CONGRESSIONAL RECORD--SENATE

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP91B00135R000200330005-0
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 8
• Document Creation Date: December 20, 2016
• Document Release Date: January 4, 2008
• Sequence Number: 5
• Publication Date: October 26, 1983
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

Approved For Release 2008/01/04: CIA-RDP91 B001 35R000200330005-0
0 `
October 26, 1983 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
tween the date of the House meeting,
which I am told is November 16, even
if that should not take place, we will
still have a hearing on that issue
before we are to recess for the
Thanksgiving period.
Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I appre-
ciate the statement of the Senator
from Wyoming and also his commit-
ment.
I wish all of our colleagues to know
that Senator WARNER and I came to
the Chamber with every intention of
trying to do whatever it took with the
yeas and nays, a germaneness fight, or
whatever, to being this matter up and
to have a showdown on it today be-
cause we feel it is so important.
But I do accept unreservedly the as-
surance of the Senator from Wyo-
ming. He is a man of great honesty, in-
tegrity, and knowledge in the whole
area of veterans' affairs.
I do not want to extract one more
drop of blood, so to speak, but I do
wonder if my very good friend from
Wyoming and perhaps if our chief co-
sponsor, Senator WARNER, of Virginia,
might assure this Senator and this
body that no burial will take place, in
the meantime, such as the one we read
about in the October 17 issue of the
Washington Post involving a card-
board coffin.
Do the Senators feel that there are
regulations or a monitoring device or
an administrative procedure now in
effect at least to carry us over until
the time we have some final action on
the legislation of this nature?
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I am
advised by the Veterans' Administra-
tion just within the past hour that all
of the regulations and administrative
procedures are in place to assure that
this type of thing does not happen
again, and the general counsel of VA
has assured us that that is in process
and implemented within the VA.
Mr. PRYOR. I deeply appreciate the
remarks and the commitment from
the distinguished Senator from Wyo-
ming and, with the consent of my dis-
tinguished colleague from Virginia,
Senator WARNER, we will at this time
pull this amendment down and, I
hope, have a very good hearing on the
merits of this issue at the proper time
before Thanksgiving.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I re-
spectfully agree with my distinguished
colleague from Arkansas and indeed I
think the purpose for which we came
to the Chamber today has been prop-
erly redressed by the distinguished
chairman of the committee and al-
though the ranking minority member,
Mr. CRANSTON, of California, who is
not present, I am sure the Senator
from Wyoming will speak for him on
this matter because the two of them
provide a great deal of leadership in
this area, and with the assurances that
this Incident will not happen again
until such time as Congress has the
opportunity to address and remedy
this situation, I am quite agreeable not
to press for the yeas and nays.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I
deeply appreciate that action on
behalf of Senator PRYOR and Senator
WARNER.
I assure them that In this instance I
do speak for the Senator from Califor-
nia, my colleague, Senator At CRAN-
sTON. I appreciate the magnanimous
action on the part of Senator WARNER,
and please know that I remain a very
accessible figure and should they wish
to discuss those types of amendments
at any future time, do not hesitate to
contact me. And in the event they do
not, I say to my colleague and seat
mate, I shall never furnish him any
further cigars.
Mr. WARNER. 'Mr. President, I
think we have a technical require-
ment. If it is agreeable to the Senator
from Arkansas, Mr. President, on
behalf of the distinguished Senator
from Arkansas and myself we at this
time ask unanimous consent that the
amendment be withdrawn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment is withdrawn.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, we
are down now to about the time of
ending for the day's session according
to the leadership.
First of all, I thank the Senator
from Arkansas, the Senator from Vir-
ginia, and the Senator from Wyoming
for working out this matter in an ami-
cable satisfactory manner.
Mr. President, I wish to propound an
unanimous-consent request on a time
agreement on. the DeConcini-Biden
amendment which has been cleared by
both sides of the aisle.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that a half-hour time limit be
equally divided.
Mr. President, I withdraw my re-
quest at this moment and suggest the
absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to
call the roll.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With.
out objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I
propound a unanimous-consent re-
quest. I ask unanimous consent that
on the Biden-DeConcini amendment
that will be called up next that there
be a time agreement of 20 minutes
equally divided between the propo-
nents of the amendment and the Sen-
ator from South Carolina (Mr. THUR-
MOND) to manage the time on the op-
position side, with only a tabling
motion that would be in order, and no
amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is
there objection? The Chair hears
none, and it Is so ordered.
AMENDMENT No. 2443
(Purpose: To establish an Office on Nation.
al and International Drug Operations and
Policy and a Commission on Drug Inter-
diction and Enforcement)
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I send an
amendment to the desk and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Delaware (Mr. Bmea),
for himself, Mr. DECONCINI, Mr. CHILES, Mr.
PELL, and Mr. NUNN proposes an amend-
ment numbered 2443.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that further read-
ing of the amendment be dispensed
with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the appropriate place in the bill, add
the following new account:
Office of the Director of National and In-
ternational Drug Operations and Policy and
the Commission on Drug Interdiction and
Enforcement
For salaries and expenses, not otherwise
provided for, of the Office of the Director of
National and International Drug Operations
and Policy and the Commission on Drug In-
terdiction and Enforcement, $1,000,000: Pro-
vided that
(a) The Congress hereby makes the fol-
lowing findings:
(1) The now of illegal narcotics into the
United States is a major and growing prob-
lem.
(2) The problem of illegal drug activity
falls across the entire spectrum of Federal
activities both nationally and international-
ly.
(3) Illegal drug trafficking is estimated by
the General Accounting Office to be a
$79,000,000,000 a year Industry in the
United States.
(4) The annual consumption of heroin in
the United States is in the range of four
metric tons, and annual domestic consump-
tion of cocaine is estimated to be forty to
forty-eight metric tons.
(5) Despite the efforts of the United
States Government and other nations, the
mechanisms for smuggling opium and other
hard drugs into the United States remain
virtually intact and United States agencies
estimate that they are able to Interdict no
more than 5 to 15 per centurn of all hard
drugs flowing into the country.
(6) Such significant indicators of the drug
problem as drug-related deaths, emergency
room visits, hospital admissions due to drug-
related incidents, and addiction rates are
soaring.
(7) Increased drug trafficking is strongly
linked to violent, addiction-related crime
and recent studies have shown that over 90
per centum of heroin users rely upon crimi-
nal acitivity as a means of Income.
(8) Much of the drug trafficking is han-
dled by syndicates which results in In-
creased violence and criminal activity be-
cause of the competitive struggle for control
of the domestic drug market.
(9) Controlling the supply of illicit drugs
is a key to reducing the crime epidemic con-
fronting every region of the country.
(10) The magnitude and scope of the prob-
lem requires a director of National and In-
ternational Drug Operations and Policy
with the responsibility for the coordination
and direction of all Federal efforts by the
numerous agencies.
 Approved For Release 2008/01/04: CIA-RDP91 B001 35R000200330005-0
S 14658 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
(11) Such a director must have broad au-
thority and responsibility for making man-
agement, policy, and budgetary decisions
with respect to all Federal agencies involved
in attacking this problem so that a unified
and efficient effort can be made to elimi-
nate the illegal drug problem.
(b) It is the purpose of the Office to
insure-
(1) the development of a national policy
with respect to illegal drugs;
(2) the direction and coordination of all
Federal agencies involved in the effort to
implement such a policy; and
(3) that a single, competent, and responsi-
ble high-level official of the United States
Government, who is appointed by the Presi-
dent, by and with the advice and consent of
the Senate, and who is accountable to the
Congress and the American people, will be
charged with the responsibility of coordi-
nating the overall direction of United States
policy, resources, and operations with re-
spect to the illegal drug problem.
(c)(1) There is establshed a Commission
on Drug Interdiction and Enforcement
(hereinafter referred to as the "Commis-
sion") which shall be composed of:
(A) Four members appointed by the Presi-
dent, one of whom shall be designated by
the President as chairman;
(b) The Attorney General, the Secretary
of the Treasury, the Secretary of Transpor-
tation, and the Secretary of State;
(c) Four members appointed by the
Speaker of the House of Representatives
from the membership of the House Commit-
tee on the Judiciary; and
(d) Four members appointed by the Presi-
dent pro tempore of the Senate from the
membership of the Senate Committee on
the Judiciary.
(2) Of amounts appropriated under this
account $1,000,000 shall be available for the
Commission established under this subsec-
tion.
(3) A majority of the Commission shall
constitute a quorum for the transaction of
its business, but the Commission may pro-
vide for the taking of testimony and the re-
ception of evidence at meetings at which
there are present not less than four mem-
bers of the Commission.
(4) Each member of the Commission who
is not otherwise in the service of the Gov-
ernment of the United States be compensat-
ed at a rate not to exceed the daily equiva-
lent of the rate than payable for grade GS-
18 in the General Schedule under section
5332 of title 5, United States Code, for each
day spent in the work of the Commission,
shall be paid actual travel expenses, and per
diem in lieu of subsistence expenses, when
away from his usual place of residence, in
accordance with chapter 57 of title 5, United
States'Code. Each member of the Commis-
sion who is otherwise in the service of the
Government of the United States shall
serve without compensation in addition to
that received for such other service, but
while engaged in the work of the Commis-
sion shall be paid actual travel expenses,
when away from his usual place of resi-
dence, in accordance with chapter 57 of title
5, United States Code.
(5) It shall be the duty of the Commission
to study and evaluate, in accordance with,
but not limited to, paragraph (6), existing
laws, policies, and procedures governing
drug interdiction, including existing au-
thorities for domestic drug interdiction
agencies, international drug eradication,
crop substitution, and other cooperative
programs in source and transshipment
countries, and domestic and foreign intelli-
gence-gathering programs for drug interdic-
tion, and to make such administrative, legis-
lative, and procedural recommendations to
the President, the Director of the Office of
National and International Drug Operations
and Policy and to the Congress as are appro-
priate.
(6) In particular, the Commission shall-
(a) conduct a study and analysis of the
effect of provisions in current law which
affect possession or transfer of controlled
substances and other laws whose purposes
are to deter drug trafficking into the United
States;
(b) conduct a study and analysis of cur-
rent administrative and statutory obstacles
to enhancing the gathering and tactical use
of both domestic and foreign Intelligence
for use by Federal, state, and local drug in-
terdiction agencies, including the appropri.
ate role for the El Paso Intelligence Center
(EPIC);
(c) conduct study and analysis of the
Posse Comitatus doctrine, including modifi-
cations which would improve the use of mil-
itary resources for drug interdiction and in-
telligence purposes;
(d) conduct a study and analysis of coordi.
nation between Federal, state, and local
agencies involved in drug interdiction and
intelligence gathering and how such coordi-
nation can be improved;
(e) conduct a study and analysis of the re-
lationship between the different segments
of enforcement of U.S. drug laws, particu-
larly intelligence gathering, interdiction,
prosecution, and results of prosecution, and
recommend appropriate legislation and ad-
ministration actions;
(f) conduct a study and analysis of the al-
location of Federal resources in the area of
drug interdiction, and make appropriate rec-
ommendations regarding a comprehensive,
coordinated overview of Federal drug inter-
diction and enforcement agencies' resource
requirements rather than a piecemeal ap-
proach to drug interdiction and enforce-
ment budgeting;
(g) recommend a coordinated approach to
gathering and verifying drug interdiction
seizure, arrest and prosecution statistics;
(h) make a semiannual report to the
House and Senate Committees on the Judi-
ciary during the period before publication if
its final report (described in subparagraph
(I)); and
(1) make a final report of its findings and
recommendations to the President, to the
Director of National and International Drug
Operations and policy and each House of
Congress, which report shall be published
no later than January 20, 1985.
(j) develop a coordinated interagency fed-
eral strategy on narcotics control to be im-
plemented by the Director of National and
International Drug Operations and Policy
beginning January 20, 1985.
(7)(a) The Commission is authorized to
appoint and fix the compensation of a staff
director and such other additional person-
nel as may be necessary to enable the Com-
mission to carry out its functions without
regard to the civil service laws, rules, and
regulations. Any Federal employee subject
to those laws, rules, and regulations may be
detailed to the Commission without reim-
bursement, and such detail shall be without
Interruption or loss of civil service status or
privilege.
(b) Staff members of the Committee on the
Judiciary of the Senate or of the Committee
on the Judiciary of the House of Repre-
sentatives may be detailed to serve on the
staff of the Commission by the chairman of
the respective committee. Staff members so
detailed shall serve on the staff of the Com-
mission without additional compensation
except that they may receive such reim-
bursement of expenses incurred by them as
the Commission may authorize.
(8) The Commission may call upon the
head of any Federal department or agency
to furnish information and assistance which
the Commission deems necessary for the
performance of its functions, and the heads
of such departments and agencies shall fur-
nish such assistance and information, unless
prohibited under law, without reimburse-
ment.
(9) The Commission is authorized to make
grants and enter into contracts for the con-
duct of research and studies which will
assist it in performing its duties under this
subsection.
(10) The Commission is authorized to con-
duct hearings and prepare written tran.
scripts of the same.
(11) The Commission shall cease to exist
upon the filing of its final report, except
that the Commission may continue to func-
tion for up to 60 days thereafter for the
purpose of winding up its affairs.
(12) The Commission is authorized to pro-
cure temporary and Intermittent services of
experts and consultants as are necessary to
the extent authorized by section 3109 of
title 5. United States Code, but at rates not
to exceed the daily equivalent of the rate
then payable for grade G5-18 In the Gener-
al Schedule under section 5332 of such title.
(13) There is authorized to be appropri-
ated the sum of $1,000,000 for necessary sal-
aries and expenses of the Commission.
(d)(1) There is established in the execu-
tive branch of the Government an office to
be known as the "Office of the Director of
National and International Drug Operations
and Policy" (hereinafter in this heading re-
ferred to as the "Office of the Director").
There shall be at the head of the Office of
the Director a Director of National and In-
ternational Drug Operations and Policy
(hereinafter in this section referred to as
the "Deputy Director") to assist the Direc-
tor In carrying out the Director's functions
under this.
(2) The Director and the Deputy Director
shall be appointed by the President, by and
with the advice and consent of the Senate.
The Director and the Deputy Director shall
each serve at the pleasure of the President.
No person may serve as Director or Deputy
Director for a period of more than four
years unless such person Is reappointed to
that same office by the President, by and
with the advice and consent of the Senate.
The Director shall be entitled to the com-
pensation provided for in section 5313, title
5, United States Code. The Deputy Director
shall be entitled to the compensation pro-
vided for in section 5314, title 5, United
States Code.
(3) The Director shall serve as the princi-
pal director and coordinator of United
States operations and policy on illegal
drugs.
(4) The Director shall have the responsi-
bility, and is authorized to-
(a) implement the strategy recommended
pursuant paragraph c(6);
(b) thereafter, revise any such strategy
and develop, review, implement and enforce
all United States government policy with re-
spect to illegal drugs and narcotics;
(c) direct and coordinate all United States
Government efforts to halt the flow into,
and sale and use of Illegal drugs within the
United States;
(d) develop in concert with governmental
entities budgetary priorities and budgetary
allocations of entities of the United States
Government with respect to illegal drugs;
and
(e) coordinate the collection and dissemi-
nation of information necessary to imple-
ment United States policy with respect to il-
legal drugs.
 (5) In carrying out his responsibilities
under paragraph (4). the Director is author.
ized to-
(a) direct, with the concurrence of the
head of the agency employing such person.
nel, the temporary reassignment of govern.
ment personnel within the United States
Government in order to implement United
States policy with respect to illegal drugs;
(b) procure temporary and intermittent
services under section 3109(b) of title 5 of
the United States Code, but at rates for in-
dividuals not to exceed the daily equivalent
of the maximum annual rate of basic pay
payable for the grade of GS-18 of the Gen-
eral Schedule:
(c) accept and use donations of property
from all government agencies; and
(d) use the mails in the same manner as
any other department or agency of the ex-
ecutive branch.
(6) Notwithstanding any other provision
of law, rule, or regulation to the contrary,
the Director shall have the authority to
direct each department or agency with re-
sponsibility for drug control to carry out the
policies established by the Director consist-
ent with the general authority of each
agency or department.
(7) The Administrator of the General
Services Administration shall provide to the
Director on a reimbursable basis such ad-
ministrative support services as the Director
may request.
(8) The Director shall submit to the Con-
gress, by January 1. 1986, and annually
thereafter, a full and complete report re-
flecting accomplishments with respect to
the United States policy and plans thereto.
fore submitted to the Congress.
(9) For the purpose of carrying out the
function of the Office there are authorized
to be appropriated $500,000 for fiscal year
1985, and such sums as may be necessary for
each of the four succeeding fiscal years, to
be available until expended.
(10) This subsection shall be effective Jan-
uary 20. 1985.
Mr. BIDEN. The reason the Senator
from Arizona and I and others such as
Senator PELL, Senator CHILES, and
Senator MOYNIHAN who are cospon-
sors, and Senator NUNN are proposing
this amendment is that this is a
matter which has been debated in the
past on the floor of the Senate and
has passed overwhelmingly.
The distinction is we have made the
amendment we believe even more pal-
atable by tying together the original
amendment with an amendment by
the distinguished Senator from Arizo-
na which calls for the setting up of a
commission to study how best to
attack the drug problem plaguing this
country.
I will ask the Senator from Arizona
to speak to that in the time we have.
But suffice it to say that one of the
criticisms of the bill the last time in
the discussion with the administration
and others was the fact that we were
moving precipitantly in restoring the
chain of drug matters in this adminis-
tration.
The beauty of this amendment is in
the wisdom of the Senator from Arizo-
na which will be in place for 1 year
and it would not be until the end of
that Commission at which time a
report would go to the so-called drug
coordinator who would then be re-
sponsible for implementing the strat-
egy and plan prepared by the Commis-
sion.
Mr. President, the drug coordinator
amendment is familiar to all my col-
leagues as it is was something that was
passed by this body last year by a vote
of 63 to 33. This measure was passed
overwhelmingly by the House and for-
warded to the President where it was
pocket vetoed last January, along with
other crime fighting initiatives.
The purpose of this amendment is
two fold: First, it will establish a cabi-
net-level office to be called the Office
of National and International Drug
Operations and Policy. The Director
and Deputy Director would be ap-
pointed by the President by and with
the advice and consent of the Senate.
The Director would have authority to:
Develop, review, implement, and en-
force U.S. Government policy with re-
spect to illegal drugs; direct and co-
ordinate all U.S. Government efforts
to halt the flow into, and sale and use
of illegal drugs within, the United
States; develop in concert with other
Federal entities concerned with drug
control the budgetary priorities and
allocations of those entities with re-
spect to illegal drugs; and coordinate
the collection and dissemination of in-
formation necessaary to implement
U.S. policy with respect to illegal
drugs.
Second, this amendment calls for
the establishment of a National Com-
mission which for the first time, will
develop a comprehensive, coordinated
strategy and plan to be implemented
by the Office of the Drug Coordinator.
Mr. President, the 97th Congress
concluded that Federal coordination
and leadership of drug control is such
a complex and diverse job that it re-
quires the attention and responsibility
of one person. Cabinet-level status for
this individual is necessary so that it is
clear that this individual reports di-
rectly to the President and has suffi-
cient clout to impose a truce on inter-
agency fueding, to insure maximum
participation of all agencies and to al-
locate budgetary resources in a effi-
cient and effective manner.
These comments were echoed by
Senators DECONCINI, HATCH, and SPEC-
TER during markup of this amendment
in the Judiciary Committee.
Senator DECONCINI stated, "Anyone
that looks at this problem will see that
coordination is anything but good."
Senator HATCH said he hoped that
the administration would not veto this
bill because "It is a good idea and it is
time we got on with the war on narcot-
ics."
Senator SPECTER discussed with the
committee members his efforts to per-
suade the President to support this
bill last Congress and indicated that
"the cause is not lost and I think we
ought to persevere."
The Judiciary Committee acted on
this legislation by voting it out of com-
mittee by a vote of 12 to 5.
Additional support for this amend-
ment comes from the Senate drug en-
forcement caucus so ably cochaired by
Senator HAWKINS and DECONCINI
which includes 46 Senators; 34 Repub-
licans and 12 Democrats. In a letter to
the President dated December 29,
1982, encouraging him to sign into law
an eight part crime bill, the caucus en-
dorsed the provision that would "Es-
tablish a Drug Enforcement Coordina-
tor."
Additional support for this concept
comes from the General Accounting
Office in their report dated June 13,
1983, entitled, "Federal Drug Interdic-
tion Efforts Need Strong Central
Oversight."
In this report GAO criticized the
fragmentation of the Federal drug in-
terdiction effort which is split among
three separate agencies in three execu-
tive departments, each having differ-
ent program goals and priorities.
GAO recommended to the President:
That he direct the development of a
more definitive Federal drug strategy
that stipulates the roles of the various
agencies with drug enforcement re-
sponsibilities.
That he make a clear delegation of
responsibility to one individual to
oversee Federal drug enforcement pro-
grams.
Mr. President, the Reagan adminis-
tration has taken many promising ini-
tiatives in the area of drug law en-
forcement. The President is to be com-
mended for committing the additional
resources that resulted in the creation
of the South Florida Task Force. The
Reagan administration has also com-
mitted itself to funding two nation-
wide task force programs instituted
within the past year, the organized
crime drug enforcement program
(OCDE) and the national narcotics
border interdiction system (NNBIS).
Despite these actions, I believe the
administration's antidrug effort falls
short in one crucial respect: the lack
of central direction.
At least 15 Federal agencies play a
role in the regulation of commerce in
dangerous drugs or in the enforcement
of other restrictions designed to
reduce the abuse of such drugs. These
agencies are located in six different
departments. Under such circum-
stances, it is inevitable that divergen-
cies as to priorities will arise and that
there will be conflicting interpreta-
tions of national policy.
Included in this amendment is an ex-
cellently drafted provision of Senator
DECONCINI. Senator DECONcINI pro-
poses the establishment of a commis-
sion to review and recommend changes
in our drug enforcement and interdic-
tion policy and to develop a compre-
hensive plan and strategy to be imple-
mented under the direction of the
drug coordinator. Senator DECONCINI
has in the past so accurately stated,
that we need a comprehensive strategy
for attacking the drug problem. We
also need a single person of cabinet
rank to carry out that strategy. We be-
lieve this amendment will resolve the
 problem of an ineffective strategy and
lack of central direction.
FLEXIBLE TO APPOINT ATTORNEY GENERAL
Mr. President, the amendment I pro-
pose is written to provide flexibility in
its implementation. It does not speci-
fy, for example, that the proposed
office must be a part of the Executive
Office of the President.
Under the provisions of the amend-
ment, the President would be free to
appoint an incumbent such as the At-
torney General as Director of the cen-
tral drug agency if, In his judgment,
that were the soundest course. The
sole purpose of the proposed legisla-
tion is to provide sufficient authority
to a single official, one who clearly has
the President's attention, for the uni-
fied direction of Federal efforts to
curb the traffic in illegal drugs.
COMPARISON WITH DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL
INTHA.JGENCE
What we are seeking in the amend-
ment is to strengthen central direction
of the antidrug effort. The Director
created by this amendment is to the
drug law enforcement community
what the Director of Central Intelli-
gence (DCI) is to the intelligence com-
munity. It is envisioned that both es-
tablish general policies and priorities,
approve budget submissions, and pre-
pare a governmentwide program by
which the Chief Executive may dis-
charge responsibilities the Constitu-
tion explicitly vests in him.
There are four major aspects of the
drug problem: Foreign eradication or
crop substitution in the source coun-
tries, interdiction of drugs before they
reach the U.S. borders and streets of
our cities, enforcement and investiga-
tion of those individuals involved in
drug trafficking in this country, and
collection of intelligence useful in in-
terrupting the flow of drugs at each of
these stages. The Director will oversee
the development and implementation
of a plan that addresses all of these as-
pects. He will have the authority, with
consultation from the agencies and de-
partments involved, to prioritize the
Federal effort devoted to all aspects of
the drug effort.
In seeing that the agencies and de-
partments are coordinating and com-
mitting their resources in unison with
the overall Federal antidrug program
the Director will exercise authority
similar to that which the Director of
Central Intelligence has in coordinat-
ing Federal intelligence responsibil-
ities. This does not mean the Director
will involve himself with day-to-day
command decisions or interfere with
individual agency tasks.
Mr. President, we in the Congress
have decided that the problem of drug
abuse has reached such a dismal state
that we must take immediate action.
Only last week, we voted 96 to 0 in
favor of an amendment to the State
Department authorization bill offered
by Senator HAWKINS that would cut
off aid to nations not making legiti-
mate progress in curtailing the cultiva-
tion and production of heroin, cocaine,
and other illicit drugs that end up in
the hands of young and middle aged
Americans.
We voted unanimously last year to
increase budgets for Federal agencies
responsible for drug interdiction and
enforcement. And, last year we voted
in a bipartisan manner in favor of this
very amendment. We have agreed that
drug control is unique in both the
danger it poses to the social fabric of
the Nation and in the necessary com-
plexity of how our Government
should respond.
Until there is one individual who can
say to Congress and the American
people, this is the plan and this is how
we will implement the plan. It will
continue to be business as usual with
our drug control program: Completion,
duplication, and inefficiency.
I ask all my colleagues again, for
their support in adopting this amend-
ment.
I now yield 2 minutes to the Senator
from Rhode Island.
Mr. PELL. I thank my colleague
from Delaware. Mr. President, I rise in
strong support of the amendment of-
fered by the Senator from Delaware
and the Senator from Arizona. Last
year, Senator BIDEN,'Senator DECON-
crmr, and I offered a similar amend-
ment to the Violent Crime and Drug
Enforcement Improvements Act. Re-
grettably, the President vetoed this
bill because of his opposition to the
"Drug Czar" provision.
In the intervening year, our experi-
ence has been that the drug traffick-
ing problem has grown substantially.
As a result of the so-called Florida
Task Force, we have seen trafficking
acitivity shift to other regions of the
country. In the Northeast, for in-
stance, there has been a great increase
in coastal drug smuggling over the
past year. Figures made available to
me this week by the Drug Enforce-
ment Administration in Boston dem-
onstrate how dramatic the change has
been: in 1981, seizures of marihuana
amounted to 28 tons, a figure which
increased to 211 tons in 1982. Already
this year, 170 tons of marihuana have
been seized along the New England
coastline.
I do not believe any Member of the
Senate would dispute the need for a
more aggressive national attack on the
drug trafficking problem. Our under-
funded Federal law enforcement agen-
cies are fighting a war against a well-
organized, well-financed, $80-billion-a-
year industry. What we are seeking to
do with this amendment is to provide
the high level authority that has been
lacking from a program that involves
more than a dozen agencies spread
throughout the entire Government.
This amendment would provide for a
1-year study of our current drug en-
forcement capabilities, to be followed,
in January of 1985 by the establish-
ment of a Cabinet level office to have
the lead authority over the various
agencies involved in this effort. We are
not seeking to create any new pro-
October 26, 1988'
grams or bureaucracy; indeed our
amendment explicitly states that
someone serving in the Cabinet, such
as the Attorney General, could serve
in this coordinating capacity.
In the past several years, drug traf-
ficking has become a problem that is
national in scope. We cannot rely
upon the kind of short-term successes
we have had with the Florida task
force. What is needed is consistent
attack on this problem at the highest
levels of our Government, starting
with a clearcut strategy for combating
drug trafficking in every region of the
country.
I urge my colleagues to join in sup-
porting this amendment to provide the
strong leadership we must have if we
are to win the war against drug traf-
fickers, and I yield the remainder of
my time to the Senator from Dela-
ware.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I yield to
the Senator from Arizona.
Mr. DECONCINI. I thank the Sena-
tor from Delaware.
We have gone round and round on
the subject of drug interdiction in this
body for a number of years. We passed
out what is known as the comprehen-
sive drug coordinator, as the Senator
from Delaware pointed out and as it
was pointed out by others.
This, as the Senator from Delaware
points out, is far more palatable I be-
lieve because it creates a commission
which is very similar to the commis-
sion that was created for immigration
and refugees. It is patterned after
that.
I think we know the success of that
commission which brought about the
Comprehensive Immigration Reform
Act that passed this body and is now
stalled in the House of Representa-
tives.
I think this combination gives us the
best of both worlds, an opportunity to
oversee through the commission and
in the creation of the drug coordinator
at the determination of that commis-
sion.
I want to thank the Senator from
Delaware for his leadership.
Mr. President, in plain English, this
amendment creates a new Drug Com-
mission and establishes a so-called
Drug Czar as the coordinator of our
national drug effort. Let me briefly ex-
plain why I strongly believe that both
are needed and why I believe they
should be considered in tandem today.
COMMISSION ON DRUG INTERDICTION AND
ENFORCEMENT
Mr. President, I am recommending
the creation of a new Commission on
Drug Interdiction and Enforcement. It
is my hope that this Commission will
attract the congressional, administra-
tion, and private sector experts in the
field to develop for the first time a
comprehensive, coordinated strategy
for waging an all-out war on intercept-
ing drugs as they come across our bor-
ders.
 Approved For Release 2008/01/04: CIA-RDP91 B001 35R000200330005-0
October 26, 1988 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
Mr. President, back in March of this
year, the Vice President announced
the creation of a national narcotics
border interdiction system (NNBIS), a
program designed to mobilize re-
sources to attack the drug smuggling
problem around all of the U.S. bor-
ders. I have repeatedly applauded the
Vice President's efforts to focus the
power and resources of the Federal
Government on this sinister drug
problem and I will continue to support
his program. However, despite the
good intentions of the President, the
Vice President, and our individual
drug interdiction agencies, there is
still the critical lack of a coordinated,
comprehensive strategy for attacking
the drug smuggling problem. The Gov-
ernment needs to prepare for a "war
on drugs" in the same way it prepares
for war against an enemy of the
United States.
We need a national and internation-
al game plan for developing drug in-
terdiction warfare, including bolster.
ing our international intelligence-
gathering systems: providing existing
military aircraft, radar, and other
equipment to our civilian law enforce-
ment agencies for drug interdiction
purposes; establishing tough, interna-
tional drug eradication programs in
source and transshipment countries;
and developing a coordinated system
for allocating Federal drug enforce-
ment resources to the agencies and lo-
cation where the drug smuggling
threat is most acute.
We do not have such a war plan, but
we desperately need one. The Vice
President cannot do it alone. The indi-
vidual law enforcement agencies
cannot do it on their own. The mili-
tary cannot do it alone. The Vice
President and other key players in the
Federal drug interdiction effort need a
national strategy to put into effect. I
am confident that the Commission on
Drug Interdiction and Enforcement
will give the administration and the
Congress the blueprint for a successful
"War on Drugs," a war that we can
ultimately win.
Mr President, this Commission
would be a truly bipartisan mix of ex-
perts from the administration, the
Congress, and the private sector. It
would consist of 16 members, includ-
ing four Cabinet members, four from
the House Judiciary Committee, four
from the Senate Judiciary Committee,
and four members appointed by the
President, including the Commission
Chairman. The Commission will evalu-
ate U.S. policies governing drug inter-
diction, international drug eradication,
foreign and domestic intelligence-gath-
ering strategies, and other important
elements that must be developed to
build a truly national strategy to
combat drug smuggling. A final report
from the Commission would be sub-
mitted concurrently to the Congress
and the administration by no later
than January 20, 1985.
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL AND
INTERNATIONAL DRUG OPERATIONS AND POLICY
Mr. President, the idea of creating a
centralized office for directing our na-
tional drug effort is certainly not a
new idea in this Chamber. The so-
called drug czar was a key part of the
crime bill that President Reagan
vetoed last year, but more important-
ly, it is a concept that has been recog-
nized as essential to our war against
drugs in both Houses of Congress. Just
as I believe a Commission on Drug In-
terdiction is needed to map out a com-
prehensive drug strategy, so, too, do I
believe that a drug coordinator is
needed to implement such a strategy
in the Federal Government.
The Director of National and Inter-
national Drug Operations and Policy
would be a Presidential appointee,
confirmed by the Senate, and would
serve as the principal director and co-
ordinator of U.S. operations and policy
on illegal narcotics and drugs. Clearly,
this amendment would not be estab-
lishing a large new bureaucracy to
compete with existing Federal respon.
sibilities in the drug area. To the con-
trary this small office would serve as a
vehicle for cutting through the tradi-
tional "turf" battles among drug en-
forcement agencies and help to coordi-
nate the Federal drug effort and mobi-
lize all assets of the Federal Govern-
ment against this devastating menace.
Mr. President, I will not burden my
colleagues with the numerous reports
and studies that show the seriousness
of the drug problem in this country.
Suffice it to say that the drug threat
to this country is staggering and get-
ting worse. The cost of drug abuse to
the economy has been estimated at
$25.8 billion a year; the drug traffick-
ing industry is an $80 billion a year
empire; and as much as 70 percent of
all violent crime in the United States
is directly related to drugs. To attack
this violent problem in our country,
we need tough new measures: we need
someone in charge full time who can
cut through the bureaucratic and turf
snarls that have plagued our drug
effort to date; and we need a commis-
sion to map out a national war plan
for attacking the drug problem from
all fronts. This amendment will get
the ball rolling in this direction.
Mr. President, the Vice President
has done a fine job in the drug inter-
diction area, but he needs help, full-
time help that can devote every day of
the week to coordinating our war on
drugs and to implementing a national
strategy. By creating a commission
and a drug coordinator we will be
helping the President, the Vice Presi-
dent, the Attorney General, and, most
importantly, the country in launching
full-scale, full-time warfare against
drugs.
I urge the adoption of my amend-
ment.
Mr. BIDEN. May we reserve the re-
mainder of our time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who
yields time?
Mr. BIDEN. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If nei-
ther side yields time, time will be
charged equally against both sides.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I see the
Senator from South Carolina is pre-
pared to respond. Let me discuss some
of the arguments the Senator from
South Carolina may raise against this
amendment.
Mr. President, one of the arguments
against the amendment is that the au-
thority of the Attorney General would
be undermined.
I want to make it clear throughout
the discussions with the administra-
tion, including our meeting with the
President, that I had no objection to
the Attorney General serving as the
chief coordinator. I believe there is
sufficient flexibility in the amendment
to permit this.
The second argument the distin-
guished Senator from South Carolina
may make is this bill would bring the
White House into day-to-day law en-
forcement decisions.
I have made clear in the past it was
never our intent that this office be lo-
cated in the White House. Indeed, I
am not certain where that idea came
from in the first place. This bill would
create an office in the executive
branch of Government not in the Ex-
ecutive Office of the President. Be-
sides unlike White House staff this in-
dividual would be appointed with the
advice and consent of the Senate and
therefore would be appearing before
the Senate committee on a regular
basis.
ARGUMENT AGAINST
The bill would take away the indi-
vidual authority of other Cabinet
members and Agency heads.
RESPONSE
Now I have always thought that it
was clear that such direction would be
subject to an appeal to the President
and if clarifying language is necessary
to make that clear I think that would
be acceptable. As a practical matter
that is how the DCI enforces tasking
requirements upon the components of
the intelligence community. For exam-
ple, if the DCI orders the Secretary of
the Treasury to place its highest prior-
ity on collecting intelligence on the in-
ternational banking activities of the
Amtorg Bank (an arm of the Soviet
Government) and the Secretary of the
Treasury feels it is more important to
use the Department's resources to find
out what Chase Manhattan has done
in overextending itself to the Mexi-
cans the Secretary can appeal to the
President.
ARGUMENT AGAINST
The administration has not had a
chance to explain their objections.
RESPONSE
The fact I am now listing arguments
made by the administration indicates
their position is widely known. Let me
list for the committee the times and
places just in the last year in which
 the President or a member of the ex-
ecutive branch has commented on this
proposal.
Department of Justice letter to the
chairman dated September 30, 1982.
The President's memorandum of dis-
approval in vetoing the crime bill
dated January 14, 1983.
Countless news articles about the
veto of the crime bill during the week
of January 15.
Testimony by the Attorney General
and FBI Director Webster at an orga-
nized crime and drug trafficking hear-
ing on January 27, 1983.
Testimony by Carlton Turner, Direc-
tor of the Office of Drug Abuse Policy
on February 17, 1983 before the House
Judiciary Committee hearing entitled
"coordination of drug enforcement ef-
forts".
Senate Judiciary hearing on S. 829
the Comprehensive Crime Control Act
of 1983 on May 4, 1983 when the At-
torney General and Rudolph Guiliani,
former associate attorney general tes-
tified.
ARGUMENT AGAINST
The bill would create an unnecessary
and costly layer of bureaucracy.
RESPONSE
This is the argument that most trou-
bles me. The whole purpose of this bill
is to give one person authority to cut
through existing bureaucratic barriers
to coordination. Indeed this adminis-
tration's answer, like those in the past,
has been to create coordinating groups
and councils. Indeed, we now have at
least eight groups or councils or com-
mittees that purport to coordinate the
activities of the nine Cabinet and 33
agencies involved in drug control and
prevention. This is decision by consen-
sus that leaves no one responsible and
is not efficent. The public would like
to know and Congress would like to
know, who is in charge?
Let us be serious. We are not talking
here about more government-the
office in question need not be large.
Indeed, its responsibilities could be
performed by personnel borrowed
from existing agencies. Also, we could
do away with some of these layers of
coordinating groups and councils that
only further confuse the policy
making process. we are talking about
making the Government we have work
right, and do the job it is supposed to
do, not increasing its size.
Mr. President, I withhold the re-
mainder of my time and I yield the
floor.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I
yield myself such time as I may re-
quire.
I rise in opposition to this amend-
ment and I do it for several reasons.
The first is that it is not the apprdpri-
ate legislation for this amendment. I
want to say this: That on the calendar
now we have a bill by the able and dis-
tinguished Senator from Delaware, S.
1787, which was reported from the Ju-
diciary Committee and which can be
considered in due time.
We have reported a crime package, a
very fine package, which is ready to be
taken up at any moment that those on
the other side withdraw their objec-
tions.
We passed out several separate bills.
We passed one out on capital punish-
ment, we passed one out, on the exclu-
sionary rule, we passed one out with
respect to habeas corpus, we passed
one out with respect to the Federal
Tort Claims Act, and we passed one
out on the drug czar.
The reason they were not included
in this package is they are all contro-
versial, and if any one had been at-
tached to this crime package, there
would have been a tussle and a fight
over that, and I am very pleased the
committee agreed unanimously, all of
the members of the committee, on the
crime package.
But on these matters they are
highly controversial, and that is the
reason we sent them out separately.
The distinguished Senator from
Delaware can bring this bill up, and I
win sure will bring it up, in due time.
So this is not the appropriate place for
this legislation.
Mr. President, last year this was
added to the crime package and the
President vetoed the crime package. I
am confident that if we add this par-
ticular amendment to this appropri-
ation bill the President will veto it. As
I say, he has already vetoed a similar
one last year.
He is against the crime czar. He has
a setup which he thinks is working
nicely. He does not want it interfered
with. So why run the risk of killing
the supplemental bill, which has so
many valuable things in it, just to put
in this one little thing? I think it is a
mistake. Therefore, for those reasons,
I oppose the amendment and hope it
will be tabled.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who
yields time?
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I yield
myself such time as I may need.
Mr. President, this is not the crime
bill. The Senator from South Carolina
is absolutely correct. We agreed to not
put this in the crime bill. But the
agreement we had was and remains
that all those so-called controversial
amendments, this being one of those,
could be moved in any way which the
authors of those amendments felt ap-
propriate, other than the crime bill.
That is what we are doing there today.
Mr. President, unless the Senator
from Georgia or the Senator from Ari-
zona would like some time, I am pre-
pared to yield back the time and vote
on the amendment.
I ask for the yeas and nays on the
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is
there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I
will yield to the able Senator from
Mississippi.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I am
totally opposed to drug traffic of any
kind or the illegal sales or anything
else. We are bothered with it down in
Mississippi. It seems as though Florida
has been more successful in banning
them and dealing with them. They
changed and they come around our
way now, come through south Missis-
sippi. So I am totally opposed to it.
But the way to get at it is to get a
bill that is really put together by the
Judiciary Committee and by the Sena-
tor from Delaware. There is no more
effective man in this party than he is,
and experienced, too.
So let us put together a bill that will
be effective and brought about in the
right way, rather than the hurry-
scurry thing here, putting it in an ap-
propriations bill.
We will just have to be firmer, I say
to the chairman of the committee. He
is very effective in this, but we will
just have to be more firm with refer-
ence to so many of these amendments.
They have a lot of worth in them, but
it is the wrong place.
We do not want to have to put a sign
up down in the Appropriations room
that says: "This was once the Appro-
priations Committee room, but now it
is legislation on any subject anybody
wants. Bring it in."
So I think we will not delay the ef-
fectiveness of the bill one bit to defeat
this, not on the merits, as I am insist-
ing, but on procedure and get even a
better bill with the sponsorhips of the
Senator from Delaware and those
working with him, Senator DECONCINI
from Arizona, and others.
I yield the floor.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, just one
closing comment. I do not concede the
notion that the President will neces-
sarily veto this bill. I have been in dis-
cussions with the administration.
They have been much more inclined
to discuss the creation of such a posi-
tion as I have proposed.
So although that might happen, and
it did happen in the past, I do not
think we can say that with absolute
certainty, it will happen again.
Mr. President, I am prepared to vote.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, if the
Senator would yield, it is correct, is it
not, that his bill is S. 1787, which is on
the calendar?
Mr. BIDEN. That is correct.
Mr. President. I am prepared to vote.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I
yield to the distinguished chairman of
the Appropriations Committee.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I
would only say as a matter of record
that I have discussed this matter with
not only the distinguished chairman
of the Judiciary Committee but also
with Senator LAxALT, who has a keen
interest in this bill. Senator LAXALT
has authorized me to indicate that
this amendment, which would provide
an automatic triggering mechanism, as
I understand it, to put into place a co-
ordinator for drug control at the end
 Approved For Release 2008/01/04: CIA-RDP91 B001 35R000200330005-0
&ctober 26, 1983 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
of a specified period of time, would be
subject to veto by the President and,
on that basis, he is opposing the
amendment.
As I say, I am merely authorized to
make that communication to the body
of the Senate at this time.
I yield back my time.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I
rise in support of this amendment to
create an Office of the Director of Na-
tional and International Drug Oper-
ations. Such an office will provide
needed coordination amongst the sev-
eral Federal agencies that battle drug
abuse and drug-related crime in this
country.
By virtually any measure, this
Nation is barely holding its own
against illicit drug use and commercial
activity. In the last 13 years, Congress
has enacted a number of measures de-
signed to reduce both the supply of
and the demand for drugs. These in-
clude the Foreign Assistance Act of
1971, which authorized suspension of
foreign aid to countries not cooperat-
ing in attempts to reduce the flow of
illegal drug traffic to the United
States, while financing eradication
programs in cooperative supplier-na-
tions; the Reorganization Plan No. 2
of 1973, to coordinate the efforts of
many of the agencies related to the
prevention of illicit drug traffic; and at
least 55 other major and minor anti-
drug measures.
Yet the supply and use of many dan-
gerous drugs is rising and will continue
to do so. The National Narcotics Intel-
ligence Consumers Committee report-
ed that in 1981, the supply of heroin
in the United States rose to 4.0 metric
tons; for cocaine, that figure was 34-45
metric tons; for hashish, 200 metric
tons; and for marihuana, upwards of
an almost unbelievable 13,900 metric
tons. This committee noted a worsen-
ing of heroin and cocaine abuse in
1981. and predicted that the situation
would continue to deteriorate at least
through 1985. The costs of illicit drugs
are virtually incalculable, because of
the enormous amounts of crime,
health problems, and decreased pro-
ductivity that accompany their use.
Nevertheless, the General Accounting
Office estimates that we are faced
with an $80 billion-a-year industry. My
concern with the dangers of illicit
drug activity is long standing. While
serving as President Richard Nixon's
Assistant for Urban Affairs, I investi-
gated the close relationship between
many of the problems facing our
cities, especially crime, and the prolif-
eration of narcotics such as heroin, I
traveled extensively to Calcutta, Istan-
bul, and Paris, in an effort to sever the
"French Connection." With the coop-
eration of the French Government, we
did manage to stem the flow of heroin
entering the United States via France.
The beast is not easily put off. When
Mexico became the new center of the
heroin trade, we worked with the
Mexican Government to coordinate a
swift and decisive response. The exit
of Mexico as the prime supplier of the
U.S. market for heroin created a
vacuum filled by poppy-growers in
Southwest Asia, particularly Pakistan.
Once again, I took to the road, secur-
ing commitments from General Mo-
hammad Zia-ul-Haq of Pakistan to
take hold of the heroin problem. To
my knowledge, however, heroin con-
tinues to flow from Southwest Asia.
The resources of our Nation's drug en-
forcement agencies are being taxed ac-
cordingly.
This history suggests the complexity
of the task confronting those who
would lead the fight against drug traf-
ficking and abuse. From the time the
poppies are cut in Pakistan or the can-
nabis is harvested in Colombia, to the
time that a young man or woman pur-
chases and consumes the drug on an
inner-city street, at least seven Federal
agencies have sought unsuccessfully to
halt its flow. Consider the organiza-
tions that get involved at one time or
another-the Internal Revenue Serv-
ice, the Federal Bureau of Investiga-
tion, the U.S. Customs Service, the
Coast Guard, the Drug Enforcement
Administration, the Food and Drug
Administration, and the U.S. Attor-
ney's Office, to name but seven that
come to mind immediately.
Each to these organizations does the
very best job that it can. But I suggest
we are in need of some coordination of
these agencies. As early as 1963, Presi-
dent Kennedy's Advisory Commission
on Narcotic and Drug Abuse, known as
the Prettyman Commission, noted the
several agencies involved and deplored
the fragmentation. The Commission
recommended the creation of a,single
new agency that would encompass the
duties then divided between the bu-
reaus, offices, and divisions of five dif-
ferent cabinet departments. As the
drug problem has worsened in the en-
suing 20 years, the coordination has
also deteriorated-despite the rhetoric
of every President since Kennedy.
The establishment of an Office of
the Director of National and Interna-
tional Drug Operation and Policy
would not, by any means, eliminate
the problem of illicit drug activity.
Indeed, many specific changes in laws,
such as reform of bail and sentencing
procedures as well as forfeiture regula-
tions, are needed badly. Nevertheless,
the prospects for coordination raised
by this proposal represent one immedi-
ate and positive step that the Senate
can take in the increasingly difficult
struggle against drugs.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I
will not take all of that time. I simply
want to say that it has been a pleasure
to work with the distinguished Sena-
tor from Delaware, who is the ranking
member of the Judiciary Committee.
In every way I could, I have tried to
work with him and we got his bill out
of the committee. It is now on the cal-
endar. It can reach the Senate in due
time.
This is not the place for it here. The
President will, in my opinion, veto this
whole bill, so why run the risk?
Furthermore, we think the bill that
is being worked on now by the distin-
guished Senator from Delaware with
the administration might be 4vorked
out, something might be worked out.
Why go and pass this now, because
later, if the administration is not
pleased, they will certainly veto it.
It seems to me the logical thing to
do is give the Senator from Delaware
more time to work with the adminis-
tration on this particular matter. It is
objectionable on this piece of legisla-
tion. The chairman and the manager
of the bill is against it. The ranking
member on the Appropriations Com-
mittee is against it. The Judiciary
Committee chairman is against it. We
hope the Senate will table it.
Mr. President, I move to table the
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time
on the amendment has not been yield-
ed back.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I
yield back my time.
Mr. BIDEN. I yield back our time.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I
move to table the amendment.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask for
the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is
there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the motion
of the Senator from South Carolina
(Mr. THURMOND) to table the amend-
ment of the Senator from Delaware
(Mr. BIDEN). The yeas and nays have
been ordered and the clerk will call
the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called
the roll.
Mr. STEVENS. I announce that the
Senator from North Dakota (Mr. AN-
DREWS), the Senator from Kansas (Mr.
DOLE), the Senator from Minnesota
(Mr. DURENBERGER), and the Senator
from Arizona (Mr. GOLDwATER) are
necessarily absent.
Mr. CRANSTON. I announce that
the Senator from South Carolina (Mr.
HOLLINGS) and the Senator from Mas-
sachusetts (Mr. TsONGAS) are necessar-
ily absent.
I also announce that the Senator
from Michigan (Mr. RIEGLE) is absent
because of illness in the family.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
JEPSEN). Is there any other Senator in
the Chamber who desires to vote?
The result was announced-yeas 40.
nays 53, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 317 Leg.)
YEAS-40
Abdnor
Gera
Laxalt
Armstrong
Gorton
Long
Baker
Grassley
Lugar
Chain
Hatfield
Mathias
Cochran
Hecht
McClure
Danforth
Helms
Murkowski
Denton
Jepsen
Nickles
East
Kassebaum
Packwood
Evans
? Kasten
Percy
 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE October 26, 1983
Pressler Symms Warner
Quayle Thurmond Weicker
Rudman Tower Wilson
Stennis Trible
Stevens Wallop
NAYS-53
Haucus Eagleton Mattingly
Bentsen S Exon Melcher
Eiden Ford Metzenbaum
Bingaman Glenn Mitchell
Boren Hart Moynihan
Boschwitz Hatch Nunn
Bradley Hawkins Pell
Bumpers Heflin Proxmire
Bu'dick Heinz Pryor
Byrd Huddleston Randolph
Chiles Humphrey Roth
Cohen Inouye Sarbanes
Cranston Johnston Sasser
D'Amato Kennedy Simpson
DeConcini Lautenberg Specter
Dixon Leahy Stafford
Dodd Levin yorinsky
Domenici Matsunaga
NOT VOTING-7
Andrews Goldwater Tsongas
Dole Hollings
Durenberger Riegle
So the motion to lay on the table
amendment No. 2443 was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question now is on agreeing to the
amendment. The yeas and nays have
been ordered.
Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Delaware is recognized.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the order for
the yeas and nays be vitiated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is
there objection? The Chair hears
none, and it Is so ordered.
Mr. BAKER addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
majority leader is recognized.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, since
that vote has been vitiated, I wish to
announce there will be no more record
votes tonight.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I move
the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If
there is no more debate, the question
is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 2443) was
agreed to.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I
move to reconsider the vote by which
the amendment was agreed to.
Mr. BIDEN. I move to lay that
motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
NETWORK FINANCIAL INTEREST RULES
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the
Appropriations Committee has added
a provision to the supplemental bill of-
fered by the Senator from Alaska,
which deals with the so-called network
financial interest rules of the Federal
Communications Commission. The
Stevens committee amendment places
a 6-month moratorium on any FCC re-
vision of those rules.
I strongly support the Stevens provi-
sion in the committee bill and urge my
colleagues to defeat efforts to repeal
or to dilute it. All this provision does is
to preserve the status quo, so that the
Senate can review the important ques-
tions involved and can act on pending
legislation on this issue, without the
undue pressure of new rules already
having been issued by the FCC.
I will comment on the merits of the
matter briefly. However, I would first
like to .address a jurisdictional issue
that has been raised as a basis for de-
leting the Stevens amendment. The
Commerce Committee has scheduled
hearings soon for legislation on this
matter introduced by the Senator
from California (Mr. WILSON), which I
have cosponsored. Senators seeking to
delete the Stevens provision suggest
that it would defeat the Commerce
Committee's jurisdiction by prejudg-
ing the issue. On the contrary, Mr.
President, the provision insures not
only that the committee can hold
hearings on legislation, but also that
both the committee and the full
Senate will be able to decide whether
to pass it, before they are faced with
preemptive action by the FCC.
An alternative approach may be pro-
posed as a substitute for the Stevens
amendment. This approach would
leave the FCC free to issue its new
rules, but would prevent the imple-
mentation of rules for the same period
as the Stevens amendment.
The argument is that by letting the
FCC further revise its proposed new
rules, we would be able to know what
compromises the television networks
might be willing to let the Commission
make in its earlier proposals.
The answer to that suggestion is
simple. It is in fact a clever effort to
prevent the Congress from exercising
its legislative prerogatives, uncon-
strained by an agency fait accompli.
Once the FCC formally promulgates
new rules we will doubtless hear argu-
ments that the Senate should hesitate
to overturn a formal ruling by the
FCC and should let the process of ju-
dicial review of that ruling take its
normal course without legislative in-
terference. Moreover, those arguments
will be made by some of the very same
people who now suggest that letting
the formal FCC rule go forward will
better preserve the status quo and
leave the Senate free to block unwise
FCC action.
Nor is this a case where the Senate
would be acting without the benefit of
the relevant agency expertise and
record in this matter. There is a volu-
minous hearing record as well as
equally extensive comments by both
sides on the proposed rules. The FCC
and other agencies have stated their
analysis of the issues.
To be candid, at this point we are
only talking about changes that the
Commission might make as a matter
of political compromise in order to
temper congressional reaction. Of
course, if the FCC has second
thoughts about its proposed rule and
wants to revise it, that can be commu-
nicated to the Senate without a formal
final promulgation, for us to consider
when we review the advisability of any
change in the rules.
In short, for those Senators who
have not yet made up their minds on
the underlying issues and want to
insure full, unfettered Senate review
before their options are even partially
foreclosed, retention of the Stevens
amendment in the supplemental bill is
clearly the appropriate position.
As for myself, however, after many
months of careful consideration of the
arguments offered by both sides, I be-
lieve that the repeal or dilution of the
financial interest rules poses substan-
tial dangers to the public interest and
that the proponents of change have
not met their burden of showing what
public benefits justify risking the very
dangers that the rule has protected us
from for over a decade.
For the past 11 years, the financial
interest and syndication rules have
protected hundreds of independent
television stations throughout the
country. They have also offered some
protection to numerous small- and
medium-sized independent television
program producers. The rules have
protected both groups from the inher-
ent dangers of the television networks
exercising their marketpower and
their ability to chill the competitive
challenge posed by independent sta-
tions to network affiliates and net-
work owned stations.
The effort to repeal these rules has
marched under the popular banner of
"deregulation." As my colleagues
know, I have championed true deregu-
lation, where that means a return to
free market competition in that indus-
try and palpable benefits to the gener-
al public.
In the case of television programing,
the three networks have a unique
power over access to commercial suc-
cess. Removing the constraints on the
undue exercise of that power cannot
realistically be considered deregula-
tion in any meaningful sense at this
time. There may be future develop-
ments in the growth of alternative
markets for television programs that
will significantly dilute this unique
network power; but that time has not
yet arrived.
It should be remembered, too, that
the networks enjoy their special power
by virtue of their operation on Gov-
ernment controlled and granted broad-
cast frequencies.
Absent the present rules, I believe
there is a substantial risk that the net-
works could extract unfair concessions
from independent producers-specifi-
cally, that the producers give up more
of their rights to syndication profits
from their programs after network
showing, than they would voluntarily
choose to sell.
Similarly, there is a substantial risk
that the networks could hinder the
access of independent television sta-
tions to the syndication programing
that has enabled them to thrive over
the past decade. The new FCC-pro-
posed syndication safeguard does not
avert that danger.