fight the war on drugs.
  Finally, Mr. President, I would like to thank the distinguished 
Senator from California Senator Diane Feinstein, for her leadership and 
dedication to this issue. I would also like to recognize Representative 
Porter Goss and Representative Bill McCollum for their work on behalf 
of this bill and their tireless efforts in fighting the war on drugs.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the 
Coverdell-Feinstein Drug Kingpin bill, which is contained in modified 
form within this Intelligence Authorization Conference Report.
  That bill, also co-sponsored by Senators Lott, Torricelli, DeWine, 
Helms, Craig, Graham and Reid, is designed to strengthen the 
President's hand in combating foreign narcotics traffickers around the 
world. Senator Coverdell and I have worked for months to answer 
questions about the bill, iron out remaining problems, and satisfy the 
concerns of the Clinton Administration over how the bill will work.
  We and our staffs met with representatives from the White House, the 
Justice Department, the Treasury Department, the Department of State, 
the National Security Council, other Senate offices and many others 
during that time. I am gratified to report that we now have the support 
of this Administration, as well as both Houses of Congress.
  Let me speak a bit about this provision and why it is so important. 
This

[[Page S14959]]

provision is patterned after an Executive Order issued by President 
Clinton in 1995, which targeted the assets of the powerful Colombian 
drug kingpins.
  That Order expanded the International Emergency Economics Powers Act 
to include ``Specially Designated Narcotics Traffickers.'' As issued, 
the President's Executive Order applies to four drug traffickers 
affiliated with the Colombian Cali cartel. The goal is to completely 
isolate the targeted drug traffickers.
  The Executive Order blocks any financial, commercial and/or business 
dealings with any entity associated with the four named drug 
traffickers--to include criminal associates, associated family members, 
related businesses and financial accounts.
  Under the Coverdell-Feinstein provision now contained in this 
Conference report--as under the President's Executive Order--the 
Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) would 
develop a list of Specially Designated Narcotics Traffickers in 
consultation with the Department of Justice, the CIA and the Department 
of State. Now, this list can contain traffickers throughout the world, 
and not just in Colombia.
  By focusing on the financial relationships between drug cartels and 
their associated business relationships, the Executive Order--and now 
this new provision--is directed toward the entities that are creating 
the drug problem in our country--the drug cartels.
  Now, this provision will codify and expand that Presidential 
directive to include other foreign narcotics traffickers considered a 
threat to our national security--Colombia was a good start, and we 
believe it is time to set our sights elsewhere around the world.
  The goal is to isolate targeted drug traffickers and their affiliated 
businesses by freezing their assets under U.S. jurisdiction and cutting 
off their ability to do business in the United States.
  Under the Executive Order, more than 400 companies and individuals 
affiliated with drug trafficking have been targeted by the Treasury 
Department.
  These entities are denied access to banking services in the U.S. and 
Colombia, and existing bank accounts have been shut down.
  As a result, more than 400 Colombian accounts have been closed, 
affecting over 200 companies and individuals engaged in drug 
trafficking.
  By February 1998, over 40 of these companies, with an estimated 
combined annual sales of over $200 million, had been forced out of 
business.
  Drug cartels today are more powerful, more violent and have a far 
greater reach than traditional organized crime organizations ever had 
been in the past. And, I believe they pose a major threat to our 
national security.
  Indeed, measured in dollar value, at least four-fifths of all illicit 
drugs consumed in the U.S. are of foreign origin, including virtually 
all the cocaine and heroin.
  With the authority to reach countries beyond Colombia, the President 
can work to isolate major criminal drug syndicates around the world, 
and impose upon them and their associates a similar fate as that of the 
Cali cartel.
  It is my hope that with new emphasis on this expanded authority, and 
with a concerted intelligence effort to develop sufficient data about 
the cartels and their associates, in this country and abroad, the 
United States will be able to work with our allies to expose, isolate, 
and cut off the major drug trafficking syndicates that pose a 
tremendous threat to our societies.
  This crucial mission can only be accomplished together, and we must 
work together to see that our governments are properly equipped to 
carry it out successfully.
  To that end, this amendment establishes clear procedures through 
which the various parts of our own government will be able to share 
information with their counterparts, and make recommendations to the 
President as to those cartels that represent the greatest risk to our 
nation.
  Coordinated by the Office of Foreign Assets Control in the Department 
of Treasury, the expanded program will target new international drug 
cartels with the same successful financial choke holds that worked so 
well in Colombia.
  And let me also be clear about one thing. Nothing in this provision 
should in any way be read to say that the United States Government 
should stop cooperating with other governments in the fight against 
drugs.
  To the utmost extent possible, the United States under this provision 
should continue and even expand upon its current agreements with other 
nations in the fight against drugs. While valid concerns over the 
compromise of national security, sources and methods, or ongoing 
investigations must be taken into account, we must also make sure that 
we continue to work cooperatively with those governments also intent on 
solving this drug crisis.
  This will not be an easy process, and the results will not be 
immediate. But over time, we hope that the flow of drugs across our 
borders will be diminished.
  Before I yield the floor, I want to address one concern that has been 
raised about due process for American citizens under this bill. Some 
have expressed a concern that this bill would leave U.S. citizens 
without redress for blocked assets, in possible violation of their due 
process rights. Such an outcome is certainly not what we are trying to 
accomplish with this bill, and I have been assured by the Treasury 
Department that avenues of redress will remain open to United States 
Citizens.
  According to Richard Newcomb, the Director of Foreign Assets Control 
(OFAC), the entity responsible for carrying out the provisions of this 
bill:

       Even when assets are properly blocked under U.S. law, a 
     U.S. citizen can petition OFAC for a license unblocking the 
     U.S. Citizens interest in blocked assets. OFAC has a long-
     established policy of utilizing its licensing authority in 
     sanctions programs to minimize adverse impact on U.S. persons 
     while vigorously implementing the sanctions against targeted 
     foreign persons.

  Second, according to Newcomb, OFAC will have the ability under 
section 805(b) of this Act to completely unblock assets:

       If the U.S. citizen believed that its interest in the 
     foreign person's assets is mistakenly or wrongfully blocked, 
     that U.S. citizen could petition OFAC to have the interest 
     unblocked.

  Finally, ``Also, as section 805(f) must be read to avoid any 
Constitutional problems, a U.S. citizen would not be precluded from 
that section from pursuing any Constitutional claims.''
  In other words, Mr. President, U.S. citizens are now, and will 
continue to be, offered significant protections against wrongful 
blocking or seizure of their assets. The Treasury Department has 
assured us that nothing in this bill will eliminate a U.S. citizen's 
absolute, Constitutional right to due process, and nothing in this bill 
attempts to do so. The clear purpose of the bill is to seek out foreign 
drug kingpins and cut off their access to the American economy.
  I'd like to thank Senator Coverdell for working so tirelessly with me 
on this bill, and I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for 
supporting our efforts. I yield the floor.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, for the record, I want to ensure that 
congressional intent on the Secretary of Health and Human Services' 
organ transplantation rule is clear. The provision in the tax extender 
bill, which provides for a 90 day delay with a required 60 day comment 
period, does not reflect the views of the Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions Committee. Rather, congressional intent is expressed by the 
provision in the Consolidated Appropriations bill, which simply delays 
the effective date of the regulation by 42 days. This compromise 
assures that the transplant community and affected patients will have 
one final chance to discuss this issue, and that the Secretary shall 
then proceed with the regulation. Therefore, the provision in the 
Consolidated Appropriations bill should have legal effect, 
notwithstanding the provision in the tax extender bill.
  I ask unanimous consent a statement of Administration Policy be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

  Statement of Administration Policy on H.R. 1180--Ticket to Work and 
                    Work Incentives Improvement Act

       Today, the Senate is expected to vote on the conference 
     report to accompany H.R. 1180, the Ticket to Work and Work 
     Incentives Improvement Act of 1999. The President has a deep 
     and long-standing commitment to empowering and promoting the 
     independence of people with disabilities.

[[Page S14960]]

       H.R. 1180 would give people with disabilities a new chance 
     to work without fear of losing their Medicare and Medicaid 
     coverage. This bill also would create a demonstration program 
     that provides people who are not yet too disabled to work the 
     opportunity to ``buy into'' Medicaid to help them keep 
     working. In addition, it would enhance opportunities for 
     Social Security disability beneficiaries to obtain vocational 
     rehabilitation and employment services from their choice of 
     participating providers. The Administration strongly supports 
     these provisions that will enable more people with 
     disabilities to work.
       The Administration is deeply troubled that H.R. 1180 
     includes a provision concerning the organ transplantation 
     rule of the Department of Health and Human Services that 
     would provide for a 90-day delay in the rule, including a 
     required 60-day comment period. This provision is in conflict 
     with the provision in the Consolidated Appropriations bill 
     that would provide for a 42-day delay. The Statement of the 
     Managers for the Consolidated bill makes clear their intent 
     that there be no further delay following the 42-day period. 
     The provision in the Consolidated bill represents the true 
     compromise that resulted from negotiations involving all 
     parties. The Administration agreed to and supports the 
     compromise provision in the Consolidated bill and believes 
     that the rule should be issued without further delay after 
     the 42-day period expires.
       H.R. 1180 contains several time-sensitive provisions that 
     extend expiring tax laws. The Administration supports many of 
     these provisions, including the extension of alternative 
     minimum tax provisions, the research and experimentation tax 
     credit, the qualified zone academy bond authorization, the 
     brownfields provisions, and the District of Columbia 
     homebuyers credit. Although the extension of certain expiring 
     tax laws is essential, the failure to fully offset the 
     revenue losses resulting from these provisions is 
     unfortunate. The Administration also is disappointed that 
     H.R. 1180 includes the special allowance adjustment for 
     student loans because it exposes the Federal Government, 
     rather than lenders, to substantial financial risk due to the 
     difference between Treasury and commercial paper borrowing 
     rates.

                          ____________________