LC M-.3?)/Z.’ C . NQ-c$i3Em?‘«’ .]:B“‘7é>O(o\ (51: OLE}: U?‘¥“M$ ,:.«s4:\; Issue: Bnef 3 .4‘.',\;_-ya "IJ\_'v;.( ,-. ——-.. CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE bia |\\||llH||\ LIBRARY OF *W““WElEfi!1IB@\1.@@E‘@wEEEW \ CONTROL OF ILLICIT TRAFFIC IN DANGEROUS DRUGS [SEE ALSO: IB77ll9, "MARIHUANA CONTROL"] ISSUE BRIEF NUMBER IB7606l AUTHOR: Harry Hogan Government Division THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE MAJOR ISSUES SYSTEM DATE ORIGINATED 09/01/75 DATE UPDATED O6/24/82 FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CALL 287-5700 0624 CRS- 1 IB7606l UPDATE-O6/24/82 ISSUE DEFINITION Suppression of illicit traffic is only one aspect of the general Federal Government effort to prevent the abuse of narcotics and other dangerous drugs, but in political significance it is undoubtedly paramount. Various approaches to the problem have been suggested and tried since the first explicitly anti-opium law was enacted in l887. Major recent proposals andr areas of investigation concern appropriate penalties for trafficking offenses, the release of accused and convicted traffickers on bail and through other release procedures, the organization and policies of the Federal enforcement effort, the role of the Internal Revenue Service, the financial activities of drug traffickers, forfeiture of trafficker assets, the use of the herbicide paraquat in marihuana eradication programs, and ways of securing maximum cooperation in traffic control measures from the countries figuring in either the production of dangerous drugs or their transport into the United States. [See also "Marihuana Control"; IB77ll9] \, BACKGROUND AND POLICY ANALYSIS During the more than lOO years of Government attempts to control dangerous drug use in the United States, a number of legislative approaches have been tried. Until a decade or so ago, Federal interest was for the most part in the regulatory area - in current terminology, "supply reduction", as opposed to "demand reduction." The Federal regulatory laws have been based both on ;he tax power and on the power to regulate interstate and foreign commerce. In a landmark enactment of l970, these laws were consolidated and extensively revised. Also important to the general effort to control abuse has been the rapid expansion, during the past l5 years, of efforts to reduce the demand for drugs through provision of assistance for treatment, research, training, and education. As for reducing the supply of drugs, in particular the narcotic drug heroin, several issues have attracted continued interest in Congress in recent years. Among the more recurrent are: (l) appropriate and effective penalties for trafficking, (2) the possibility of preventive detention of traffickers awaiting trial or sentence or pending appeal of sentence, (3) organization of the executive branch effort to enforce the regulatory statutes, and the specific enforcement policies pursued, (4) identification of the most effective measures for curbing illicit international traffic and ways to induce cooperation towards those ends by other countries, and (5) methods of penalizing traffickers "through the pocketbook," and (6) strengthening of criminal forfeiture provisions in both the Controlled Substances Act and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Although basic Federal authority over the drug industry derives from the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act of 1938, of which the earliest provisions were enacted in 1906, the most important narcotic controls have been achieved through separate and more restrictive statutes. The Harrison Act of l9l4, supplemented through the years by a number of other statutes, was the principal Federal narcotics law until the 1970 revision. The Harrison Act was designed to curb access to narcotics through the imposition of a tax along with strict procedures for its payment. Similar controls were applied to marihuana in 1937. CRS— 2 / IB7606l UPDATE-O6/24/82 In the years following World War II, reports of a substantial increase in heroin use were responsible for enactment of several measures intended to strengthen anti-narcotics laws. These laws were generally characterized by higher penalties, including one providing for the possibility of the death sentence in the case of an adult convicted of selling or giving heroin to a minor. In 1965, the Drug Abuse Control Amendments (to the Food, Drug and. Cosmetic Act) brought amphetmines, barbiturates and similar drugs under special, more restrictive control. During the 19605 and early l970s, the emphasis on ‘supply reduction and heavy penalties was challenged in Congress with growing frequency, and legislation in that period reflected a greater concern with reduction of demand, through the provision of treatment and rehabilitation services to drug users. The Community Mental Health Centers Act of 1963 ultimately became the vehicle through which Congress established a specialized Federal grant program for treatment of drug dependence, and the Narcotic Addict Rehabilitation Act of 1966 authorized civil commitment (for treatment) of addicts charged with Federal offenses, a new concept in the Federal justice system with respect to disposition of the criminal addict. Budget totals provide a good measure of the broadening, during the past decade, of the Federal commitment to prevention of drug abuse: spending for all activities related to this purpose rose from $74 million in FY69 to approximately $1 billion in FY8l. Drug abuse "law enforcement" spending went from $37 million to $645 million during the same period. Estimated total obligations for FY82 are $848 million, of which some $666 million are intended for law enforcement efforts. III 1.970 the entire complex Of Federal narcotic and dangerous drug . regulatory law was consolidated and rewritten as the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). In part the result of a l968 Government reorganization that merged several existing drug control bureaus into a new agency, the new act not only instituted tighter controls over the pharmaceutical industry, but also revised the existing penalties for narcotics and dangerous drug law offenses. The penalty revisions in the CSA included reduction of all first—time simple possession offenses to the misdemeanor level; elimination of all mandatory penalties except in cases involving a special category of professional criminal; and the provision for possibility of probation, suspended sentence, and parole for any offender except one sentenced under a special professional criminal provision. Within only a few years of enactment of the l97O law, there were calls in Congress and elsewhere for reinstatement of mandatory penalties, especially for the narcotic trafficking offenses, and in l973 the Nixon administration submitted a proposal to this effect. A companion measure provided for the pre- and post—trial detention of persons charged with specified drug trafficking offenses. The Ford administration sent up a bill with similar provisions. 4 Proposals for reinstatement of mandatory penalties raise the following questions: (1) What are the proper and just penalties for the offense in question? (2) Even if the offense is seen as justifying a repressive penalty, would the penalty actually serve the interests of society? (3) Are stiff penalties an effective crime deterrent? (4) Regardless of deterrence value, are stiff penalties justified on the ground that they remove a danger to the community for a substantial period of time? (5) Is it the strict CRS- 3 IB7606l UPDATE-O6/24/82 statutory penalty or the certainty of punishment that acts as a crime ieterrent? (6) As long as arrest and conviction rates remain low, do statutory penalties have much impact? (7) Is it wise to limit judicial discretion in the sentencing process? (8) Is there a solid basis for the assumption that without mandatory penalties judges will fail to impose appropriate sentences? Proposals for preventive detention of certain high risk offenders have in the past faced strong opposition on constitutional grounds. However, the Drug Enforcement Administration contends that dangerous drug offenders are unusually prone to return to illicit activity while awaiting trial or sentence and that current bail release procedures are badly hindering the Government's narcotics control effort. One answer to this complaint has been that if the criminal justice process could be expedited, the release periods for such offenders would not be so lengthy; it was hoped by some that passage of the "Speedy Trial Act of l974" (P.L. 93-619) would solve the problem. A central question is how effective that law will prove to be. Another is whether there is not some alternative to detention, such as a pre-trial version of probation. The third major theme of the debate over how to stem drug abuse concerns the actual structure of the Federal effort. The so-called "law enforcement") side of that effort has undergone a number of reorganizations in recent years, but questions continue to be raised. These include: (1) Do the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and the Customs Bureau still have jurisdictional difficulties despite Reorganization Plan No. 2 of l973, which was supposed to solve this problem? (2) Is there sufficient coordination of Federal law enforcement efforts in general? (3) Is there sufficient commitment at the White House level? (4) Should responsibility for enforcement of dangerous drug laws be given to the FBI, or‘ lacking this should the FBI be forced to take a more active role in this area? (5) Should all Federal activities concerned with drug abuse problems be centered in one agency, as recommended in 1973 by the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse? (6) with respect to actual enforcement policies, should DEA pursue a street level, buy-bust strategy or concentrate on conspiracy cases aimed at high level traffickers? (7) What is the appropriate and most desirable relationship of DEA to local law enforcement agencies? A continuing concern of both Congress and the executive branch is how best to secure the cooperation of other countries in the drug control effort. In addition to diplomatic maneuvers and the operation of DEA agents overseas, the United States presently provides direct monetary assistance to a number of countries for narcotics control purposes. This "International Narcotics Control Program" is authorized by a l97l amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act, and was extended for a seventh time by a provision of P.L. 97-ll3. One of the most important of the efforts initiated by the program has been the poppy eradication operation in Mexico, involving massive spraying of herbicides during the growing seasons. U.S. officials have for the most part been highly enthusiastic about the program, generally crediting it with a substantial decline in the amount of heroin coming into the United States. A measure of the apparent effect of the Mexican program is the street sale price of heroin in the United States, which since 1976 has risen from $l.40 per milligram to $2.27, while in the same period the purity of the drug declined from 6.1% to 3.9%. From a peak of 605,000 in 1974, the estimated number of heroin addicts has fallen to within the range of 387,000 to 453,000, further indicating a substantial decline in imports. However, traffic in the drug cocaine, also designated a narcotic under existing CRS- 4 IB7606l UPDATE-O6/24/82 Federal law, has been increasing, coming principally from Colombia and the Andean countries of Bolivia, Ecuador, and Peru. Additionally, during the past 2 years, heroin from Southwest Asia has been noted in Eastern U.S. cities in large quantities and has become increasingly available on the West Coast. Many drug source countries have been recipients of assistance provided through the International Narcotics Control program, which has been associated with a number of controversial issues. These have included (1) the level of influence of Drug Enforcement Administration personnel in shaping the efforts assisted; (2) direct participation of U.S. law enforcement officials in foreign drug law enforcement activities; (3) use of U.S.—supplied equipment and of U.S.-trained personnel for purposes other than drug traffic control, particularly in support of non—democratic governments, and (4) use of allegedly harmful herbicides in eradication programs. A major review of Federal drug traffic control efforts, completed by the General Accounting Office in 1979, acknowledges "positive results" but characterizes the gains as "fragile" and "requiring constant vigilance" for these reasons: —— source countries move quickly to fill temporary drug shortages, -— trafficking patterns shift, and —- the types of drugs consumed readily change. Cited as inescapable factors are the enormous profits of drug trafficking, the ease of smuggling drugs into the United States and of subsequent distribution, and the social, economic, and political realities of most drug-producing countries. The report calls for a "much- tougher and consistent stance" and the implementation of specific measures, including (1) changes in Federal bail and sentencing practices, (2) State Department preparation of "realistic" Country Narcotics Action Plans, (3) resolution of border management "problems", and (4) clarification of the roles of various government levels of drug law enforcement, with increased reliance on State and local levels. During the past several years Congress has been working on various proposals for the revision and reform of the Federal Criminal Code. This work is continuing in the 97th Congress. Several versions of code reform have been proposed, in some cases involving such substantive changes in drug law as a return to mandatory penalties for certain trafficking offenses and the effective decriminalization of possession offenses_ involving small amounts of marihuana. LEGISLATION 97th Congress Legislation P.L. 97-86 (S. 815) Department of Defense Authorization for Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1982. Contains a provision authorizing certain kinds of cooperation by the Armed Services with civilian law enforcement authorities for specified CRS- 5 IB7606l UPDATE-06/24/82 purposes, including enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act. S. 815 'ntroduced Apr. 6, 1981; referred to Committee on Armed Services. Reported May 6 (S.Rept. 97-58). Passed Senate May 14. H.R. 2970 introduced Apr. 1, 1981; referred to Committee on Armed Services. H.R. 3519, a clean bill in lieu of H.R. 2970, reported May 19 (H.Rept. 97-71, Part I). Referred to Committees on Judiciary and Government Operations. Reported June 12 (H.Rept. 97-71, Part 2 and Part 3). Passed House July 16. Conference report (H.Rept. 97-311) agreed to by Senate Nov. 5 and by House Nov. 17. Approved Dec. 1, 1981 (P.L. 97-55). P.L. 97-113, S. ll96 International Security and Development Cooperation Act of 1981. For the International Narcotics Control assistance program, authorizes appropriations of $37.7 million for FY82 and also for FY83. Repeals the provision of existing law that prohibits the use of assistance funds for drug crop eradication efforts using herbicides shown to be harmful to human health; however, requires the Secretary of State to inform the Secretary of Health and Human Services of the use or intended use by any country or international organization of any herbicide to eradicate marihuana under a program receiving assistance. Further, requires the Secretary of HHS to monitor the health impact of the use of marihuana that has been sprayed by a herbicide and to report to Congress any evidence of harmful effects. Allows funds earmarked for Colombia under the FY80 appropriation to be used for marihuana eradication (with paraquat). S. 976 introduced Apr. 9, 1981; referred to Committee on Foreign Relations. S. 1196, clean bill in lieu of S. 976, reported May 15 (S.Rept. 97-83). Passed Senate Oct. 22, 1981. Passed House Dec. 9, with contents of H.R. 3566 as passed. Conference report (H.Rept. 97-413) agreed to by Senate Dec. 15 and by House Dec. 16, 1981. Approved Dec. 29, 1981 (P.L. 97-113). H.R. 2545 (Sawyer) [Related bills: H.R. 4110, H.R. 5497 (Title VI), s. 1125, s. 2195, s. 2320, s. 2572 (Title vI)] Amends the provisions of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act to provide that all of a drug trafficker's personal assets are subject to seizure and forfeiture unless it can be proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the assets were acquired from legal sources of income. Authorizes the use of forfeited assets to pay for additional Federal, State and local drug enforcement programs. Introduced Mar. 19, 1981; referred to Committee on Judiciary. H.R. 3209 (Waxman and Madigan)/S. 2013 (Inouye) Amends the Controlled Substances Act to establish a temporary program under which heroin would be made available, through qualified hospital pharmacies, for the relief of pain of cancer patients. H.R. 3209 introduced Apr. 9, 1981; referred to Committee on Energy and Commerce. S. 2013 introduced Jan. 25, 1982; referred to Committee on Labor and Human Resources. H.R. 4413 (Zeferetti) [Related 51115: s. 1522, s. 1943 and s. 1951, s. 2572 (Title III), H.R. 5497 (Title 111)] Amends the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (CSIEA) to provide for a first-time penalty of up to 15 years and/or $125,000 for trafficking in marihuana, in violation of either CSIEA or P.L. 96-350. Introduced Aug. 4, 1981; referred to Committees on Energy and Commerce and on the Judiciary. CRS- 6 IB7606l UPDATE-06/24/82 H.R. 4552 (Rangel) Prohibits assistance to, exports to and imports from (except food and medicine), countries producing and exporting opium. Introduced Sept. 22, 1981; referred to Committees on Foreign Affairs, and ways and Means. H.R. 5703 (Conyers) (Related bills: H.R. 1647, H.R. 5679, S. 1630) Revises Title 18 of the U.S. Code. Transfers criminal penalty provisions of the Controlled Substances Act to the revised title and makes some substantive changes. Introduced Mar. 3, 1982; referred to Committee on Judiciary. H.R. 5371 (Hughes) [Related bills: H.R. 2646, H.R. 6497, S. 1126/H.R. 4110, s. 2195, s. 2320, s. 2572] Comprehensive Drug Penalty Act of 1981. Amends the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, the Controlled Substances Act, and other statutes to make a number of substantive changes in criminal forfeiture provisions. Increases the maximum fine penalties for drug offenses. Introduced Jan. 27, 1982; referred to Committee on the Judiciary. H.R. 6297 (Rodino) Department of Justice Appropriation Authorization Act, FY83. For the Drug Enforcement Administration, authorizes FY83 appropriations of $256,445,000. Introduced May 6, 1982; referred to Committee on the Judiciary. Reported May 17 (H.Rept. 97-548). H.R. 6370 (Zablocki et al.) International Security and Development Act of 1982. For the International Narcotics Control assistance program, authorizes appropriations of $42.5 million for FY83. Calls upon the President to give greater priority to international narcotics control as a component of foreign policy. Further provides that in the negotiation, planning, and administration of general economic support programs under the Foreign Assistance Act, y"priority" consideration should be given to programs that would help reduce illicit narcotics cultivation by stimulating broader development. opportunities and "strengthening the security of such countries." Introduced May 13, 1982; referred to Committee on Foreign Affairs. Reported May 17 (H.Rept. 97-547). H.Res. 13 (Wolff et al.) Provides for the continuance of the Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse and Control. -Introduced Jan. 5, 1981; referred to Committee on Rules. Passed House Feb. 25, 1981. S. 20 (Sasser et al.) (Related bills: S. 661, S. 1025, S. 1339, S. 2572 (Title IX), H.R. 2034, H.R. 2932, H.R. 6497 (Title IX)] Amends title 18, U.S. Code, to make it a Federal offense to rob a pharmacy of certain controlled substances if such robbery is part of a pattern in the locality. Introduced January 5, 1981; referred to Judiciary. S. 814 (Nunn et al.)/H.R. 3268 (Bennett) Organized Crime Act of 1981. (1) Grants limited Federal jurisdiction over CRS- 7 IB7606l UPDATE-O6/24/82 cases involving contract killings or murder for hire; (2) amends the Federal assault statute to cover all Government personnel who investigate and rosecute Federal criminal offenses and who gather national security intelligence; (3) makes it a Federal crime to harm or threaten the families of Federal law enforcement officials; (4) amends the obstruction of justice statute to cover informants and potential witnesses as well as witnesses who actually are under subpena to testify; (5) amends the Freedom of Information Act to increase protection of information which would tend to identify confidential informants as well as information which would positively identify such individuals; (6) allows the Government to apply for a reduction in the sentence of a defendant who cooperates with the Government; (7) increases the penalties a Federal judge may impose when a Federal crime is committed through the use of violence; (8) permits Federal judges to seal those portions of wiretap documents which could reveal ongoing criminal investigations or wire intercepts; (9) allows State and local law enforcement officials limited access to Federal grand jury information when they are assisting in the investigation or prosecution of a Federal offense; and (10) permits Federal judges to consider the danger a defendant poses to the community when setting the terms of release on bail. S. 814 introduced Mar. 26, 1981; referred to Committee on Judiciary. H.R. 3268 introduced Apr. 28, 1981; referred to Committee on Judiciary. S. 951 (Thurmond and Biden)/H.R. 3201 (McC1ory), H.R. 3462 (Rodino) Department of Justice Appropriation Authorization Act, FY82. For the Drug Enforcement Administration, Administration bill (S. 951/ H.R. 3201) authorizes FY82 appropriations of $228.5 million; Senate bill as reported authorizes $234.4 million; House bill as reported and passed (H.R. 3462) .uthorizes $231.8 million. S. 951 introduced Apr. 9, 1981, referred to Committee on Judiciary. Passed Senate Mar. 2, 1982. In House, referred to Judiciary Mar. 22, 1982. H.R. 3201 introduced Apr. 8, 1981; referred to Committee on Judiciary. H.R. 3111 (Rodino) introduced Apr. 7, 1981; referred to Committee on Judiciary. H.R. 3462 (clean bill in lieu of H.R. 3111) introduced May 6, 1981; referred to Committee on Judiciary. Reported May 19 (H.Rept. 97-105). Passed House June 9, 1981. S. 1246 (Thurmond) Amends the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act to increase the penalties for illegal import or export of a Schedule I or II narcotic drug. Introduced May 21, 1981; referred to Committee on Judiciary. s. 1554 (Thurmond et a1.) [Related bills: s. 440, s. 482, s. 814 (see above), S. 1253, S. 1755, S. 2220, H.R. 3883, H.R. 4705, H.R. 4362, H.R. 4898 (Title III), and s. 2572/H.R. 5497 (Title 1)] Amends the Bail Reform Act of 1966 to permit consideration of danger to the community in setting pretrial release conditions, to eliminate surety bond, to permit pretrial detention of certain offenders, and for other purposes. Introduced July 31, 1981; referred to Committee on Judiciary. Reported Mar. 4, 1982 (S.Rept. 97-317). S. 1630 (Thurmond, Biden et a1.) [Related bills: H.R. 1647, H.R. 5679, H.R. 5703] Revises Title 18 of the U.S. Code. Transfers criminal penalty provisions of the Controlled Substances Act to the revised title. Makes substantive changes in penalties for drug law violations, notably: (1) specification of CRS- s I IB75o5l UPDATE-06/24/82 a mandatory penalty for trafficking in an opiate, and (2) an increase in maximum penalties generally. S. 1630 introduced Sept. 17, 1981; referred to Committee on Judiciary. Reported Jan. 25, 1982 (S.Rept. 97-307). S. 1907 (Roth, Rudman, Cohen, Nunn, and Chiles) [(Re1ated bills: H.R. 5044-5045, H.R. 5497/s. 2572 (Title IX)] Amends the Currency and Foreign Transaction Reporting Act (1) to prohibit the attempted transport out of the United States of monetary instruments exceeding $10,000 (raised from the current $5,000) absent the prior filing of a report with the Treasury Department, (2) to authorize rewards to informants providing original information on a major violation of the act, and (3) to increase the penalties and fines for failure to file the required currency reports. Amends the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) to include criminal violations of the Currency and Foreign Transaction Reporting Act within the categories of criminal acts defined as "racketeering activities." Introduced Dec. 3, 1981; referred to Committee on Finance. s. l95l (Bentsen) [Related bills: s. 2572/H.R. 5497 (Title III)] Eliminates distinction between criminal penalties for dealing in narcotic and nonnarcotic substances (Schedules I and II of the Controlled Substances Act). Introduced Dec. 14, 1981; referred to Committee on Judiciary. S. 1639 (Thurmond, Hatch, Kennedy, Denton, Laxalt, and Specter) Extradition Act of 1981. Amends existing law to facilitate the implementation of extradition treaties with other countries. Introduced Sept. 18, 1981; referred to Committee on Judiciary. S. 2320 (Thurmond, by request) [Related bills: H.R. 2646, H.R. 4110, H.R. 5371, s. ll25, s. 2195, s. 2572/H.R. 5497 (Title vI)] Amends both 18 U.S.C. 1963 (a provision of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) and the Controlled Substances Act to provide for the criminal forfeiture of the proceeds of racketeering activity, to provide for the sanction of criminal forfeiture for all felony drug offenses, to facilitate forfeitures in drug related and racketeering cases, and for other puposes. Introduced Mar. 31, 1982; referred to Judiciary. S. 2543 (chiles, Nunn, Randolph et al.) _Crime Control Act of 1982. Title I - Organized Crime Enforcement Among other things, (1) grants limited Federal jurisdiction over cases involving contract killings or murder for hire; (2) amends the obstruction of justice statute to cover informants and potential witnesses as well as witnesses who actually are under subpoena to testify; (3) amends the Freedom of Information Act to increase protection of information that would identify confidential informants; (4) permits Federal judges to seal those portions of wiretap documents that could reveal ongoing criminal investigations or wire intercepts. Title ll — Bail Reform [see s. 2572/H.R. 5497 (Title 1)] CRS- 9 IB7606l UPDATE-O6/24/82 Specifies that in setting the conditions of release of persons charged with rafficking in certain narcotics and other dangerous drugs the judicial officer shall consider the danger the defendant might pose to the community if released. Sets forth circumstances in which a drug law offender should be denied release prior to trial. Title III —- Sentencing Increases penalties for persons who commit violent crimes and for persons convicted of smuggling large amounts of marihuana. Title IV —— Habeas Corpus Reform Revises Federal habeas corpus statutes by eliminating purely technical challenges to convictions fairly arrived at in a State court. Introduced May 19, 1982; placed on the Senate calendar. S. 2565 (Nunn, Grassley, Dole, Roth,p Chiles, and Rudman)/H.R. 6475 (Rangel, Conable, Gibbons, Pickle et al.) [Related bills: S. 732, S. lOlO, S. 1891, H.R. 1502] Amends Internal Revenue Code for the general purpose of removing impediments to cooperation by the Internal Revenue Service with other Federal law enforcement agencies. S. 2565 introduced May 25, 1982; referred to Committee on Finance. H.R. 6475 introduced May 25, 1982; referred to Zommittee on ways and Means. S. 2572 (Thurmond, Biden et al.)/H.R. 6497 (Mcclory et al.) Violent Crime and Drug Enforcement Improvement Act of l982. The following titles or provisions have significance in terms of the enforcement of laws controlling dangerous drugs: Title I. Bail Reform (See S. 1554) Amends the Bail Reform Act of l966 to -- among other things -- (1) permit danger to the community to be considered in determining whether to release a defendant pending trial, or, if release is appropriate, in determining conditions for release (specifies a presumption that an individual is a danger to the community if he has committed a serious drug trafficking offense), (2) establish a procedure for revocation of release, and contempt-of-court prosecution, for committing a crime while on release; (3) tighten the criteria for postconviction release pending sentencing and appeal; (4) provide for consecutive sentencing of persons convicted of crimes committed on pretrial release; and (5) increase penalties for jumping bail. Title II. Witness-Victim Protection (See S. 2420) Makes it a crime -- punishable by 6 years in prison or $25,000 or both -— to. hinder or harm any victim or witness who is involved in the criminal justice process or to retaliate against such a person after completion of the process. Also makes it a crime to retaliate against a victim or witness after completion of the criminal justice process. CRS-lO IB7606l UPDATE-O6/24/82 Title III. Controlled Substances Penalties Amends both the Controlled Substances Act and the Controlled. Substances Import and Export Act to: (1) increase the maximum prison penalties for trafficking in large (specified) amounts of an opiate, cocaine, phencyclidine (PCP), or LSD; (2) increase the fine level for trafficking in any (controlled substance; (3) increase prison penalties and fines for trafficking iin any amount of most non-narcotic substances in Schedules I or II (includes LSD and PCP); (4) increase penalties for trafficking in marihuana in amounts ranging from 50 to 454 kilograms; and (5) permit State and foreign felony drug convictions to be considered under the enhanced sentencing provisions for repeat drug offenders. Title V. Sentencing Reform (See S. 1630) Amends both 18 U.S.C. 1963 (a provision of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) and the Controlled Substances Act to provide for criminal forfeiture of the proceeds of racketeering activity, to provide for the sanction of criminal forfeiture for all felony drug offenses, to facilitate forfeitures in drug=related and racketeering cases, and for. other purposes. Title VI Criminal Forfeiture. (See S. 2320) Amends both 18 U.S.C. l963 (a provision of they Racketeer Influenced_ and Corrupt Organizations Act) and the Controlled Substances Act to provide for criminal forfeiture of the proceeds of racketeering activity, to provide for the sanction of criminal forfeiture for all felony drug offenses, to facilitate forfeitures in drug-related and racketeering cases, and for other purposes. M ’ O W ,. . «.4 Title IX. Miscellaneous qriminal Justice Improvements Among other things, (1) raises to $100,000, the ceiling on the value of personal property that may be seized by the Government under administrative forfeiture procedures when customs or narcotic and dangerous drug laws have been violated; (2) amends the Currency and Foreign Transaction Reporting Act to make it more difficult to transfer or transport out of the ‘country currency generated by drug trafficking (see S. 1907); (3) makes it a ,Federal offense to commit robbery against a pharmacy for the purpose of securing a narcotic drug, an amphetamine or a barbiturate listed in Schedules I :through IV under the Controlled Substances Act —- subject to penalties of up‘ to lo years imprisonment and/or $5,000; and (4) amends the Controlled Substances Act to provide for additional penalties for a drug trafficking offense if the offense takes place on or within 1,000 feet of a school or its premises. S. 2572 introduced May 26, 1982; placed on _the Senate calendar. H.R. 6497 introduced May 26, I982; referred to Committee on the Judiciary. ' HEARINGS U.S. Finan CRS-ll IB7606l UPDATE-O6/24/82 Congress. House. Select Committee on Narotics Abuse and Control. gBail reform and narcotics cases. Hearing, 97th Congress, lst session. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1981. 117 p. Cocaine: a major drug issue of the seventies. Hearings, 96th Congress, lst session. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1980. 142 p. Federal drug strategy: prospects for the 1980's. Hearing, 96th Congress, 2d session. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1980. 164 pa Federal drug strategy-1981. Hearing, 97th Congress, 1st session. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1982. 54 p. cial investigation of drug trafficking. 1st session. Washington, U.S. Govt. Hearing, Print. Off., 97th Congress, 1981. 150 p. Impact Of Federal budget cuts on local narcotics l&W enforcement. Hearing, 97th Congress, lst session. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1981. 99 p. Investigation of narcotics trafficking proceeds (Chicago, Ill.). Hearings, 95th Congress, lst session. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1978. 289 p. csentencing practices and alternatives in narcotics cases. Hearing, 97th Congress, lst session- Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1981. 108 p. Senate. Committee on Appropriations. Subcommittee Justice, Commerce, the Judiciary, and Related Federal drug enforcement and supply control efforts. Congress. on State, Agencies. ‘Hearing, 96th Congressfflst session. Washington, U.S. Govt. “Print. Off., 1980. 325 p. Congress. Senate. Committee on Government Operations. U3 %‘session. 1980. Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. Illegal narcotics profits. Hearings, 96th Congress, December 1979. Washington, U.S. Govt. 507 p. lst Print. Off., ‘International narcotics trafficking. lst session. November 1981. 1981. 630 p. Hearings... Washington, U.S. 97th Congress, Govt. Print. Off., Congress. Senate. Committee on Government Operations. Subcommittee on Reorganization, Research, and International Organizations. Hearings, 93d Congress, 1st session. April 1973. 2 parts. Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1973. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1973. CRS-I2‘ IB7606l UPDATE-O6/24/82 U.S. Congress. Senate. Committeerfin the Judiciary: ”943**“ Subcommittee on Constitutiona15RighEs?“~ "‘7’ V, »w~~H . Preventive detention. Hearings, 91§t Congressffi2§*sessfion;‘*~ May”and June 1970. Washington, u.s. Govt. Print.*dff3f‘ Tim 1970. 1355 p. “M ywrh ‘ 1* -———- Speedy trial. Hearings, 93d Congress, lst session. April 1973. Washington, U.S. Govt; print; Off., 1973. ” U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary. Subcommittee on Criminal Justice. Forfefture of narcotics proceeds. Hearings, 96th Congress, Zdisession. Washington, U.S. GOVt. Print. Off., l98l. l65 p. 7 .% U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on the*Judiciary;‘*Subcofimf€tee on Criminal Laws and Procedures. Reform of the Federaf”5’;;:” criminal 1aw§. Hearings,”9§d Congress,*2d session} on S. f‘ and s. 1400. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1974. 4’ “" 6805-7672 p. A Part 10—~Provision relating to attemptfifcomplicity, conspiracy, drugs, government*operations;alndians, insanity, intoxicationg jurisdiction, national security, obscenity, and offenses 7" F” against the person. - N U.s. Congress. Senate.* Committee on the Judfcfary. Subcommittee to Investigate Juvenile Delinquency. I ‘""" A" 9* . '7“ stopping "mother_ships“_+% a 1oopho1e*in“drug égfofcemene. ; Hearing,?95th Congress; 2d session, ofi?S:5§437.?°Aug:"22f 1979. Washington, U.s. Govt. taint. Off., 1978. 11fe?p. ’ P “T * REPORTS AND CONGRESSIONAE DOCUMENTS * 7 ~ *“ ‘ ifi U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Government 6fierati5ns:“*” '” [Dis]approving Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1973 (Drug V AW Enforcement Administratiofiff report to"accompany;H.Res. 38§§“W Washington, fi.S;3§ovt. Print? Off., 1973. 30 p. fl(93d Congress, lst session.7Hofi§e. Report no. 9332§9)7‘I ‘ "f :7 “ " U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Interstate and Foreign f Commerce. ” Comprehensive firug Abuse Prevention and"Contro1%! ”" Act of 1970; report to accompany HZR.”18583L Washington," fm' U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1970.1 (91sE congress, 2d §egs:on:~ House. Report no. 91-1444) 2 parts. House. Committee on the Judiciary. Criminal Code Revision Actmogfiiiia 1980. Report to accompany H.R. 6915. Washington, U.S. Govt.,Jmi, Print. Off., 1980:» 758 fife (sstfi Congress; 2d”ses§ion. “Hou§éE~ 4 Report no. 96=i396)' I I" 5 A ' " d" 7 " U.S. Congress. Housei °Se1ect Committee on Narcotics Abuse and Control. money laundering in Chicago. Off., February 1978. 43 p. At head of title: 95th Congress, print. _ "Serial no. SCNAC-95-l-l6" Investigation of narcotics trafficking and Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. lst session. Committee CRS-l3- IB7606l UPDATE-O6/24/82 ----- Problems of law enforcement and its effort to reduce the level of drug trafficking in South Florida. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., August l978. l9 p. .p,.. - - At head of title: 95th Congress, 2d session. Committeesg print. ~ A "Serial no. SCNAC—95~2w5" -»——- Summary of testimony and findings and conclusions resulting from oversight hearings on narcotic abuse and control; interim report. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., Mar. 1, 1977. .97 p. (95th Congress, lst session. House. Report no. 95132) U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Government Operations. Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. Federal narcotics enfofcément; interim report. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1976. l9l p.j (94th Congress, 2d session. Senate. Report no. 94~1o39) ' ' --—~a Illegal narcotics profits. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print “Off., 1980 l44 p., 996th Congress, 2d session. Senate Report no. 96-887$ A V - 3 U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Government Operations. Subcommittee on Reorganization, Research, and International Organizations. Reorganization Plan No. 2, establishing a Drug Enforcement Administration in the Department of Justice. “Washington. U.S. Govt. Print. Off., l973.r.58 p. (93d Congress, “lst session. Senate. [Report no. 935469) .. U.S.. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary. Controlled Dangerous Substances Act of 1969; report to accompany S. 3246. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1969. 165 p. (9lst Congress, lst session. ,senate-.fiReport no. 9l¢6l3) U.S. Congress. Senate-i Committee on the Judiciary. Criminal ,Code Reform Act of l979;;report to accompany S. 1722. "Washington, u.s. Govt. Bfiint. Off.,:l980. isgzgp. 1 (96th Congress, 2d session. Senate. Report no. 96-553) ~=-we Criminal Code Refonm:Act of l98l; report to accompany S. 1630. Washington. U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1982. l569 p. 5 (97th,Congress, lst session. Senate. Report no. 97-307) CHRONOLOGE OF EVENTS O5/26/62 -4 An omnibus crime and drug control bill 16. 2572/H.R. 9% 6497) was introduced in both the Senate and the House. Sponsored by a number of committee chairmen and ranking minority Members, the.Senate bill was’placed. directly on the calendar. 9 MW_ 3 . O5/2l/82 -— The National Narcotics Intelligence Consumers Committee (NNICC) released its report on drug trafficking in l980. The retail value of drugs supplied to the pp yillicit U.S. market in l98O was in the range of $79 cRs-fi4“e*- 1375051 UPDATE-O6/24/82 billion, according to the report, up from $§5tb;llion¢_;w .Lfl‘l979g’ Increases in estimaiebjcocaine and marihuana ‘;imports.accounted for most’offthefdi§fer§hce;in the -a_ _r .. "'0 \ totals“foT the two yearsb i““< 2 . . .-~ , Ol/28/82 —v:President Reagan announced theiestablishment;of a special task force to combat illicit drug traffic in South Florida. Composed of officials from a number -of Federal agencies, who will work with State and local authorities, the‘task’forcé is headed by Vice President Bush.‘ ’ 5” *‘7°‘ i% ‘ ’ Ol/21/82 —= The Attorney General announced that the FBl had been given concurrent jurisdiction with the Drug Enforgementaw '§Agency (DEA) over thé9investigation of Yiolations of iiFederaIfdangerous drug laws. ”The DEA Administrator will reportfito the Attorney General tnrdugn_£né Efif Director. l2/Ol/81 ~- The President signed P.L. 97-sq, which contains a provision 2:,~e¢“~authorizing'certainrfiinds Qfgcoopegafiionwbyflthe Armed Services igiwiuneciviiian law énfdficement autnqfifliés far specific fie rpumposespfiincluding'drugffaf7énfiot¢éW§fif~7* .nJ€ O8/l9/81 =~ The final report of the Attorney General's Task Force on Violent Crime was released. The reportyni ”M«., ;3b,,, emphag1zeg=gfi§ seriousness of illiditjdrug¢traffic and gwryxmtneqimportanoeFofiaiclear‘and,consistengbenforfiement ggiigygmefieoommendations includedr§u§§oYfi;ofythe;use of herbicides for drug crop”erad1catioh,‘supbort for the use of military resources for drug interdiction, and calls for changes in law and practiceiyith_ree§eptUi;,%* to bail, sentencing, and exclusion o¥*evidencef“” “”””Ww”“W‘l O6/19/8l;r“'The”Justice"Department"annbhntedfithatiihewFBlgs;§hiefg,3 investigatotiof organized trimé,“?téfitlé M, laud) ” Mullen Jr., would be named acting administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration. - r -*h'- ~.. M06/16/31‘-x- +:- a~~~*~ " ‘ . V ‘ ' ' a * . ' . ‘ H ,._ . -l..- L ; ) . ‘ .1 Q" A .,.' ._.. .- ~.. , ,_J 3.» * ' .__.,z . 09/25/80 -9 House Judiciary Committee re§orted¢fi.E,‘69l5,,,5iN~£¢ xthercriminal code revision bill, ”””“W ' .~o. I ’- 1.. 77; .. J. A.;». Ol/17/80,4? The Senate Judiciary Committee refiortedim S, 1722, a bill for reform of theufiederal Criminal 3% sfcodeé 3 no? " r’:§i¢. ¥“7w ’:””i‘~ i':’1ii_i , _ _ L _,_ y.‘ ., . . y ,1... n >_ A . ..’. .v, . .- ' ~, '1 ‘ "" ‘ " '\> H- . ya‘ " "' ‘ ". ‘ ~.. «- H» V ‘-4 " - ~" ’ - . .r~> > I , ‘ . - AU‘ .. ~ ~—, ..-~- . s ~"‘ _ - .-' .—- - 1“: . .' an-I ’ O1/30/78 —— Senate passed?s:31435, iméfidéa,1a bill fgfifieféfimfigée ofi the Federal Cf£fiinal”Qod¢é’ L" W «A u» v O8/O2/77 -- Congress received Presidential message on drug“ 5,7,; abuse announcing general policy émgnases; the "y_‘,, ;aoutline“of’a5fortficoming Administration narcoticsyyw trafficking control bill, andfisupport for the , ,¢ concept of Federal fdecfiminalization" of_possessiony ix oi small amounts of marihuana (H.Doc. 95-ZOOTQ oj/29 O7/Ol O2/O7 ld/Z7 O4/O8 cRsa;5__, IB7606l UPDATE—O6/24/82 ...> vuu n ‘I: “ "“ ‘~ ' ' ' > , : : ' «-4- ~ ‘-1 3 .-. 2 M ,1 ‘..'. .~. . :. .. /7E3t%“fibuse voted to establish the Select Committee on 5753“ Narcotics Abuse_and Control, charged with conducting h7a general investigation of Federal drug abuse .7 control efforts and with making recommendations for appropriate action to the standing committeesewith relevant jurisdiction, /73 s The Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs and several ‘other agencies were merged into the Drug Enforcement Administration, by Reorganization Elan No. 2 of 1973. The new agency absorbed a number of Customs Bureau officials. _ My W, 2 /72;—é?p£ésiesnp signedlthe Foreign Assistance Act of 1971 77 *(§{D§f9gf226);"Qhich contained a provisioneestablishing i‘5a program of assistance designed to encourage“ "*intern§tional narcotics control. "51 ‘ /7d“¥- President signedthe Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention M i°*‘ and Control Act of 1970, an omnibus Dill containing the Contbqlled Substances Act, which consolidated and revised the fieastai narcotics and dangerous drug control laws. ~ A ~ * The Federal Bureau of Narcotics (Tneasury Department) and the*Bpreah of brugpAbuse control (flfiwlvwenewmerged ‘“into a hey sgehey in the Justiqe Department,.the ’ fBureau of ysfcptibs and Dangerous Drugs.,.~~% v~ /68 -5 ADDITIONALVRETERENCD sohncfi§;ii_ Morgan , Research Triangle Institute. H. Wayne,W Drugs in America, A social history; -l800—l§80. Syrabusél N?Y-7”Syracuse”Universityfipress, l98le:u233 p. "Drug use and crime: report of the panel on drug use and oriminal behavior. Washington,eD.s.:DepartmentJbf Commerce; September l§?6:;‘5él'p..ij§reparedei9r the National Institute on Drug‘Abuse;“reproduced by the National Technical Information Service under series number PB-259 l6?) (LRS76-17535) Department of‘Justice.“*Attorney,General's Task Force on Violent Crime. Final report. Wwashington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., Aug. 17, 1931. -94 p, -. if « ;~»~~1 “ 7 I.‘ ‘ A,.,/ '1'“ :.-- ‘_ .' ..,. W.-.. ,~~ . - 11- . I» ~,\.\ .-_“ ~o-Q » ’ GeneraliAécounting Office. 4Drug control in South America having limited success»-some progress but problems are formidable; report to the Congress by the comptrollerr Geneal of the United States. [Washington] l9%8. .37 p. "GGD-78—45, Mar. 29, l978" (LRS78-5366) . 1;, .= “ "“ ‘ ‘ Efforts to stop narcotics;andii’ pkflg ywpm . dangerous drugs coming from and through Mexico a America (Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of; Justice, Department of State); report to the Congress by the Comptroller General of the United States. [Washington] J nd Central ~case1B~