request Customs to notify these authorities. When local enforcement authority declines, Customs will proceed to assess administrative and civil penalties, as appropriate. Otherwise, administrative and civil penalties should be held in abeyance until local prosecution is completed.

"(9) Convoy Operations After Customs Seizures

"In those instances where DEA decides to convoy the contraband seized by Customs to the ultimate consignee, Customs personnel will fully cooperate, and will withhold publicity. All seized vehicles or conveyances will be included in a chain of custody receipt.

"The weighing of the contraband may be waived when the method of concealment makes it impractical. At the termination of the convoy, an accurate weight will be supplied by DEA to the originating district director, and the chain of custody will be annotated with the correct weight. Customs officers will not normally participate in this type of convoy operation.

"At the termination of this type convoy operation, involved vehicle or conveyance shall be released to the custody of the nearest district director of Customs. "(10) Disposition of Vehicles, Vessels, Aircraft and Seizures in Joint Enforcement

"All vehicles, vessels, and aircraft involved in joint smuggling cases will be seized and forfeited by Customs. Final disposition of the conveyance will be determined by a joint Headquarters review board comprised of Customs and DEA personnel. Guidelines governing disposition will be developed.

"Upon prior DEA request in writing, Customs will not administratively dispose of seized aircrafts or other conveyance until it is no longer required for evidence by the courts or termination of DEA investigation.

"(11) Referral to Other Agencies (Chain of Custody and Laboratory Sampling)

"Customs will continue, in the case of seized heroin and cocaine, weighing two ounces or more, to make samples not to exceed 7 grams. However, the Customs laboratory will not perform the quantitative and qualitative analysis until completion of the prosecuting action, except for special contingencies.

"(12) DEA Access to Customs Personnel and Controlled Areas

"Designated Customs areas are not normally accessible to others. Access to Customs controlled areas and Customs personnel on an as needed basis will be obtained from the officer-in-charge of the Customs facility in each instance. Customs will honor such requests, provided that DEA personnel in no way interfere in examination and inspection processes.

"(13) Procedures When Discovery of Drugs is Made Before Actual Violators Have Been Identified and Goods or Conveyances are Still in Customs Custody "When Customs officers discover the presence of concealed drugs in imported goods, and the goods or conveyances are still under Customs custory or control, and they have been claimed by a consignee or reached their ultimate destination, Customs shall maintain control of the drugs, but DEA will be notified immediately. Customs officers will cooperate with DEA and be guided by DEA's tactical decisions regarding investigative development, arrest and seizure.

"(14) Any representation made to Federal, State or local prosecutors for mitigation of sentence or other consideration on behalf of a defendant who has cooperated in narcotic cases or investigations will be made by DEA. DEA will bring to the attention of the appropriate prosecutor cooperation by a narcotic defendant who has assisted Customs.

"There are existing DEA/Customs agreements not covered in this document that pertain to cross-designation of DEA agents, mail parcel drug interdiction and other matters. DEA and Customs mutually agree to review each of these and amend where appropriate for consistency with the cooperative intent of this agreement.

"No guidelines are all encompassing and definitive for all occasions. Therefore, the appropriate field management of both agencies are directed to establish counterparts to better coordinate their respective operations. Similar cooperation and harmonious working relationships should be implemented at all subordinate levels. It must be recognized that good faith as well as mutual respect for the statutory responsibilities of our agencies and for the employees are the cornerstone upon which full cooperation must be established. To this end, Customs and DEA personnel must take the appropriate affirmative actions to minimize conflict

and develop a combined program which adequately serves the interests of the United States of America and its citizenry.

"Acting Administrator, Drug Enforce

"HENRY S. DOGIN,

ment Administrator.

"VERNON S. ACREE,

"Commissioner, U.S. Customs Service."

Mr. BAYH. I was impressed by the sincerity of these two men at our hearing last week, but in light of the failure of a similar prior agreement to resolve jurisdictional problems, I urge the President to clearly delineate a White House level monitoring system to assure that our drug law enforcement agencies get on with their mandates namely to curb the flow of heroin and other dangerous drugs into this country.

Whatever agency or agencies are eventually assigned the drug law enforcement responsibilities it is my subcommittee's mandate to assure that the Controlled Substances Act and the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act, that were drafted by the subcommittee after extensive hearings in 1969 and enacted in 1970, provide the Nation's drug law enforcement officers and our criminal justice system with the most effective constitutionally sound tools to help take the profit out of heroin and other illegal dangerous drug traffic.

Through our 1975 hearings on opium policy and presently on legislation introduced by the President the subcommittee intends to develop a better understanding of the ramifications of the public policy developed by the Nixon administration to curb heroin traffic and abuse and whether or not the current administration has learned from their mistakes.

I agreed with the President when he stressed in his April 27, 1976, message that "drug abuse constitutes a clear and present threat to the health and future of our Nation" that we must “refocus and revitalize the Federal effort," especially with regard to those who accumulate substantial wealth through such tainted trade.

This is not the first time, since 1968 that the administration has expressed support for congressional effort to curb drug traffic. Earlier proposals lacked focus and did not reflect the judicious use of limited public resources. Thus, although I am encouraged by some recent remarks, I would be less than candid if I did not admit that earlier rhetoric and indifference about these important issues only reaffirms former Attorney General Mitchell's rejoinder that it was more important to watch what is done than what is said. You do not help take the easy profits out of drug traffic with tough talk and hollow promises.

MANDATORY PENALTIES

I believe that firm and certain punishment must be the response to drug traffickers. Because of the understandable concern and debate regarding Senate bill 1, a rewrite of the entire Federal Criminal Code, I agree with the President and the distinguished Senator from Nebraska (Mr. HRUSKA) that we not delay the enactment of appropriate measures to curb narcotics traffickers. Thus I intend to report a separate drug bill this year.

Although there seems to be a bandwagon syndrome regarding the application of mandatory minimum penalties to all crimes I agree with Prof. James Vorenberg "that the rush to mandatory minimum sentences distracts attention from a general restructuring of sentencing laws as well as from the futility of efforts to run our criminal justice system 'on the cheap'". But I concur with the distinguished executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, Mr. Aryeh Neier, that:

"Some people who have committed very serious crimes of violence should be given incapacitating sentences to protect everyone else."

The 1970 act eliminated most mandatory sentences. As the former President said in his June 17, 1971, drug abuse message to Congress:

"The act contains credible and proper penalties against violators of the drug law. Several punishments are invoked against the drug pushers and peddlers while more lenient and flexible sanctions are provided for the users." The President continued:

80-321 O-77-5

"These new penalties allow judges more discretion, which we feel will restore credibility to the drug control laws and eliminate some of the difficulties prosecutors and judges have had in the past arising out of minimum mandatory penalties for all violators."

The only provision of the 1970 act providing minimum mandatory sentences is the continuing criminal enterprise provision, section 408, which was intended to serve as a strong deterrent and to keep those found guilty of such violations out of circulation.

It provides that persons engaged in continuing criminal enterprises involving violations of the bill, from which substantial profits are derived, shall, upon conviction, be sentenced to not less than 10 years in prison, and may be imprisoned up to life, with a fine of up to $100,000, plus forfeiture of all profits obtained in that enterprise. A second conviction under this section will lead to a mandatory sentence of not less than 20 years and up to life imprisonment, a fine up to $200,000, and forfeiture of all such profits.

Except when continuing criminal enterprises serve as the basis for an indictment, manufacture, sale, or other distribution of controlled drugs will carry penalties which vary, depending upon the danger of the drugs involved. If the drugs are narcotic drugs listed in schedules I or II, which have the highest probability of creating severe physical as well as psychological dependence, the penalties which may be imposed are up to 15 years imprisonment and a fine of up to $25,000 for a first offense. If the drug involves nonnarcotic substances listed in schedules I or II, or any substance-whether or not a narcotic-included in schedule III, the penalties for a first offense are up to 5 years imprisonment, plus a fine of not more than $15,000. If the drug is a schedule IV substance, the penalty is up to 3 years imprisonment and a fine of $10,000, and if a schedule V substance is involved, the penalty is up to 1 year imprisonment, plus a fine of not more than $5,000.

Where a violation of the bill involves distribution to a person below the age of 21 by a person who is 18 or more years of age, the penalty authorized is twice the penalty otherwise authorized for a first offense, with substantially increased penalties for second and subsequent violations.

The President's proposed legislation would require mandatory minimum sentences for all persons convicted of trafficking in heroin and similar narcotic drugs. It calls for a 3-year mandatory sentence for the first offense, and at least 6 years for any subsequent offenses or selling illegal drugs to a minor, subject in each instance to exceptions.

This approach does not focus on the financier, importer, or organized criminal leaders who control drug traffic-it does not focus on these kingpins. What we need is meaningful sentencing for major traffickers. The problem with current Federal policy and focus was clearly presented to the subcommittee last week by Hon. Sheldon B. Vance, Senior Adviser to Secretary Kissinger for International Narcotics Matters, when he told the subcommittee that

"While we can point with some satisfaction to our efforts toward improving the effectiveness of international narcotics control over the past several years, our own efforts to deal with traffickers has acquired a reputation of leniency. Minimal sentences, liberal parole policies and prosecutorial bargaining with cooperating defendants have caused some foreign officials to criticize the United States judicial system, often referring to it as a 'revolving door.' Specific complaints have been registered, primarily from Latin American countries, about low bail, release on personal cognizance, plea bargaining lenient sentences, and early parolling of traffickers apprehended following close collaboration with foreign law enforcement officials."

Ambassador Vance cited an especially illustrative case. He explained that— "It concerned two individuals arrested in November 1972 in New York subsequent to their delivery from Singapore of 2.5 kilos of # 4 heroin to Special Agents of the Drug Enforcement Administration. The exhibit was delivered as a free sample toward a 23 kilo delivery scheduled for the future. They were tried without a jury in the Southern District of New York and in March 1973 were given sentences of 15 years for each of two counts, to run consecutively. On June 26, 1974, the judge reduced their sentences pursuant to their motions, making them eligible for parole."

"On August 30, 1974, one of them filed an application for parole. His application was heard on October 16, 1974. An Institutional Review Hearing was held in March 1976 and parole was granted. He was delivered to the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service Authorities on July 15, 1976 for deportation.

"On July 17, 1976, upon his arrival in Singapore, he was arrested by officers of the Singapore Central Narcotics Bureau. On July 20, 1976, the Assistant Director, Central Narcotics Bureau requested the High Court Magistrate to order his detention for the remainder of his U.S. prison sentence."

Ambassador Vance commented that

"These developments have caused the Singapoe authorities seriously to question the commitment and sincerity of the United States in its efforts against the international trafficking of narcotics."

And that

"Such cases and other indicators clearly show a soft and imprecise handling of narcotics offenders. This inhibits our ability to obtain cooperation from foreign governments."

We need to restore credibility to the sentencing process to assure that the "kingpins" are disrupted. I endorse the Domestic Council White Paper recommendation regarding sentencing of drug traffickers to require "minimum mandatory sentences for persons convicted of high-level trafficking in narcotics and dangerous drugs." I took particular note of the task force recommendation that the President's proposal be expanded to include high-level traffickers of barbiturates and amphetamines.

The most effective way to curb the flow of illicit drugs is to immobilize substantial trafficking networks through the prosecution and conviction of their leaders. I concur in the White Paper recommendation that:

"Federal law enforcement efforts should focus on the development of major conspiracy cases against the leaders of high-level trafficking networks, and should move away from 'street-level' activities."

In calendar year 1974, DEA special agents in the United States spent 28 percent of their time in pursuit of class I violators, or those at the high level of traffic; 19 percent investigating class II's; 45 percent of their time on class III's; and 8 percent of their time on IV's. Even fewer of the arrests made were class I or II violators.

According to DEA Administrator Bensinger, however, the trend has improved. He told the subcommittee last week that class I, major, heroin violator arrests have increased by 106 percent in the 9-month period ending March 31, 1976, and class IV street-level arrests have decreased significantly.

These are encouraging signs but only time will determine whether DEA has finally focused its limited resources on the class I violators. The New York Drug legislation was recently amended to reflect this priority. The so-called Rockefeller shotgun approach clogged the courts but failed to sharpen the system's focus on major traffickers. To help assure this long-term objective the subcommittee is considering provisions that would restrict Federal drug control jurisdiction and authority to major interstate and international cases.

In 1973, the subcommittee desired ot significantly strengthen the hand of our law enforcement officials in dealing with one of the most dangerous types of criminals in our society-major dealers who are the purveyors of heroin to our young people. This concern was reflected in the public menace amendment to S. 800, introduced by Senators BAYH and TALMADGE. This amendment was aimed at the backbone of heroin trade and distribution in this country, not addicts who are supporting a habit, for whom current laws are adequate, but the high-level traffickers who hook others. The Senate passed this amendment on April 3, 1973. It was not favorably reported from the House Judiciary Committee before the close of the 93d Congress. Similar provisions are included in S. 1880, the Violent Crime and Repeat Offender Control Act of 1975, which I introduced last June. There is no criminal element in this country which is more dangerous and despicable than those who are the purveyors of heroin to our young people. My approach is not aimed at addicts who are already hooked and who are trying to support their habits. For such people laws already on the books and adequatetreatment-together with the capture and imprisonment of big time dealersoffer the best hope. My target is those who have hooked others and not themselves. Under my bill persons convicted of manufacturing, distributing, or dispensing heroin or morphine in amounts equal to or in excess of one-tenth of an ounce of pure narcotic would receive, on the first offense, a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 to 30 years. For second convictions, these pushers would get a mandatory life sentence. In neither case would the offender be eligible for probation, suspended sentence, or parole-except after serving 30 years of a life sentence. In both cases the mandatory minimum sentence would have to be imposed in addition to the sentence provided under existing law; and in both cases the

additional sentence would have to be consecutive to, not concurrent with, the existing punishment.

One-tenth of an ounce of heroin or morphine may seem to be a tiny amount, Mr. President, but it is as deadly as it is small. It can and is turned into a large number of bags of heroin on the street, and is worth a handsome sum. As a measure of the seriousness of the criminal conduct it is preferable to the President's bill which applies to any detectable amount of opiate. It best assures that we reach the high-level dealers who handle very pure and very valuable heroin. This test also assures that we do not bring under these very severe penalties a person with a mixture which contains only traces of a narcotic. Under this approach the volume of the material sold or manufactured would not matter; the only question would be whether it contained the equivalent of one-tenth of an ounce of pure heroin or morphine.

The following table, prepared by subcommittee staff, illustrates graphically the amount of heroin involved in the application of my bill:

Estimates of heroin dosage units derived from 1/10 ounce of pure heroin

Note: 0.1 ounce equals 28.35 grm. or 28,350 mgms. 0.2 ounce equals 2.835 grm, or 2,835 mgs.

Any nonaddict who manufactures, distributes, or dispenses one-tenth of an ounce of heroin or morphine is, we can be confident, a high-level trafficker who is rationally and for profit pushing drugs. Such a person deserves no quarter.

The President's bill neither distinguishes as to amount or purity of the drug involved, it would even mandate a 3-year jail term for one who illegally transfers a portion of a methadone maintenance patient's average 100 milligram dosage. Although we have not received an assessment from the Bureau of Prisons as to the impact of the President's proposal we can rest assured that multimillions if nonexistent dollars would be required for new prisons. This shotgunnonspecific approach should be rejected.

While, I believe present statutes are adequate for addicts, the subcommittee is considering an amendment to the 1970 act to include an "attempt" section punishable by up to 5 years imprisonment, that would apply to nonaddict traffickers; such provision may provide the necessary impetus for such nonaddicts to cooperate in the prosecution of major trafficking cases.

A sound drug enforcement policy must reflect the reality that all drugs are not equally dangerous, and all drug use is not equally destructive. The Domestic Council White Paper on Drug Abuse stresses this theme when it concludes that enforcement efforts should therefore concentrate on drugs which have a high addiction potential, and treatment programs should be given priority to those individuals using high-risk drugs, and to compulsve users of any drugs. I ask unanimous consent that chart 12 from the Domestic Council's White Paper, A Summary of Drug Priorities and accompanying text-pages 32-34-be printed at this point in the Record.

There being no objection, the chart and text were ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

"SUMMARY: DRUG PRIORITIES

"Chart 12 ranks the various drugs according to the following criteria: (1) likelihood that a user will become physically or psychologically dependent; severity of adverse consequences, both (2) to the individual and (3) to society; and (4) size of the core problem.