Mr. KRIEGER. And that is in Re Doe, in the second circuit involving a lawyer who was subpoenaed to give testimony concerning clients whom he has represented over the last 20 years.

The panel opinion quashed the subpeona. The second circuit has taken that case for en banc hearing. I had heard that the Ianniello case, which is the opinion by Chief Judge Motley also out of the southern district of New York, that the Government had decided to appeal.

I am not sure as to whether the Government has. I think it is fascinating that the Government has not chosen, except in the instances that I have indicated, which may amount to one and a half, that the Government has not chosen to appeal decisions which would represent positions adverse to its stated program.

Mr. FEIGHAN. Thank you very much.

Mr. HUGHES. The gentleman from Florida has a comment.

I want to thank you very much. It really raises very troubling areas. I just don't know how far we are prepared to take this "relation back" process in these cases. Are we going to go back after taxes paid to Fort Lauderdale on condominiums and real estate, hundreds of thousands of dollars? Should we go back to a $10,000 fee paid to a surgeon for an operation performed during the time of the criminal enterprise?

It is a very troubling area, and of course, this area is of immense concern, because we begin to impact constitutional rights, sixth amendment rights of individuals, right to counsel, and I quite agree with my colleague from Florida.

The right to counsel means the right to competent counsel, counsel that can adequately defend the individual, and I think my colleagues well know how much the Legal Services Agency is on the ropes, how often, sometimes, the aid societies are unable to furnish the kind of expertise that is needed to deal with some of these highly complex cases, particularly dealing with criminal enterprise. Mr. SMITH. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HUGHES. It is a troubling area.

The gentleman from Florida.

Mr. SMITH. I appreciate the gentleman yielding, and I want to pick up that point specifically. I don't think anything that was said by us or you should be taken by anyone in that field of public defender or any other legal aid attorney as an indictment against them.

There are many significantly good-in my county-members who have gone onto the bench as excellent judges. I think what all of us were talking about are the limited means with which they, obviously, the de minimis funding that they have, the caseloads which are enormous, hundreds and hundreds of cases that they have against which they have to operate.

In my county, up to a very short time ago, they couldn't even take appeals because there was no money to fund appeals when they thought basic rights had been violated at the trial level.

So, I hope no one who is listening will think-or the transcript will be very clear-that any of us had anything other than the best things to say about those that labor in that area.

It is just that there has never been traditionally the kind of money available to allow them to do the job on the David and Goliath basis; that is, fighting the system.

Mr. HUGHES. I think we all agree with that. In talking with those who provide those types of services, they are the first to admit to you that they just can't take different types of cases.

They can't be tied up for 2 weeks, 3 weeks, a month at a time. They can't perform the kind of basic legal services that they want to perform to the poor and the working poor today and can't get involved in cases, and quite often, they are the first to own up to the fact that they just don't have the expertise to get into these areas. The expertise that you fellows have developed over a period of years in the practice in the criminal justice system is just not available from these agencies.

The gentleman from Florida.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I just have one question I would like to pose to each one of the panelists, and if you would be brief in your answers, I will be brief in my questions. I shall not comment further.

Is it your testimony that the exception with regard to attorneys' fees should take hold even if the lawyer knew or should have known that the fee that he received was from the proceeds of criminal operations?

Mr. KRIEGER. I think it is a matter of degree, Mr. Congressman. Certainly-and this I testified to at the Lawyer Ethics Symposium on the President's Commission on Organized Crime-if a client comes into my office with money wrappers on the bills, and a bank has just been robbed, to me that money is clearly contraband, and I may not and would not take it.

On the other hand, a duty cannot be imposed upon me to conduct an inquiry as to my client's activities over a period of time to determine whether my client has been engaged in criminal activity.

I think that all of us must face the fact that in criminal law, you do turn a blind eye in many respects to the sorts of funds which are used to pay the lawyer.

That is a fact of life. So, if you are asking me, sir, have I indulged in a fiction of not inquiring, the answer to that is yes.

Have I represented individuals who were so fortunate as to come from the landed gentry, whereby old money was available to pay the lawyer's fee, the answer to that is also yes, but unfortunately, rarely.

If you are the in the criminal law field, the odds are you are going to be receiving money which can be traced back to criminality.

Mr. HUGHES. To save time, because we are really running late, do any of the witnesses have anything that they would differ with Mr. Kreiger on in that regard?

Mr. SONNETT. I would endorse Mr. Krieger's statement.

Mr. HUGHES. I don't know how you could distinguish between going in to pay a tax bill with cash or going in to pay a physician's fee with all cash. It raises some very difficult "relation back" issues.

I just want to say in conclusion, Mr. Sonnett, when you talk about all the resources of the law enforcement community and how the poor defendant you know has to face that army, it sounded like a closing argument to the jury.

Mr. SONNETT. Well, it was not meant to be. I talk that way occasionally, Mr. Chairman. It is just the sanctity of the adversary system that I am interested in.

Mr. HUGHES. Thank you very much. You have been very, very helpful, and we share your concerns. All of us share your concerns. Mr. SONNETT. Thank you. It is our pleasure to be here.

Mr. HUGHES. There are a number of questions that we will have to pursue in this area.

Mr. HUGHES. Our final panel today-and we apologize for being so late in getting to you-consists of John Daigle and Matthew Gissen. Mr. Daigle is director of the Florida Alcohol and Drug Abuse Association, a position he has held since 1976.

Prior to that time, he was active in other drug and training programs in the Florida area. He is a graduate of Holy Cross College in Worchester, MA, and received a masters degree in psychology from the University of West Florida.

Mr. Gissen is president of the Village South, Inc., a comprehensive rehabilitation program for chemical dependencies. He has held this position since 1973 and has been involved in many drug rehabilitation activities as well as the practice of law since the early 1960's.

He has both a bachelor of arts, business administration and a doctor of law degree.

Gentlemen, we have your statements which will be made a part of the record in full, and we hope that you can summarize for us, because we have read your statements.

Why don't we start with you first, Mr. Gissen. Welcome.

STATEMENT OF MATTHEW GISSEN, PRESIDENT OF THE VILLAGE SOUTH, INC., MIAMI, FL

Mr. GISSEN. Thank you, sir.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am here today as founding president of Therapeutic Communities of America, which is a national organization representing in excess of 300 treatment programs in the chemical dependency field in the United States, most of which are dependent upon governmental funds for their very existence.

I have submitted a lengthy statement which I do not intend to read, but I would like to just make some statements pertaining to the severity of the problem.

Dr. Bob Dupont last week at a cocaine conference in New York State, Dr. Dupont being the former director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, said, "Drug abuse is an unprecedented epidemic, still continuing and not going away."

I can find no expert in the field who will disagree with that pronouncement of the problem. The association between chemical dependency, lifestyle and criminality has long been established in all of our research literature.

Equally well established is that treatment results in marked improvement being observed in terms of employment and reduction of criminality.

I think that is the crux of the problem. I think that society is going to pay for chemical dependency either now or later.

We are either going to pay for it with the street crime, the courts, the jails and the loss of human life and property, or we can pay for it in the form of treatment which will have a significant effect upon an abatement of those ravages which this country is facing at the present time.

The clients seeking treatment today come from a wide range of our population. At our agency, the Village South, we are presently seeing approximately 50 percent of our clients, from the criminal justice system and we are the largest residential program in Florida.

The criminal justice referrals are in lieu of incarceration. Right now we all are aware of the population problems we are having in our criminal justice system. The jails are overcrowded. We do not have any more cells, nor do I propose to this committee that the answer will be the building of more jails and more cells.

I think we have to deal with the problem at the grass roots, the user, the person who is suffering from a disease known as addiction, and that disease doesn't pick favorites.

At the Village South, we are presently treating people who are coming from all economic levels, the corporate executive, middle management, impaired professionals, doctors, psychiatrists, pilots, nurses, all of them, as well as the uneducated, the medically indigent, the unskilled.

This disease of addiction, it knows no boundaries, and it is not going to disappear from the face of this country or the world as we have found out with our affiliation with the World Federation of Therapeutic Communities.

The problems are the same on Euclid Avenue in Cleveland as they are in Hollywood and Fort Lauderdale and certainly in downtown Newark as they are in Yugoslavia, Colombia, Italy, Israel, and throughout the world.

So, it is a problem that we are facing, and we need to do the best we can with what we have.

The State laws, in many instances which were modeled after the Federal seizure and forfeiture law, fail to provide for a distribution of funds to treatment programs.

Unfortunately, in many States those funds, like the Federal forfeiture law, go directly to law enforcement, and we have found great difficulty in getting those laws changed.

In several states, specifically Michigan and New York State, they have distributed those funds partially to drug treatment programs. In the State of Florida, we have not been so successful, although we have tried for several years.

It seems that once law enforcement agencies have the full pie, they are very reluctant to give a piece of the pie to any other segment of the population, and that is the problem we are running into.

The legislature opens in April. We will be back again trying for redistribution of those funds. The States have been unwilling or

unable to supplement the funding cutbacks at the Federal level. The Federal Government has over the past 5, 6, 7 years considerably cut back funds available for treatment. This has been done, and the States have failed to supplement those funds at a point in time when the demand for treatment services in this country is at the highest level I have seen since 1968 when I started in the field of chemical dependency.

The problem is at its greatest apex that I have ever seen. The demand for services is increasing. We have found from research in Florida that 33 percent of our child abuse cases are drug and alcohol related, 54 percent of our homicides are drug related, 62 percent of our prison population have drug and alcohol problems. Our mental hospitals are filled with patients with drug and alcohol problems. Sixty-four percent of the juveniles arrests in the State of Florida are drug and alcohol related, and most vividly, let me say, 85,000 adolescents in the State of Florida currently suffer from alcoholism are in need of treatment. That is 85,000 adolescents. In 1983, 2 percent of that population received treatment.

Can we blindly sit still and not relate to these problems? I do not think so, gentlemen. I think we must act and act now.

With reference to my presentation here today, I firmly believe that we would be totally irresponsible to deny the facts and derelict in our duties if we failed to appropriately respond to the need. Our proposal here is essentially simple.

You have heard a great many specialists on crime control legislation and people who are far more knowledgeable about the history and application of the forfeiture doctrine than I am. I believe that Therapeutic Communities of America and all chemical treatment programs present a winning case, and I am making closing argument for a share of the seizure and forfeiture assets. This position is based on our record of achievement and accountability. Our computers work and give out good statistics. It is a strong one, and I do not hesitate in requesting this subcommittee to favorably consider the specific legislative measures before you which would recognize the undeniable claim we make on those funds.

We believe that accredited chemical dependency prevention education, and treatment services should share with law enforcement authorities the resources that become available through seizure and forfeiture.

I do want to take this opportunity to stress that we do not look upon these funds as a miracle substitute for sustainable, secure funding of chemical dependency programs. Obviously, there is no way of predicting the availability and amount of income or duration of the flow of cash and assets. We have no doubt that big time drug dealers have followed the leadership of organized crime in their effort to protect illicit earnings by investment in legal enterprises which are seemingly beyond the reach of law enforcement. I am equally convinced that the Federal RICO statutes, as other statutes enforced by hard working prosecutors, can have a substantial impact on drug operations which certainly would be vulnerable to sophisticated counter-measures utilized by law enforcement.

At today's hearing, I was hearing seizures in the amounts of 10's and 20's and 50 millions of dollars. That is effective law enforcement, but it would be grossly in error to treat forfeiture income as