[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 19]
[House]
[Pages 27868-27882]
[From the U.S. 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.

[[Page 27869]]

       (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 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

[[Page 27870]]

     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.
       (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

[[Page 27871]]

     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 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

[[Page 27872]]

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 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:

[[Page 27873]]

       (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 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

[[Page 27874]]

     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:

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

[[Page 27875]]

     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.
       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

[[Page 27876]]

     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 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. 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

[[Page 27877]]

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. 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. 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

[[Page 27878]]

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 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

[[Page 27879]]

     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 
     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

[[Page 27880]]

     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 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

[[Page 27881]]

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.
  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

[[Page 27882]]

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.

                          ____________________