Senator BAYH. At this point in the record, I will include excerpts from the testimony of Peter B. Bensinger, Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration, U.S. Department of Justice; and Dr. Robert L. DuPont, Director, National Institute on Drug Abuse, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Their entire testimony is to be found in volume I of these hearings on the Narcotics Sentencing and Seizure Act of 1976; but as these excerpts deal especially with testimony of Commissioner Alexander they will appear herewith as exhibits 18 and 19.

We will then conclude with the testimony of our good friend Congressman Charles A. Vanik of Ohio, who is also very interested in the subject of today's testimony.

[Testimony continues on p. 128.]

[EXHIBIT NO. 18]

EXCERPT FROM THE TESTIMONY OF PETER B. BENSINGER, ADMINISTRATOR,

Mr. RECTOR. What has the Department of Justice-DEA, in particular, but perhaps the Tax Division or other entities at Justice, also-done to help facilitate tax investigations of what Senator Bayh called the kingpin drug traffickers; those who, are according to what I have seen recently, taking in at least $400 million in untaxed profits annually?

And at this point in the record I would like to enter the remarks of Assistant Attorney General Richard L. Thornburg to the Fifth Controlled Conspiracy Conference, July 22, 1976.

[The remarks follow:]

"THE PROSECUTOR AND DRUG ABUSE"

REMARKS OF RICHARD L. THORNBURGH, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, CRIMINAL DIVISION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, TO THE FIFTH CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES CONSPIRACY CONFERENCE, JULY 22, 1976

The problem of narcotics and dangerous drugs continues to pose a monumental challenge to American society.

More than 5,000 Americans die each year from the improper use of drugs. Expensive drug habits account for as much as one-half of the "street crime"robberies, muggings and burglaries-which afflict American communities. The overall cost of drug abuse is estimated to run as high as $17 billion a year. No wonder that the President has properly noted drug abuse to be "a tragic national problem which saps our Nation's vitality."

In speaking to those of you involved in the investigation and prosecution of criminal offenses related to drug trafficking, I cannot help but take note of the important role you have been assigned in attacking this problem.

At the same time, however, I must also observe that prosecutors have a narrowly defined role to play in the effort to combat this national affliction of drug abuse.

Prosecutors cannot and do not research the reason for the existence of massive numbers of drug abusers in this most affluent, most free, most mobile of the world's societies.

Prosecutors cannot and do not prescribe means and methods for the treatment and rehabilitation of drug abusers or evaluate the many competing prescriptions offered by others in this regard.

Prosecutors can and do only deal with the supply side of the drug abuse equation. Our role is to smash the large scale business enterprises which profit from the miseries of others to smash them by the accumulation of sufficient legally admissible evidence to convince judges and juries beyond a reasonable doubt of the guilt of those who violate the criminal laws o fthe United States in the conduct of their drug-related enterprises.

At the Federal level, this means we must make a firm commitment to the bold and imaginative use of the provisions of the Controlled Substances Act of 1970

regulating traffic in a wide variety of narcotics and dangerous drugs. It means we must pursue the innovative use of the conspiracy laws and the provisions of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 which reach the variety of patterns of business enterprises involved in the illegal drug traffic. And it means maximum use of the income tax laws to exact a full "bite" upon the mammoth ill-gotten profits of the drug merchant-profits estimated to run as high as $350 million

a year.

More often than not, the evidence-gathering process for such prosecutions will lead Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents into long and arduous pursuits of those who appear at various levels of the drug trafficker's "organization chart." In many cases, these trails will cross state and international boundaries and will frequently require the cooperation of foreign and overseas law enforcement units as well. Such an undertaking was involved in the intensive helicopter spraying operation mounted this year against 20,000 Mexican opium poppy fields through the efforts of Mexican Attorney General Pedro Ojeda Paullada.

Because the typical drug smuggling and distribution ring must invariably use telephone communications to transact business from time to time, prosecutors must always be prepared to aid DEA investigators in obtaining, often on short notice, court-authorized wire-taps where probable cause can be established to indicate particular telephones are being utilized in major operations.

In an increasing number of investigations, Federal grand juries must be utilized to obtain the full testimony under oath of unwilling or recalcitrant witnesses and so-called "use immunities" must be sought to compel the testimony of the "little fish" in a particular narcotics operation to provide incriminating evidence against the "big fish" so that the full cast of characters can be successfully prosecuted.

Prosecutors must always be alert as well to the need to work with DEA investigators in providing protection for government witnesses who frequently become the targets of underworld threats, intimidation and worse once their cooperation is made known.

And finally, the prosecutors must be alert to every possibility to inform the courts of the need for extended sentences in those cases where convictions are obtained against the true kingpins of illegal narcotics operations.

The effort to deal with the threat posed by large-scale illicit drug operations thus requires a close and constant working relationship between Department of Justice prosecutors and DEA investigators if their separate efforts are to be maximized to the utmost. We intend to see that those prosecutors in the Criminal Division and the United States Attorneys' offices charged with the responsibility for prosecuting cases involving drug offenses do, in fact, give their utmost in this effort.

The principal vehicle in this undertaking since January, 1975, has been the special "Controlled Substance Prosecution Units" established by the Department of Justice in 19 major cities throughout the United States. The goal of these units is to lead enforcement efforts away from simply an aggregation of "buy and bust" arrests and prosecutions and toward the immobilizing of entire networks of drug distribution-attacking each step from the growth of illicit drugproducing crops abroad, through the processing mills and laboratories both here and abroad, to the vast importation and distribution systems utilized to put a wide variety of illegal narcotics and dangerous drugs on the streets of American communities.

On the investigative side, we can only applaud DEA Administrator Peter Bensinger's promise that DEA efforts "will not be on the street dealer, but on the financier, importer, the criminal organization leader or leaders" and to this end we are devoting substantial prosecutive resources ourselves, coordinated by the Narcotic and Dangerous Drug Section of the Criminal Division in Washington. To step up the capability of our prosecutors in this effort, a series of training seminars, of which the one this week in Minneapolis is the fifth, have been held throughout the United States for those who must man the "front lines" in the effort to deal with drug enforcement. At these sessions, experienced prosecutors share with each other and with those junior in experience the latest techniques in handling the investigation and prosecution of major drug cases before grand juries and Federal courts.

To date, some measure of success has been forthcoming in this effort to "up the ante" for the major financiers and distributors of narcotics and dangerous drugs. But we are far from satisfied. Those engaged in this highly lucrative field have

no shortage of imagination and guile themselves and constant intelligence gathering and sharing is necessary for prosecutors and investigators alike to keep even, let alone get ahead of the adversaries.

While we do take pride in those successes that have been achieved, we know that we must constantly re-evaluate our position and change our priorities as new needs arise. We believe, however, that we have found the basic formula for success-close cooperation between DEA investigators and our Controlled Substance Prosecution Units in the development of major cases.

The Department views with special pride the Central Tactical (CEN TAC) Program developed by the Drug Enforcement Administration in 1973-a program which is targeted upon major organizations operating in multiple geographical areas of the United States. Top priority is given to an investigation once it has achieved CEN TAC status. The investigation is coordinated out of Washington. Prosecutors from the Criminal Division and Assistant United States Attorneys from different parts of the country are assigned to work closely with agent personnel. Step by step the investigation proceeds using every weapon available to the government. A typical investigation may very well be supported by several federal, state and local law enforcement agencies. Prosecutive decisions are made in many cases to proceed under all statutes available, including those unrelated to narcotics such as tax law violations and laws relating to the use and transportation of weapons.

To date, some 17 major CEN TAC investigations have been launched; these have been targeted upon large-scale traffickers in Lebanese, Mexican or Southeast Asian heroin; Colombian cocaine; and domestic methamphetamines. Some of the networks whose participants are now under arrest or indictment have stretched into dozens of states and several Canadian provinces, as well as throughout the world. As we become more adept at using the legal and organizational tools I have discussed, we can look forward to the CEN TAC type of effort becoming more the rule than the exception.

The stakes are high for all of us in doing battle with drug abuse. Those engaged in research efforts to determine the "why" of drug abuse must come up with some answers. Those who seek the optimum means of treatment and rehabilitation will, we hope, some day reach their goal. These efforts can cut down on the demand side of the equation by reducing the market for the merchants of menace who control drug trafficking.

But in the meantime, law enforcement must continue to mount its unrelenting campaign against the supply side of the equation. Both the DEA and Justice Department prosecutors have set their goals high-nothing less than a maximum effort to investigate and prosecute the "Mister Bigs" who monopolize the large scale production and distribution of illegal drugs in this nation. No statistical striving or "seizure syndromes" can or will substitute for the quality prosecution-those cases which place behind bars for extended jail sentences individuals responsible for the flow of illegal drugs into American communities.

The prosecution of these major drug traffickers is no sport for the short-winded. Dealing with only the supply side of the equation, to be sure, has its share of frustrations. But I am confident that proficient and dedicated investigators and prosecutors such as those here this week can do more than their share in breaking the habit of dispair which threatens to engulf our society in its attitudes toward the problem of drug abuse.

I wish you well in this effort. It is as important a challenge as any facing law enforcement today.

Mr. BENSINGER. I am happy to report that the Commissioner of IRS and I did sign an agreement between our two agencies. as a matter of fact, yesterday, that would provide for a continuing exchange of information from DEA to IRS on just the kingpins we are talking about, which you referred to.

We have already provided to IRS names of individuals in class 1 charactristic violator description, who we believe are not only involved in the illegal narcotics traffic, but are inviolation of the tax laws of the country.

We look forward to IRS asserting a positive program toward focusing on such offenders or potential offenders of their laws.

Mr. RECTOR. In other words, are you saying the Department of Justice supports the President's concern that IRS vigorously pursue tax investigations with regard to high-level drug traffickers?

Mr. BENSINGER. I could not emphasize that more strongly.

Mr. RECTOR. One last concern relates to a fairly well-known and widely publicized, I guess we could say, tug-of-war between DEA-its predecessor BNDDand Customs. I think we could honestly characterize the relationship between these two entities and their predecessor entities as somewhat less than cooperative on occasion, particularly with regard to efforts at the border.

Since the Reorganization Act No. 2, in 1973, when Customs lost some of their authority with regard to intelligence gathering and what-have-you, I think we have all learned that this situation was excerbated. We are concerned as to what the current relationship is between the two agencies.

As you recall, Senator Bayh indicated earlier he was especially concerned about the possibility of a continued weak link in the Federal drug law enforcement at the critical point where heroin is in such high volume and purity; namely, at the border.

Mr. BENSINGER. I am very glad you raised that question. I don't agree with the characterization of DEA and Customs relationships as being strained. I think at the present time they are very good.

Mr. RECTOR. I was making reference to the track record, the past record, and experience.

At this point we will insert several articles, referring to the past record. [Exhibits 13 and 14, were inserted in the record at this point.]

*

Mr. BENSINGER. I think in the past there have been difficulties between DEA and its predecessor agency, between them and Customs, because of conflicting and competing jurisdictions.

I think today-and the Commissioner of Customs is here, and he can speak to this subsequently-I feel we have a good relationship with that Agency. On a professional basis there has been an agreement signed between Customs and the DEA dated December 11, 1975, on our working relationship. We have participated in the Cabinet Committee on Drug Law Enforcement appointed by the President, a representative from U.S. Customs is working on a daily basis, in our headquarters office in Intelligence, on an interagency committee, with representatives from Immigration, Naturalization, and FAA and the Coast Guard. We have representation from Customs at our El Paso Intelligence Center; we have provided increased communication and information to their agency, and they to our agency, and not only limited to the development of intelligence gathering but on situations where we are developing joint research considerations and also efforts that can capitalize on the strengths of both agencies. I am glad you raised the issue.

[At this point in the record, Exhibit 15, the Memorandum of understanding between the Internal Revenue Service and the Drug Enforcement Administration, dated July 27, 1976 was inserted in the record.1]

Mr. BENSINGER. Senator Bayh, we are talking about the relationship between DEA and Customs. They are better than they have been in the past and I would characterize them as good and I would like you to address this question as well to the Commissioner of Customs who will be joining you shortly.

I think it is very important that in the system of enforcement, the agencies maximize the individual potentials that they have, in information sharing and in resource capabilities.

And customs seizures at the borders have increased. The ability of DEA to provide intelligence not only to them, but to State and local police, is also important.

So I think we can give you a report that would not characterize the past as being carried out at present.

Senator BAYH. The reason we saved that question until last is the next witnesses are going to give a review of Treasury Department drug law enforcement activities, including the area of Customs' responsibilities. I appreciate your answer.

1 See Appendix. Part 2-Narcotics Traffickers Tax Program Under Commissioner Alexander: D. IRS and DEA Policy, p. -.

no shortage of imagination and guile themselves and constant intelligence gathering and sharing is necessary for prosecutors and investigators alike to keep even, let alone get ahead of the adversaries.

While we do take pride in those successes that have been achieved, we know that we must constantly re-evaluate our position and change our priorities as new needs arise. We believe, however, that we have found the basic formula for success-close cooperation between DEA investigators and our Controlled Substance Prosecution Units in the development of major cases.

The Department views with special pride the Central Tactical (CEN TAC) Program developed by the Drug Enforcement Administration in 1973-a program which is targeted upon major organizations operating in multiple geographical areas of the United States. Top priority is given to an investigation once it has achieved CEN TAC status. The investigation is coordinated out of Washington. Prosecutors from the Criminal Division and Assistant United States Attorneys from different parts of the country are assigned to work closely with agent personnel. Step by step the investigation proceeds using every weapon available to the government. A typical investigation may very well be supported by several federal, state and local law enforcement agencies. Prosecutive decisions are made in many cases to proceed under all statutes available, including those unrelated to narcotics such as tax law violations and laws relating to the use and transportation of weapons.

To date, some 17 major CEN TAC investigations have been launched; these have been targeted upon large-scale traffickers in Lebanese, Mexican or Southeast Asian heroin; Colombian cocaine; and domestic methamphetamines. Some of the networks whose participants are now under arrest or indictment have stretched into dozens of states and several Canadian provinces, as well as throughout the world. As we become more adept at using the legal and organizational tools I have discussed, we can look forward to the CEN TAC type of effort becoming more the rule than the exception.

The stakes are high for all of us in doing battle with drug abuse. Those engaged in research efforts to determine the "why" of drug abuse must come up with some answers. Those who seek the optimum means of treatment and rehabilitation will, we hope, some day reach their goal. These efforts can cut down on the demand side of the equation by reducing the market for the merchants of menace who control drug trafficking.

But in the meantime, law enforcement must continue to mount its unrelenting campaign against the supply side of the equation. Both the DEA and Justice Department prosecutors have set their goals high-nothing less than a maximum effort to investigate and prosecute the "Mister Bigs" who monopolize the large scale production and distribution of illegal drugs in this nation. No statistical striving or "seizure syndromes" can or will substitute for the quality prosecution-those cases which place behind bars for extended jail sentences individuals responsible for the flow of illegal drugs into American communities.

The prosecution of these major drug traffickers is no sport for the short-winded. Dealing with only the supply side of the equation, to be sure, has its share of frustrations. But I am confident that proficient and dedicated investigators and prosecutors such as those here this week can do more than their share in breaking the habit of dispair which threatens to engulf our society in its attitudes toward the problem of drug abuse.

I wish you well in this effort. It is as important a challenge as any facing law enforcement today.

Mr. BENSINGER. I am happy to report that the Commissioner of IRS and I did sign an agreement between our two agencies, as a matter of fact, yesterday, that would provide for a continuing exchange of information from DEA to IRS on just the kingpins we are talking about, which you referred to.

We have already provided to IRS names of individuals in class 1 charactristic violator description, who we believe are not only involved in the illegal narcotics traffic, but are inviolation of the tax laws of the country.

We look forward to IRS asserting a positive program toward focusing on such offenders or potential offenders of their laws.

Mr. RECTOR. In other words, are you saying the Department of Justice supports the President's concern that IRS vigorously pursue tax investigations with regard to high-level drug traffickers?