JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AMENDMENT
Document Type:
Collection:
Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST):
CIA-RDP85-00003R000100020006-9
Release Decision:
RIFPUB
Original Classification:
K
Document Page Count:
30
Document Creation Date:
December 21, 2016
Document Release Date:
October 24, 2008
Sequence Number:
6
Case Number:
Publication Date:
July 14, 1981
Content Type:
OPEN SOURCE
File:
Attachment | Size |
---|---|
CIA-RDP85-00003R000100020006-9.pdf | 5.05 MB |
Body:
14 4280
Approve
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD' HOUSE, July 14, 1981
RECORDED VOTE-
Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I
demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic
device and there were-ayes 109, noes
311, not voting 12, as follows:
(Roll No. 1281
AYES-109
'
Addabbo
Garcia
Peyser
Atkinson
Oilman
Pursell
AuColn
Gonzalez
Rangel
Bailey (MO)
Gray
Ratchford
Bellenson
Hall (OH)
Reuss
Bingham
Heckler
Richmond
Bolling
Hightower
Rodino
Bonior
Hollenbeck
Rosenthal
Brodhead
Horton
Rostenkowski
Brooks
Howard
Roybal
Brown (CA)
Hughes
Russo
Burton, John
Jacobs
Sabo
Burton, Phillip
Kastenmeier
Scheuer
Chisholm
Kildee
Schroeder
Clay
Kogovsek
Schumer
Clinger
LaF'alce
Seiberling
Collins (IL)
Leland
Simon
Conte ?
Long (MD)
Smith (IA)
Conyers
Lowry (WA)
Solatz
Coyne, William
Markey
St Germain
Crockett
Matsui
Stark
Danielson
Mattox
Stokes
Dellums
Mikulski
Studds
DeNardis
Minish
Synar
Dingell
Mitchell (MD)
Traxler
Dixon
Moakley
Vento
Dwyer
Moffett
Walgren
Eckart
Mottl
Washington
Edgar
Murphy
Waxman
Edwards (CA)
Oakar '
Weaver
English
- Oberstar
Weiss
Evans (IN) .
Obey
Whitten
Fnscell
Ottinger
Wirth
Ferraro
Patman
Wolpe
Fish
Patterson
Yates
Florio
Paul
Frank
Pease
Akaka
Clausen
Fazio
Albosta
Coats
Fenwlck
Alexander
Coelho
Fiedler
Anderson
Coleman
Fields
Andrews
Collins (TX)
Findley
Annunzio
Conablc
Flippo
Anthony
Corcoran
Foglletta
Applegate
Coughlin
Foley
Archer
Courter
Ford (TN)
Ashbrook
Coyne, James
Forsythe
Arpin
Craig
Fountain
liadham
Crane, Daniel
Fowler
Bafalls
Crane. Philip
Frenzel
Dailey (PA)
D'Amours
Frost
Barnard
Daniel, Dan
Fuqua
Barnes
Daniel, R. W.
Gaydos
Beard
Dannemeyer
Gejdenson
Bedell
Daschle
Gephardt
Benedict
Daub
Gibbons
Benjamin
Davis
Gingrich
Bennett
de Is Garza
Ginn
Bereuter
Deckard
Glickman
Bethune
Derwinski
Goldwater
Bevill
Dickinson
Goodling,
Biaggi
Dicks
Gore
Blanchard
Donnelly
Gradison
Bliley
Dorgan
Gramm
Boggs
Dornan
Green
Boland
Dougherty
Gregg
Boner
Dowdy
Grisham
Bouquard
Downey
Guarini
Bowen
Dreier
Gunderson
Breaux
Duncan
Hagedorn
Brinkley
Dunn
Hall, Ralph
Broomfield
Dyson
Hall, Sam
Brown (CO)
Early
Hamilton
Brown (OH)
Edwards (AL)
Hammernchmidt
Broyhill
Edwards (OK)
Hance
Burgener
Emerson
Hansen (ID)
Butler
Emery
Hansen (UT)
Byron
lydnhl
Harkin
Campbell
Erlenboni
Hartnett
Carman
Ertel
Hatcher
Carney
Evans (DE)
Hefner
Chappell
Evans (GA)
Bethel
Chapple
Evans (IA)
Hendon
Cheney
Fary
Hertel
Hller McGrath Shannon
Hillis McHugh Sharp
Holland McKinney Shaw
Holt Mica Shelby
Hopkins Michel Shumway
Hoyer Miller (011) Shuster
Hubbard Mineta Slljander
Huckaby Mitchell (NY) Skeen
Hunter Molinari Skelton
Hutto Mollohan Smith (AL)
Hyde Montgomery Smith (NE)
Ireland Moore Smith (NJ)
Jeffords Moorhead Smith (OR)
Jeffries Morrison Snowe
Jenkins Murtha Snyder
Jones (OK) Myers Solomon
Jones (TN) Napier Spence
Kazen Natcher Stangeland
Kemp Neal Stanton
Kindness Nelligan? Staten
Kramer Nelson Stenholm
Lagomarsino Nichols Stratton
Lantos Nowak Stump
Latta O'Brien Swift
Leach Panetta Tauke
Leath Parris Tauzin
LeBoutillier Pashayan Taylor
Lee Pepper Thomas
Lehman Perkins Trible
Lent Petri Udall
Levitas Pickle Vander Jagt
Lewis Porter Volkmer
Livingston Price Walker
Loeffler Pritchard Wampler
Long (LA) Quillen Watkins
Lott Rahall Weber (MN)
Lowery (CA) Railsback Weber (OH)
Lujan Regula White
Luken Rhodes Whitehurst
Lundine Rinaldo Whitley
Lungren Ritter Whittaker
Madigan Roberts (KS) Williams (MT)
Marks Roberts (SD) Williams (OH)
Marlenee Robinson Wilson
Marriott Roe Winn
Martin (IL) Roemer Wolf
Martin (NC) Rogers Wortley
Martin (NY) Rose Wright
Mavroules Roth Wyden
Mazzoli Roukema Wylie
McClory Roussclot Yatron
McCloskey Rudd Young (AK)
McCollum Sawyer Young (FL)
McCurdy Schneider Young (MO)
McDade Schulze Zablocki
McDonald Sensenbrenner Zeferetti
McEwen Shamansky
Banker
Cotter
Derrick
Dytnally
NOT VOTING-12
Fithian- Jones (NC)
Ford (MI) Miller (CA)
Hawkins Santini
Johnston Savage
The Clerk announced the following
pairs:
Mr. Miller of California for, with Mr.
Jones of North Carolina against.
Messrs. PEPPER, FOUNTAIN, and
EVANS of Georgia changed their
votes from "aye" to "no."
Mr. STOKES changed his vote from-
"no" to "aye."
So the Government Operations
Committee amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was an-
nounced as above recorded.
^ 1400
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AMENDMENT
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will
report the Judiciary Committee
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Judiciary Committee amendment: Page
43, strike out line 12 and all that follows
through line 17 on page 45 and insert in lieu
thereof the following:
CHAPTER 18-MILITARY COOPERA-
TION WITH CIVILIAN LAW ENFORCE-
MENT OFFICIALS
Sec.
371. Use of information obtained by mem-
bers of. the Army, Navy, Air Force, and
Marine Corps.
372. Use of Army, Navy, Air Force, and
Marine Corps equipment and facilities.
373, Training and advising civilian law en-
forcement officials.
374. Regulations.
375. Military personnel assistance.
?371. Use of information obtained by mem-
bers of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and
Marine Corps
The Secretary of Defense may, ii. accord-
ance with other applicable law, provide to
Federal, State, or local law enforcement of-
ficials any -information collected during the
normal course of military operations that
may be relevant to a violation of any Feder-
al or State law within the, jurisdiction of
such officials.
?372. Use of Army, Navy, Air Force, and
Marine Corps equipment and facilities
The Secretary of Defense may, in accord-
ance with other applicable law, make availa-
ble any equipment, base facility, or research
facility of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or
Marine Corps to any Federal, State, or local
civilian law enforcement official for law en-
forcement purposes,
? 373. Training and advising civilian law en-
forcement officials
The Secretary of Defense may assign
members of the Army. Navy, Air Force, and
Marine Corps to train Federal, State, and
local civilian law enforcement officials in
the operation and maintenance of equip-
ment made available under section 372 of
this title and to provide expert advice rele-
vant to the purposes of this chapter.
? 374. Regulations
(a) The Secretary of Defense shall issue
such regulations as may be necessary to
assure that the provision of any assistance,
or the provision of any equipment or fariii-
ty, to any law enforcement official under
this chapter does not-
. (1) adversely affect the military prepared-
ness of the United States; or
(2) include or permit direct participation
by any member of the Army, Navy, Air
Force, or Marine Corps In any search and
seizure, arrest, or other similar activity
unless participation in such activity by such
member is otherwise authorized by law.
(b) The Secretary of Defense shall issue
regulations providing that reimbursement
may be a condition of assistance to any law
enforcement official under this chapter.
?375. Military personnel assistance
The Secretary of Defense, upon request
from the head of a Federal agency with ju-
risdiction to enforce the Controlled Sub-
stances Act or the Controlled Substances
Import and Export Act, may assign mem-
bers of the Army, Navy, ' Air Force, or
Marine Corps to operate, and maintain or
assist such agency's law. enforcement offi-
cials in operating and maintaining equip-
ment made available under section 372 of
this title with respect to any violation of the
Controlled Substances Act or the, Controlled.
Substances Import and Export Act.
Mr. HUGHES [during the reading],
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous con-
sent that the Judiciary Committee
amendment be considered 'as read,
printed in the RECORD, and open to
amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
New Jersey?
There was no objection.
Approved For Release 2008/10/24: CIA-RDP85-00003ROO0100020006-9
Approved For Release 2008/10/24: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100020006-9
July 14, 1981
Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike the last word.
(Mr. HUGHES asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, the
amendment now before the House to
section 908 of H.R. 3519 is the result
of a sequential referral of this section
to the Committee on the Judiciary.
This amendment differs substantively
in several respects from the approach
taken in the version of the bill report-
ed by the Armed Services Committee.
Let me attempt to succinctly outline
the differences between the two ap-
proaches and the public policy impli-
cations of each.
As I said yesterday, and'as was noted
by all of the other speakers during the
general debate on this question, we are
deeply indebted to our colleague
CHARLES BENNETT. His leadership in
this area is commendable. The Judici-
ary Committee started with the sug-
gestions he had developed. As good as
his suggestions were, however, there
were a number of refinements which
were necessary.
The version of section 908 found in
the Armed Services bill was the result
of an amendment offered in commit-
tee and without any hearings. While
virtually everyone in the areas of drug
law enforcement agreed that changes
in the so-called Posse Comitatus Act
were necessary, there was very little
focus on the exact parameters of the
changes to be made. The Bennett ap-
proach had never been scrutinized by
the Departments of Defense or Jus-
tice, the agencies most affected by
these proposals.
The Committee on the Judiciary's
Subcommittee on Crime held hearings
on these proposals. Most of the wit-
nesses found merit in the Idea of clari-
fying the types of indirect assistance
which can be rendered to civilian law
enforcement authorities. Both the De-
partment of Defense and the Depart-
ment of Justice, however, strongly op-
posed the suggestion that the military
become Involved directly in the proc-
ess of arresting and seizing drug law
violators. Both agencies established to
the satisfaction of the committee that
there was no need to give the military
this authority. The types of law en-
forcement missions which are involved
in the interdiction of drug smugglers
and the like inevitably will involve the
presence of DEA, Customs, or Coast
Guard personnel. These civilian au-
thorities are trained to make arrests
and seizures, thus there is no need .to
involve the military directly.
Both Justice and Defense opposed
Mr. BENNETT'S proposed section 375
because the military was not trained
to be directly involved in making ar-
rests. This lack of training has at least
three potential adverse consequences:
First, t'-.e military could make mis-
takes in effectuating the seizures or
arrests and the arrests could be thown
out by a court.
CONGRESSIONAL. RECORD - HOUSE
Second, the military, who are
trained and prepared to engage in
combat and to operate outside the
limitations which we have placed on
civilian law enforcement, could be
tempted to use --excessive force to
achieve the arrests or seizures.
Third, training of the military to
make these arrests would be costly
and inevitably divert the military from
its primary mission of defending this
county. Because the military would be
unable to anticipate which vessels or
aircraft and personnel would be called
upon to make arrests, virtually all of
them would have to be trained to
make these arrests. This type of train-
ing would take time and resources
from our military preparedness. As- an
active participant in arrest, search and
seizure they would be subjected to the
constraints of a primary witness in the
judicial process.
The Committee on the Judiciary
carefully evaluated this testimony and
agreed to reject the arrest authority
suggested by Mr. BENNETT. The Judici-
ary Committee version is supported by
the Justice Department and, with the
White amendment, also by the De-
fense Department, and is virtually
identical to the provisions in the au-
thorization bill already adopted by the
Senate.
No one in Federal or State law en-
forcement, including the Justice De-
partment, former Attorney General
Griffin Bell-who is currently cochair-
man of the Attorney General's Violent
Crime Task Force-Customs, DEA, or
Coast Guard has suggested that the
military be given the arrest authority.
-The Bennett approach is opposed by
an unlikely alliance of the Depart-
ments of Justice, Defense, and the
American Civil Liberties Union. The
approach taken by the Judiciary Com-
mittee on the other hand, gives law
enforcement all the tools they need
and all that they have asked for.
Mr. Chairman, adoption of the pro-
visions found in the Bennett version of
section 908 would cause unnecessary
controversy and could have substan-
tially serious adverse consequences.
Therefore, the House should heed the
advice of those who call' for restraint
in making drastic or dramatic changes
in the fundamental law of our country
with respect to the balance between
military and civilian spheres by adopt-
ing the amendment offered by the Ju-
diciary Committee
Before concluding, I would like to
clarify several other points of differ-
ence between the Judiciary Committee
amendment and the provisions of the
Bennett version. First,. in response to
the concerns of the Committee on
Government Operations, several tech-
nicwl-but important-changes were
made to assure that the process by
which information shared by the mili-
tary with civilians is governed by the
provisions of existing law such as the
Privacy Act. This change was also sup-
ported by the Department of Justice
and Defense. In addition, a similar
I1 4281
change was made In proposed section
372 with respect to the disposition of
equipment.and other property by the
military. As written, Mr. BENNETT'S ap-
proach would have the effect of over-
turning decades of congressional en-
actments with respect to the proce-
dures for property. disposal or. loans..
Thus, the Judiciary Committee
amendment meets these problems and
satisfies the objections of the Commit-
tee on Government Operations in this
regard.
Finally, I should point out that the
Judiciary Committee amendment has
been carefully fine tuned. Under the
Bennett version, the Coast Guard is
made subservient to the Secretary of
Defense during peacetime for certain
purposes. This change in command au-
thority and Cabinet structure was
probably not done by design; however.
this unintended result is a good exam-
ple of why legislation should be devel-
oped first at the subcommittee level
and generally only after a set of hear-
ings.
Mr. Chairman, I must add in closing
that after the House hears from my
distinguished colleague from Michigan
on this matter, we expect to hear from
our colleague from Texas with a per-
fecting amendment. For the reasons to
be propounded by the gentleman, we
are prepared to gladly accept his
amendment.
I hope that you will support the
amendment offered by the Committee
on the Judiciary.
l7 1410
Mr. ZEFERETTI. Will the gentle-
man yield?
Mr. HUGHES. I am happy to yield
to my colleague from New York (Mr.
ZEFERETTI).
Mr. ZEFERETTI. I thank the gen-
tleman for yielding. I want to com-
mend the gentleman for his statement
that he just made and want to asso-
ciate myself with his remarks. If there
ever was a time that we are going to
break through this drug trafficking
problem that we have with this drug
industry that regulates some $70 bil-
lion in this country, I think now is the
time. If we are ever going to have the
tools necessary to make that effort a
sincere one, it is by using that kind of
assistance from the military. But I
agree with the gentleman wholeheart-
edly that using the men in the service
is not the answer. It takes a special
kind of skill and profession to do that,
to make an arrest in a proper manner.
In our efforts to make that arrest, if
the men are not trained-and the mili-
tary men would not be trained In that
effort-we could do a lot of damage to
have that effort tie going forward in a
profitable way.
So I want to commend the gentle-
man for his statement and tell him to
go forward and make that amendment
possible, but, along with that, include
the White amendment and make it
possible for our law enforcement
Approved For Release 2008/10/24: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100020006-9
Approved For Release 2008/10/24: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100020006-9
If 4282
people to get the kind of tools neces-
sary to do their Job.
Mr. HUGHES. I thank. the gentle-
man for his significant contribution.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from New Jersey has ex-'
pired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. HUGHES
was allowed to proceed for 3 additional
minutes.)
Mr. HUGHES. I commend the gen-
tleman from New York (Mr. ZEF-
ERETTI). He has demonstrated a great
deal of leadership as chairman of the
Select Committee on Narcotics. The
gentleman has.a background in law
-enforcement. He knows how important
it is to make sure that we have proper
'training or those with the power of
arrest,
Just this morning the gentleman
from Louisiana. BILLY TAuzEN, en-
gaged in a colloquy with the Coast
Guard in our Merchant Marine and
Fisheries Committee, on the subject of
the problems we now run into, even
when the Coast Guard are ? trained to
board and to arrest and to seize, the
myriad of legal entanglements that we
involve ourselves in, even when we
provide training. How in the world can
we train all military personnel in the
law enforcement field to deal with the
problem that will confront them. De-
fense attorneys are looking for any
little mistake to ask our court to
throw out the entire matter. These
drugs cases are extremely important
and we have to make certain that we
know what we are doing when we pro-
vide additional authority, as we are
doing in this bill, so that there is a
role for the military, but a limited one.
Mr. MAZZOLI. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. HUGHES. I am happy to yield
to my colleague from Kentucky (Mr.
MAZZOL'I ).
Mr. MAZZOLI. I thank the gentle-
man for yielding. I would like to com-
mend him for the work that he did in
the full committee and here on the
floor on behalf of the proper kind of
law enforcement. Certainly the drug
problem is one of the most pernicious
in the country and in the world, and I
think the gentleman will actually go
down in history as being one of the
prime movers of a proper response.
I would like to ask the gentleman
one question. I understand in his
statement he has accepted the amend-
ment soon to be offered by the gentle-
man from Texas (Mr. WHITE). If I un-
derstand that amendment, I believe it
extends the reach of the posse comita-
tus to customs matters and immigra-
tion and enforcement. As chairman of
the Immigration Subcommittee of the
House Judiciary Committee, I have to
say that we have never, as a commit-
tee, come to grips with the question of
interdiction, when it should be done,
how it should be done, by what,
method, using which personnel.
I wonder if the gentleman's
subcommittee took that up and what
his argument would be in behalf of ex-
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- HOUSE
tension of this principle to these cases
when, so far as I know, there was not,
at least in our point,. any legislative
history.
Mr. HUGHES. If the gentleman
would bear with me- first first of all the
Justice Department sought the exten-
sion for many very valid reasons, and
we discussed them and debated them
in full committee and decided to come'
down as we did. But often we do not
know what type of investigation we
are dealing with. We may. believe at
first it is a drug-related matter, but
often it turns out to be a drug-related
matter, or immigration matter, or cus-
toms matter, or all three. It could con-
ceivably provide defense counsel with
additional arguments if, in fact, we
extend posse. comitatus, for instance,
in the loaning of the military person-
nel to operate sophisticated equipment
for drug enforcement matters, but not
for immigration matters, which are
often interrelated, as well as customs
matters; so in order to avoid that par-
ticular problem we intend to extend it
to those two other areas. The Justice
Department supports that extension.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from New Jersey has again
expired.
(At the request of Mr. MAZZOLI and
by unanimous consent, Mr. HUGHES
was allowed to proceed for 2 additional
minutes.)
Mr. MAZZOLI. Will the gentleman
from New Jersey yield?
Mr. HUGHES. I yield to the gentle-
man from Kentucky.
Mr. MAZZOLI. I thank the gentle-
man. I will not ask. for further time. 1.
am wondering if the gentleman is sat-
isfied that we are not inadvertently,
by acceptance of the amendment of
the gentleman from Texas, creating a
whole new law which deals with inter-
diction on the high seas which -could
involve foreign policy matters and, in
addition to w
hich, of course, many
constitutional and legal matters arise
in an effort to give proper -attention to
the drug-related crimes? Is the gentle.
man satisfied, having examined all of
these, that we are not going too far?
Mr. HUGHES. I might say to my
colleague that we have given it as
much attention as we can. We have
conducted hearings, as the gentleman
well knows, and heard from the agen-
cies that are impacted and others on
the issue. We have tried to carefully
craft the amendment to take care of
existing needs.
It is my intent as chairman of the
Subcommittee on Crime to take up
posse comitatus either later this year
or early next year to look at the crimi-
nal sanction aspect of it. The matter
was before us on sequential referral
and we were unable to deal with the
penal provisions. -
But I think we have done a relative-
ly decent job of trying to focus in on
just exactly the areas where the mili-
tary can provide assistance 'to the drug
and other agencies.
July 14, 1981
Mr. MAZZOLI. I thank the gentle-
man very much.
Mr. WHITE. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. HUGHES. I yield to the gentle-
man from Texas (Mr. WHITE).
Mr. WHITE. I would say in response
to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr.
MAzzou), I think it is the understand-
ing from the Attorney General's
Office that they were concerned, No.
1, about the matter the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. HUGHES)
brought up about an arrest and then
having a defense in the event that it
turned out to be a different crime.
In addition, I would ask the gentle-
man to understand the amendment I
have relates only to surveillance, the
use of . surveillance equipment, and
monitoring equipment. I think with
the number of people that are coming
into this country in boats, I think they
were interested in the use of naval
facilities and naval surveillance only.
That amendment and the committee
change does not call for arrest or ap-
prehension at all, as the gentleman
would understand.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from New?Jersey has again
expired.
(By .unanimous consent Mr. HUGHES
was allowed to proceed for 3 additional
minutes.)
Mr. HUGHES. I want to say one ad-
ditional thing. The first four sections
basically are a codification essentially
of present practice. Right now the Im-
migration and the Customs Services
do use intelligence information pro-
vided by the military as a matter of
course and they are able, from time to
time, to piggyback with equipment a
routine flight and Customs often uses
that equipment. If, in fact, we exclude
Customs and Immigration, we might
be suggesting by negative implication
that we do not wish to condone what
is, indeed, the present practice. That is
something else that gave us some con-
cern.
Mr. MAZZOLI. Will the gentleman
yield further?
Mr. HUGHES. I yield to the gentle-
man from Kentucky.
Mr. MAZZOLI. I thank the gentle-
man for his indulgence and, in fact, I
thank the committees for their indul-
gence too, because we may be putting
the cart before the horse. But I think
the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
WHITE) said Just a moment ago that
his amendment does not deal with
what was commonly called interdic-
tion. That is a word that has newly
come into the lexicon, but I guess it
means actively intercepting a boat or
some cargo. If I understand the gentle-
man's amendment correctly, which
the gentleman from New Jersey has
accepted, it deals only with surveil-
lance.
But in the event the President, in
his comprehensive plan on immigra-
tion, comes in with a recommendation
for interdiction of ships on the high
Approved For Release 2008/10/24: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100020006-9
Approved For Release 2008/10/24: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100020006-9
July 14, 1981 CONGRESSIONAL. RECORD - HOUSE
seas, the gentleman's amendment
would not influence that. That would
be another piece of legislation which
would have to come before the gentle-
man from Kentucky's committee?
Mr. WHITE. If the gentleman will
yield?
Mr. HUGHES. I am happy to yield
to the gentleman from Texas to re-
spond.
Mr. WHITE. The Judiciary Commit-
tee's amendment, and the amendment
that I have to that, would only permit
use of equipment. I 'presume they
could transport, but as far as arrest
and apprehension and seizure, that
must be done by the existing authori-
ties and not by the military.
Mr. MAZZOLL That would have to
come before,. if I might have' 1 final
second, that type of authority would
have to cone before the House Judici-
ary Committee and its various subcom-
mittees in the event the President rec-
ommends that as a part of his plan; is
that correct?
Mr. HUGHES. That would be cor-
rect.
Mr. EVANS of Georgia. Mr. Chair-
man, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HUGHES. I yield to the gentle-
man from Georgia (Mr. EvANS).
Mr. EVANS of Georgia. I thank the
gentleman for yielding.
In 4 he opinion of the gentleman,
what we would be doing with the
Hughes version of this bill is, as
amended by the White amendment, in
the event we have a situation In which
there were personnel present from the
armed services, present with civilian
law enforcement, under the present
law or under the bill as It would be
amended, could those people assist the
civilian law enforcement in search or
seizure or any of the other?things that
we are not authorizing the military au-
thority to do?
Mr. HUGHES. Under the Bennett
version of the bill, the authority is
granted, provided the Secretary of De-
fense makes the findings that are re-
quired by that section of the, armed
services bill, to permit the military to
make arrests and seizures.
0 1420
Under the Judiciary Committee ap-
proach, what we have tried to avoid is
that confrontational setting.
While we give the authority to pro-
vide equipment and the loan of mili-
tary personnel to operate that equip-
ment, we do not provide for the right
to arrest or seize.
the CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
HUGHES) has expired.
(By unanimous consent. Mr. HUGHES
was allowed to proceed for 1 additional
minute.)
Mr. EVANS of Georgia. If the gen-
tleman will yield further, in the event
that personnel was present and not
sufficient civilian personnel were pres-
ent to effect a search, or whatever,
could the military, under the gentle-
man's version of the bill as amended
by White, assist civilian law enforce-
ment in a&.support capacity to effect
what I have asked?
Mr. HUGHES. Well, we have man-
dated that the support capacity is one
of. providing equipment and personnel
to operate the equipment.
? The law enforcement community
tells us that they have ample person-
nel to provide civilian law enforcement
officials to carry out arrest and seiz-
ure. .
I might any that under the Bennett
version, however, we have a major
blind spot,. in that under the Bennett
version, the military could not provide
the manpower to operate the equip-
ment.
One of the major problems we have
is that the offer of equipment without
military personnel to operate it is an
empty gesture.
. Under the Bennett approach, it
speaks of assisting in arrest or seiz-
ure-not of operating and maintaining
equipment. ?
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
HUGHES) has again expired.
(On request of Mr. RUDD and by
unanimous consent, Mr. HUGHES was
allowed to proceed for 2 additional
minutes.)
Mr. RUDD. Mr. Chairman, if the
gentleman will yield, I would like to
clarify one issue with regard to wheth=
er or not the gentleman has no objec-
tion to the presence of military police
at the time of an arrest without par-
ticipating In the arrest itself. Because
does not the gentleman presume that
they are properly trained in this area?
. Mr. HUGHES. Of course, when you
are talking about military police, you
are talking about something else
again. Military police-' have a law-en-
forcement responsibility on the base
or on shore and have responsibility
over military personnel. We are talk-
ing about something else again. We
are talking about arrests or seizures or
investigations which are primarily
within the province of civilian law en-
forcement.
. Mr. RUDD. That Is what I am talk-
ing about.
But there would be no objection to
the presence of military personnel at
the situs of an arrest?
Mr. HUGHES. If in fact their pres-
ence is there in a capacity approved by
the Defense Department under regula-
tions which the Defense Department
is required under section 374 to pro-
mulgate;
Mr. RUDD. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. HUGHES. I yield to the gentle-
man from Florida.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. Chairman, I
just want to make one thing clear.
I think the gentleman misconstrued
a little bit the language of section 375,
because it does provide: "The Secre-
tary of Defense, upon request from a
Federal drug agency, is authorized to
assign members of the Armed Forces
H 4283
to assist Federal drug enforcement of-
ficials in drug seizures or arrests pro-
Vided" these other things transpire.
And, of course, it, was never my. In-
tention, not the intention of the re-
quirement of that provision that they
could not operate the material, they
could not operate the ships. There is
no way.in which you are going to get
the Department of Justice to operate
a naval ship. So it is inherent in what
I have provided here. If you want an
amendment to make that clear, It cer-
tainly was my intention and the inten-
tion of the committee that they would
operate these ships and do everything
that the gentleman suggests under his
amendment.
Mr. HUGHES. I say to the gentle-
man that I have no doubt that the
gentleman intended to permit the mil-
itary to assign personnel to operate
and maintain the equipment, but it,
does not say that.
Mr. BENNETT. It Is Inherent In
what is, said here, and' this colloquy
has cleared it up. That Is the Intention
of the law.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman; will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. HUGHES. I yield to the gentle-
man from New York. .
The CHAIRMAN..The time of the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
HUGHES) has again expired.
(On request of Mr. Gn.sw and by
unanimous consent. Mr. HUGHES was
allowed to proceed for 2 additional
minutes.)
(Mr. GILMAN asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. GILLMAN. Mr. Chairman, I want
to associate myself with the remarks
by the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. HUGHES), and to commend him
and his subcommittee for bringing this
issue to the House floor.
I rise in support of, the Judiciary
Committee amendment, as amended
by the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Wnrrs), permitting the assignment of
military personnel to operate and
maintain military equipment made
available to civilian drug law enforce-
ment authorities and limiting the op-
eration of such equipment to monitor
and communicate the movement of air
and sea drug trafficking entering or
leaving the United States.
I comment, too, the gentleman. from
Florida (Mr. BENNErT) for his efforts
to help stem the flow of drug traffick-
ing into our Nation, but I believe that
the gentleman's proposal would go too
far by also authorizing, our Armed
Forces to make drug seizures and ar-
rests. I have'been informed that the
Department of Defense opposes the,
direct involvement of Armed Forces
personnel in such civilian law enforce-
ment functions.
As a cosponsor of a measure similar
to the measure offered by the Judici-
ary Committee and as a member of
our Narcotics Select Committee that,
has extensively studied the drug prob-
Approved For Release 2008/10/24: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100020006-9
HE 4284
Approved For Release 2008/10/24: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100020006-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE July 14, 1981
lem both here and abroad, I want to
remind my colleagues that if the war
against drug trafficking Is going to be
won, then military intelligence, equip-
ment, personnel, training, and techni-
cal advice to' civilian drug law enforce-
ment agencies are urgently needed.
We should, however, resist efforts to
clothe our Armed Forces with the po-
licing authority or making drug
searches, seizure, and arrests-a func-
tion that is beyond the scope of their
training and expertise and one that is
best left to civilian law enforcement
authorities.
Narcotics trafficking and drug abuse
in our Nation represent a staggering
billion dollar business-a $64 billion
business. Our drug law enforcement
officials unfortunately lack the Set
planes, the swift vessels, and other so-
phisticated equipment to compete
with the highly organized, well-fi-
nanced drug traffickers. The Judiciary
Committee amendment, as amended
by the White proposal, would shore up
our defenses against the drug traffick-
ers by providing our Nation with mili-
tary equipment, base facilities, train-
ing capabilities, and personnel to help
our drug law enforcement officials in-
terdict the flow of illicit drugs crossing
our extensive borders and thousands
of miles of shoreline. Accordingly, I
urge my colleagues to support the
White amendment.
Mr. HUGHES. I thank my colleague,
a very valued member of the Select
Committee on Narcotics, who has been
a leader in this entire area.
Mr. BETHUNE. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. HUGHES. I yield to the gentle-
man from Arkansas.
Mr. BETHUNE. Mr. Chairman, I am
genuinely concerned about the gentle-
man's approach to the situation, the
Judiciary Committee's approach, and
Chairman BENNETT's approach for rea-
sons which I will get into as the debate
wears on. But there is one that I
would like to pursue at this moment.
The gentleman spoke a moment ago
to the wisdom of the Judiciary Com-
mittee's approach in separating out
arrest and search and seizure.
I have a letter here from the Gener-
al Counsel of the Department of De-
fense addressed to the gentleman in
the well, wherein he makes the point
that law enforcement operations, par-
ticularly those involving drugs, tend to
be intense confrontational matters
and it is unreasonable to expect-
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
HucHES) has again expired.
(On request of Mr. BETHUNE, and by
unanimous consent, Mr, HUGHES was
allowed to proceed for 5 additional
minutes.)
Mr. BETHUNE. And' it says, further,
that it is unreasonable to expect that
the crew of a military helicopter or ar-
mored vehicle will stand by in the
midst of an operation without assist-
ing law enforcement officials in arrest
or seizure should the situation necessi-
tate such action.
And it occurred to me the other day,
when we were debating this issue and
I wandered in unexpectedly and asked
a few questions, that perhaps we were
creating some difficulties, perhaps we
were creating a fertile field for those
imaginative lawyers out there who
would raise points and argue that evi-
dence should be excluded, because we
were drawing the line that the Judici-
ary Committee seeks to draw.
Mr. HUGHES. Well, the fact of the
matter is that the gentleman has a
broad background in law enforcement,
as I do and as does our ranking minor-
ity member, and we'' believe that in
fact what we have done is try to pre-
vent what could be -a rash of technical
motions directed by the Defense coun-
sel at personnel who are not trained in
that type of confrontation situation,
who are not versed in the area of ar-
rests, search or seizure, ' who should
not be subjected to the magistrate's
proceedings, grand jury proceedings,
and court trials. They are soldiers.
They are not law enforcement offi-
cials.
Mr. BETHUNE. If I could make this
point: Under the present state of the
law, however, they are precluded from
doing anything, and we still have a
number of cases where they wander
into the law enforcement situation,
giving rise to Defense counsel's objec-
tion and motion to exclude evidence.
Mr. HUGHES. That Is precisely why
we have drafted our language so that
we try to avoid that type of a confron-
tation.
The only area ,that civilian law en-
forcement needs help-I think this is
the key-is in the area of providing
equipment and personnel to operate
that sophisticated equipment.. That is
why it is' carefully drawn to provide
the operation and maintenance of the
equipment. The rest is basically'a codi-
fication of existing practice.
Mr. BETHUNE. Does not the Coast
Guard now have the power to-
Mr. HUGHES. That is by specific
statute. They. are a law enforcement
agency.
Mr. BETHUNE. But presumably if
we empower the military to get in-
volved here, it would be to be sort of
as deputy to the Coast Guard, if we
limit it to extraterritorial effect.
Why should the Navy' or the Ma-
rines, or whoever else comes in to
assist the Coast Guard in those in-
stances, have restrictions on them that
will not be on the Coast Guard? And
are we not then creating some delinea-
tions that will be used, as a matter of
fact?
Mr. HUGHES. We are creating a,
very important delineation, and the
delineation is that the military's mis-
sion is preparedness, national defense.
They are not policemen, and they do
not want to be policemen, and we do
not want them to be policemen. The
law enforcement agencies of the coun-
try, including the Justice 'Department
and every agency that has testified
before our committee believes that
they do not need that authority. They
have ample manpower to take the lead
in making arrests and seizures, and
they ..have a difficult enough time
trying to contain evidence even when
they are trained to do it let alone
having people who are untrained ac-
tively participating in an operation.
0 1430
Mr. BETHUNE. The gentleman
mentioned a moment ago that he has
not discussed the idea of criminal
sanctions yet on the committee, or
have not at least shaped any sanctions
that might be employed. This is a very
important point, because many of the
court decisions I have read in the last
few days make the point that there
has never really been a prosecution
under those statutes for violation of
posse comitatus prohibition, and the
courts say there have not been, enough
unlawful searches and seizures and
arrest procedures by the military up to
this point for them to fashion an ex-
clusionary rule. So, therefore they
have really done nothing and there
are no sanctions there right now.
Mr. HUGHES. There are sanctions.
There Is a criminal penalty.
Mr. BETHUNE. But. it has never
been prosecuted. The court, I can cite
case after case-
Mr. HUGHES. I say to the gentle-
man, what difference does it make? It
is still a criminal statute and any field
commander that has to make a fa.,'t
decision as to whether to give a piece
of equipment is going to think' about
the Federal statute. That is one of the
reasons we are trying to address the
concerns of the law enforcement com-
munity.
Mr. BETHUNE. Have there been
prosecutions?
Mr. HUGHES. There have been no
prosecutions.
Mr. BETHUNE. It has been on the
books for .100 years.
Mr. HUGHES. The fact of the
matter is, it is there, and it has had a
chilling effect. The testimony is that
there are times when field command-
ers will resolve an issue against a law
enforcement agency for fear that they
might invoke that criminal statute.
Mr. McCLORY. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield? .
Mr. HUGHES. I yield to my col-
league from Illinois.
Mr. McCLORY. Mr. Chairman, I
think the importance of this legisla-
tion is that it would remove the re-
straints which have prevented the mil-
itary from providing the kind of sup-
port through information and through
use of equipment and through 'train-
ing of personnel that can be so ex-
tremely useful, particularly in the
drug traffic. .
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from New Jersey has again
expired.
Approved For Release 2008/10/24: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100020006-9
Approved For Release 2008/10/24: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100020006-9
July 14, 1981 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE
(At the request of Mr. MCCLORY and
by unanimous consent, Mr. HUGHES
was allowed to proceed for 2 additional
minutes.)
Mr. McCLORY. If the gentleman
will yield further, I think the fact that
there have been no prosecutions is en-
tirely beside the point. The fact that
there has been a lack of cooperation
has been a recognition of what the ex-
isting law Is, but as the gentleman
pointed out, most of this amendment
that we are offering here is in existing
law, and the amendment to our
amendment which is offered, being of-
fered by the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. WHITE). does limit the use of
equipment and personnel to areas out-
side the United States, so that we are
not having the military Involved in
any kind of support operation within
the country, and then at the same
time it is authorizing the assignment
of personnel for the, purpose of operat-
ing and maintaining and assisting in
the - operation and maintaining of
equipment, as the gentleman stated.
So that, the Judiciary Committee
amendment plus the amendment to be
offered by the gentleman from Texas
does,' it seems to me, specifically Iden-
tify the kind of support that we want,
particularly In the area of drug en-
forcement, but Incidentally in connec-
tion with Immigration and customs
cases.
Mr. HUGHES. The gentleman Is ab-
solutely right. In fact, the White'
amend-,-tent does provide for those in-'
stances where aircraft have to take off
and land in the continental United
States, and It takes care of the coastal
problems we have and problems in the
estuaries. So. the amendment has been
carefully crafted to take care of the
needs of the law enforcement commu-
nity, and we have provided for the law
enforcement agencies exactly what
they have requested.
Mr. McCLORY. I want to commend
the gentleman from New Jersey and
the ranking minority member the gen-
tleman from Michigan (Mr. SAwYER)
for their major contribution in per-
fecting this part of the Department of
Defense authorization legislation.
Mr. HUGHES. I thank the gentle-
man, and commend him for his leader-
ship.
Mr. SEIBERLING. Mr. Chairman.,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HUGHES. I will be happy to
yield to the gentleman form Ohio.
Mr. SEIBERLINO. Mr. Chairman, I
too would like to add my commenda-
tion. As a member of the Judiciary
Committee, I was very concerned
when the question came before us.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from New Jersey has again
expired.
(At the request of MI` SEIDERI.INQ
and by unanimous consent, Mr.
HUGHES was allowed to proceed for 3
additional minutes.) -
Mr. SEIBERLING. We are all
threatened and our children are
threatened by the drug traffic,- but
that does not mean we should not be
very careful in how we proceed against
it.
As I understand, the Posse Comita-
,tus Act came out of the abuse of the
military law enforcement in the so-
called reconstruction era, and it was
out of the same experience of that
time and some of the other disorders
that the act was enacted. I think the
ggpntleman's amendment strikes a good
balance between cautious authoriza-
tion of the use of military equipment
in appropriate circumstances, particu-
larly with the amendment to be of-
fered by the gentleman form Texas
(Mr. WHITS) limiting it. to offshore
areas and aerial surveillance.
Now, in recent experience we used
military law enforcement, military en-
forcement of civilian laws In an area
which happens to be in my district. In
Kent State University In 1970 the Na-
tional Guard was given a practically
blank check to enforce the civilian
laws against civil disorders. Result:
Four students killed, another group of
students wounded, and a bunch of
GI's and officers dragged through the
courts for 10 years. Why? because
they had no experience in this kind of
situation. They were not given the
adequate backup by the civilian au-
thorities, and I would hope that we
would learn from that more recent ex-
perience that we ' must be very, very
cautious about Involving the military
in civilian law enforcement.
Rather significantly, the Defense
Department Itself wrote us a letter
and asked that we not get them in-
volved. So. I feel that the gentleman
has moved about as far, as we ought Ito
go, and at the same time has preserved
the very distinct line between military
functions and those of the civil law en-
forcement authorities.
Mr. HUGHES. I thank the gentle-
man for his very important statement,
and I urge my colleagues to vote for
the Judiciary Committee amendment
to the armed services bill.
Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike the requisite number of
words, and I rise in support of the
amendment.
(Mr. SAWYER asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman, I real-
ize this has now been pretty well
talked to death, and I as ranking Re-
publican on the Crimes Subcommittee
am in total agreement with the
amendment as now offered and as will
be amended by the amendment to be
offered by Mr. WHITE of Texas.
Basically, I cannot feel very upset
about allowing the military to Inter-
vene ? and assist civilian law enforce-
ment, but we nevertheless bring down
a great wave of concern once we do
that. It does have some open avenues
of abuse. The military are not trained
In such things as Miranda warnings
which might render unusable admis-
sions or confessions that are made.
They are not familiar with the restric-
H 4285
tions on seizure of properties and
whatnot. This is just not their train-
ing.
I am sure that if we were to follow
up the concern of legal counsel for the
Department of Defense, who says it is
totally unrealistic to think the, mili-
tary'would stand by while the civilian
arresters wer , let us say, viciously at-
tacked without assisting, I agree it
would be unrealistic. On the other
hand, I cannot conceive of any court
convicting them of a violation of the
criminal statute of posse comitatus
under those circumstances. I think
that rather than add legitimacy to
military participation in civilian law
enforcement, for which they are not
trained, we have gone about as far as
we should go. We expressly permit the
military's operation of sophisticated
equipment. We remove the fear of
prosecution, if you will, that military
commanders are kind of wont to use,
that they do not want to help or they
do not want to even give information
because they might be subject to this
criminal penalty.
I think we have clarified that. While
it is true that there never have been
any criminal prosecutions, I too have
read all the cases under this statute
and there have been denials of claims
under the. Tort Claims Act on the
basis that the military, who are
merely helping look for some escaped
convicts with their helicopters, were
operating outside their duty and in
violation of the law. Therefore, some
injured people were denied their Fed-
eral tort claims resulting from the
crash of a helicopter. So, its validity
has been recognized even though not
criminally enforced. I, think with the
amendments to be offered by the gen-
tleman from Texas, going as far as the
gentleman from New Jersey and I and
our subcommittee hearings, both the
Defense Department and the Justice
Department, say they do not need mil-
itary assistance and participation in
the arrest or seizures, we have done
just about as far as we should go and
we get the maximum mileage.
^ 1440
Mr. RAILSBACK. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SAWYER. I yield to the gentle-
man from Illinois. -
Mr. RAILSBACK. Mr. Chairman, I
want to agree with the gentleman in
the well. I happen to be a member of
the Judiciary Committee, but in addi-
tion, I happen to be a member of the
Select Committee on Narcotics, and I.
think it is most significant that the
testimony before the Narcotics Com-
mittee indicates that'the law enforce-
ment people believed they would have
no trouble handling the job, but they
wanted the use of the very sophisticat-
ed tracking equipment and the intelli-
gence capability that the Armed .Serv-
ices could provide to them.
I agree with what, the gentleman. in
the well has said, and I want to com-
Approved For Release 2008/10/24: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100020006-9
H 4286 Approved For Release 2008/10/24: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100020006-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE July 14, 1981
mend him and the others who have and the airman, therefore, could not Mr. BETHUNE. Mr. Chairman, the
made the points he made. I would also properly testify in the criminal case, point of the Department of Defense
say that the members of the Armed So this is the point I was trying to arid the point of the Armed Services
Services Committee, however, includ- make. If we are going to limit the Committee and the point I made last
Ing the gentleman from Florida (Mr. effect of what we are doing here to ex: week is that due to the nature of law
BENNETT), are, I think, doing the right traterritorial instances so we are only enforcement and confrontations of
thing in making the effort to do what talking about things that happen out- that nature, especially drug violations,
they are trying to do; namely, to help side the territory of the United States, we cannot separate the arrest from all
combat drug abuse. I just think the the Coast Guard presently has the au- the other functions. We cannot sepa-
bill goes a little too far, although I .thority to arrest and search and seize, rate search and seizure. We are .limit-
think,the thrust of the two bills, the We are creating a line of delineation Ing arrest and search and seizure, but
amendment and what is contained in here for the Navy which might Involve there are a lot of other functions in
the bill, is the same. I think the Judi- itself with the Coast Guard, so a de- law enforcement that. we have not
ciary Committee refines it and re- fense attorney might come in and use treated, like electronic surveillance,
verses what has been the traditional this, act and say, "Well, the Coast the Interrogation of witnesses, and all
practice. Guard might have had the right to be that.
Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman, I involved in the arrest circumstance or Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman; will
thank the gentleman from Illinois the search and seizure circumstance, the gentleman yield further?
(Mr. RAILSBACK). but the Navy did not, and, therefore, I Mr. SAWYER. I yield to the gentle-
I would say that the amendment is move to exclude the admission of the man from New Jersey.
strictly a refinement of a weak link in cargo of heroin," or whatever it might Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I
the chain and makes an Improvement be.
on what was basically the initiative of Now, I want to stop drug traffickin t The fac gentleman for yielding.
the gentleman from Florida. as well a The fact of thb matter is that t are
Mr: BETHUNE. Mr. Chairman, will burden aIn n a bwdenfelse and orcme spread , buthI where ilia about those instances
the gentleman yield? think that is a valid point, and I do eqwhebelieve they taw enforcement Per-
Mr. SAWYER. I yield to the gentle- not think the committee has satisfac- equipment hey need a piece oe
man from Arkansas, torily. answered it' as far as I am con available to that they
have
and d not to
Mr. BETHUNE. Mr. Chairman, I cerned. usailble to them, and it I s only to he
e
thank the gentleman for yielding, and Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman, If I equipment is offered nd the p is not
I do not mean to be a bother. I am not may recapture my time, law
on the Judiciary, Committee, so I am that we have eliminated the think
of enforcement personnel. They are then
just trying to catch up to its speed the case the gentleman has named in loaned military officials to operate that
here, that we have prohibited or not given equipment in accordance with regula-
Mr. SAWYER. Yes. We are doing a authority to the military to partici- tion.
pretty good job. pate in the actual arrest or seizure.
Mr. BETHUNE. Not being on the They can be there, they can operate not So go o it . Is
is ing to only be in those e, eg regular it - a committee is either an advantage or a the equipment, they can provide infor- at ion. oubn re me r situ-
disadvantage, and I have not decided mation, they can track, they can do all situation is going i where g we eo happen e to have to have a
which yet. those things, a
Mr. SAWYER. To the gentleman or . If the gentleman thinks that b lem
statute we can outstri theparticular
ntleman i Mr. Chair Cher if
Mr. BETHUNE. Mr. Chairman, last . tion of criminal lawyers who would be the
lclearly see the oi poinnlt y the gentleman gentleman I
week I asked the gentleman in the offering motions to suppress making, see and tat repeat s-
well whether or. not we might encoun- or testimony, then I think the gentle- l . It is ad he has made it repeated-
w down
ter a situation under the Judiciary man Is overly optimistic. No matter the It that ct hopes to narrow down
Committee's approach where a de- what we do, the criminal lawyer's e scope hope fense attorney would argue that a mil- imagination is unlimited. can I would hope that if scope do th is.
we
itary man had involved himself in ? The CHAIRMAN. The time, of the ties. point down the sbeen trying to
someway or another peripherally in gentleman from Michigan (Mr. . The I have been trying to
the arrest circumstance, and, there- SAWYER) has again expired. yemake is. we rushing
l that I think with re undre -
fore,
fore, running afoul of the Judiciary (On request of Mr. HUGHES, and by year-old l rule o away wta hundred-
Committee approach, the' evidence unanimous consent, Mr., was ruof law that must hand
have
should be excluded. allowed to had a number of good reasons behind
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the minutes.) proceed for ~ 3 additional it. some In
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, will' There is ons ' very gong language this
SAWYER) has expired. the gentleman yield? the decisions suggesting that this
(On request of Mr. BkTHUNE, and by Mr. SAWYER. I yield to the gentle- s itut onal bgght the nature in a con-g unanimous consent, Mr. SAWYER was man from New Jersey. pph and Stat that
allowed to proceed. for 2 additional Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I just the separation
en gentleman in the well, by his' own and
minutes.) want to say in addition that what we statement; indicated that we have not
Mr. BETHUNE. Mr. Chairman, if have attempted to do once again is to even treated the issue of sanctions on
the gentleman will yield further, 'I avoid the confrontation, because his subcommittee. Yet he wants the
think,the gentleman's response was indeed what I think we would do if we House to pass a bill to dispense with a
that he was not certain that that permitted the average military person- hundred-year-old rule of law, and we
.would occur or he did not know of any nel to participate in the arrest or seiz- have not even tested it.
cases to that effect. tire is that we would open up Pando-
I In the meantime have looked very ra's box, because civilian law enforce- may Mr. Mr. Chairman. if
tSAWYER. my time, the gent I
le-
assiduously for a case in the gentle- ment personnel make enough mistakes man seems to be arguing' in circles. At
man's own jurisdiction, and I found now, and they are trained. So if any first, if I understood the gentleman,
one wherein the court held that the thing, what we are trying to do is we he felt it was unreasonable not to
use by the State police of a member of are trying to minimize the effect of a allow the military to assist in the
the U.S.'Air Force in arresting a drug motion to arre or seizure bec de-
traffic offender was not proper, that Mr. BETHUNE. Mr. Chairman, will fense attorneys wouldsraiseea lithese
posse comitatus was designed to pro- the gentleman yield further? objections-either where they did or
hibit the use of military personnel as Mr. SAWYER. I yield to the gentle- where they did not. And now the gen-
agents for enforcement of civil law, man from Arkansas.
ticman is in effect saying that we
Approved For Release 2008/10/24: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100020006-9
Approved For Release 2008/10/24: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100020006-9
July 14, 1981 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
ought not to allow even the use of the
equipment. The gentleman Is very
much confusing the issue.
Mr.^ ETHUNE. Mr. Chairman, ? the
gentleman is questioning my logic, and
may I respond?
Mr. BIAGGI. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. SAWYER. I yield to the gentle-
man from New York.
Mr. BIAGGI. Mr. Chairman, this
has been a very interesting discussion,
and to a great extent we are just going
around and around. I understand the
language that represents the commit-
tee's position. I speak not only as a
member of law enforcement for many
years but as former chairman of the
Coast Guard Subcommittee which has
addressed Itself to this issue.
' Time and time again the interdiction
of the flow of drugs that come in from
the Caribbean has been addressed.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
SAWYER) has again expired.
(On request of Mr. BIAGGI, and by
unanimous consent, Mr. SAWYER was
allowed to proceed for 5 additional
minutes.)
Mr. BIAGGI. Mr. Chairman, if the
gentleman will yield further, we were
clearly confronted with the situation
that our Government did not have the
capacity to respond to the problem-a
problem on the seas and a problem in
the air. This Congress voted for legis-
lation last -year-and it was enacted
into law-that kind of closed the loop-
hole as far as the- free and easy
manner in which the traffickers' func-
tions is concerned. They would be ar-
rested, they would remain silent, and
they woilld be processed, and then
they would be out within several
pours and then back to their abode
with no indictments or convictions.
Now, one of the major difficulties
that was found by the Coast Guard, as
well as the Customs Service and the
DEA, was the inability to detect and
determine the planes that were
coming in carrying drugs and the ves-
sels that were doing likewise, because
of the limited amount of equipment.
So it was hoped and suggested that
perhaps we could employ some mili-
tary equipment for two express pur-
poses-for surveillance and for moni-
toring. What has been established
during those hearings and by these
committees and by these different
agencies is the development of a pro-
file. Certain types of aircraft would be
subject to surveillance, identification,
and reporting to ground crews, to the
established agencies that were con-
cerned with this problem. They
needed certain profiles of a vessel that
would be similarly identified and re-
ported to the Coast Guard or the Cus-
toms Service that would respond with
their equipment, and we did not have
that capacity.
- . Frankly.. the language contained in
the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from Texas (Mr. WHITE) Is suffi-
cient to provide the kind of response
so that we,can practically and effec-
tively respond to the needs of the
agencies, because currently we have
hundreds of planes flying in, low-level
planes flying in and landing on strips
and farms and we are not aware of
their existence.
With this sophisticated equipment
they can be almost immediately identi-
fied when they are several hundred
miles out and there can be a response
on the part of the agencies.
This in my judgment is necessary.
This in my judgment is a critical sup-
plement to the entire law enforcement
area. To go any further at this point, I
think: First, would be premature; and
second, might be begging for troubles,
the kind of troubles that have been ar-
ticulated here by the gentleman who
is on his feet and by many others. .
If we are concerned about really pro-
ducing a meaningful response to a
genuine need, to the law enforcement
area, the gentleman's amendment, the
amendment of the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. WHITE), is the one that
should be supported.
Mr. SEIBERLING. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SAWYER. I yield to the gentle-
man from Ohio.
Mr. SEIBERLING. I thank the gen-
tleman for yielding.
I wonder if the gentleman from Ar-
kansas understands that the amend-
ment offered by the gentleman from
New Jersey is a strict limitation of a
very broad authority that exists in the
committee's bill. The committee's bill
would authorize military personnel to
enforce the drug laws, and that would
get into the area that the gentleman
from Arkansas is so rightly concerned
about; whereas the amendment of the
gentleman from New Jersey, further
amended by that of the amendment to
it of the gentleman from Texas, would
put very strict limitations, limited to
loaning equipment and limited to off-
shore and aerial surveillance only, and
it, seems to me that ties right in with
what the gentleman from New York
~Mr. BIAGGI) said and at the same time
It prevents real danger to civilian law
enforcement.
I would, think this amendment. ad-
dresses the concerns of the gentleman.
Mr. BETHUNE. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. SAWYER. I yield to the gentle-
man from Arkansas.
Mr. BETHUNE. I thank the gentle-
man for yielding.
My logic has been called into ques-
tion and it has been suggested that
there is some circuity in the argu-
ments that I make.
In a word, I would like to say this. I
think that if -we are going to enact
something here in the interest of con-
trolling crime, then the proposition
brought forward by the Defense Com-
mittee' is the right one when paired
with the amendment of the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. WHITE),. because
H 4287
having been limited to extra territorial
matters it empowers them to do the
job that we want them to do and we
would not have to worry about it hap-
pening within the territory. That is
my position if I 'were looking at that
one solely.
On the other hand, as I view the Ju-
diciary Committee's approach, I think
it creates problems, which I have tried
to enunciate here before. Frankly and
honestly, I really admire the work of
the committee, they are usually very
thoughtful, but when the gentleman
said we have not even considered the
sanctions that would be imposed in
the event of encroachment--
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
SAWYER) has expired.
(At the request of Mr. BETHUNE and
by unanimous consent, Mr. SAWYER
was allowed to proceed for I additional
minute.)
Mr. BETHUNE. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield further?
Mr. SAWYER. I yield to the gentle-
man from Arkansas.
Mr. BETHUNE. It truly occurs to
me that we are moving a little fast
when it comes to a rule of law that has
stood inviolate for 100 years, and so
my position is, as I stated on both the
defense and the judiciary approach,
but my position is that we should go
back to the drawing board and resolve
some of these questions that have
been raised here, and I think rightful-
ly so, and to say that we need to stop
drug trafficking in this country. and
use that as an excuse for rushing
through this particular piece does not
make sense.
Mr. SEIBERLING. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SAWYER. I yield to the gentle-'
man from Ohio.
Mr. SEIBERLING. Then certainly
the gentleman from Arkansas should.
support the amendment of the gentle-
man from New Jersey (Mr. HUGHES),
because the alternative is to adopt the
committee's / language which was
adopted without? any hearings and
without any concern.
The Defense Department supported
the kind of limitations that the gentle-
man from Texas (Mr. WHITE) and the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
HUGHES) wanted to add to this bill.
Mr. BETHUNE. If the' gentleman
will yield further, if I felt that the Ju-
diciary Committee's hearings were ex-
tensive and comprehensive and had
been finished and had treated the
issue of sanction, then I think to com-
pare it with--
The CHAIRMAN.. The time of the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
SAWYER) has again expired.
(At the request of Mr. FISH and by
unanimous consent, Mr. SAWYER was
allowed to proceed for 2 additional
minutes.)
Mr. FISH. Mr: Chairman, will the,
gentleman yield?
Approved For Release 2008/10/24: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100020006-9
Approved For Release 2008/10/24: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100020006-9
114288 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE Judy 14, 1981
Mr. SAWYER. I yield to the gentle- Department. However, unlike the lan-
man from New York. guage recommended by the Armed
Mr. FISH. I thank the gentleman for Services Committee, our language
yielding. would specifically prohibit military
Mr. Chairman, I support the concept personnel from participating in hands-
embodied in section 908 of H.R. 3519, on arrests and seizures. This type of
th
D
f
e
e
ense Department authoriza- assistance is a departure from tradi-
tion bill for fiscal year 1982. The gen- tional military-civilian relations and
tleman from Florida and the other was not requested by the Drug En-
members of the Armed Services Com- forcement Administration when. they
mittee are to be highly commended testified before our subcommittee
for making an important contribution about the posse comitatus problem.
to facilitating cooperation between the On the other hand, we felt that it
military and civilian law enforcement
authorities. Our Subcommittee on
Crime and the full Judiciary Commit-
tee agreed that such authorization was
needed, with some adjustments. I
strongly support the bipartisan ver-
sion reported by our committee and
the amendment that will be offered by
the gentleman from Texas. The gen-
tleman's amendment wisely extends
certain types of assistance into the
areas of immigration and customs law.
Posse comitatus Is a criminal law en-
acted during reconstruction which pre-
.vents the Army and Air Force from
serving as a posse. The confusion cre-
ated by this law is a barrier to cooper-
ation between the military and civilian
law enforcement officials. Specifically,
under that law, it is unclear what sort
of assistance the military may legally
provide and even which parts of the
military are affected. Even though no
one has apparently ever been pros-
ecuted under the posse comitatus pro-
vision, it may form a basis for exclud-
Ing evidence In criminal trials and an
obstacle to recover under the Federal
Tort Claims Act. Testimony before the
Subcommittee on Crime earlier this
year convinced us that something
needed to be done about the problems
created by posse comitatus, particular-
ly in the area of drug smuggling and
immigration.
The Judiciary Committee's version
of section 908 addresses the problems
that I have outlined by essentially
codifying existing authority for the
military to provide essential and ap-
propriate assistance to civilian law en-
forcement authorities. By codifying
this authority, we clarify the limits on
military involvement in law enforce=
ment, thus eliminating the confusion.
We do not, however, authorize Armed
Forces personnel to assist civilian law
enforcement in making arrests and sei-
zures. I believe that our approach is
preferable fo the language reported by
the Armed Services Committee, which
expands existing authority by permit-
ting the military to participate in such
activities.
First, our language would specify Mr. EDWARDS of California. Mr. Mr. WHITE. Mr. Chairman, I offer
which branches of the military are in Chairman, I also want to join with the ? an amendment to the Judiciary Com-
fact affected. Second, like the Armed others in complimenting the gentle- mittee amendment.'
Services Committee's version, It would man from New Jersey, and of course, The Clerk read as follows:
provide for the sharing of intelligence, the gentleman from Texas, who will Amendment offered by Mr. Warns to the
equipment, and- base facilities, and offer a most important amendment, ,Yudicary Committeo amendment: Page 47,
would authorize training. It would also and I urge support of those amend- strike out line 19 and all that follows
prohibit military assistance which ments. through line 4 on page 48 and insert in lieu
would adversely affect this country's However, I do agree with. the gentle- thereof the following:
military preparedness and would en- man from Arkansas that we are talk- "? 375. Assistance by Department of Defense
courage reimbursement to the Defense Ing about a rather important consitu- personnel
"(a) Subject to subsection (b), the Seere-
was necessary to insure that the offer
of equipment was not an empty one
because we envisioned situations
where there would not be time for ci-
vilian law enforcement authorities to
be trained to operate sophisticated
military equipment or where such
training would not be cost effective.
For this reason, we included authority
for the Secretary of the Treasury, at
the request of the head of a' Federal
agency responsible for enforcing the
Controlled Substances Act, to make
military personnel available for the
maintenance and operation of equip-
ment. Under.the arnendmept offered
by the gentleman from Texas, agency
heads responsible for enforcing -the
Immigration and Nationality Act and
the customs laws also make such re-
quests. I support that change.
Despite certain claims that have
been advanced, the Judiciary Com-
mitte's version is not a departure from
traditional military-civilian relations.
However, providing authority for the
,military to arrest persons and make
seizures would be such a departure.
Military personnel are not trained to
perform such functions. As a result,
their arrests and seizures would more
likely be reversed by the courts on
technical grounds. Furthermore, let
me stress that the head of the Drug
Enforcement Administration eirphati-
cally stated before our subcommittee
that there was no need for that sort of
military participation.
We share with our colleagues on the
Armed Services Committee the strong
conviction that military assistance is
needed In the war against crime, par-
ticularly in the fight against drug traf-
ficking. I believe the Judiciary Com-
mittee's version and the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Texas
represent an appropriate balance.
Mr. EDWARDS of California. Mr.
Chairman, will the gentleman yield?*
Mr. SAWYER. I yield to the gentle-
man from California.
(Mr. EDWARDS of California asked
and was given permission to revise and
tional separation and constitutional
right here, ? actually, and that we
should tread very lightly and it is not
very appropriate tQ be considering this
important issue In the context of a
military appropriations bill.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of
this amendment.
Sections 371-375 of the legislation
before us profoundly affect the tradi-
tional separation of the military from
routine civilian law enforcement. At
the 'outset. I must 'question the
wisdom of allowing a defense authori-
zation bill to be the vehicle by which
we relinquish a treasured constitution-
al safeguard:. Such a change deserves a
more careful scrutiny than it is likely
to get in the context of, a budget
debate. The better forum ould seem
to be in legislation to reform the Fed-
eral criminal code.
AYssuming, however, that we are de-
termined to embark on such a course,
now, we should at the very least adopt
the amendment offered by the gentle-
man.from Texas to narrow the scope
of the Intrusion. Even the Department
of Defense opposes the bill's expan-
sion of military Involvement into civil-
ian law enforcement. We are warned
that the use of military equipment
thrusts military personnel into situa-
tions Involving the use of force-situ-
tions the military is not trained for
and which may expose them to civil li-
ability. It ' appears the military has
shown more concern for our 'radition-
al political system than has Congress.
Moreover, the Department of Jus-
tice-the agency responsible for Feder-
al law enforcement-itself opposes any
law enforcement role for the military
within the United States Itself.
This bill contains no provisions to
limit the use of the military in routine
domestic law enforcement' activities,
including, lest we so soon forget, the
surveillance of civilian political activi-
ty. The provisions now in the bill are
so broad as to permit military involve-
ment In the enforcement of any and
all aspects of criminal law.
Although I ' congratulate my col-
league from 'New Jersey's efforts to
narrow ' the sweeping scope of the
Armed Services Committee bill, I be-
lieve we should act to narrow it still
further. I supported such an effort In
the full Judiciary Committee and I am
happy to see that my colleague from
New Jersey does so now.
I urge adoption of this amendment.
Approved For Release 2008/10/24: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100020006-9
Approved For Release 2008/10/24: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100020006-9
July 14, 1981 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- HOUSE
Lary of" efense, upon request from the
head of an agency with Jurisdiction to, en-
force the Controlled Substances Act (21
U.S.C. 801 et seq.,, the Controlled. Sub-
stan;ces Import and Eaizort? Act. (21 U.S.C.
051 et seq.), any of sections Z74 through 278
of the' rmmtgratibn and Natibnalttyr Act (8
U.S.C: 1324-1328'), or a law relating to, the
a rival or di partti re of merchandise (as de-
fined in section 401 of the Thrif 'Act, of-1:930
(19? U.S.C. 1411111 tutu or rut of the customs
territory of the United States (xs defined in
general. headnote 2 of the Tariff Schedules
of the United States) (19 U.S.C. 1202) or any
other territory) or possession of the United
States, may assign personnel of the Depart-
ment of Defense to operate and maintain or
assist im operating and maintaining equip-
ment made available under sectiats 372 of
this title with respect to any criminal viola-
tion of any such provision of law and to
take necessary action incidental to such op-
eratton or assistance.
"(b) No equipment made available under
section 372 of this title may be operated in
the land area of the United States (or of
any territory or other possession of the
United States) by or with the assistance of
personnel assigned under subsection (a)
except to the extent the equipment (1) is
used for monitoring and communicating the
movement of air and sea traffic, or (2) is en-
tering or leaving the land area of the United
States, (or any possession or other territory
of the United States) incidental to a mission
assigned to be accomplished ,only outside
such area.".
Conform the table of sections, after line 19
on page 45 accordingly.
(I1r. WHITE asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. WHITE. Mr. Chairman, I cer-
tainly applaud the purpose of the gen-
tleman from Florida (Mr. BENNETT) in
what he is trying to do,' to control ne-
farious trafficking of drugs, but, in
trying to do good we must not do
harm, that is, harm to our defense,
harm to our troops, harm. to our soci-
ety and freedoms, and potential harm
to international relations.
My amendment to the amendment
of the Committee on the Judiciary
and the Hughes amendment is de-
signed to accomplish good results
without harm. It is a product of care-
ful crafting and compromising with
Judiciary and other Members of Con-
gress.
Now, compare the language of the
bill of the gentleman from Florida
.(Mr. BENNlrrr)- to my particular
amendment. The language of the bill
of the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
BENNETT) calls for the use of military
personnel only, not any experts in the
civilian capacity in the military, but
merely military only, to search and
seize anywhere at sea, irr the United,
States or on the borders of this coun-
try, internally too, if you will, because
there Is no limitation.
I really believe this was the purpose
initially of the original bill, which pro-
hibited the use of military In enforce-
ment procedures, because in its very
extreme, It could be the predicate for
developing, if you would, without
trying to sound alarmist, a 'police
state.
My amendment with the consent of
the Secretary of Defense, Defense per-
solmef, military arid civilian, could
track; monitor and communicate the
movement of air and sea traffic with
Defense equipment, such as ships,
planes. radar and we, have big sections
in southern parts of this country that
are not even covered by radar that
should be covered by radar and other
surveillance equipment.
The enforcement personnel; DEA, or
Immigration or Customs could be
transported on such ships and aircraft
and they would make the searches and
seizures, they would have their own
craft to make searches and seizures.
They would seize, the illicit drugs.
They would arrest the offenders, ap-
prehend illegal aliens, or seize other
contraband, and this as pointed out
was necessary to include other of-
fenses besides illicit drugs, because
otherwise, we might have a real ques-
tion arising in courts if we stopped and
apprehended for one offense and
found another offense, and I so acced-
ed to that particular change.
^ 1500
But the troops would not be used to.
search and seize. Why is it better not
to use. troops to seize and arrest as the
language of the gentleman from Flor-
id.. (Mr. BENNETT) provides?
Our military numbers are founded'
on military need. We are already
having difficulty recruiting enough
people into the military. To use troops
to operate their equipment would not
put more strain on the military. Their
activities and operating equipment is
more in the nature of training exer-
cises; but to require them to seize and
arrest, would require many more
troops.
Some future budget-cutting adminis-
trator might try to substitute troops
for trained DEA, immigration or cus-
tonis personnel, and therefore there
would be less control of drugs, contra-
band and aliens.
Of course, illegal aliens are very
critical at the present time at sea, be-
cause we have had an incident of
recent time of boat people illegally
coming into this country and they
could be controlled by surveillance by
military personnel.
Law enforcement, especially to con-
trol drugs, contraband and aliens, re-
quires special training and skills, often
including language skills. It requires
special training In the techniques of
arrest to prevent injury or death of
the seizing and arresting officer.
It is unlikely that troops would have
that training and experience, and to
require them to search and seize will
expose them to injury and death in a
pursuit for which they did not enlist.
Surviving parents and spouses would
rightfully be incensed.
For what I next say, those favoring
the language of the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. BENNETT) might say that
the location and circumstances of
searches and seizures must first be ap-
f 4289
proved by the Secretary of State, as in
the amendment the gentleman pro-
vided; but remember, we are proposing
to change the law existing since the
1870's. Administrations and their atti-
tudes change, so, we cannot predict the
commonsense of future administra-
tions or future Secretaries of State.
We have to make permanent law and
assume the worst whenever you make
law.
J'udging from. the past, there has
been very little understanding by
many administrations of the delicacies
of international 'relations along the
Mexican-American border. I have lived
on the- Mexican-American border all
my life. As, other colleagues who are
familiar with the border and Mexico
know well, the Mexican and Canadian
borders traditionally have no military
troops patrolling or guarding. the bor-
ders. To change this by having uni-
formed troops on the border would de-
stroy this tradition and international
good will. Within 1 year or less there
would arise a grave' international inci-
dent under the latitude of the lan-
guage of the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. BENNETT) that would allow troops
to patrol, seize, and arrest. Shots inevi-
tably would be fired in the dangerous
night and troops would be injured or
killed and shots would impact in
Mexico, if it were on.the International
border of Mexico. Repercussions
would follow, especially if innocent
citizens and children of Mexico were
killed or injured.
Even trained enforcement officers
and personnel on the borders during
the day and at night are killed
through accidents of the night, not
knowing the identity of the other and
shooting at each other in the night.
We have fire fights on the border and
that is precisely what you would be ex-
posing troops to if you allowed them
to seize and arrest on the border for
drug contraband.
The CHAIRMAN..The time of the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. WHITE)
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. WHITE
was allowed to proceed for 3 additional
minutes.)
Mr. WHITE. The ability to speak
Spanish can save lives in the night.
Troops probably would not have this
skill.
Therefore, rather than get more
control with the language, of the gen-
tleman from Florida (Mr. BENNETT),
we could get less control, less defense
and more needless casualties in the
military and some severe international
embarrassment.
The language of the amendment I
have introduced will allow the Defense
Department to do what it can do best
in operating its equipment, ships,
planes and surveillance equipment to
track, monitor and communicate the
movements of suspected violators, for
the professionals trained to search,
seize and apprehend, without the bad
results I have outlined, without'the ca-
Approved For Release 2008/10/24: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100020006-9
'11.4290
Approved For Release 2008/10/24: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100020006-9
I
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE July 14, 1981
sualties and the international inci-
dents.
Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, would
the gentleman yield?
Mr. WHITE. I yield to the gentle-
man from New Jersey.
Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I
thank the gentleman for yielding. He
has made a very important statement
and I commend the gentleman for his
leadership.
The gentleman's amendment is
agreeable to this side of the aisle. I be-
lieve that it adds to the amendment. It
is delimiting in nature. In fact, it was
an amendment that we considered in
the Judiciary Committee as a way of
delimiting the loaning of equipment
and the providing of personnel in the
continental United States. So I com-
mend the gentleman.
I just want to make one additional
point. The gentleman referred to the
arrest and seizure and search aspect of
the Bennett language. I might point
out to my colleagues that the Bennett
language permits arrests and seizure
but not search authority.
Now, that means, if, in fact, the mili-
tary were utilized, as envisioned by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. BENNETT)
in making a direct arrest or seizure,
there would be no authority to search.
That means, in effect, that if the ar-
resting military official wanted to as-
certain whether the people that he
confronted had weapons, he would not
have the right to search. He would not
-have the right to search in any other
part of the vessel, for instance, under
the language of the bill, because it is
strictly limited-to arrest and seizure.
Now, I am sure. that that was inad-
vertent, but it points out just exactly
why we should not be designing lan-
guage of this nature without giving it
very careful thought. It is that precise
reason why we are trying to avoid a
confrontational situation and all the
problems inherent in an arrest situa-
tion; so I commend the gentleman. We
accept his amendment on this side.
Mr. WHITE. Well, I thank the gen-
tleman for his clarification and, of
course, too, the Bennett language
would allow use of troops anywhere in
the United States internally and not
as'we have tried to do externally and
off the shores of the United States to
help work with the authorities.
Mr. KAZEN. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. WHITE. I yield to the gentle-
man from Texas.
Mr. KAZEN. Mr. Chairman, I would
'like to associate myself with the re-
marks of the gentleman in the well.
I would shudder to think that a
member of the Armed Services along
the Mexican border taking part in
what is purported to be a seizure of
drugs and it turns out that someone is
wounded or killed by a military per-
sonnel, by a member of the Armed
Forces of the United States on, the
friendly border with Mexico, would
bring about repercussions that we
cannot even comprehend. I appreciatethe gentleman's position. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas (Mr.' WHITE) ,,has again expired. (At the request of Mr. SAWYER, and by unanimous consent, Mr. WHITE Was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.) Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. WHITE. I yield to the gentle- man from Mich gan. Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman, I want to associate. myself with the gen-
tleman's remarks and state that his amendment is agreeable to this side of the aisle also. Mr. BETHUNE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I a not know wheth-
er as any other issue has interested me as
much as this since I have, been in the but for some reason or an-
other when I heard the 'debate last
week it occurred to me that we were'
discussing something that was perhaps more important than it seemed at first so I asked for some briefings on the subject and tried to dig into it some. This business of posse comitatus and the rule of law that has existed now since 1875 is a pretty significant piece of law. It has held firm for a long, long time. I have wondered why it has held firm and there have been no encroach-
ments on the law over the years. I. mean, the most serious encroachment got outside of the area of putting
down riots or holding down rebellions or insurrection or domestic violence or like that that I could find was to protect the rights of discoverers of the Guano Islands. Somehow that crept in as an exception to the law years ago.
Now, I do not know what the argu-
ment was at that tine which permit- ted that exception, but I do know that the law has withstood virtually every
other argument' since that time. In reading some of the ? court deci- right on up to and including the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, I found some very strong language which indicates that many people 'who have given thoughtful consideration to this issue see the business of posse comitatus and this particular law that we are discussing here today as ap- proximating a constitutional right to keep separate from civilian law en-
forcement the use of military force, the use. of military might. The argil- ments go along the line that military personnel are trained. in most in to do it particular mission in disregard of civil rights, whereas onthethe other hand, at least In the last 20 30 years, law enforcement person- are trained now to respect civil rights and to appreciate civil rights. So as I began to read more about those. eases. I began to understand why our courts and why this Congress has thrown off every attempt in the
last 100 years to make a serious en-
croachment on this.
Then as I heard the debate today, I
heard someone even say that we have
talked this
matter to death. I take re-
spectful
issue with that. We have only
devoted
2 or 3 hours to a debate here
before
the. w)}ole House on this issue.
We
have not talked it to death. We
have not talked about
the sanctions
that would
be employed if the military,
were to
run afoul of this law and to
exceed
their authority.
We
have not talked about what will
happen
rule should
be treated by
the court.
I think that this Congress if it is
going to breach this law, this Gong
has ~ress
the responsibility to give some cri-
teria to
the court as to how it should
respond
when the cases come, and
they will come when we involve the
military with civilian law enforcement.
.
^1510
I think the points that have been
made here have been good points. . I
think everyone is working as hard as
they hin can to control this heinous.
spread
of drug traffic in this countr
3'
But that does not mean
that we
have
to throw down all of our respon-
sibilities here
and pass a law in this
Congress contravening
100 years of
history
without even discussing it corn-
pletely
Mr. subcommittee.
. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. BETHUNE. I yield to the gentle-
man -
man from Michigan
(Mr. GONYERS).
Mr. . CONYERS. I want to commend
the gentleman
for his thoughtful at-
tention to this part
of our bill. It is
very important
and I think it has been
understated. .
Does the amendment
gentleman from Texas (Mr. WHrrE)
change
any of the views of the gentle-
man from Arkansas?
Mr. BETHUNE. Not really. I think
the amendment of the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. . WHITE) does purport
to set some geographical limitations
which
are certainly better than to lay
out
these very fuzzy limitations such
as arrest and search and seizure. I
think that is a step in the right di;ec-
tion but it
does not settle the issue
with me completely and principally
for
the last point that I made. If I
could,
I States v. WolJ~s, 594
Fed. 2nd 77, a 1979 case, wherein the
court did not reach the question of
whether there was a violation of the
statute. . They said they really did not
to get into that because ?"applica-
,
tion of the exclusionary rule is not
warranted."
."
The CHAIRMAN. . The time of the
gentleman from,Arkansas has expired.
(At
the request of Mr: GONYERS and
by
unanimous consent Mr. BETHUNE
was allowed to proceed
for .3 additional
minutes.)
Approved For Release 2008/10/24: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100020006-9
Approved For Release 2008/10/24: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100020006-9
July 14, 1981
CONGkESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE 1I 4291,
Mr. BETHUNE. The court went on
to say:
The appiibation of an exclusionary rule is
not warranted- If this court should be con-
fronted in the future with, widespread and
repeated violations of the Posse Cbmitatus
Act, an exclusionary rule can be fashioned
at that time.
It went on to say:
Such an extraordinary remedy is not re-
quired until such, time as repeated cases in-
volving military enforcement of civil laws
demonstrates a need for such sanction.
In other instances the courts have
,noted that there have been.. no pros-
ecutions under the Posse Comitatus
Act of. 1865. 'So. as a matter of fact, we
really have not treated the issue. of
sanctions In the rule previously and we
have not treated the issue of sanctions
here today. r think we should do that
before we pass an exception to the
law. That is my point.
Mr. CONYERS. If the gentleman
will continue to yield, the problem
that bothers me was enunciated by my
.colleague on the Judiciary Committee,
the. gentleman from Michigan. He said
we of course envision that there could
be confrontations between drug push-
ers and the military, but "so what?"
The "so what" its that', we will have
military people forced into physical
confrontation with civilians, and I
cannot see where the amendment of
the gentleman from Texas- (Mr.
WHrrn) will. change that one bit. We
will still be confronted with a. situa-
tion, from. what I gathered from the
reactions of most Members to that
remark, that would be absolutely out-
rageous. It. would be unthinkable that
the Congress would deliberately in-
volve U.S. Armed Forces. in the routine
enforcement of civilian laws for any
reason.
I hate drugs as much as anybody
else here. But we. are already now talk-
ing about using military personnel to
enforce customs laws.
Mr. BETHUNE. That is my point.
Mr. LEVITAS. Mr. Chairman,. will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. BETHUNE.. L yield, to the gentle-
man from Georgia (Mr. LEVITAS)..
Mr. LEVITAS. I thank, the gentle-.
man for yielding and I want to com-
mend the gentleman. I am not sure I
agree with his conclusion, but I com-
mend hint for his concern and focus-
ing on this issue and elucidating some-
thing that is of great importance
under our system of government and
separation of civil from military au-
thority.
But I am concerned at where we are
in this' debate. As I understand the
gentleman, he is opposed to the titili-
zation of military personnel in law en-
` forcement, civilian law- enforcement
matters.
Mr. BETHUNE. As a general rule.
Mr. LEVITAS. As a general rule, and
the gentleman would not like to see
any change in the Posse Comitatus
law. I .
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Arkansas has again
expired.
(At the request of Mr. LEvITAs and
by unanimous consent Mr. BETHuNE,
was allowed to proceed for 2 additional
minutes.)
Mr. LEVITAS. If the gentleman will
continue to. yield;. the question is
whether or not we adopt the Judiciary
amendment as amended by the gentle-
man from. Texas (Mr. WHITE) or
whether we adopt the amendment of
the Armed Services Committee. The
question before us at this point, is not
whether we should' leave' the law
intact as' it is today-but whether or not
we accept the. Judiciary Committee
provision, as amended by the gentle-
man from Texas, or the gentleman
from Florida's (Mr. BENNETTY, provi-
sion from the armed services bill.
So' in dealing with- a vote on this
matter, if the gentleman would ex-
plain to me what he from his point of
view would urge the Members to do
under that circumstance.
Mr. BETHUNE. I am going to sup-
port the amendment of the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. WHITE). I think- that
I am going to vote against both of the
other proposals for the reason that I
think more consideration needs to be
given, out in the committee to the
questions that I have raised here. I do
not think the time is of such necessity
here that we need to push forward..
I would just like to correct the
record,, because the gentleman said I
am not for any change in the posse co-
mitatus law. As a general. rule, I think
it is a wise law. But I am not certain
yet that it should be changed, and
that is the point I have made repeat-
edly here. I have not been convinced
by the members of the Judiciary Com-
mittee so . far, that it should ' be
changed without further study and
review'.
Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. BETHUNE. r yield to the gentle-
man from New Jersey (Mr. HucwEs).
Mr. HUGHES. I thank the- gentle-
man for yielding. I 'want to assure the
gentleman that we could not have
taken up the question of penal sanc-
tions because of the way it came to the
Judiciary Committee, which was by se-
quential referral. We would have to
remand title XVII to get at that seg-
ment dealing with penalty. .
But let me just assure the gentleman
our hearing was exhaustive from the
standpoint of what is- actually needed
to try to provide a limited amount of
additional cooperation between the
military and civilian law enforcement
agencies and still maintain that impor-
tant separation.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Arkansas has again
expired.
(At the request of Mr. HUGHES and
by unanimous consent, Mr. BETHUNE
was allowed to proceed for 2 additional
minutes.)'
Mr. BETHUNE. I yield to the gentle-
man from New Jersey (Mr. HUGHES).
Mr. HUGHES. So I have listened to
the gentleman very carefully and he
has given obviously a lot of thought to
this, both from the standpoint of case
law that has been d'evel'oped as well as
the rationale behind the original posse
comitatus law. I say to my colleague
the first four sections, and I am going
to repeat it again; are a codification of
existing practice. The only additional
change,. section. 375; is very narrowly
focused and it is to minimize the con-
frontation situation the gentlemmri is
concerned about. What it. does. in
effect,, is it says under section 375
where we loan equipment we are. also
going to provide where manpower is
needed because- there is, not--enough
time to, train manpower from the mili-
tary and we are. going to permit the
military, where it is consistent with
our military mission, to loan people to
operate that sophisticated equipment.
That is as far as we go.
. Mr. BETHUN?E. I disagree that it is
just a codification. of existing law- and
maybe this would be a good time, to
discuss it.
Mr.. HUGHES. That happens to be
the case.
Mr. BETHUNE.. I disagree. It is my
opinion that it is not.. But maybe this
would be a good time to make the
point if this Congress did nothing, did
not make any inroads on. the posse co-
mitatus law as presently written, that
the Navy Department tomorrow, if
they-wanted to, by changing their reg-
ulati'an, could go ahead and do what
the Coast Guard is. doing because they
are not covered by the original law to
begin with.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. BETHUNE. I yield to the gentle-
man from Michigan (Mr. CONYERS).
Mr. CONYERS. Let us examine this
notion about' merely codifying, the ex-
isting practice. When one codifies ex-
isting practices, one is carving them in
stone and making them law. That is a
little bit different, I think, from what
the gentleman from Arkansas' is con-
-. cerned about and what the subcom-
mittee chairman is implying is hap-
pening.
^ 1520'
What I am telling you now is that
these practices, once codified into law, .
are now going to be the law.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr: BETH-
UNE) has expired.
(On request of Mr. CONYERS and by
unanimous consent, Mr. BETHUNE was
allowed to proceed for 3 additional '
minutes.)
Mr. CONYERS. What we are doing,
with a very few number of cases, is
codifying existing practices before we
have even examined' what they' are. I
think that is what the gentleman from
Arkansas is saying.
What I am going to do, contrary to
the gentleman's suggestion to the gen-
tleman from Georgia that the Mem-
bers should support the White amend-
ment and then vote against the rest, is
Approved For Release 2008/10/24: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100020006-9
Approved For Release 2008/10/24: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100020006-9
114292 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- HOUSE July 14, 1981
oppose the White amendment because The CHAIRMAN. The time of the Defense Authorization Act. Section
what we are trying to do is clean up gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. BETH- 908 of the bill, which was sequentially
something that cannot be cleaned up. UNE).has again expired. Juiciary This issue belongs in committee. . (On request of Mr. CoNYExs and by areferred to lso contains the
matter of longstanding
Now, another member from Judici- unanimous.consent, Mr. BETHUNE was concern to the Committee on Govern-
ary asserted that the Defense Depart. allowed to , proceed for 4 additional ment Operations; namely, the manage-
ment supported this bill. Well, as a minutes.) ment and disposal of Federal Govern-
good friend of the Pentagon, I want to Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will ment property.
tell the Members that that is exactly the gentleman yield? Section 908 as reported by the House
not the case. That is exactly not the case. Mr. BETHUNE. I yield to the gentle- Armed Services Committee allows the
The Defense Department is not in man from Michigan. Secretary of Defense to make availa-
support of this measure. It is ironic mMr. CONYERgS. I thank the gentle- ble any equipment, base facility, or re-
that I am the only Member who can search facility of the Armed Forces to
.rise from. Judiciary to 'remind the Mr. Chairman, I would like to point law enforcement officials if It does not
Members of that. They are not in sup- out that the White amendment was adversely affect U.S. military prepar-
"` at that time .have had some insight Lne 1 eaeral property disposal system
a drug raid, the personnel are quite about whether they were for it or not. which is conducted under the terms of
likely to become directly involved. Now, in a letter to the Crime Sub- the Services Property and Administra
They are not going to stand by while committee chairman, dated June 3, tive Services Act._
some punk narcotic pusher tries to 1981, the Defense Department points The Judiciary Committee has taken
draw a .45 and hold off the Coast out-this Is a quote- note of the Government Operations
Guard or the U.S. Marines. That Is Committee's concern in this area and
why they do not want it. The gentle- The operation equipment cannot pli- has added the phrase, "In accordance
man from Arkansas should be Cam- sonably be e separated from om the direct appli
cation of force in the course of law enforce- with other applicable law," to the
mended'for thoughtfully forcing us to ment. property disposal provision. With the
address this matter. It seems to me that you could fairly understanding that this amendment
Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, would deduce that the Department of De- brings the authority under the provi-
the gentleman yield? fense has some strong reservations sions of the Federal Property and Ad-
Mr. BETHUNE. I yield to the gentle- about this legislation. And that is statutes, m ative Services Act and related
man from New Jersey. what I am referring to. This Is Just a statutI urge support of the Judici-
Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, the matter of simple fact. ary Committee's amendment ,to H.R.
fact of the matter is that the Defense Now, either they are anxious for it 3519.
Department opposes the Bennett lan- or they are not anxious for it. I sug- Also, as originally reported. section
guage. The fact of the matter is that gest to the Members that this lan- 908 of H.R. 3519 would allow the See-
the Defense Department does support guage tells me that they do not want retary of- Defense to provide to Z'eder-
the White amendment to the Judici- this responsibility. al, State, -'and . local civilian law en-
ary Committee bill, which parallels They also say, and I quote from the forcement officials any information
pretty much the Senate bill which the letter: collected during the normal. course of
Defense Department has been general- There is a substantial liroblem of civil lia- military operations that may be rele-
ly supportive of. bility of military personnel, vant to a violation of any Federal or
So to characterize the Defense De- They are perfectly well aware of the State law. The Privacy Act, which
partment's. position as being opposed problems that the gentleman from Ar- comes within the Jurisdiction of the
to the bill is not accurate. The De-, _kansas has articulated that they will Government Operations Committee,
fense Department is adamantly op_ be getting into. presently contains guidelines for the
posed to the Bennett approach. Now, we also happen to have a disclosure of information or private
Now, the fact of the matter is, also multi-billion-dollar administrative citizens for law enforcement purposes.
that we are dealing, as the gentleman agency devoted to fighting drugs. It Is This section would go substantially
from Georgia has indicated, with two not as if we are defenseless. There are beyond the Privacy Act's restrictions
versions or bia,. nd Judiciary Com- plenty of ways that we can funnel on disclosure. The Judiciary Commit-
mitte rs o of a bil as opposed to the some assistance to drug law enforce-. tee has amended this provision of sec-
Armee approach as approach. ment without changing a tradition tion 908 so that such release will be Committee And it seems e
s me that the approach almost of a constitutional nature by "in accordance with other applicable
to ;
taken by the Jis the one that allowing the military to intrude upon law," and the Judiciary Committee's
vet' y the Judiciary u crafted, the one that the enforcement of civilian laws. report makes clear that this phrase is
is very carefully crafted,
that only one that Do not any of the other Members meant to continue the application of
the
the very authority those areas extends feel a little bit disturbed about what the Privacy Act to this type of intelli-
been made. Ana etwhere a hough that suggests? - Bence sharing. With this understand-
case h And even v ww In Kent State we had an experience ing, I again urge approval of the. Judi-
it had been codifying suggested language, what h, I we that I will talk about later, and in De- ciary Committee's amendment on this are doing not d
do troit we had an experience. We are section.
know~of oing is anybody who complains
about the sharing of intelligence infor- still feeling the effects of that military I would also mention that there are
motion. intrusiori, today. several other provisions of H.R. 3519
Is the gentleman from Michigan o I thank the gentleman for yielding. which appear to conflict with provi-
posed' to the military sharinggIntelli-- move to BROOKSstrike r quis te1nmber of cy tAct. First, ection 904 of therbill
gence information with drug enforce- words.
ment agencies? Is the gentleman from
(Mr would require
provide r Service security
ichigan opposed to tmilitary . BROOKS asked and was siven trants to provide their social surity
M
vid of ih~g a pie to the h equipment so that marks.) to revise and extend his re- number. This conflicts with section 7
the Drug Enforcement Administration Mr. BROOKS, Mr. Chairman. I Federal agency from denying any indi-
or the Coast Guard can carry out a want to commend the Judiciary Com victuals "any right, benefit or privilege
mission because they do not have mittee and the distinguished chairman provided by law" for refusal to disclose
equipment? Is the gentleman saying of Its Subcommittee on Crime, Mr. his social security number. This sec-
he is opposed to that? Because that is HUGHES, for their constructive amend- tion of H.R. 3519 also would give the
what we are doing. , ment to H.R. 3519, the Department of President authority to require the
Approved For Release 2008/10/24: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100020006-9
Approved For Release 2008/10/24: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100020006-9
July 14, 1981 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
Social Security Administration, to turn
over personal data, including social se-
curity numbers, to the Selective Serv-
ice and would allow the President to
require that Internal Revenue Service
records be made available to the Selec-
tive Service.
Further, this information could be
shared with the heads of the service
agencies for recruiting purposes. The
committee is concerned over this pro -
vision because of its potential for cre-
ation of a computer data bank linking
numerous. 'information systems. The
Privacy Act was meant to place a mo-
ratorium on the use of social security
numbers as vehicles for compiling data
in such large systems pending the es-
tablishment of congressional policy in
this area..
The disclosure and use of social se-
curity numbers and IRS data is a very
sensitive issue which should be care-
fully reviewed by the.'appropriate com-
mittees of the Congress, and I would.
hope until that can be done that any
use of that authority under this bill
would be undertaken with caution.
Meanwhile, I again urge support of
the Judiciary Committee amendments.
Mr. McCLORY. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike the requisite.nuthber of
words.
(Mr. McCLORY asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. McCLORY. Mr. Chairman, I am
in strong support of the Judiciary
Committee amendment as amended by
the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from Texas (Mr. WHITE).
I want to assure the Members of this
,body that I feel that there are full and
adequate protections to the civilian
community in every area of activity as
a result of the Judiciary Committee's
amendment, as amended by the gen-
tleman from Texas. This is vital legis-
lation. It is essential support in our
fight against the terrible drug traffick-
ing that is going on.
I hope that our committee amend-
ment and the amendment of the gen-
tleman from Texas can be adopted ex-
peditiously and that this important
legislation be promptly enacted.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of
the Judiciary Committee amendment
to H.R. 3519, as amended by the
amendment offered by the gentleman
from Texas.
Clearly, we are all in agreement on
the general proposition that the mili-
tary should be authorized to provide
certain types of assistance to civilian
law enforcement authorities. There is
no dispute about the sharing of infor-
mation, equipment and training.
Where we do part company, however,
is on the extent of military personnel
involvement in law enforcement activi-
ties.
Mr. Chairman, I firmly believe that
it is essential to preserve the cherished
tradition of separating the military
and civilian law enforcement authori-
ties In this country. The Posse Comita-
tus Act, to which we are providing one
of a very few exceptions, was original-
ly enacted because of the abuses'
which arose during reconstruction
when the military was brought in to
enforce civil law. Although we all
agree that every appropriate weapon
should be used in the war against
drugs, we must act cautiously to avoid
setting a precedent for military in-
volvement in -other areas of law en-
forcement, which are more controver-
sial and where military intrusion
would be more offensive. '
The Judiciary Committee amend-
ment, as amended, would authorize
limited personnel assistance for which
a very clear need has been demon-
strated. Furthermore, it is structured
to minimize the possibility of abuse
and to maximize the potential for
achieving the outcome we all sup-
port-the incarceration of the drug
traffickers who have caused so much
pain in this country.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose any
version of section 908 which would
permit the military to make arrests
and seizures. Limiting such authority
to areas outside the land area of the
United States would constitute only a
slight improvement. Although the pro-
ponents' goal of cracking down on
drug traffickers is highly commend-
able and one we all share, I fear that
arrest authority would not ultimately
achieve that goal. The military is
simply not trained to make arrests and
seizures which will utilmately result in
the incarceration of the offender and
the forfeiture of the fruits of his il..
legal trade. Furthermore, there is no
evidence to suggest that there is any
need for such Involvement. The Drug
Enforcement Administration empha-
sized in recent testimony before the
Subcommittee on Crime that arrest
authority Is neither needed, nor
wanted. The assistance requested by
the DEA is adequately provided for in
the Judiciary Committee amendment
and in the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like
to commend the gentleman from
Texas for including in his amendment
authority for military 'personnel to
assist in the operation and mainte-
nance of loaned equipment to enforce
Federal immigration and customs law
as well. Like drug enforcement, these
are areas where such assistance will
prove invaluable. I understand that
the Justice Department supports this
approach.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I urge
my colleagues to support our commit-
tee's version of section 908, as amend-
ed by the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas, and to resist
any effort to extend military involve-
ment into the area of arrests and
seizures.
Mr. COUGHLIN. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. McCLORY. I yield to the gentle-
man from Pennsylvania.
11.4293
(Mr. COUGHLIN asked and was
given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. COUGHLIN. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in support of the Judiciary Com-
mittee amendment to section 908 of
H.R. 3519, the fiscal year 1982 Depart-
ment of Defense Authorization Act.
The basic purpose ' of this section
would be to permit military coopera-
tion with civilian law enforcement of-
ficials under certain circumstances.
The amendment proposed by the Judi-
ciary Committee would prohibit the
direct participation of military mem-
bers in searches and seizures, arrests,
or similar activities while permitting
military personnel to operate and
maintain equipment on loan to civilian
law enforcement officials. Use of so-
phisticated equipment and trained
personnel who know how to operate
and maintain it is where the real need
for military assistance to civilian, law
enforcement agencies, particularly
drug enforcement agencies, lies. The
need is not for additional personnel to
conduct searches and make arrests.
Mr. Chairman, present interpreta-
tion of the Posse Comitatus Act has
generally prohibited the military from
enforcing civil laws. The result has
been that the military has been ex-
tremely hesitant to respond to re-
quests from civilian law enforcement
officials for assistance. Section 908 of
the fiseal year 1982 DOD authoriza-
tion bill now before this body would
clarify the intent of Congress on this
matter.
In recent hearings before the Select
Committee on Narcotics Abuse and
Control, on which I serve, an array of
State and local law enforcement offi-
cials testified that a new wave of inter-
national drug smuggling is underway.
The results are reflected in higher fig-
ures for drug abuse, drug-related
deaths, and, drug-related crimes in
most major metropolitan areas. It has
been estimated that only 10 percent,.
or perhaps less, of all illegal drugs
bound for the United States are pres-
ently seized by law enforcement agen-
cies. With virtually unlimited financial
resources, unpatrolled coastline, and
unmonitored airspace, the drug smug-
glers have an enormous edge. Local
and Federal drug enforcement offi-
cials have their hands full and need
any help available.
While careful not to Impinge on the
military's paramount function of pro-
viding for national defense, section 908
recognizes that the military is in a key
position to lend assistance In the ma.s-.
give drug enforcement effort. Military
facilities and personnel are widespread
geographically and their broad scope
of activity and monitoring for defense
purposes frequently brings them into
contact with illegal drug trafficking
operations.
Section 908 is a sensible and much-
needed step to make available some of
the vast resources of the Department
of Defense on a limited basis to assist
Approved For Release 2008/10/24: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100020006-9
.H 4294 Approved For Release 2008/10/24: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100020006-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD _ HOUSE 'July .14, 1981
drug enforcement officials in their Mr. McCLORY.r The courts will be which far exceeds the thoughtfulness
uphill battle against the mounting fully capable of interpreting what we that went-behind that law.
tide of illegal international narcotics do here today. I think that we are This is how the law came about, that
-traffic. I strongly support it and urge making our intent and purpose very, law came about because of the fact
approval of this measure. very clear, so that there should be no
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, will the misunderstanding on the part of any enough the Me emmbebers had of at last Congress wh ss who
gentleman yield? who
Mr. Mc yield? I court or law enforcement agency with would vote favorably for this position.
ORY. yield to the gentle- regard to our intent in adopting this' The I Reconstruction governments,
man from Florida, amendment.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman. I have however, were there and they were im-
been . listening to. the debate, and I ^ 1530 posing local law upon the people that
have been staying rather quiet be- Mr. BETHUNE. Before we ? expand the people did not enjoy having, such
cause I have a further amendment to the law, should we not treat the issue as interfering with the Ku Klux Klan
offer following the White amendment. of what the penalty would be if they and other matters of thnt type.
However, I feel that in support of the violate, or under what circumstances the So, law passed w pa westyd went to
there at theres and got
concept of this bill, as well as the con- the exclusionary rule will apply? i1o possibility of having the
that would is
cept behind the bill from the gentle- Mr. McCLORY. I think that there is of the he Yankee side of a of the Fear Im-
man
man from Florida (Mr, BENNETT), I urgent need for this legislation. I have o laws s e imp war Im-
think we have gotten off track. . given the problems that you posing paws which were unposed by
Neither one of of bills puts the thoughtful consideration as have my the carpetbag governments upon the
military in control in any particular colleagues on the committee. Further- is. th That is exactly what this law
instances. It simply lends, for purposes more, this issue has been given full ables It is the not Lord or exactly th hert of the Par-
of equipment or purposes of person- and fair debate here on the floor of pop et e psalms, or the
nel, whether It is directly Involved, as the House today. I think it is now time drhs, It comes from a rather
in the case of the Bennett proposal, or for us to exercise our Judgment. My dingy background.
Indirectly involved In the operation of judgment is that the Congress should Actually, the philosophy of our
equipment under the Hughes propos- adopt the Judiciary Committee country was quite p the contrary.
the sal. amendment, as amended by the gen- George Washington
Rebellion i down the so-
Mr. McCLORY: Mr. Chairman. I tleman from Texas. If that happens, I called Whiskey with U.S.
think the gentleman is essentially cor- think we will ' be making some very troops, where people did not want to
rect. The only thing I would point out good law. pay any money to produce their boot-
is that the Judiciary Committee Mr. WHITE. Mr. Chairman, will the leg whiskey in Pennsylvania. Then
amendment does insure that the mill- gentleman yield? down in the Florida-Georgia boundary
tary will not be involved in civilian- Mr. McCLORY. I yield to the gentle- there were people who were playing
type searches and seizures and will not man from Texas. around with the idea of making Flor-
be involved in civilian-type arrests. I Mr. WHITE. Mr. Chairman, just ida Into a territory, and George Wash-
think those are essential protections briefly I want to point out to the gen- Ington sent Captain Randolph and
in our modification of the posse coma- tleman from Arkansas that on page 47 others down there to see that they did
tatus law to accommodate the needs it says: not' It, and , be threatened they did do it. Tli~re put
that have arisen as a result of drug "?374. Regulations them i n jail if tust ate ns it.
trafficking. many other illustrations about what
about are
Mr. BETHUNE. Mr. Chairman, will "(a) The Secretary of Defense shall issue
the gentleman yield? such regulations as may be necessary to happened in the early days of our
assure that the provision of any assistance, country and later days of our country.
Mr. MCCLORY. I yield to the gentle- or the provision of any equipment or facill- But Congress did pass this law to take
man from Arkansas. ty, to any law enforcement official under care of dissension with the carpetbag
Mr. BETHUNE. The gentleman says this chanter dnec ,. t
voivea in civilian law enforcement
with respect to the arrests and search
and seizures, I suppose.
Mr. MCCLORY. That Is correct.
Mr.,BETHUNE. But the point I have
made a number of times here is that
there is much more ? to law enforce-
ment than arrest and search and sei-
zures. There are a number of other
functions. They overlap. It is very
hard to define them,
Mr. McCLORY. Let me point out
that we are providing for the ex??
change of intelligence and for other
kinds of support that we think is es-
sential, particularly in connection with
drug trafficking. It is a dire situation
that we are confronting.
Mr. BETHUNE. If the gentleman
will yield, what are we going to do t
the military officer or military man o
military commander who goes beyond
his authority?
Mr. McCLORY. Anyone who vio-
lates the law is subject to any applica-
ble penalties. By modifying the law in
this respect and adopting these
amendments, we are not inviting any-
body to violate the law.
Mr. BETHUNE. Will the exclusion-
ary rule be In effect?
edness of the United States; or ---- ..., spice LnaL time we have passed
"(2) Include or permit direct participation 20-some odd amendments to that law.
by' any member of 'the Army, Navy, Air We passed an amendment saying that
Force, or Marine Corps in any search and we could use the military to take care
seizure, arrest, or other similar activity of anybody who trespassed on Indian
unless participation in such activity by such lands, or on national parks, and to en-
member is otherwise authorized by law. force civil rights. Everybody knows
-(b) The Secretary of Defense shall issue about the enforcement of Civil rights
regulations providing that reimbursement laws with troops in this country. It has
may be a condition of assistance to any law already been mentioned, Customs was
enforcement official under this chapter. also taken care of by an amendment;
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. Chairman, I then crimes against Members of Con-
move to strike the requisite number of gress. including threatened assaults on
words. Members of Congress. We can call out
'
(Mr. BENNETT asked and was given the military to put that down. As has
permission to revise and extend his re- been mentioned before, If one hap-
marks.) pens to have a proprietary
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. Chairman, after bird droppings they can gehelFeder-
hearing over an hour and a half al Government military officials, offi-
debate on this without having the po- cers, and. enlisted men to enforce the
sition of the Armed Services Commit- law. So, that is what the law actually
tee yet enunciated, I hope Members is, not a very distinguished law and
will be liberal in allowing me some ex- often amended for things of less sig-
tension?of time. nificance than drug law enforcement.
First of all, It may be a good Idea to What do'some people think about it
discuss just exactly what we are talk- that have given it a 'lot of thought?
ing about, and that is this posse comi- The National Anti-Drug Coalition has
talus provision. It was injected into written this:
our law; the words "posse comitatus"
is the -
in the 1870's. There was no reason for t ton n t It n the ending In belief s would uld provide
that language being put now pending In 's
would provide
to there, and a a crucial weapon In the antidrug enforce-
we have made a mystique out of It ment arsenal. The NADC believes that the
Approved For Release 2008/10/24: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100020006-9
Approved For Release 2008/10/24: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100020006-9
July 14, 1981 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
provision (section 375) added by Rep. Ben-
nett to the amendment, specifying that mili-
tary involvement In arrests and seizures be
confined to drug enforcement activities,
comes closest to the appropriate constitu-
tional spirit. of the Issue, while it provides
the strongest measures against drug traf-
fickers, it also maintains the spirit of the
posse comitatus law by restricting military
involvement In such activities to drug smug-
gling cases; thereby eliminating the possibil-
ity that such legislation could be employed
against law abiding civilians.
This is the section 375 1 added to the
Senate provision. So, these people who
are bound together throughout the
United States have looked at my provi-
sion and say that it is superior to that
of any other provision before us today.
The House of Representatives of the
State of Florida asked that we put
compulsion on the Department of De-
fense to utilize equipment, personnel,
and, technical resources to assist local
law enforcement officers to apprehend
those in the illegal drug trade. That
was passed May 5, 1981. It is as fol-
lows: ?
STATE OF FLORIDA-RESOLUTION 1178
Be It Resolved by the House of Repre-
sentatives of the State of Florida:
Whereas. illegal drugs are a menace to so-
ciety and drug traffickers prey on our na-
tion's youth, and
Whereas, the flow of illegal drugs coming
Into the United States has grown in recent
years to epidemic proportions, and
Whereas, the law enforcement agencies of
the State of Florida and those of the other
states in the Union are strained to the limit
in the effort to combat this situation, and
Whereas, federal law enforcement agen-
cies have not been able to provide all of the
required assistance, and
Whereas, the Armed Forces of the United
States has the capability of rendering assist-
ance in locating and seizing airplanes and
boats involved in drug traffic, Now, There-
fore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives
of the State of Florida: That the House of
Representatives respectfully requests His
Excellency, the Governor of Florida, to ask
the President of the United States, under
his powers as Commander-in-Chief, to order
and compel the Department of Defense to
implement a plan to utilize the equipment,
personnel, and technological resources of
the Armed Services to locate and apprehend
those who traffic in illegal drugs.
The National Defense Council wrote
me on July 13, as follows:
I am writing on behalf of the National De-
fense Council In support of your amend-
ment modifying the posse commitadis law to
aid in drug enforcement activities In the
United States.
The continuous flow of drugs into the
United States Is a threat not only to the
lives of our citizens but to our national secu-
rity as well. It Is readily evident that civilian
law .enforcement agencies cannot. check
their constantly growing drug trade. Modifi-
cation of Posse Commitadis would bring to-
gether the forces ebcessary to successfully
combat this problem.
As elected representatives Of the people it
is Congress' duty and responsibility to pro-
vide the most effective means available for
dealing with the problem of illegal importa-
tion of drugs into our country. If this can be
achieved through the modification of posse
commitadis laws then it must be done with-
out delay.
We, therefore, urge you and your col-
leagues in both Houses of Congress to
answer this problem through passage of this
amendment.
That Is the amendment which I in-
troduced, not the amendment which
has been offered by others,
Then, I have here before me a letter
that came to me from Judge Thomas
Russell Jones of the Supreme Court of
the State of New York:
SUPREME COURT OF THE
STATE OF NEW YORK,
Brooklyn, N.Y., July 7, 1981.
Hon. CHARLES E. BENNETT,
House Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR CONGRESSMAN BENNETT: Judges who
know how effectively the terror tactics of
drug smugglers and drug sellers against po-
tential witnesses and informers have frus-
trated criminal prosecutions in drug traffic
cases, support your bill to permit the United
States military to share personnel and
equipment in the fight against the cor-
rupters of our civilization.
Sincerely,
THOMAS R. JONES, J.S.C.
Finally, as far as quotations are con-
cerned, I have here a letter from Adm,
"Mark" Hill, speaking for the Associ-
ation of Naval Aviation, Inc.:
ASSOCIATION of NAVAL AVIATION, INC.,
Falls Church, Va., July 13, 1981.
Hon. CHARLES E. BENNETT,
Chairman, Sea Power Subcommittee, Com-
mittee on Armed Services, Rayburn
House Office Building, Washington,
D.C..
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: In my conversations
with Admiral Tom Moorer concerning the
problem of the runaway drug trade in the
United States, we both agreed that our
country would benefit from your proposed
modification of the Posse Comitatus Law.
By allowing for military participation, in
drug enforcement activities of our country,
I heartedly agree that this amendment
would result In immediate reduction of the
widespread drug smuggling that now occurs.
Civilian law enforcement agencies are cur-
rently overburdened by a problem that de-
mands more resources than they have. If
they could have access to additional re-
sources (both manpower and equipment)
and information of the military, they could
properly perform their duties and reduce Il-
legal drug trade.
At the same time, the military would have
an opportunity to perfect their skills in a
low intensity, controlled combat environ-
ment. Hence, both the military and civilian
agencies will operate more efficiently.
Even more importantly, the general popu-
lation now plagued by the lack of strong
drug enforcement will immediately feel the
good results of the enhanced capabilities of
our civilian law enforcement agencies. If we
are to stop the widespread smuggling of
drugs into our country and Its accompany-
ing ill effects, we must take special action.
By modifying Posse Comitatus we are are ad-
dressing the problem simply and directly.
For these reasons, we strongly urge and sup-
port the passage of this amendment.
Sincerely, -
C. A. "MARK" HILL, Jr.,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Navy (Ret. ),
Vice President, Government Relations.
They are referring to the amend-
ment which I offered to the Armed
Services. Committee bill, not the ones
which have been submitted here
today.
H 4295
Now, of course this requires courage.
Of course, this is disturbing. Almost
everything of Importance that man
does, almost everything that a legisla-
tive body does that is important, dis-
tresses somebody, worries somebody.
There is always somebody on both
sides. There are always people who
will say, "Let's wait. Let's do this to-
morrow, let's don't do this thing, it is
too disturbing."
I have already told the Members
that this posse comitatus is not a part
of the Constitution. It is contrary to
the views of George Washington and
Thomas Jefferson and others who en-
forced the laws in the early times of
our country. It is not a part of that
tradition whatsoever in our country. It
is in fact a law which has been a ham-
pering to our country. We have seen
fit to amend it with respect to rather
trivial things-some of them Impor-
tant like civil rights and customs-but
some very trivial, like bird droppings-
and assaults on Members of Congress.
These are hardly very significant
things.
This is a tremendous problem in our
country. The latest news magazines
that came out In the last 2 or 3 days
pointed to the annual figure of about
$80 billion; in Florida, maybe $7 or $8
billion or more than that. The facts
are that only 15 percent of the drugs
which attempt to get into the shores
of the United States are stopped; 85
percent of them are not stopped.
And so what a callous think. for the
Department of Justice to say that we
can have officers there all the time to
stop it. They are not there; they do
not see it. The fact is that they do
have an arrest opportunity when they
have everything well in hand. When
they have the dope well in hand and
everybody is there, they can arrest;
they are in good shape to do that but
how about the 85 percent which
escape them?
What Is our problem in this country
today? The first thing is the tremen-
dous Importation of drugs into our
country. This leads to the destruction
of the American society more cruelly
and more directly and more truly than
any other way In which it is being de-
stroyed today. There is not a single
other way which is more destructive.
There is nothing more ominous upon
the scene of American society today
than drugs. Russia, Afghanistan, Iran,
all these problems are nothing com-
pared to what is happening with
drugs. We are really In fact destroying
a great proportion of the population
of our country, and we are destroying
the operation of our country and pre-
venting it from being the kind of a
country it ought to be.
This is a tremendous problem, and
yet we have people who apologize one
way or the other and .who dream up
all kinds of ideas why something like
this should not be done.
Approved For Release 2008/10/24: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100020006-9
Approved For Release 2008/10/24: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100020006-9
11$ 4296 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE July 14, 1,981
How many hard decisions have we would be necessary to buy Coast (By unanimous consent, Mr. BEN-
Congress? Guard ships. NETT was allowed to proceed for 5 addi-
have been here 33 years, and many in addition to that, there Is the per. tional minutes.)
hard decisions have been made. I have sonnel involved. We would have to Mr. BENNETT. Mr. Chairman, the
in that time made many hard deci- have 20,000 personnel involved for the henious effect of these things upon
sions. The way to make a decision is to Coast Guard if we did an adequate job, public servants is felt even today. We
get all the facts, and that Is what I am on this. That 20,000 personnel adds up just read about 12 people who were ar-
trying to do. We have had an hour and to $180 million a year. So that Is $4 rested in Mian'ii just the other day by
a half on the other side, and I an billion for the capital' investment, and law enforcement officials for drug
trying to give the Members some of it takes 4 years to get the ships, and trafficking or for being involved in the
the facts from my side. we would have to pay $180 million a matter. It is very easy for smugglers
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the year In personnel costs to take care of when they have billions and billions of.
gentleman from Florida (Mr. BENNETT) what Is needed for the Coast Guard to dollars involved. There was a man the
has expired. do an adequate job with regard to other day who skipped bail of $1 mil-
(By unanimous ' consent, Mr. BEN- drug enforcement. There is 'no way lion, and they say that is the highest
NETT was allowed to proceed for 5 addi- that this Congress would even consid- bail that has ever been skipped. And
tional minutes.) er making such expenditures. ? there was another one for half a bil-
Mr. BENNETT. So this Is indeed an Let us look for a moment at what lion. Money means nothing to them at
extremely important decision, and. it is this provision is. The basic provision all.
something . we must address. The was taken from the Senate, and it is a I was going to address for a moment.
reason why It should be addressed in. provision which was studied very care-, why it is important for me to have the
the way it is being addressed In this fully. It'was not inadequately studied; land in here. It is not the end of the
committee amendment that we have It was very thoroughly studied. There world if we do not have the land in
here is, first of all, that it did have a was only one section that I added, and here, but I think it is gravely impor-
lot of good study. It was studied thor- that Is the one about arrest 4nd seiz- tat to have it in there, and it is a real
oughly by the Senate. My amendment are; the rest of it comes from the loss if we take it out.
was not unique to me. It came first Senate version. I told the committee 'Why is it a loss if we take it out? It
from the Senate. I just added to It. when I introduced it that it was a is a real loss because once we closeup
? There are only a few ships available workable provision, and the committee the Gulf of Mexico, once we closeup
In the Coast Guard to do the job. agreed It was so. The gentleman from the coast of Florida, and once we
There are only a few enlisted men and Georgia (Mr. Evers) had a large part close-up the Pacific coast, .they are
officers who are able, to dQ it. In my to do in this, in drafting this, and we going to move across the Mexican
hometown and around the Mayport introduced it. He was a leader in this border, and there are 1 million people
area there are 42 naval ships. There effort. coming across the Mexican border
are thousands and thousands of mill- I added this particular section be- every year. They are not now toting
tary personnel who are thoroughly ca- cause I really do not feel that there is drugs, but they will be toting drugs.
pable of doing this job. any comparability between what these We can be sure of.that, if smugglers
Let us understand who makes most two bills are doing. Some people are see that the land cannot be involved in
of these arrests. Most of these arrests talking about this as if it were a very this law.
are not made by somebody In the De- small amendment. It is no small So I put the protection of the land
partment of Justice; they are made by amendment; it is a ? terrific amend- in there. Incidentally, there was a
the Coast Guard. They are made by ment, it is a colossal amendment, and letter addressed to the committee, and
Coast Guard vessels. They do not have it makes a tremendous difference, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
enough vessels, and they do not have The difference is that there is no HU(;HES), on June 3 from the Depart-
enough presence. They are not there, comparability between the two. Why ment of Defense, and it was pointed
There is no particular mystique Is that so? It is so because If we pass out in essence that if you are going to
about the Coast Guard. I had a Coast the amendment I provided, everytime do anything .like you suggest in the
Guard son myself, a very fine and a a military plane is overhead or a ship Hughes bill, you had better put in the
very capable man. But to say that on the* sea, every time that is so, the things you left out of the Bennett bill,
they are much more capable of doing smuggler will know that he has a real because the Bennett bill was the best,
these things than the military is not possibility of being arrested or being and not the other amendment the
true. Actually there are many more ar- detected. He will know' that Is a real State Department had to agree. So I
rests made by the military-by the possibility that may occur. There is no put them in there..Even the wisest
Navy, the Air Force, and the Army- way in which the other provision that man in the Department of Justice,
than by Coast Guard members, has been suggested here would take none of them, suggested that my Ian,
The Members must remember that I care of that, because the smugglers guage was not good-not a one. No one
have worked and I have thought about will know that is not going to be the said it was unartfully drawn up. They
this. Suppose we treat the problem of case. agreed it was well drawn. In fact, the
putting a coastguardsman on every So the two basic things that are de- Department of Defense said, do not.
Navy ship. In the first place, they say bated here is, No. 1, whether we are pass the Hughes bill without having.
they have to have two. Multiplying going to allow military personnel to do those provisions in there, those which
that out for 453 Navy ships it came to any actual arresting, and whether or are in my section of the bill and which
$12 million, $12 million a year. That is not we are going to allow people to do are left out of the Hughes bill.
not much money, but I just do not be- ? this on the land of the United States. I . So in summary, Mr. Chairman; I
lieve it is very workable to have just would like to address that for a would like to say that this is not a triv-
two coastguardsman on every Navy moment. ial thing. This is probably the most se-
ship. It Is $12 million for just having Why do I not want to eliminate the rious thing that has happened in my
somebody stand by and not have any land use? Simply because I grew up In lifetime, and I hope the committee
regular duties to perform. a town which was full of drugs. I grew passes the bill.
Another way to do it would be to up In Tampa, Fla., and when I was a Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will
buy the ships for the Coast Guard. youngster, many city officials ,were at the gentleman yield?
How much. would that cost? It has that time, long ago, involved in drugs Mr. BEN.NETT, I yield to the gentle-
been testified to. It would take $4 bil- and prostitution and everything else man from Michigan,
lion to buy the ships, and it would that made.quick money. Mr. CONYE. Chairman, take 4 years to build the ships. That Is The CHAIRMAN. The time of the want to commend the gentleman om
$4 billion to buy the necessary ships. gentleman from Florida (Mr. 'BENNErT) Florida (Mr. BENNETT) on his very sin-
That is the amount of money that has again expired.
cere presentation. He ha$`taken now
Approved For Release 2008/10/24: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100020006-9
Approved For Release 2008/10/24: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100020006-9
-July 14, 1981 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD _HOUSE
15 minutes, and I can understand why.
Is the gentleman instructing the
House. then, to vote against the White
amendment?
Mr. BENNETT Well, I do not like
the portion of the' White amendment
which limits the land. I really am not
debating that,
But I really would say that all of the
other amendments suggest to me that
we are dealing with just little curli-
cues, small things in a small portion,
of a very important measure.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, what
I mean is that if those who support
the gentleman's position are to vote
for it, there is no point in approving
another position on the amendment?
Mr. BENNETT. I am not vigorously
supporting the White position because
I think the language of my amend-
ment that is in the bill, the original
bill, is sufficiently protecting what the
gentleman'from Texas (Mr. WHITE) is
worried about.
I like the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. WHITE), and' I may vote for the
amendment for that . reason, but it
does not make that much difference.
It will buy some Intelligence informa-
tion, that Is fine, and it Is a step for-
ward, but it Is not girding up for a real
battle against a real enemy like this,
not like my amendment does.
^ 1550
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. BENNETT. I yield to the gentle-
man from California.
Mr. HUNTER. I thank- the gentle-
man for yielding. -
I would like to commend the gentle-
man for a tremendous statement, and
I think that he has made the one
major point that perhaps the Judici-
ary Committee has missed, and that Is
randa than some of our rookie police-
men.
So. I commend the gentleman and I
support the language in the bill, which
is his language.
Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. BENNETT. I yield to the gentle-
man from New Jersey.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. BENNETT)
has expired.
(At the request of Mr. Husims and
by unanimous consent, Mr. BENNETT
was allowed to proceed for 3 additional
minutes.)
Mr. HUTTO. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. BENNETT. I yield to the gentle.
man from Florida.
Mr. HUTTO. I thank the gentleman
for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I want to commend
my colleagues from Florida for the
tremendous statement that he has
made and for the great amount 'of
work that. he has done on this problem
which - affects, our great Sunshine
State of Florida I guess more than any
other, and I want this body to know
that with the amendment that the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. BENNETT)
has in the Armed Services Committee
bill that I believe at least we will final-
ly be able to do something about the
drug trafficking into the United States
of America, and particularly as it
comes into Florida and to the other
coastal areas, and also I would like to
ask the gentleman to please verify
again that under his amendment that
nothing could be done without the au-
thorization of the civilian authority.
Mr. BENNETT. That is correct.
Mr. HUTTO. Without the Secretary
of Defense's authorization?
Mr. BENNETT. Yes; and the Secre-
tary of State. It remains under the
that in looking at the illicit drug ' control of the civilian authority,
l
d
ki
e, we are
oo
-tra
ng at a trade and
operation that is In itself a military
operation. It is complete with gener-
als, soldiers, it has got an extensive
armada of vessels and ships, it has got
-a huge budget, It has got a tremendous
intelligence operation, and the Coast
Guard, at least in Florida, we are all
aware, is not up to snuff in combating
this operation.
We have talked about Miranda and
whether or not some of these cases are
going to fly and whether we are going
to be able to train our military people
to make proper arrests.
I think the point that has been
missed is regardless if there is a sup-
pression motion, perhaps it wins, and
there is no conviction, that 100,000
heroin or whatever that was confiscat-
always. -
Mr. HUTTO. It seems to me that
has plenty of restrictive language to
make sure it is still under civilian.au-
thority and also, is it not true that any
operations against the drug trafficking
would have to be conducted by the
drug enforcement agency? .
Mr. BENNETT. That is correct;.that
is clear under my language.
Mr. HUTTO. If the gentleman will
continue to yield, it seems to me we
have plenty of restrictions as far as
the separation of civilian and the mili-
tary enforcement of the law is con-
cerned.
Mr. BENNETT. Yes. that is correct.
Mr. HUTTO. I commend the gentle-
man on a great statement.
Mr. BENNETT. I thank the gentle--
an.
L
going to be flowing into the -arms of
American children.
And another point that I .think that
has been missed by a lot of people on
the judiciary side Is the fact that our
navel officers with years of discipline
and experience are probably better,
able to follow the mandates of Mi-
Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
. Mr. BENNETT. I yield to the gentle-
man from New Jersey.
Mr. HUGHES. I thank the gentle-
man for yielding.
I want to commend the gentleman.
We pay each other, as a matter of
I1 4297
course, a lot of compliments. It just
seems to me, I say this in all sincerity,
the gentleman has performed, in my
judgment, a great public service by ad-
vancing the issue to begin with.
Mr. BENNETT. I thank. the gentle-
man for his courtesies and kindness
and ability in what he has done.
Mr. HUGHES. What we have done is
not In derogation of great work that
the gentleman has done in Armed
Services. We are concerned, however,
as the gentleman is concerned, about'
the drug problems. In the Subcommit-
tee on Crime,"we have primary juris-
diction over 'the Drug Enforcement
Administration. I also happen to serve
with our colleague from Florida on the
Committee on Merchant Marine and
Fisheries, and we are concerned over
the lack of resourses on the part of
the Coast Guard and the Drug En-
forcement Administration, but the
fact of the matter is that the equip-
ment? often that these military agen-
cies have is not the equipment that we
need and we cannot use a destroyer or
battleship often. Much of the equip-
ment that we have talked about just
does not lend itself to the type of civil=
tan law enforcement 'operations that
are essential in this country. We have
got to begin to realistically fund our
drug enforcement efforts.
If we really. mean business about di-
recting our efforts against drug abuse,
then 'we have got to do, more than we
have done today.
If we look at the budget, we are cut-
ting across the board in every area
dealing with drug enforcement, includ-
ing task force operations, training, and
what have you. So, posse comitatus is
an important component of the overall
problem we are trying to deal with.
'The CHAIRMAN. The time . of the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. BENNETT)
has again expired.
(At the request of Mr. HUGHES and
by unanimous consent, Mr. BENNETT
was allowed to proceed for 3 additional
minutes.)
Mr. HUGHES. If the gentleman will
continue to yield, the bottom line is
the law enforcement community has
requested specific help. They need the
sharing of intelligence data. They
need to use from time to time facilities
that are within the realm of the mili-
tary. They need research facilities
from time to time and we' have pro-
vided all of those things just as they'
have provided them as a matter of
course in most instances over the last
'decade or so.
They have asked for one additional
thing. They need from time to time a
piece of equipment and just do not '
have it.
When we try to address that particu-
lar concern-and that is all the law en-
forcement community wants-they do.
not want the right to arrest or seize.
Mr. BENNETT. That is really not an
inquiry and I would like to reply to it
in my time.
Approved For Release 2008/10/24: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100020006-9
Approved For Release 2008/10/24: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100020006-9
144298 'CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE July 14, 1981
I would like to say that I understand Mr. SCHEUER. If the gentleman Mr. SCHEUER. It is specifically.true
what the gentleman is saying and will continue to yield, I ask the gentle- of the ;amendment of the gentleman
there has never been a finer gentle- man, under his legislation, without the from Texas,(Mr. WHITE), because he
man in the U.S. House of Representa- White amendment-because the- mentions the immigration and Nation-
tives than the gentleman from New White amendment does cover the im- ality Act, I just wanted to clarify for
Jersey. The gentleman is a fine and migration nationality-under the gen- the record that, under the gentleman's
able legislator. I am a crude man com- tleman's amendment, would the equip- language, this entire surveillance
pared to the gentleman in every re- ment, the surveillance equipment and system and all the equipment could be
spect. the like be available. used to hel6 the INS to know where,
But It is not true that there is noth- Mr. BENNETT. For immigration? when, and,how illegal immigration was
ing that Is needed but a little bit of Mr. SCHEUER. To help domestic taking place.
equipment. It may be true in some agencies in the identification and the Mr. BENNETT. That was the inten-
procedures that we know about, but it apprehension of illegal refugees trying tion when it passed the Senate. It was
is not true that they do not need these to get over our borders? my intention, when I offered it in the
ships off the coast of Florida. Mr. BENNETT. Well, say the ques- Committee on Armed Services, and I
They have too few ships. The Coast tion again. think it is clear by the language.
Guard has said they need $4 billion of Mr. SCHEUER. It is obvious that Mr. WHITE. Mr. Chairman, will the
new ships which will take 4 years to the gentleman's language is very well
build. They need 20,000 new men just crafted to meet the needs of the DEA gentleman yield?
to fight In drugs, $4 billion worth of and other agencies that are trying to Mr. SCHEUER. May I yield to my
ships and 20,000 men, at $180 million a control the influx of drugs
the traf- colleague, the gentleman from Texas
,
year. That is what they need to en- ficking of drugs into our country. - (Mr. WHITE)?
have it under control if they, do it. It is
not a little bit of equipment, it is a
very serious thing we are facing, and it
would be a good thing to pass.
What the Judiciary Committee has
brought out is a good thing, but it is a
very, very small thing; it will not seri-
ously end in any great degree the drug
trafficking into the United States,
while the provision which I have intro-
duced-and which is in the Armed
Services Committee-will. Therefore, I
plead with, the Members of Congress
please to pass what is in the bill and
turn down, I would say, all amend-
ments in the end result.
Mr. SCHEUER. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. BENNETT. I yield to the gentle-
man from New York.
Mr. SCHEUER. I thank the gentle-
man for yielding.
I want to congratulate the distin-
guished gentleman from Florida for
the tremendous job that he has done
on this issue. It goes a long ways to
Mr. BENNETT. Particularly ? 375,
section 375.
Mr. SCHEUER. What I also am
asking is, in addition to identification
of drug traffickers, could the surveil-
lance system and the equipment be
used for the identification of illegal
immigrants?
Mr. BENNETT. It could. It would,
yes.
Mr. SCHEUER. Is the gentleman
sure?
Mr. BENNETT. Absolutely.
Well, that is true because of the
broad sections which came from the
Senate. They are broad enough to
cover that, also which the Judiciary
Committee approved and the way the
gentleman frames the question, that is
the reason I got the gentleman to re-
state it because the gentleman used
one word that threw me a little bit, be-
cause the gentleman left that word
out in his further reply. Leaving the
word out, it became a thing that I can
say, yes, it does cover.
Mr. BENNETT.. Yes.
Mr. WHITE. I thank the gentleman
for yielding.
Let me read the language of the gen-
tleman from Florida (Mr. BENNExT):
The Secretary of Defense, upon request
from the Federal Drug Agency, is author-
ized to assign members of the Armed Forces
to assist Federal Drug Enforcement officials
in drug seizures or arrests, provided that=
Mr. BENNETT. Yes; but he talked
about the whole amendment. The
whole amendment deals with the
other section, It deals with 371, 372,
and 373.
Mr. WHITE. But there is no refer-
ence to the Nationality Act.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. BkNNErr)
has again expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. BEN-
NETT was allowed to proceed for 5 addi-
tional minutes.)
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. Ch;?'rman, I
have asked for 5 additional minutes
curing, to enabling our society to stop ^ 1600 because I am not getting much of my
this devastating flow of drugs into our Mr. SCHEUER. ? If the time. Everybody else is using it up but
country that so far we are absolutely language Is gentleman's m passed, the surveillance Now I will decide to whom I am
helpless to control. system, the equipment, and the man- going to yield. I will yield to the gen-
I have served on the Select Commit- power could be used to help the Immi- tleman from New Jersey (Mr. HUGHES)
tee on Narcotics since its inception, gration and Naturalization Service in just a minute.
and I share the frustration of the identify the time and place and the
members of the committee and indeed circumstances of illegal immigration It is true that tection 375 deals only
the Members of the Congress with our taking place across the border. _ theh bdrugs the portions of
ill do,. but deal ther with drugs.
total inability to cope with the flow of Mr. BENNETT. Yes; correct. They the bia do very deaonly with drugs.
drugs that are flooding our country., could not apprehend the people. They are very broad and they would
We do not think and DEA does not Mr. SCHEUER. They could not ap- include Immigration.
think perhaps more'than 5 percent of prehend them. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentle-
the drugs that come into this coun- Mr. 'BENNETT. Yes. The first way man from New Jersey (Mr. HuGHEs).
try-it is a desperately tragic situation. the gentleman was asking the ques- Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I
I am also concerned about the prob- tion, it seemed to me the gentleman thank the gentleman for yielding.
?lem of illegal immigration, whereby was asking whether they could arrest I have a couple concerns- with . sec-
perhaps a million or a. million and a or not. tion 375 of the gentleman's bill. The
half illegal immigrants are coming Mr. SCHEUER. Short of apprehen- language recites that the Secretary of
into our shores every year. It is on sion. Defense, upon request from the Feder-
that specific matter that I wish to ask Mr. BENNETT. Short of apprehen- al. drug agency, is authorized to assign
the gentleman a question.- sion. members of the Armed Forces. By
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the Mr. SCHEUER. All the surveillance definition, the Coast Guard is defined
gentleman from Florida (Mr. BENNETT) and equipment could be used identify as being one of the Armed Forces.
.has again expired. for the INS. Now, it would seem to me that what
(At the 'request of Mr. SCHEUER and Mr. BENNETT. I think that is true the gentleman has done is made the
by unanimous consent, Mr. BENNETT of all 'the views, everything here, Coast Guard now subject to the De-
was allowed to proceed for 3 additional except the views of the gentleman partment of Defense in drug-related
minutes.) from Michigan (Mr. CONYERS). matters.
Approved For Release 2008/10/24: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100020006-9
Approved For Release 2008/10/24: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100020006-9
July 14, 1981
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD --- HOUSE 114299
Mr. BENNETT. It may seem. that declares he can no longer maintain law
way to the gentleman, but I am not and. order; an invasion by a foreign
doing that. enemy; the quelling of a domestic in-
Mr. SHAW. Mr.' Chairman, will the surrection against the Government.
gentleman yield? ? Mr. Taft goes on to say:
Mr. BENNETT. I yield to the gentle- Preservation of this distinction Is one of
man from Florida. the most fundamental precepts of our form
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, for pur- ' of government.
poses of clarification and in specific
reply to the question of the gentleman
from Texas with regard to the use in
immigration problems, section 371 of
the bill of the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. BENNETT) says that the Secretary
of Defense may provide to Federal,
State, or local law enforcement offi-
cials any Information collected during
the normal course of military oper-
ations that may be relevant to a viola-
tion of any Federal or State law.
I believe that covers the question
l
d
This is not the American Civil Lib-
erties Union speaking, but the Depart-
ment of Defense, sensitive to its obli-
gations.
Then Mr. Taft goes on to review
what happened in the Senate, which
was a tragedy as far as the Defense
Department was concerned, and so he
again expresses the point iterated pre-
viously..
There Is another important consider-
ation before we vote on this matter.
Mr. Taft notes that-
e
that was ra s Members of the armed forces put in long,
Mr. BENNETT. I knew that some arduous duty hours in furtherance of the
members of the Judiciary Committee training and operation necessary for mill-
felt that, but there was no intention to try preparedness. Military readiness is fur-
exclude Immigration or Customs. In ther enhanced by eliminating performance
fact, Customs is a specific exception to on nonmilitary tasks by members of the
the comitatus anyway. armed forces in order to provide increased
I am thankful for your attention. I time for military training. Assignment of
am sorry I trespassed so much upon military personnel to civilian law enforce-
our time. meat duties would be contrary to the goal
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. -Chairman, I of military preparedness, because civilian
move to strike the requisite number of operations are not an adequate substitute
words. for military training.
(Mr. CONYERS asked and was given This is the. Department of Defense.
permission to revise and extend his re- The Pentagon is telling us that they
marks.) cannot conduct these operations effec-
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, well, tively because, to, do so would deter
here we have it. The fact of the from its military preparedness. Mr.
matter is that there is very little dif- Taft concludes by stating that-
ference between .. either of these Such operations normally cannot replicate
amendments, even with the proposed the training necessary to meet military con-
White amendment being added to the tingencies. Moreover, participation in civil-
Judiciary Committee amendment. ran law enforcement activities would require
Both amendments are feared by the specialized training with respect to civilian
Department of Defense. operations.
Just when has it arisen that the Ju Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield, please, on that point?
diciary Committee and the Armed
Mr. Committee suddenly have a . CONYERS. Yes; I will yield to
the ntleman from Florida
e
(By unanimous consent, Mr. CoN-
YEns was allowed to proceed for 5 addi-
tional minutes.)
Mr. CONYERS. In that case, I
would bring the gentleman to the next'
paragraph of the testimony before the
Crime Subcommittee of the Penta-
gon's representative. Here Is how
many, provisos he added. The gentle-
man mentioned one. He said that
these considerations are also applica-
ble to section 375 of the proposed
amendment, and he said that unless
four conditions were met In terms of
having members of the' armed services
participate in drug enforcement oper-
ations,, we could not possibly support
the legislation:
(1) the Secretary of Defense must find
that such assistance will not impair military
preparedness; (2) the Secretary must verify
that the drug enforcement operation may
not succeed without military personnel as-
sistance;
Must verify-
(3) Federal drug enforcement officials
must maintain ultimate control over the ac-
tivities; and (4) the assignment cannot take
place in any location or circumstances not
previously approved by the Secretary of
State. The Senate bill does not contain a
similar provision.
In other words,. Mr. Chairman, if
you enforce all ,four provisos, there is
no way they could ever get there in
time to intervene with anything. That
Is why the Pentagon has been telling
us in one way or another that with all
the limitations they are saddled with,-
plus the White amendment which now
keeps. them-how many miles, 12
miles, 60 miles out somewhere in the
waters-makes the whole thing totally
impracticable, even if you are not sen-
sitive to the constitutional consider-
ations that we have been trying so
long to get across to this body.
0 1610
wisdom greater than the Department Mg
SHAW: Mr. Chairman, I would What we are talking about is no idle
that they are saddling these impossi- like to address the particular question matter. We are talking about bringing
ble programs to be carried out with? as to military preparedness. In the the U.S. Armed Services Into the
I would like to read to you from the Bennett amendment, it provides in normal, ordinary enforcement of civil-
testimony given on behalf of the U.S. section 375 that this assistance shall ran laws By doing what? By loaning
Department of Defense on June 3, not be granted if It should be shown equipment and personnel to operate
1981, by the General Counsel of the that it would adversely affect the mils- that equipment to civilian authorities.
Department of Defense, William H. tars preparedness of the United If we loan the equipment with the
Taft IV, Esq. Here is what he said: States. I pilots, the officers and the troops, as
The position of the Department of De- Mr. CONYERS. Exactly. soon as one of those are endangered,
fense on the proposed legislation is charac- Mr. SHAW. I would like to say also what is the automatic military re-
terired by two overriding considerations, that in the Hughes amendment the spouse, Miranda warnings to the con-,
First, the mission of the Department of De- same question is addressed and It pro- trary . notwithstanding? Wipe them
fence is military preparedness. Assistance to out
That is what
Blow them away
.
.
law enforcement agencies. should be pro. vines in section 374 that Lite military
vided only when incidental to the perform- will not be used If it adversely affects they are trained to do, is it not?
ance of the Department's mission. the military preparedness of the Do they have any understanding of
What is he trying to tell the subcom- United States. And . both bills ade- whether the Governor of Florida
mittee? quately address that question. wants them to come in, or whether the
Second, the Department Is sensitive to the Mr. CONYERS. I presume by the mayor of some drug infested town ap-
historic separation between military and ci- gentleman bringing this point to our . proves of it, or where is the Coast
vilian spheres of activity. This distinction is attention that the gentleman would Guard as opposed to the merchant
embodied in the Poise Comitatus Act, 18 not want the preparedness to be inter- marine as opposed to the Army? They
U.S.C. 41385- . rupted by such activities, if that were see it for what it is, a totally impracti-
Incidentally, a criminal statute- the case. cable but well-intentioned notion
which generally prohibits military partici- Mr. SHAW. Both bills specifically about how we should deal with-the
pation in civilian law enforcement, with lim- prohibit that. drug problem.
ited exceptions. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the Little has been said about the multi-
What are those exceptions? An gentleman from Michigan (Mr. CbN- billion dollar Drug Enforcement Ad_
emergency: the C
Approved For Release 2008/10/24: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100020006-9
Approved For Release 2008/10/24: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100020006-9
H 4300 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE July 14,.1981
them some more money? Why do we of the defendant's rights here. What clothes,agents on civilians and organi-
not loan, or dare I suggest, give them about protection of the public's rights? zations.
some equipment? If we have so much The public is entitled to an arresting The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
in the procurement bill that the Navy officer who is trained in the preserva- gentleman from Indiana has expired.
'or somebody has some excessive equip- tion and presentation of evidence, an (By unanimous consent Mr. JACOBS
ment, let us give it to them and keep officer who can give evidence and was allowed to proceed for 3 additional
them out of enforcing civilian laws. obtain a conviction. Those who are minutes.)
There are constitutional consider- trained in the military sphere are Mr. CONYERS. One of those organi-
ations that are being ignored in this simply not trained that way, with the zations was the House of Representa-
debate. I plead with my colleagues to possible exception of the military tives. We had Members who were the
examine what this could ultimately police. subject of that kind of activity.
lead to. It would routinely authorize If the tools are lent to the law en- Could we have secret intelligence ac-
the armed services to intrude into the forcement agencies,' those best capable tions going ? on as a result of this au-
civilian laws of the United States. of operating those tools will, in my thority being granted?
That Is the beginning of a police state, opinion, inevitably follow; indeed, they Whether we could do anything
I say to my colleagues. Nobody here will be there in the first place if the about it is yet another question. I
wants that. Already we are talking gentleman from Florida's (Mr. BEN- hope the gentleman's remarks on
about hitting the aliens at the same NETT) proposal is ultimately accepted. these ? issues will be considered by
time. Already, we are ..talking about So I caution the committee to think every Member who is casting a vote on
knocking out terrorists along with a little bit about history, to think this matter.
drug pushers. Where does it end? about the cause for the third amend- Mr. JACOBS. I thank the gentle an
Let us pause for a moment. If it Is ment, the third part of our Bill of for his contribution. I might just say,
the collective judgment of this body to Rights, and to think a little bit about Mr. Chairman, that I believe the need
change a long-standing principle of the practical means for improving our to do.something should not lead to the
our form of government, then obvious- law enforcement agencies in this area. willingness to try. anything. I urge ex-
ly I will be unable to restrain that. But The gentleman from Michigan has treme caution in this area.
let us'not do it in a military authoriza- suggested that the equipment be given Mr. WHITE. Mr. Chairman, will the
tion bill that addresses how much to the law enforcement agencies. Why gentleman
equipment we are going to build for not? The only reason I could think of yield:
Mr. JACOBS-
the greatest military instrument on is the military may still need the . I yield to the gentle
the face of the globe. equipment. If the military still needs man n from m Texa Texas.
Mr. JACOBS. Mr. Chairman, I rise the equipment it probably means that Mr. very WHITE. The willing go
vote ntleman would
In opposition to the amendment. it has the personnel to operate that ever and eliminate awhat-'
Mr. Chairman, somebody wrote to same equipment. That also probably power of a arrest and would seizure, the
ent what
me about this proposal a? couple of means that same personnel would end And d from from at the gt gentleman
weeks ago, I think, and my offhand re- up operating the equipment in its civil- he says. whha tian law enforcement role. from Michigan (Mr. CONY ERs) says,
sponse_ was that ,It sounded like a the power to merely use equipment
pretty good idea to me. But this As to civilian control of the forces, and not to make surveillance and not
debate has messed up 'my thinking my colleagues, the civilian part of our to arrest and?seize and'search.
with some facts. Government already controls the mill-
` The first fact that has mup tary. The President of the United Is that correct?
my thinking is what happened messed the States is the Commander in Chief. Mr. JACOBS. I do not believe the
Boston Massacre. Although not genet- That does not insure constitutional gentleman grasps the 'purport of my
Boston protection of our citizens and their remarks. I am simply. saying that no
ally noted in our history is,the the right to have effective, constitutional matter what the Statutory prohibition
Boston Massacre. In the novel "On the Beach," Nevil becomes a little bit pregnant, eventu-
Crispus A auckslaw . enforcement agencies, Shute wrote that in the final destruc- ally "Rosemary's Baby" will be born.
without the finery of enforcement agencies,
shot tion of the Earth, there were five MIS- Mr. HARTNETT. Mr. Chairman, I
siles left in China and five missiles left move to strike the requisite number of
dead several people in that gathering, in the Soviet Union. The Prime Minis- words, and I rise in. support of the
that demonstration on that day. It was ter of Australia reached a Chinese amendment.
the precursor, I suppose, of the.Kent lieutenant who had charge of the five (Mr. HARTNETT asked and was
State tragedy to which reference was missiles in an effort to stop' the last given permission to revise and extend
made earlier. exchange of missiles on Earth. Some- his remarks.)
My father used to say there are too body asked what the answer of the Mr: HARTNETT. ;,Mr. Chairman, I
many people making history who have
never read history. I think that has- Chinese lieutenant was. And the have sat here this afternoon and lis-
never ?
been the read history. was "If you were trained to toned to the debate. Before I sat here,
been the problem wihistory. th th most
father that h republics s fire missiles in hostility, and that was I knew very little about it. And per-
the only-training you had, what would haps I am still not as well versed on
colleague of my dear friend from Flor- your answer have been?" the subject matter as many of the
ida, Mr. BENNETT, was probably one of Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will Members who have preceded me to
the first people to.vote in Congress ' the gentleman yield? these podiums.
against our unfortunate involvement Mr. JACOBS. I yield to the gentle- I have heard the gentleman from
ln'the Vietnam war, because there was man from Michigan (Mr. CONYERS). Michigan say to us that we should be
legislation in the Congress to provide Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentle- concerned that the Department' of De-
only weapons, not manpower, to the man for his contribution. fense is opposed to this, and wherein
French in their Southeast Asia war. In 1967 Detroit had the largest riot do we think that the wisdom collective
The RECORD will show that my father in the history of this country, I am of the Judiciary Committee and the
in that debate many, many decades sorry to say. The President of the Armed Services Committee 'exceeds
ago said in this very chamber that if United States ordered troops into De- that of the Department-of Defense?
the equipment goes, our men will troit and Michigan. Without lawful ' I would answer that by asking %the
follow, eventually, inevitably.
authority, in defiance of national tra- gentleman or saying to him that I do
% Mr. Chairman, I am a former police ditions' and ~ in secrecy, the Army not know ' of any group of people or
officer. I know something about train- seized on that event as an excuse to any agency that is more adversely af-
ing police officers, and. I know some- convert its intelligence unit into a na- fected by illegal.drug use than our mil-
thing ? about arrests. on the street. tionwide detective force and ,to assign itary. It threatens the very survival of
Much has been said about. protection 1,500 of their agents to spy as plain- this Nation as a free nation and our
Approved For Release 2008/10/24: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100020006-9
Approved For Release 2008/10/24: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100020006-9
July 14, 1981 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
capabilities of being able to defend
ourselves.
The gentleman from Florida pointed
out t,iat when things have threatened
this Nation internally, such as the
great civil rights strife which we have
had in past years, and we saw that was
an issue that was about to destroy this
great Nation from within, no one ob-
jected.then to the use of our military
forces to enforce a law that was about
to destroy the American people and
our Nation from within.
And what was so capably pointed
out by the. distinguished gentleman
from Florida was: What, Mr. Chair-
man, what issue in society today more
threatens to destroy our Nation from
within than the drug problem which
we have, to destroy our society, the
minds and bodies of countless millions,
many of whom happen to be minority
members of our great Nation? What
greater issue right now than the drug
traffic problem?
And we say, "We have got to do
something, but we do not want to'step
on the constitutional rights of those
who would prey on the very right to
life of many of our young people."
How many of you in your States-
and many of you served, in your State
legislatures-knew that your highway
? department on peak Labor Day week-
ends and Fourth of July weekends
would park empty patrol cars, high-
way patrol cars, State trooper cars on
sides of roads? Do you know what it
would do? Just the presence of that
empty automobile alone caused people
to be more conscious that there were
such people as drug enforcement offi-
cers and law enforcement officers
nearby, and they would slow down and
drive more carefully or be more cogni-
zant of our traffic laws.
And again as was very ably pointed
out by the distinguished gentleman
from Florida, their mere presence to a
drug-trafficking ship, passing a naval
vessel or a Coast Guard vessel at sea
would cause them to think twice about
what their cargo might be.
And maybe we will not get convic-
tions. But maybe countless billions of
dollars of illegal drugs will be de-
stroyed, and that will keep that terri-
ble, agent from reaching, as was so
ably pointed out by my distinguished
friend from California, the young'
people of this country.
So maybe it has got to be a tempo-
rary thing, I say to the gentleman
from Michigan. Maybe it is something
that you and I fear because God
knows we do not want a police state,
we do not want military people stop-
ping your wife or mine, or your hus-
bands or children as they travel our
highways and byways. But I think in
the cause of eliminating what is the
most insidious cancer 'that is preying
on the American society now, maybe-
just maybe-we could put the faith in
our Department of Defense and our
military people and urge them to do
what they can to eliminate this terri-
ble.terrible cancer.
So, Mr. BENNETT-I understand you
are not supposed to mention names on
the floor, but I do not know why. I
think when people deserve bouquets,
they ought to get them; when they de-
serve brickbats, they ought to get
them. But. I salute you and take off
my hat to you, sir, for pointing out
and being a leader in what I think is
an idea that will go a long way toward
eliminating a lot of the drug traffic
problem which we have, and I hope
that this body will see fit to pass what
I think is ? the first step forward in
bringing about some control, some
first step forward in bringing some
relief to our society and this terrible
problem that has infected it.
Mr. EVANS of Georgia. Mr. Chair-
man, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
(Mr. EVANS of Georgia asked and
was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. EVANS of Georgia. Mr. Chair-
man and my colleagues, I am in a
unique position of-supporting all ver-
sions of the posse comitatus because I
think anything that can be done in
this area is an improvement over the
present situation.
It has been pointed out that posse
comitatus has a constitutional, almost
a constitutional mandate, that it is a
constitutional right for the separation
from the military and the civilian.
Congress passed that law in 1875. It
can certainly amend it today to deal
with the kind of problem that the pre-
vious speaker has Just addressed.
We are talking -about a situation in
which several people have pointed out,
"Well, why do we not just give more
resources to our civilian law enforce-
ment?" The many billions of dollars
that it would cost-the gentleman who
mentioned that knows-will not be
done under this administration or any
other administration because we are
talking about a $70 or $80 billion in-
dustry that has the ability to buy the
kind of equipment, the kind of com-
munication, the kind of sophisticated
means to evade law enforcement that
we cannot compete with and take out
of the taxpayers' pockets.
It seems ludicrous, to me, to have
the equipment and personnel avail-
able. We have the military. What is
our military doing? We are not engag-
ing in any war. We can at this time,
consistent with routine, flights and
with routine training, with routine ob-
servation, through our military person-
nel and the use of the equipment that
was bought at the expense of the tax-
payers, assist law enforcement with a
serious problem. Why can we not wait
for every minute? Every few minutes
that we wait, we have another child
caught up in the drug scene.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. EVANS of Georgia. I yield to
the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, a lot
has been said today in the name of
history, and I would like to Join with
H 4301
the gentleman in his thoughts. The
gentleman mentioned a few moments
ago that the law that did away with
the military enforcing civilian law was
in 1875. I know the gentleman will
recall this as a corrective law that cor-
rected the Reconstruction Era and the
excesses of that day which were part
of our American history.
This is a different situation today.
The drug problem, as the gentleman
has so aptly pointed out, is one of the
most, if not the most, devastating to
the youth of America.
I certainly hope that in looking at
history we will not look at it through
the wrong tinted glasses and look at
this foursquare because we must do
something; and the use of history to
divert us from a true and correct solu-
tion is not the way to go.
I commend the gentleman on his
comments.
111630
Mr. EVANS of Georgia. I thank the
gentleman. I would like to further
point out that in dealing with not only
the cost that we have talked about
before and what it would cost to put in
the same thing that we have available
through our military into civilian law
enforcement, it would cost tens of bil-
lions of dollars. We do not need full-
time equipment. We just need the sur-
veillance. We need the assistance
when we need it, and Congress certain-
ly has the authority to do that.
It has been pointed out by law en-
forcement officials that if they could
get,someone to Just tell them when
suspicious ships were coming in or sus-
picious planes were flying in, they can
follow that in to where the plane
landed. They could confiscate the
drugs or make the arrests. There is no
reason why the taxpayers of this coun-
try have to face the great drug prob-
lem because we do not have the good
sense to duplicate the use or to double
the use of what we already have avail-
able.
Mr. WHITE. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. EVANS of Georgia. I yield to
the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. WHITE. Mr. Chairman, I want
to thank the gentleman for yielding.
Pertaining to one of the statements
the gentleman made earlier as to the
use of the equipment, and why should
we not use this equipment and person-
nel, I merely wanted to point out one
very important difference between the
Bennett bill and the one I have pro-
vided.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The
time of the gentleman from Georgia
has expired.
(At the request of Mr. WinTE and by.
unanimous consent, Mr. EvANS of
Georgia was allowed to proceed for 5
additional minutes.)
Mr. WHITE. In the Bennett lan-
guage there is no provision for the use
of equipment by the military person-
nel for the surveillance of those who
Approved For Release 2008/10/24: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100020006-9
Approved For Release 2008/10/24: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100020006-9
H 4302 CONGRESSIONAL. RECORD - HOUSE July 1.4, 1481
would violate our narcotics laws. nett. Let us do something, pass some- not trained, then
There is no provision in there what- thing and show the criminal el t
em
en our Job.
ever. The onl r '
y provision that exists in of this country that we mean business Mr. EVANS of Georgia. I would
the language of Mr. BENNETT that is about the drug traffic in this country. answer the `gentleman's question by
now in the Armed Services Committee Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, will saying that should the military desire
bill is that they will provide any infor- the gentleman yield? ' not to do anything, they may be able
mation collected during. the course of Mr. EVANS'of Georgia. I yield to to use that language not to do it;- but
military operations. Otherwise, there the gentleman from New Jersey. that is a guess on my part, and my col-
is no mention of the use of equipment Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, first league from Florida may disagree.
by military personnel. The only other let' me Just commend the gentleman Ms. FIEDLER. Mr. Chairman, I
provision is the lending of military for his superb leadership in this entire move to strike the requisite number of
equipment. area. He has been very deeply in this words.
Now, this is very sophisticated equip- for a number of years, and goes back I would like to make an Inquiry of
ment. Much of it needs to be operated to before he came to this Congress. He the gentleman from Texas. I would
by the military personnel. The amend- Is to be commended.
ment I have presented to the Judici-. Let me, if I might, raise another con- like to ask Cation man WHITE foe
ary Committee's amendment does pro- tern that I have about the Bennett some information regarding the
vide for the lending of the equipment, language. Section 375 of the Armed amendment,
but also provides for the operation of Services Committee bill provides, that I live In the State of California, and
the equipment by the military perspn- the Secretary of Defense has to make there has been over a remendous flow of
net for the purpose of surveillance, illicit drugs
certain findings. One of the findings, oethe border from
monitoring, tracking those who violate and let me read it, is: Mexico. I am very concerned that the
the narcotics laws, and those who are The Secretary of Defense has to verify an any-summer's amendment might limit
illegal aliens and contraband. So, that the drug enforcement operation may y-surveillance or involvement on the
those are provided specifically in the not succeed without military personnel as- part of the military where there
bill we are supporting here. sistance. happen to be a number of bases close
Mr. EVANS of Georgia. I thank the Now, our colleague from Michigan by that might be involved, so I would
gentleman, and I would like to reclaim aptly pointed out that the Depart- like to know what regarding the t the ghe g agr p the
the balance of my time and conclude ment of Defense does not really want amendment eography.
my remarks. any additional authority. They like it Mr. WHITE. The limits are these:
The whole point I was trying to as It is. They are going to say to the They ' can monitor, they can survey,
make here is not so much which bill to Secretary of Defense, "Before you can they can pass the information- They
support. I personally believe that the provide equipment and personnel, co y_ cannot arrest or seize. They put out
Bennett bill would be much more ef- have got to make a finding that the sensory devices. They can use radar to
fertive in co
in
ith th
p
g w
e drug traffic.
At the same time, I believe that the
Hughes amendment, as amended by
White, would do a great deal because
the problem in the past has not been
the overuse of the military;, the prob-
lem has been that the people in
charge of the military bases have used
the posse comitatus statute to not do
anything to assist civilian law enforce-
ment. They have acted on an individu-
al basis depending on who the com-
mander was to not participate, and all
this fear of what is going to. happen.
when the military takes over is in
direct contradiction to what the facts
are..
We have had hearings all over the
Southwest; we have had hearings in
the Judiciary Committee; we have had
hearings in the Defense Committee,
and all those hearings indicate that
the problem is not abuse, the problem
is Inaction. The problem is, nobody is
doing anything and our children every
day, more and-more, are being Infested
with this problem.
If we want to sit here and talk about
fine points and talk about the Consti-
tution, where it does not apply to this
particular case, and let more and more
your intervention." are coming across in small aircraft.
How is the Secretary of Defense They can use radar, but they cannot
going to do that? In fact, it gives him go in and seize,
an out. All a Secretrary of Defense has I do- not think the gentlewoman
to do as an excuse for not cooperating, from California would want to sge any
as often they do not cooperate, as the troops where they do not have any
gentleman knows, is to find that it - military posts, on the border, going
would have succeeded without them. there In the dead of night when they
Mr. EVANS of Georgia. May' I are coming across, trying to make ar-
answer the gentleman's' question by rests and seizures, because there may
stating that, If I understand the rules, be shootings, international incidents,
the Hughes amendment will come up and we will not have expert apprehen-
first. I intend to support that. I intend sions.
to support Mr. WHITE, and if for some ? Ms. FIEDLER.' Is the gentleman in-
reason they do not pass, I intend to dicating, then, that in the situation on
support Mr. BENNETT. The point Is, we land as between California and
need to do something. I understand Mexico, that it would not be permissi-
the practical effect: We have a confer- ble under the gentleman's amendment
ence committee that will take this and to seize illicit drugs?
perfect the language if it needs to be Mr. WHITE. It is not permissible in
perfected, but the important thing any event by racy amendment to seize,
today is that we get a version of this and no arrest whether at sea or on
bill passed. land. It removes the troops from the
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The seizure and apprehension because that
time of the- gentleman from Georgia 'is not what their service is for, but it
has again expired. does permit the full limit, unlike the
(At the request of Mr. HUGHES and Bennett amendment. It allows them to
by unanimous consent, Mr. EVANS' of be used on request for surveillance.
Georgia was allowed to proceed for 1 They do not provide for surveillance
w.. xsul-F,
of our kids go down the drain, and let ? Mr. H
UGHES.cLet me just say that
more and more of our parents be bro- In the final analysis we all want to get
kenhearted because they have lost the ball to the goal line.
their kids, then I think what we ought Mr. EVANS of Georgia. Yes.
to do is just sit here and engage in a Mr. HUGHES. The important thing
fine debate and talk about all the fine is to try to do something of signifi-
points and talk about the rights of cance to combat the drug traffic. I'say
poor criminals who are making billions to my colleague, whatever we do has
of dollars out of killer-dealing death to to be carefully crafted because If, In
our young people. If we want to do fact, in our endeavor to try to provide
that, let us do it, but I would say, let law enforcement with assistance we In
its do something today, whether It be fact undermine law enforcement capa-
Hughes amended by White or Ben- bilities by providing personnel that are
specifically for narcotics and for other
purposes. Theirs is only in' relation to
military use. Ours is specifically re-
quested to survey, to monitor, to track,
and pass that Information on to the
arresting and seizing officers: have
them working In tandem with DEA,
Customs border patrol, with all work.
ing in tandem.
13 1640
They would be the arresting offi-
cials, not the military. We would not
expose the troops to the shooting and
Approved For Release 2008/10/24: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100020006-9
Approved For Release 2008/10/24: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100020006-9
July 14, 1981
CONGRESSIONAI. RECORD -- HOUSE 1I 4303
all the other problems and to the poor
establishment of evidence as we would
if we Just used civilian people.
Ms. FIEDLER. 4r. Chairman, I
thank the gentleman very much for
his explanation.
I simply want to add my support to
the efforts of the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. BENNETT). I would in fact
support the use of the military in the
event It were necessary and in the
event that it was there onsite when
there was illicit drug traffic.
As a former member of the Los An-
geles school board, I have seen the ter-
rible Implications of drug abuse among
children. We see it on an ongoing basis
in our increasing crime statistics, and I
think unless we get It. under control,
we are going to see a continual erosion
of law.
I cannot in strong enough terms in-
dicate that where there is abuse and il-
legal action and where we have re-
sources on the spot, we ought to uti-
lize them. To do anything less is really
a disservice to the people of our coun-
try and particularly our children.
Mr. PRICE. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike the . requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to see if
we-could come to some agreement on
winding this up. We have been on this
one issue for about 2'h or 3 hours.
I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if we could
agree to take the vote on this in 10
minutes, and I make that as a unani-
mous-consent request.
. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Illinois?
Mr. HUGHES.' Mr. Chairman, re-
serving the right to object, is the gen-
tleman talking about debate on the
White amendment?
Mr. PRICE. On the issue before us.
Mr. HUGHES. The White amend-
ment?
Mr. PRICE. The White amendment
and all amendments thereto.
Mr. HUGHES. Mr. 'Chairman, I
object.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection ? is
heard.
Mrs. CHISHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I was viewing the
proceedings in my office, and I recog-
nized that I just could not sit still any
longer. It was necessary for me to
come over here and at least register
my deep concern over what is taking
.place in this Chamber today.
This is a very basic issue. It is a very
important Issue. First of all, we are
cognizant of the fact that the Depart-
ment of Defense is not interested in
this particular situation at all.
Second. if indeed the Department of
Justice really feels that we are not
winning our battles in the drug war
and that one of the several' reasons
might be the necessity for new kinds
of equipment and materials, why is it
that the money and the equipment
cannot be placed in that particular
unit?
Third, I think we have to recognize
that because of the training of persons
in the military, there is no question of
the fact that in the event they have to
pursue a number of drugpushers or
persons engaged in the drug business,
the immediate response would be to
put into operation the kind of training
and the kind of attitudes that have
been engendered in said persons as a
result of that kind of training that
goes on over a period of years. And in
many instances I do not think that
many of us can really foresee that
there is a possibility of many persons
really getting killed and getting hurt
unnecesssarily.
There is no room in our society for
the intervention by the military in
terms of civilian life. We are moving in
recent days in the direction of
acknowledging that we have failed, in
spite of the tremendous amounts of
money that we have placed in differ-
ent areas, to do a Job, and in a state of
panic and in a state of paralysis or
stagnation, dependent on how we -view
it, we are now going to come forth
with suggestions that would help the
situation irrespective of what the im-
plications and the ramifications of
these suggestions might mean to the
people in this country.
I just could not believe that we are
moving in the direction of involving
the military in terms of the civilian
life and the problems that we are find-
ing in our society with respect to the
drug business. I do not know if we
have really sat down and thought it
out very, very carefully as to what we
are really doing, and In our panic and
with the fact of what the statistics
show in terms of the drug trade and in
terms of the breakdown of family
units and morality in this country, the
feeling is that what we must do is
come up with anything irrespective of
what is meant without taking into con-
sideration what this could do to our
society as a whole in the future.
I have been here now going on 13
years, and this has really shocked me
more than anything else that I have
observed since I have been in the U.S.
House of Representatives, because we
are moving in our society toward a ter-
rible control.on every level and we are
moving into a society in which there
will be a great, deal of control and a
great deal of intervention in the lives
of people. ~
Mr. Chairman, it just frightens me
to death that we cannot find other
ways of combating this particular drug
trade that we have in our country
without now going to the military and
bringing them into our civilian lives.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. CHISHOLM. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Michigan.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I ap-.
preciate the gentlewoman's presents,
tion, because it is a nonlawyer but
humane, responsible, legislative exam-
ination of what we are doing here.
Now, constant reference has been
made to brushing the Constitution
aside because this is an important
social question. A number of Members
here have carelessly gotten up and
said, "So what, if it is just a matter of
arguing about somebody's constitu-
tional rights?"
But certainly the constitutional
rights are those of the American
people, not the drug pushers that we
are concerned about here.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentlewoman. from New York (Mrs.
CHISHOLM) has expired.
(On request of Mr. CONYERS, and by
unanimous consent, Mrs. CHISHOLM
was allowed to proceed for 4 additional
minutes.)
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, if
the gentlewoman will yield further, let
me tell the Members that for every-
body who has recognized that there is
a constitutional issue involved in this
amendment, others are saying, "Well,
this is just an argument between law-
yers and legislators about an old law,
so we will change it." Right?
Wrong. Because if it has a constitu-
tional basis, then we cannot change it
without peril to the Federal judiciary
and setting it 'aside.Because of what?
Unconstitutionality.
So I ask, could we merely take that
into passing consideration? If we
decide in our ultimate wisdom that we
are going, to change this 100-year-old
law that has admitted constitutional
sacredness, please, let us consider that
we are tampering with the Constitu-
tion here. I ask all the Members to
very carefully consider that one fact.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentle-
woman for yielding.
Mr. STRATTON. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. CHISHOLM. I yield to the gen-
tleman from New York.
Mr. STRA1 TON. Mr. Chairman, I
appreciate my colleague, the gentle-
woman from New York, yielding to
me.
I do not pretend to be a constitution.
al expert nor a lawyer, but I believe
the false interpretation of what she
said she heard on the tube which
brought her over here may be slightly
distorted. My understanding of what
the proposal that is included in our
bill and that was offered by the gen-
tleman from Florida (Mr.. BENNETT)
and which was defended very ably by
him on the floor is directed primarily
toward keeping out of the United
States those people who would bring
in these drugs from somewhere
around the world to damage the
American people.
This proposal, as I understand it, is
not suggesting that we hire the Army
to track down the drug pushers on the
streets of New York City, for example.
It is an attempt to try to establish
some kind of border situation, as long
as we have a Navy available,. that
would track down people who are
preying primarily on American citi-
Approved For Release 2008/10/24: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100020006-9
'H4304
Approved For Release 2008/10/24: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100020006-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE July 14, 1981
zens, people from other countries that
bring In drugs and think they can
keep it up.
^ 1650
Mrs. CHISHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I
yield no further because I think what
the gentleman is attempting to do is to
really In.a sense distort what I have
said.
The basic question; the bottom line
of what I have said is that we are now
going to involve the military in some
form with respect to this particular
issue, and I am asking the question as
to why is it necessary at this point in
tirrie to involve the military or any
aspect of the military? Why is it that
we could not give. the equipment and
the ' materials and all of the things
that are necessary to those units of
Government that are already handling
the Issue because of the ramifications
of involvement of the military in any
sense?
Mr. STRATTON. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentlewoman yield?-'
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. CHISHOLM. I yield to.the gen-
tleman from Michigan.
Mr. CONYERS. May I point out the
gentleman from New York is in gross
error. The Bennett language is not in
any way restrictive in limiting it any-
where in. its operation. No. 2, the
armed services already have the au-
thority to operate exterritorial. They
do not have to get a special law from
us- to operate overseas and in other
places.
Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentlewoman yield?
'Mrs. CHISHOLM. I yield to the gen-
tleman from New Jersey.
Mr. HUGHES. I thank the gentle-
woman for yielding.
What the gentlewoman has said, I
think, is apt. What we should be doing
is providing more equipment, more
personnel, to our law enforcement
community. We are not doing that.
We put back into the budget about
$3.2 million needed by. DEA, but it is
still inadequate. Each year ' it keeps
going down. ,
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs.
CHISHOLM) has expired.
(At the request of Mr. HUGHES and
by unanimous consent, Mrs. CHISHOLM
was allowed to proceed for 2 additional
minutes.)
Mr. HUGHES. If the gentlewoman
will yield further, the issue we see on
the Judiciary Committee part is a
meager effort to try to encourage co-
operation where that is possible. The
sharing of intelligence information,
the sharing of that equipment, where
that can be done without taking away
from the military mission.
In fact, by regulation, under section
374, the Secretary of Defense can do,
just as the gentlewoman has suggest-
ed, provide the separate arm for the
equipment so that when that is loaned
out that there is a separate group that
would operate that equipment. That
can be done by regulation. So, it can
be carried out.
But unfortunately, the arguments
have gotten off on tangents. The bill
as drafted by Judiciary is very narrow-
ly crafted to provide what law enforce-
ment has requested, and unfortunate-
ly we have gotten off on a whole host
of other issues that are interesting,
but they really are not relevant to the
Judiciary Committee bill.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. CHISHOLM. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Florida.
Mr. BENNETT. I thank the gentle-
woman for yielding.
The gentlewoman did ask why not
do this through appropriated money?
I . do not believe the gentlewoman
probably understood the statistics
cited here. The Coast Guard says it
would cost $4 billion to build the ships
necessary to make a reasonable attack
on the drug trade coming in. It would
require 20,000 new personnel. That is
$180 million a year. That is $4 billion
which we are not going to get. We are
not even getting-$3 million.
We are actually cutting down, this
Congress is cutting down on what is
done.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentlewoman yield?
Mr. CHISHOLM. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Michigan.
Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentle-
woman for yielding..
We have two sets of views here. One,
that this is the most horrendous prob-
lem we have ever faced, and, two, we
know darn well we will not allocate
any money to it.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from Texas (Mr. WHITE) to the
Judiciary Committee amendment.
The, question was taken; and the
Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I
make the point of order that a quorum
is not present.
The CHAIRMAN. Evidently ' a
quorum is not present.
The Chair announces that pursuant
to clause 2, rule XXIII, he will vacate
proceedings under the call when a
quorum of the Committee appears.
Members will record their presence
by electronic device.
The call was taken by electronic
device.
^ 1700
QUORUM CALL VACATED
The CHAIRMAN. One hundred
Members have responded. A quorum
of the Committee of the Whole is
present. Pursuant to rule XXIII,
clause 2, further proceedings under
the call shall be considered as vacated.
The Committee will resume its bust-,
ness.
On the voice vote, the Chair will
rule that the amendment had carried.
So the amendment to the Judiciary
Committee amendment was agreed to.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. SHAW. TO THE JU-
DICIARY COMMITTEE AMENDMENT, AS.AMIUD-
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I offer,
an amendment to the Judiciary Com-
mittee' amendrtient, as amended.
The Clerk- read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. SHAW to the
Judiciary Committee amendment. as
amended: Page 47, strike out line 1.4 and
insert in lieu thereof the following:
"member is authorized by Section 375 of
this Title or is otherwise authorized by
law." .
At the end of the amendment add the fol-
lowing:
"(g) The Secretary of Defense, upon re-
quest from the head of a Federal agency
with jurisdiction to enforce the Controlled
Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) or the
Controlled Substances Import and Export
Act (21 U.S.C. 951 et seq.). may assign mem-
bers of the armed forces to assist such agen-
cy's drug enforcement officials in drug seiz-
ures or arrests outside the land area of the
United States (or of, the territories and pos-
sessions of the United States) if (1) that as-
sistance will not adversely affect pile mili-
tary preparedness of the United States, (2)
the Secretary of Defense verifies that the
drug enforcement operation may not suc-
ceed without military personnel assistance,
and (3) Federal drug enforcement officials
maintain ultimate control over the activities
and direction of any drug enforcement oper-
ation."
Mr. SHAW (during the reading). Mr.
Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to
dispense with further reading of the
amendment, and that the amendment
be considered as read printed in the
RECORD.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I will be
brief in my remarks. I believe that we
have thoroughly debated the proposi-
tion before the House with regard to
the amendment to. that provision. We
have heard, I think, eloquent debate
late this afternoon. ,
I-think that there is no question in
this House in anyone's mind that the
drug problem is the No. 1 domestic
problem that we have In the country
today. In my opinion, it surpasses the
problems that we have with it crippled
economy that we are dealing with; it
surpasses the problem that we ? are
having dealing with the tax problem
and the tax cut. We have a cancer that
is totally out of control in this coun-
try. We have two amendments that
are yet to be, considered after my
amendment. We have two very fine
amendments to be considered; one by
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. BEN-
NETT) of the Armed Services Commit-
tee, which Is an excellent amendment.
It provides that the military can be
used in effecting seizures, as well as ar-
rests. The other is by the Judiciary
Committee, as offered by the gentle-
man from New Jersey (Mr. HUGHES),
and amended by the amendment of
the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Approved For Release 2008/10/24: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100020006-9
Approved For Release 2008/10/24: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100020006-9
July 14, 1981
portant that we permit in some in-
stances the actual use of military per-
sonnel in making seizures and making
They have us outmanned, they have
us outequippedt and they have us out-
gunned.
I therefore think that it is vitally, im-
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
WHITE). It also is a very fine amend-
ment. It restricts the use of military
personnel and equipment to providing
intellig.;nce and also operating equip-
ment.
What we are trying to-do by my
amendment is to strike a compromise.
We have heard this afternoon state-
ments about the placement of troops
on the American-Mexican borders and
how that would be repugnant to many
of the people here.,
We do have a drug problem that. we
have totally been unable to deal with
through local and Federal law enforce-
ment officials. I think it has been very
aptly pointed out that the drug traf-
fickers are in themselves a military
force outfitted with the finest equip-
ment and with well-trained personnel.
4
arrests.
I am specifically `concerned about
the. waters surrounding the United
trafficking of drugs coming into this
country.
I would like to quickly say, though.
that - I intend to vote "yes" on the
Hughes amendment with or without
my amendment attached to it. If that
does not pass, I intend to vote "yes"
on the Bennett amendment, because I
think that it is very important. It is
vital that we pass here in this House a
bill that will qualify the provisions of
posse comitatus to use the military in
the enforcement of our dfug laws.
^ 1710
Mr. STRATTON. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. SHAW. I yield to the gentleman
from New York (Mr; STRATTON).
and our territories under very specific
circumstances when military person-
nel are required to assist in making ar-
rests and seizures, that they would be
able to do so.
In all instances, however, the Feder-
al Drug Enforcement officials would
maintain the ultimate control over the
activities and directions of this en-
forcement operation.
I think that for us to have the mili-
tary personnel that we have, and I am
specifically concerned with the Navy.
personnel that we have under our
command as a nation, and for us not
to effectively use them is very bad
judgment, Indeed.
I do believe that with their use, we
can make a significant dent in the
States as the route over which the
vast majority of drugs are brought
Into our country so I am proposing an
amendment that would be an amend-
ment to the bill of the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. HUGHES) which would
provide that in those instances outside
Mr. STRATTON. The effect of the
gentleman's amendment is to permit
the military to do what?
Mr. SHAW. It permits-the big sig-
nificant difference or difference that
this would make to the Hughes
amendment is to allow the Armed
Forces to be used outside of the land
area of the United States and its terri-
tories to assist the Drug Enforcement
officials in making arrests and in seiz-
ures.
Mr. STRATTON. The Hughes
amendment would not allow their use
either inside or outside the United
States; is that correct?
Mr. SHAW. That is correct.
Mr. STRATTON. So the gentleman
would oppose the use within the
United States but not outside?
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Florida has expired.
(By unanimous consent Mr. SHAW
was allowed to proceed for 5 additional
minutes.)
Mr. SHAW. I would ask the gentle-
man to repeat the question, please.
Mr. STRATTON. In other words,
the gentleman's amendment is a per-
fecting amendment to the Hughes
amendment, as I understand it; is? that
right?
- Mr. SHAW. I think it is a compro-
mise. I think Mr. HUGHES would dis-
agree that it is perfecting.
Mr. STRATTON. Is the gentleman
offering his amendment as an amend-
ment to the Hughes amendment or as
a substitute?
Mr. SHAW. It is an amendment to
the Hughes amendment..
Mr. STRATTON. So the gentleman
would go further. than the Hughes
amendment by at least allowing the
use of American military forces at sea,
if not on land?
Mr. SHAW. Outside of the land area
of the United States.
Mr. STRATTON. The Hughes
amendment, as I understand it, would
say It is all right to use the military,
but not use the military people.
Mr. SHAW. The gentleman says It Is
all right to use the military, but not in
arrests and seizures. -
Mr. STRATTON. I appreciate the
clarification. I have listened to this for
so long that it is all getting a little
confusing. I think the gentleman's
amendment is a good one and I will
support it. -
Mr. SHAW. I thank the gentleman.
We seem to be catching our tail here
this evening, but I do think it is an im-
portant distinction and I think it is so
important that when we have the mili-
tary personnel out there, one of the
most valuable tools that they have in
defense of their own safety is the
power to make an arrest. This is true
of -any law enforcement official and I
think it Is particularly true here when
the military is under the control of
the law enforcement agency.
Mr. STRATTON. If the gentleman
will yield to me further, one of the
major sources of drugs, as I under-
stand it, is. not just the boats that
11,4305
come in from Cuba to the gentleman
from Florida's home State, but that
we also have a lot of little planes that
fly over from Mexico. If we send some
American planes after these people
who are coming in with drugs. Is that
in line with the gentleman's amend-
ment or not?
Mr. SHAW. I believe that the
Hughes amendment already addresses
that with or without my amendment
as far as surveillance is concerned. The
only thing my amendment really adds
is the arrest and seizure provision out-
side the land area of the United
States.
Mr. STRATTON. They can surveilie
but they cannot shoot them down.
Mr. SHAW. They cannot shoot them
down under either provision; but the
gentleman Is correct.
Mr. STRATTON. It is a little hard
to make an arrest in the air.
Mr. SHAW. I would certainly agree
with that.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the bal-
ance of my time.
Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike the requisite number of
words, and I rise in opposition to the
amendment. .
(Mr. HUGHES asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, it has
been a long afternoon and I know that
we have spent a lot more time than a
lot of people envisioned, but it is an
important issue.
I oppose the Shaw amendment, not
because it is not well intended, because
it is. I understand my colleagues' utter
frustration. They have a mind-bog-
gling drug problem in Florida. Some
reports suggest it is larger than the
citrus industry in money being gener-
ated. Their law enforcement communi-
ty today just cannot cope with the
problem. So I understand where the
gentleman is coming from.
But the bottom line is we are talking
about soldiers and sailors. They are
not policemen. They have not been
trained as policemen. They have not
been trained as witnesses.
My colleague, in all fairness, would
provide the right to arrest and seize,
but not search. That in itself may
seem to be somewhat innocuous, but
think of it for. just a moment, a mill-
tary officer on the scene with the au-
thority to arrest and to seize, but not
to search. One of the first things one
wants to give a police officer, first of
all, is the right to search In the event
whatever he is seizing does not prompt
the person he is seizing it from to as-
sault him. So, under this amendment,
you do not have authority to search
either the individual or the property
in whatever situation is presented.
In addition to that, the gentleman's
amendment would make the Coast
Guard, and I am sure the -gentleman
does not want to do this, subject to the
authority of the Secretary of Defense
in peacetime. By definition, the Armed
s', Approved For Release 2008/10/24: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100020006-9
Approved For Release 2008/10/24: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100020006-9
11 4306 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE July 14, 1981
Forces that he refers to in his amend- here all afternoon listening to this Department of Defense. There is no
ment incorporate into that the Coast particular debate, I am very pleased to reason why we should not, if we are
Guard. The last thing we should want rise in support of the amendment of- going to put the equipment out there,
to do is make the Coast Guard subject fered by the gentleman from Florida let it be used, and have some person-
to the Secretary of Defense in peace- (Mr. SHAW). I happen to think that nel to operate it. There is no reason
time operation. We have enough prob- my colleague from Florida has hit the why we should not allow the military
lems in trying to get agencies to talk nail on the head in perfecting what to protect itself and the military man-
to one another. otherwise is basically a good amend- power of this country to be used as it
Finally, and another concern of ment by the Judiciary Committee. ' would be required to be used in order
mine, and it is just as real, Is that in The efforts by my colleague from to implement the Judiciary Commit-
order for the Secretary of Defense to Florida (Mr. BENNa-rT) in bringing this tee's approach.
act he has to find and verify that the about are to be commended. His objec- Mr. SEIBERLING. Mr. Chairman,
drug' enforement operation may not tive, which is incorporated in the will the gentleman yield?
succeed without military personnel or . Shaw amendment, of providing mili- Mr. McCOLLUM. I yield to the gen-
assistance. I ask my colleagues: How tary personnel, at least on the seas, In tleman from Ohio.
can the Secretary of Defense know a real war on drugs, is very appropri- ? Mr. SEIBERLING. Why. not just
whether or not a law enforcement op- ate and very necessary if we are going draft the DEA and draft Immigration
eration is going to succeed? to control the drug traffic incoming in Service and y?
The reason we are here today Is be- the United States. That is precisely put them in the military?
ava+acasY
quire him to make a finding and verify- facts of life in th YV YLAC
e military. As far as
cation that the operation will not suc- the military justice system Is con-
ceed before cooperation is available he cerned, there are plenty of opportuni-
will have a perfect out. That is precise- ties and have been historically for the
ly why we did not like the language training of military personnel to be
when we first looked at it. engaged in the pursuit of seizures, and
If my colleagues want to help law arrests as well as seizures.
enforcement, give them what they t
want. All they have' asked for is. first ^ 1720
of all, a sharing of intelligence, a shar- I have spent 4 years on active duty
ing of base facilities, a sharing of re- In the U.S. Navy's Judge Advocate
search, and they need equipment from General Corps. I have been a reservist
time. to time. Second, it is an empty ever since that time wearing that par-
gesture to give them equipment with- ticular banner. And I can tell the
out an operator if it is so sophisticated Members that the military law under
that DEA cannot operate it. Where we the UCMJ is far more stringent in this
are confronted with an emergency sit- area of its requirements than the civil-
uation, where equipment is not availa- ian criminal law area. The military
ble to DEA or the Coast Guard, this personnel, particulary the officers in
permits that agency to seek help from command of the vessels and the craft
the Secretary of Defense if, in fact, and the units involved, have very
the Secretary can provide it without strong backgrounds and stringent
taking them away from the military backgrounds in obeying the constitu-
mission, which Is paramount. That is tional principles involved in enforcing
all the law enforcement community laws of this nature. So I do not think
has'requested. They do not want the that problem merits the kind of atten-
right to arrest inherent in the military tion that it has gotten today.
role. They cannot possibly train every Although it should be discussed, it
soldier and Navy personnel in the art does not hold water.
of arresting and seizing. I can further say that I do not think
Yet, that is what we would have to there is any greater position where
do, in effect, to responsibly comply there would be a better use of the
with the mandate that would give term "war" on something outside of a
them the right to search and seize. So foreign enemy than on drugs in this
I would urge my. colleagues to reject country.
the Shaw amendment. It is well inten- We have talked about wars on pover-
tioned, but it falls far short of the ty, we have talked about wars on are giving this power out- there, we
mark 'and, in fact, would just be coun- hunger. We have talked about a lot of have gota real problem if the military
terproductive. The Justice Depart- wars, but there- is no place better manpower is out on the seas and is not
ment is opposed to it. The Defense De- suited to talk about a war than when allowed, in essence, to defend itself or
partment is opposed to it. And every we talk about the equivalence of to participate in the activities.
law enforcement officer that has testi- piracy on the seas, which is what is Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman,. will
fied before our committee is opposed going on In this case in our Cafibbean the gentleman yield?
to it. in particular, and in some other terri- ' Mr. McCOLLUM. I yield, to the gen-
I yield back the balance of my time. torial waters immediately offshore. tleman from New Jersey.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I We need to use every ship we can Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman' l can
move to strike the requisite number of possibly use to. intercept this particu- say, without hesitation, that the lan-
words,, and I rise in support of the lar invader in this particular instance. guage built into the White amend-
Shaw amendment. There is no reason why we cannot ment and existing law is that the mili-
(Mr. McCOLLUM asked and was follow the piracy precedents in our tary has the authority to defend itself.
given permission to revise and extend history while we are talking about So any suggestion that the military
his remarks.) that, to use our military for this pur- would not have the authority to
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, as pose. And there Is no reason why we . defend Itself is not accurate.
a member of the Judiciary Committee, should not empower, as actually in lis- The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
and as a person very vitally concerned tening to and in reading the letter. gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCot-
with this particular problem, who sat . from the gentleman representing the LUM) has expired.
and put them in the military? Then
they will have plenty of funds, and
they can enforce the drug laws to the
hilt?
Mr. McCOLLUM. The answer to
that is, very simply, we do not have
enough personnel to do both of those
jobs, but the military does.
Mr. STRATTON. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. McCOLLUM. I yield to the gen-
tleman from New York.
Mr. STRATTON. The gentleman is
making a very fine statement, and I
support his view.
The gentleman from New Jersey in-
dicated that the Secretary of Defense
was against, the Shaw aiendment,
that the Secretary of the Treasury
was against the Shaw amendment.
Is it not also likely that the drug
pushers are against the amendment,
too?
Mr. McCOLLUM. I think the gentle-
man's point is well taken.
May I say something in response,
also?
The letter of the Secretary of De-
fense, which I have read-the gentle-
man from New Jersey very eloquently
presented it before our Committee-
does say that the Secretary of Defense
is opposed to any of this. But the fact
is he also says in that letter, if I am in-
terpreting It correctly-and I will ask
the gentleman;' from New Jersey to
correct me if I am wrong-that if we
Approved For Release 2008/10/24: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100020006-9
Approved For Release 2008/10/24: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100020006-9
July 14, 1981 CONGRIrSSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
(On request of Mr. HUGHES, and by
unanimous consent, 'Mr. MCCOLLUM
was allowed to proceed for 2 additional
minutes.)
Mr. HUGHES. Let me just say to my
colleague, the gentleman from New
York, I think that all versions, wheth-
er we are talking about DICK WHITE'S
attempt or whether you are talking
about the attempt on the part of the
author of the armed services amend-
ment, the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. BENNETT), are all sincere efforts
to try to provide law enforcement with
some additional tools. But you have
two different approaches.
'One, in fact, is very limited, suggest-
ed by the law enforcement communi-
ty. Indicating to us what they need,
and we tried to craft the language that
would meet the needs of the law en-
forcement community.
Frankly, much of the equipment
which is held by the military is not
the type of equipment, as the gentle-
man knows, that we need in law en-
forcement. And even what we are
doing today is inadeguate. If you look
at the Drug Enforcement budget or
the BATF budget or the FBI budget,
we are really losing groped on all
fronts.
We talk about combating. drug
abuse. We are doing a lousy job of
combating drug abuse when we cut
across the board, as we have done in
the last several years. If you look at
the Drug Enforcement Administra-
tion's budget just this year, we have
lost ground again. So that is where we
ought to be shoring up our' resources,
right there. And even though the lan-
guage in our bill Is going to help, it is
not going to be the cure-all. It seems
to me that any effort to give the mili-
tary the right to arrest and seize is
going way beyond what is needed and
in fact is going to be counterproduc-
tive.
Mr. STRATTON. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman' yield?
Mr. McCOLLUM. I yield to the gen-
tleman from New York.
Mr. STRATTON. The gentleman
from New Jersey says that there are
two different ways of proceeding
against this.
I might borrow a saying from my
friends from the other side of the aisle
that the other system that we have
been, using so far has not worked.
Maybe the idea of the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. BENNETT) will be a little
bit more effective.
Mr. McCOLLUM. I think that the
key crux to this whole matter is that
we need to stop the drug trafficking.
The Coast Guard and the civil law en-
forcement authorities do not have the
equipment.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. M000L-
LUM) has again expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. McCot-
Lunr was allowed to proceed for 1 addi-
tional minute.)
Mr. McCOLLUM. What we need to
observe is the fact that the 'Coast
Guard and the civilian law enforce-
ment agencies of this Nation do not
have either the equipment or the man-
power to cover the. vast -seas and the
limits of our territorial waters off the
landmass. What the Shaw amendment
does is to give them not only the
equipment but also the manpower to
cover that territory, not only for the
purposes of interception by radar, but
also for the purposes of arrest and
seizure, which is what is demanded if
we are .really going to win the war on
drugs.
Let me conclude by saying that I be-
lieve that it is far greater of a worry
for us to be worried about winning the.
war on drugs than it is to'be worried
about some minor international em-
barrassment that might result from
this, which I do not think will be the
case In any event.
I urge the support. of the Shaw
amendment.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Mr. CONYERS asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr: CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I
will not, possibly, use the 5 minutes;
but I should report to the Members
what the Subcommittee on Crirrlinal
Justice, of which I am a member, is
doing.
We are working right now, continu-
ing efforts begun before the considera-
tion of this bill, for additional funding
for the Drug Enforcement Administra-
tion.
Now, we need that.
We are ready to violate the Constitu-
tion, some of us here, in a effort to get
more resources to fight the drug prob-?
lcm. .
So rather than jeopardize passing an
unconstitutional piece of legislation,
which is all the subcommittee chair-
man Is suggesting this amendment will
do to his already questionable piece of
legislation, why do not some of the
members join us and testify in support
of additional funding, and then per-
haps urge on this side of the aisle that
the Department 'of Justice come
before the Criminal, Justice Commit-
tee and testify for what everybody
knows is so necessary; namely, some
additional funding for the resources
that are leading us to beg, borrow,
and steal from the armed services?
Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield for a question?
_Mr. CONYERS. I yield. to my col-
league, the gentleman from Michigan,
for a question.
Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman,- the
gentleman has kept continuously re-
ferring to- this being not changing an
old law but violating the Constitution.
Mr. CONYERS. That Is right.
Mr. SAWYER. Will the gentleman
please cite me what article of the Con-
stitution he is talking about?
Mr. CONYERS. Well, if the gentle-
man in his years of legal research and
wealth of legal experience needs a con-
H 4307
stitutional citation to figure out
whether this is constitutional or not, I
am puzzled. Fifty Members have taken
the floor and have suggested that
there is a constitutional question.
Every court case has suggested that
there is a potential constitutional in-
firmity in this whole question of
bringing the military into civilian law
enforcement.
^ 1730
Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, 1'would just like to
comment that the reason I asked the
question is because there is in fact no
constitutional problem at all. This is
strictly what the gentleman from
Michigan originally posed as 'a prob-
lem of changing an old law. It is not
what he has then gone on to say, it is
more than that, to violate the Consti-
tution.
The reason I asked is because I know
there is no section of the Constitution
involved. I have read every case decid-
ed under the statute, which I dare say
is more than the gentleman from
Michigan has done, and there has
been no allusion to any constitutional
problem at all.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. DELLUMS. I yield to my col-
Mr. CONYERS. I want to thank my
colleague from Michigan, a distin-
guished lawyer, for recognizing despite
2 days and 6 hours of debate that
there was not any constitutional ques-
tion at all.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, this
has been a very interesing debate, and
I would first like to try to put this
debate In its broadest context. What
we are ostensibly here to do Is to
debate an authorization for the largest
military budget In the history of ,this
Nation, approximately $226.3 billion, a
$53 billion increase in buget authority
over what we spent last year. It would
seem to me that we should spend our
time here debating and assessing our
perception of the world and America's
role in that changing world, to deter-
mine whether or not we need to spend
what has been purported to be some-
where in the neighborhood of $2.5 to
$3 trillion In the' next 10 years on the
military function alone.
But, we have chosen not to do that.
One-of our colleagues has chosen to
use this particular instrument, this au-
thorization bill, to raise a significant
question; that is, whether or not the
military shall play some role in ad-
dressing one of the significant domes-
tic problems we have; namely, the
trafficking of drugs in this country.
Now,.. this gentleman would not
argue with any Member of this body
Approved For Release 2008/10/24: CIA-RDP85-0000'3R000100020006-9
Approved For Release 2008/10/24: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100020006-9
H 4308 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.- HOUSE July 14, 1981
that.we have a significant drug prob- The CHAIRMAN. The time of the If we have -a significant problem of
lem In this country. I would also not gentleman from California has ex- law enforcement in this country, then
argue with any Members that we need pired. let us address it, but let us not delude
to address this human misery. .It Is (By unanimous consent, Mr. DEL- ourselves into believing we can simply
eating tens of thousands of people up LUMs was allowed to proceed for 5 ad- throw the ball to the military and run
every single day in this country. I ditional minutes.) home and say, "I have done something
would also, interestingly enough, not Mr. DELLUMS. It would seem to for the drug problem." when we have
argue with any person that suggested me, Mr. Chairman, members of the perverted and distorted our way of
that if we put the full weight and committee, that all the people on this government.
power of the military into' this issue, floor who believe strongly and power- We need to effectively keep that di-
that we could not solve the problem. I fully that this drug problem must be chotomy between civilian and military.
do not argue with that. If we put all. of addressed, I would simply say to them, Once we put law enforcement people
our troops with all of our sophisticat- in the process of dealing with the drug in military uniform, we conj7,re up in
ed technology into this issue, we prob- problem, will we unalterably distort peoples' minds the agony of Nazi Ger-
ably could eradicate it. and pervert our way of government many and the pain in the 1960's when
But the question is, at what price? and our way of life? We have never al- many in this country chose not to ad-
Now, one of my colleagues suggested lowed ourselves to see law enforce- dress the problems, and we were
there is no constitutional problem. ment agents in military uniforms- forced to have the military deal with
Perhaps that is true. This gentleman never. Every time that issue came for- it. I do not think the drug enforce-
Is not a constitutional lawyer,. but I ward many of us felt great pain. I do ment agents are. saying, "We do not
can say this, and I would like to raise not want to return to the days of the want to Implement the laws." What
for a moment two issues. One of our 1960's when we needed troops to im- they are saying is, "We need the nec-
distinguished colleagues from the plement laws that civilians were essary capability to do it," and that is
other side, in a very eloquent speech, charged with the responsibility to im- not turning that function over to the
suggested that one time in the not-too- plement, and I certainly do not want Pentagon. So, I would conclude by
distant past, In the 1960's, during the to go further than that, to Nazi Ger- saying that it is my hope that we are
agony of the civil.rights movement, many, where I can see uniforms in- not treading on constitutionality, and
Federal troops were used. The gentle- vo.lved. in implementing laws and en- even it we are not, we are treading on
man stated that no one argued with forcing laws that civilians ought to be a way of life that should be precious
respect to that. enforcing. to us, and in the process of solving the
I approached the gentleman a little So, this gentleman will say to you, problem let us not create problems for
while ago, and.I Indicated to him that irrespective of whether there Is a con- our childrens' future and their chil-
as one young black in this country stitutional concern, we all in this room drens' future.
concerned about those injustices, I know that we have evolved a way of
had some significant problems with a life that-has separated out clearly the. 11 1740
country that needed Federal troops to civilian function and the military Mr. JOHN L. BURTON. Mr. Chair-
march some tiny black children to function. I do not think we need $226 man, will the gentleman yield?
schools. I also recall that there were a billion to be talking about waging war Mr. DELLUMS. I yield to my col-
number of Governors in this country, in the world, let alone waging war in league, the gentleman from California.
in the full light of television cameras, this country. Mr. JOHN L. BURTON. Mr. Chair-
who stood in the door and said, "To I find it ludicrous and tragic that man, I thank the gentleman for yield-
hell with Federal .law. These black many of my colleagues supported a ing and for pointing out the most Im-
children will not integrate these budget resolution that substantially portant point that we are on our way
schools." cut the budget of the Drug Enforce- to establishing a national police force
So, I saw State officials abdicate merit Agency and then said. "But I with this type of legislation. '
their responsibility and say to the Fed- want to go home and tell my constitu- We are not talking about whether it
eral Government, "We will not address ents that I am not soft on commu- is constitutional or unconstitutional.
these problems." I say Bull Connors nism, so I voted for a big military This is a national police force in the
and other local law - enforcement budget-and oh, by the way, we have a form of the military, and I think that
agents determined not to Implement drug problem, and since we cut the is something that, those on the right,
the mandate of the Federal Govern- money out of DEA, let us go over those on the left, and those In the
merit. They did It with Federal troops. where we .are putting all the money middle should be afraid of.
That was not a happy time in this and get the military to solve-the prob= Mr. Chairman, we want stronger
country, but the one argument I would 1em." drug enforcement. We have got an
make with the gentleman who argued Then, maybe this gentleman 'ought agency for that, the DEA, and let us
that there is no comparison here ' in to say, "I think we need to deal with fund it and let us stop them from de-
that certainly Federal troops were, mass transit in-this country. Maybe we stroying It in the reorganization plan
being used because State and local law; ought to get the military to develop a if we want to do something about drug
enforcement agents and public offi- mass transit system. I think we ought enforcement. '
cials denied the right of young chit= to better educate our children, but Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, that
?dren to, matriculate in schools. It was since all the money is going to the Is one of the clearest and most concise
an ugly period in our history. Pentagon, maybe we ought to get Pen- statements my distinguished col-
This gentleman felt anger that we tagon personnel to educate our chil- league, the gentleman from California,
had to have troops to do what civilian dren. We need housing in this country has made, and I thank him for It.
law enforcement. agents should have for tens of thousands of human Mr. Chairman, I yield back the bal-
been able to do, or local and State beings, but since much of our money is ance of my time.
public officials, standing up for the going to the Pentagon, maybe' we Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chairman, I
rights of young black children to .have ought to let the Corps of Engineers move to strike the requisite number of
an education along with other human build the housing." words, and I rise in opposition to the
beings in our society.. Your response would be, "That is a pending amendment.
The second vision that I have is Nazi civilian function. We do not need the Mr. Chairman, 'I rise also to identify
Germany, when you consider the Ge- military to engage in. this activity." myself with the position ver
stapo involved in enforcing laws. We I am simply saying to you, if it is not y elo-
quently
have a very delicate form of govern- good enough to try to tingu sl stated from by Michigan
ment in this country. It-is called a de- sit, to educate our children, its is tr a- (Mr. CoxvExs), a member of theCom-
mocracy. It Is called a representative sonable to say that we will,not do it in mittee on the Judiciary, with the post-
government. terms of law enforcement. tion, very particularly, of the gentle-
Approved For Release 2008/10/24: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100020006-9
Approved For Release 2008/10/24: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100020006-9
July 14, 1981
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
woman from New York (Mrs. CHis-
HOLM ), who -I think capsulized the
whole issue very accurately, and, most
particularly, with the position of ? the
last speaker, the gentleman from Cali-
fornia (Mr. DELLUMS).
(Mr. GONZALEZ asked and was
given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from Florida (Mr. SHAW) to the
Judiciary Committee amendment, as
amended.
The question was taken; and on a di-
vision (demanded by Mr. SHAW) there
were-ayes 52, noes 57.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I demand
a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote
has been demanded. All those in favor
of a recorded vote please rise.
Mr. PRICE. Mr. Chairman, I
that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly the Committee rose;
and the Speaker pro tempore ? (Mr.
MURTHA) having assumed the chair,.
Mr. SiMoN, Chairman of the Commit-
tee of the Whole House on the State
of the Union, reported that that Com-
mittee, having had under' considera-
tion the bill (H.R. 3519) to authorize
appropriations for fiscal year 1982 for
the Armed Forces for procurement,
-for research, development, test, and
evaluation, and for operation and
maintenance, to prescribe personnel
strengths for such fiscal' year for the
Armed Forces and for civilian employ-
ees of the Department of Defense, to
authorize appropriations for such
fiscal year for civil defense, and for
other purposes, had come to no resolu-
tion thereon.
REPORT ON RESOLUTION WAIV-
ING CERTAIN - ? POINTS OF
ORDER AGAINST H.R. 4119, AG-
RICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOP-
MENT, AND RELATED 'ADEN-'
LIES APPROPRIATIONS, 1982
Mr. MOAKLEY, from the Commit-
tee on Rules, submitted a privileged
report (Rept. No. 97-175) on the reso-
lution (H. Res. 178) waiting certain
points of order against the bill (H.R.
4119) making appropriations for Agri-
culture, rural development, and relat-
ed agencies programs for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 1982, and
for other purposes, which *as referred
to the House Calendar and ordered to
be printed.
REPORT ON RESOLUTION WAIV.
ING CERTAIN POINTS OF
ORDER AGAINST H.R. 4120,
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPRO-
PRIATIONS, 1982 .,
Mr. MOAKLEY. from the Commit-
tee on Rules, submitted a privileged
report (Rept. No. 97-176) on the reso-
lution (H. Res. .179) waiving certain
points of order against the bill (H.R.
4120) making appropriations for the
legislative branch for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 1982, and for
other purposes, which was referred to
the House Calendar and ordered to be
printed.
EXPLANATION AS TO VOTE
(Mr. DANIELSON asked and was
given permission to address the House
for 1? minute and to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. DANIELSON.. Mr. Speaker, I
was absent from the House during the
week beginning June 22, 1981, because
of an illness in my family. During that
week I missed a number of votes and I
wish to state how I would have voted
had I been present. In every instance
-my vote would not have changed the
outcome. Thdse rllcall votes, and how
I would have voted, are:
Tuesday, June 23, 1981:
Rollcall No. 92, the House, by a vote
of 399 to 0, agreed to House Resolu-
tion 161, the rule under which it con-
sidered the bill H.R. 1257, to authorize
appropriations' to the National Aero-
nautics and Space Administration, I
would have voted "yea."
I ,ollcall No. 93, passage of H.R. 1257,
to authorize appropriations for the
National Aeronautics and Space Ad-
ministration, I would have voted
"yea." The bill passed by a vote of 404
to 13.
Rollcall No. 94, by a vote of 360 to
50, the House passed H.R. 2614, De-
partment -of Defense Supplemental
Authorization Act for fiscal year 1981,
I would have voted "yea."
Rollcall No. 95, by a vote of 146 to
265, the House rejected an amendment
to H.R. 3238, to reduce by $50 million
and public broadcasting authorization
for fiscal year 1984, $45 million for
fiscal year 1985, and $30 million for-
fiscal year 1986, I would have voted
"nay:"
Wednesday, June 24, 1981:
Rollcall No. 96, by a vote of 344 to 16
the House approved. the Journal of
Tuesday, June 23, 1981, I would have
voted "yea." -
Rollcall No. 97, by a vote of 375 to 16
the House agreed to S. 1124, to au-
thorize the Sergeant at Arms and
Doorkeeper of the Senate, to enter
into contracts which provide for the
making of advance payments for comp
puter programing services, I .would
have voted "yea."
Rollcall No. 98, by a vote of 398 to 9
the House agreed to the conference
report on H.R: 31, to encourage cash
discounts, I would have voted "yea."
Rollcall No. 99, by a vote of 385 to 16
the House agreed to resolve itself into
the Committee of the Whole, to con-
sider H.R. 3238 the public broadcast-
ing, authorization bill, I would have
voted "yea." -
Rollcall No. 100 wag a quorum call.
Rollcall No. 101, by a vote of 171 to
226` the House rejected an amendment
to H.R. 3238, to retain quarterly dis-
bursement rather than annual, of
funds to the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting,
"nay."
114309
Rollcall No. 102, by a vote of 323 to
86 the house passed H.R. 3238 au-
thorizations of appropriations for
public broadcasting, I would have
voted "yea.".
Thursday, June 25,.1981:
Rollcall No. 103, by a vote of 380 to
12 the House approved the Journal of
Wednesday, June 24, 1981, I would
have voted "yea."
Rollcall No. 104, by a vote of 210 to
217 the House failed to order the pre-
vious question on House Resolution
169, the rule under which the Omni-
bus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981,
H.R. 3982 was to be considered, I
would have voted "yea; "
Rollcall No. 105, by a vote of 219 to,
208 the House agreed to order the pre-
vious question on the amendment of-
fered by Mr. LATTA to House Resolu-
tion 169, in the, nature of a substitute,
which provided for 8 hours of general
debate, 2 hours on the Broyhill
amendment and 4 hours on the Latta
amendment, I would have voted
"nay."
Rollcall No. 106, by a vote of 216 to
212 the House agreed to an amend-
ment in the nature of a substitute to
House Resolution 169, for the consid-
eration of budget reconciliation, I
would have voted "nay."
Rollcall No. 107, by a vote of 214 to
208 the House agreed to House Reso-
lution 169, the rule under which, the
budget reconciliation bill, H,R. 3982.
was considered, I would have voted .
"nay."
Friday, June 26, 1981:
Rollcall No. 108, by a vote of 346 to
37 the House approved the Journal of
Thursday, June 25,:19,81, I mould have
voted "yea."
Rollcall No. 109,. by a vote of 316 to
84 the House resolved itself into the
Committee of the Whole for further
consideration of H.R. 3982,-the budget
reconciliation bill, I would have voted
?yea." ,
Rollcall No. 110, by a vote of 412 to 4
the House agreed to the - conference
report on H.R. 3520, to amend the
Clean Air Act to provide compliance
date extensions for steelmaking facili-
ties on a case-by-case basis, I would
have voted "yea."
Rollcall No. 111, by a vote of 217 to
211 the House agreed to amendments
en bloc to H.R. 3982, by Mr. LATTA, I
would have voted "nay."
Rollcall No. 112, by a vote of 215 to
212 the House agreed to order the pre-
vious question on a motion to recom-
mit H.R. 3982 to the Committee on
the Budget with instructions to report,
it back forthwith containing an
amendment to provide for semiannual
cost-of-living adjustments for Federal
employees, .I would have voted "nay."
Rollcall No. 113,'by it vote of 232 to
193 the House passed H.R. 3982, the
budget reconciliation bill, I would
have voted "nay."
Approved For Release 2008/10/24: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100020006-9