-A A +A

JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AMENDMENT

Document Type: 
CREST
Collection: 
General CIA Records
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: 
AttachmentSize
PDF icon CIA-RDP85-00003R000100020006-9.pdf5.05 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
Agency
About CIA
Organization
Director of the CIA
CIA Museum
News & Stories
Careers
Working at CIA
How We Hire
Student Programs
Browse CIA Jobs
Resources
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
Center for the Study of Intelligence (CSI)
The World Factbook
Spy Kids
Connect with CIA
Search CIA.gov Site Policies Privacy No FEAR Act Inspector General USA.gov Site Map