Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
135839508
label
JGR/Testimony Approval (07/01/1982-12/31/1982)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
135839508
contentType
document
title
JGR/Testimony Approval (07/01/1982-12/31/1982)
citationUrl
identifierLocal
485
collections
Records of the Office of Counsel to the President (Reagan Administration)
John Roberts' Subject Files
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
135839508
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1986-12-31
year
1986
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1982-01-01
year
1982
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
a29362d5013ab34b
ocrText
Ronald Reagan Presidential Library
Digital Library Collections
This is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.
Collection: Roberts, John G.: Files
Folder Title: JGR/Testimony Approval
(07/01/1982-12/31/1982)
Box: 52
To see more digitized collections visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library
To see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection
Contact a reference archivist at: [email protected]
Citation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing
National Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 2, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
SUBJECT:
Proposed Testimony of Lowell Jensen on Labor
Department Organized Crime Inspector Generals
The Justice Department has provided a copy of testimony
Lowell Jensen proposes to give tomorrow before the Senate
Committee on Labor and Human Resources on the adequacy of
the law enforcement powers available to the Inspector
General's Office of Organized Crime within the Labor Depart-
ment. Agents from that office are assigned to Justice
strike forces and U.S. attorneys to assist in investigating
and prosecuting organized criminal activity involving labor
unions and pension funds. The testimony opposes a proposal
to permit those agents to carry weapons, make arrests, and
conduct searches. As is currently done, when such powers
are necessary the agents can be made deputy marshalls on a
case-by-case basis. The testimony also opposes giving the
Labor agents independent investigatory authority, prefering
to keep the FBI and Justice Department in control of
investigations. Finally, the testimony urges passage of
legislation to make union office immediately forfeit upon
felony conviction, rather than upon exhaustion of all
appeals.
This proposed testimony is consistent with prior Administra-
tion positions. I see no legal objections and no need for
action on your part.
ID #.
CU
WHITE HOUSE
CORRESPONDENCE TRACKING WORKSHEET
o . OUTGOING
H . INTERNAL
I - INCOMING
Date Correspondence
Received (YY/MM/DD)
/
/
Name of Correspondent:
D. Lowell Jennen
MI Mail Report
User Codes: (A)
(B)
(C)
Subject: statement Me: the adequacy of law. enforcement
powers available to the Inspector Gearral's
Dept of Labol
office of organized crime had racketing
ROUTE TO:
ACTION
DISPOSITION
Tracking
Type
Completion
Action
Date
of
Date
Office/Agency
(Staff Name)
Code
YY/MM/DD
Response
Code
YY/MM/DD
Co Holland
ORIGINATOR 83,01,31
/ 1
Referral Note:
w AT 18
A 83.01.31
5 83,02,02
Referral Note:
1
1
/ 1
Referral Note:
/
I
/
1
Referral Note:
/
/
1
/
Referral Note:
ACTION CODES:
DISPOSITION CODES:
A - Appropriate Action
1 - Info Copy Only/No Action Necessary
Answered
c Completed
c . Comment/Recommendation
Direct Reply NilCopy
Non-Special Referral
s Suspended
D Draft Response
fier Signature
F . Furnish Fact Sheet
Interim Reply
to be used as Enclosure
FOR OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE:
Type of Response - Initials of Signer
Code
=
"A"
Completion Date - Date of Outgoing
Comments:
Keep this worksheet attached to the original incoming letter.
Send all routing updates to Central Reference (Room 75, OEOB).
Always return completed correspondence record to Central Files.
Refer questions about the correspondence tracking system to Central Reference, ext. 2590.
5/81
U.S. Department of Justice
DRAFT
31
Roberts
STATEMENT
OF
D. LOWELL JENSEN
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
BEFORE
THE
COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND HUMAN RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
CONCERNING
THE ADEQUACY OF LAW ENFORCEMENT POWERS
AVAILABLE TO THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S OFFICE OF
ORGANIZED CRIME AND RACKETEERING,
UNITED STATED DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
ON
FEBRUARY 3, 1983
I am pleased to be here today to present the views of the
Department of Justice on the adequacy of law enforcement powers
available to criminal investigative agents assigned to the
Inspector General's Office of Organized Crime and Racketeering in
the United States Department of Labor. These are agents who since
1978 have been assigned by the Labor Department to carry out that
Department's participation in the organized crime program. Seventy
five such Labor Department agents are currently assigned along with
other criminal investigative agencies to assist the Justice
Department's strike forces and United States Attorneys' offices
with the investigation and prosecution of organized criminal
activity related to labor unions and pension or welfare employee
benefit plans. The work of these agents, whom I shall refer to as
"Labor OC agents" for brevity's sake, has been clearly productive
and has contributed significantly to the organized crime program.
The Department holds the opinion that the law enforcement powers
currently exercised by these agents are adequate to do the job
which the agents are expected to perform.
As I advised the Senate Subcommittee on Labor one year ago
when I testified on labor racketeering legislation proposed at that
time, we believe that while there may have been problems in the
past, the Labor Department is now cooperating with the organized
crime program to a high degree. Although the level of their
performance has varied over the past five years from strike force
to strike force, we are pleased with the overall performance of the
Labor OC agents insofar as they have endeavored to primarily focus
- 2 -
their investigative efforts on so-called "white collar crime" in
labor unions, employee benefit plan affairs, and labor-management
relations. The strengths which the Justice Department has sought
and will continue to seek from these Labor OC agents lie primarily
in their ability to deal with documentary evidence associated with
these types of investigations, to understand the workings of the
labor movement and its component organizations, and to develop
sources of information within those organizations. A recently
published list of labor racketeering prosecutions investigated by
Labor OC agents since 1978 discloses that a large majority
(approximately 70%) of such investigations involved the cooperation
of other investigative agencies. Our figures indicate that
approximately half of the open investigations in which Labor OC
agents are currently engaged already involve the cooperation of
other investigative agencies. We think that this experience
reflects the fact that the Labor OC agents are able to obtain the
assistance of the FBI and other criminal law enforcement agencies
when required in particular cases.
Therefore, we think that the Justice Department's policy with
respect to the authorization of Labor OC agents to act as deputy
United States Marshals is a sound one. In general, we believe that
the carrying of weapons by Labor OC agents should be restricted to
those instances where the FBI or other criminal investigative
agency, all of whose agents are regularly trained in the use of
weapons, is unable to assist in situations where the personal
safety of an informant is in jeopardy or where the personal safety
- 3 -
of an agent is endangered as the result of his investigative
activities in a particular case. We think that this policy is
consistent with the strike force concept that participating
agencies will regularly cooperate and complement each others'
11
efforts while maintaining their own respective areas of specialized
expertise.
Since the vast majority of arrests are made in strike force
labor racketeering cases only after an indictment or criminal
information has been returned, arrest powers and the authority to
carry weapons for the purpose of making arrests is not required for
Labor OC agents. Where arrests are required, there is ample time
to secure the cooperation of the United States Marshal's Service or
other federal law enforcement agencies in executing court-ordered
arrests. In those rare instances where searches for documentary
evidence were required as part of Labor OC investigations, the
Marshal's Service or other federal law enforcement agencies with
weapons have also cooperated in the execution of the searches.
On February 3, 1982, before the Subcommittee on Labor I also
testified against applicable portions of proposed legislation which
would have conferred authority on the Department of Labor,
concurrently with the FBI and other investigative agencies, to
investigate all criminal violations involving employee pension and
welfare benefit plans. The legislative proposal, which was opposed
by the Administration, would have authorized the Labor Department
11
- 4 -
to commence investigations under Title 18 and other provisions of
the United States Code outside Title 29 for which existing
memoranda of understanding between the Departments of Justice and
Labor require a specific assignment of investigative
responsibilities to Labor Department investigators on a
case-by-case basis. We prefer to make these assignments in Title
18 on a case-by-case basis.
In general, we believe that proposals to expand the Labor
Department's existing criminal investigative responsibilities in
terms of broader subject matter or additional investigative
procedures, such as those requiring weapons, may jeopardize certain
important concepts which we think have contributed significantly to
the successful investigation and prosecution of organized criminal
elements in the labor-management and pension-welfare fields. I am
speaking here of the close coordination of covert investigations
involving undercover operations or judicially authorized electronic
surveillance and the strict accountability of investigators to
Justice Department supervisors, particularly in multi-district
investigations. At present the Federal Bureau of Investigation
exercises the primary responsibility among investigative agencies
with respect to covert investigations of organized crime and labor
racketeering. It does so within the organizational framework of
the Justice Department and subject to the direct supervision of
Justice Department administrators.
- 5 -
Although other investigative agencies like the Labor
Department Inspector General's Office of Organized Crime and
Racketeering can furnish vitally important expertise in connection
with the internal operation of labor unions and employee benefit
plans, which flows from the other regulatory responsibilities of
the Labor Department we do not believe that the expansion of
responsibility in another investigative agency which duplicates the
FBI's responsibility in regard to labor racketeering is an
appropriate and wise course of action. We do think that the
conduct of an organized crime investigative program with the
Department of Labor as an efficient and cooperative partner which
complements the role played by the FBI is the proper and desirable
course of action.
The FBI is already performing covert investigations with
considerable success. In order to continue to conduct its
organized crime program efficiently, the FBI has advised that it
needs to receive information of other agencies' investigative
efforts in regard to organized crime members and associates on a
regular and recurring basis. We agree that such intelligence is
necessary if the FBI is to be able to meaningfully influence other
agencies' decisions to commence their inquiries in regard to
persons and organizations who may already be the subject of
sensitive covert investigation by the FBI. We are hopeful that
current discussions between the Labor Department's Office of
Organized Crime and Racketeering and the FBI will result in even
greater cooperative efforts between the two investigative agencies.
- 6 -
Finally, I would like to comment on our efforts to combat
labor racketeering by organized criminal elements. Recent
convictions involving labor-management corruption on the waterfront
and in other industries have demonstrated the continuing need for
I
federal legislation to address the problem of the infiltration of
labor unions and their affiliated organizations by organized crime.
In September 1982 the reputed number three man in the Chicago
syndicate was sentenced along with seven other defendants who had
held office in or who had been affiliated with the Laborers
International Union of North America. At sentencing four of the
defendants, including the reputed organized crime leader, who then
held union office were removed under the forfeiture provisions of
the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statute. The
trial court was able to accomplish that removal because the
defendants' conduct, in furtherance of a scheme to obtain kickbacks
in return for awarding union insurance and health services
business, was sufficiently pervasive to permit prosecution as a
pattern of racketeering activity under the RICO statute. In
addition, the organized crime leader was also sentenced to 20
years' imprisonment.
In December, 1982 another reputed organized crime street boss
in the Chicago syndicate together with the General President of the
Teamsters union, a service provider to the Teamsters' Central
States Welfare Fund with reputed ties to organized crime, and two
employees of the Teamsters' Central States Pension Fund were
- 7 -
convicted after trial for conspiracy to bribe a United States
Senator and other crimes in regard to a scheme involving
deregulation in the trucking industry. The service provider was
murdered two weeks ago. In this case, however, the government was
not able to use any federal statute which would result in immediate
removal from union office on conviction in the trial court.
Because Section 504 of the Labor Management Reporting and
Disclosure Act does not permit the removal of a convicted
individual until all his appeals are exhausted, the primary federal
statute governing disqualification from union office may not be
invoked until many months after sentencing.
As the Attorney General testified last week before the Senate
Judiciary Committee, disqualification from positions in labor
unions, employer associations and employee pension or welfare
benefit plans should become effective immediately upon conviction
in the trial court. Similar legislation to that which the Attorney
General was recommending as an additional tool in the fight against
organized crime and labor racketeering was passed by the Senate
last year as part of a proposed Labor Racketeering Act. It was
defeated in the House. I urge this Committee to support such
legislation in the 98th Congress. If this legislation had already
been enacted into law, Section 504 would have immediately
disqualified the individuals in both these cases from holding labor
union or benefit plan office upon sentencing in the trial court.
- 8 -
In summary, for the reasons which I have discussed, the
Department of Justice recommends against legislation which would
require a change in the current allocation of investigative
responsibilities among the several criminal law enforcement
agencies which now participate in the organized crime program.
We believe that the current allocation of investigative
responsibilities strikes an appropriate balance among all the
agencies charged with enforcement of the federal criminal laws
dealing with labor racketeering.
MEMORANDUM
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 16, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
SUBJECT:
Testimony of Carlton Turner Before
Subcommittee on Crime, House
Committee on the Judiciary
Richard Darman has asked for comments to be provided directly
to Ed Harper by 3:30 today on the above-referenced proposed
testimony. Carlton Turner is to deliver the testimony, on
the coordination of drug enforcement efforts, at 9:30
tomorrow morning. The testimony reviews the five-part
federal strategy for prevention of drug abuse and drug
trafficking (international cooperation, law enforcement,
education and prevention, detoxification and treatment,
research), and indicates that discernible progress -- in the
form of declining levels of drug abuse -- is being made.
The testimony discusses the history of drug law enforcement,
and the executive oversight roles of Turner's own office
(Director of the Drug Abuse Policy Office) and the Cabinet
Councils. The testimony also surveys the LECC program
(coordinating federal, state, and local resources), the
FBI's new role, and the new organized crime task force
initiative. Turner concludes that the current system of
coordination works well.
The hearings at which Turner will testify are an outgrowth
of the President's veto of the "drug czar" bill. Turner's
testimony effectively reviews the existing devices for
coordination. I see no legal objection, and have prepared a
memorandum to Harper to that effect for your signature.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 16, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR EDWIN L. HARPER
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Testimony of Carlton Turner Before
Subcommittee on Crime, House
Committee on the Judiciary
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced proposed
testimony and finds no objection to it from a legal
perspective.
CC: Richard G. Darman
FFF:JGR:aw 2/16/83
CC: FFFielding
JGRoberts
Subj.
Chron
ID #
CU
WHITE HOUSE
CORRESPONDENCE TRACKING WORKSHEET
o OUTGOING
H INTERNAL
I . INCOMING
Date Correspondence
Received (YY/MM/DD)
/
/
Name of Correspondent:
Richard G. Darman
MI Mall Report
User Codes: (A)
(B)
(C)
Subject: Astimoniz af Carlton turner before
subcommittee on Crime, House Committee
on the Judiciary
ROUTE TO:
ACTION
DISPOSITION
Tracking
Type
Completion
Action
Date
of
Date
Office/Agency
(Staff Name)
Code
YY/MM/DD
Response
Code
YY/MM/DD
W Holland
ORIGINATOR 83,02,16
/ /
Referral Note:
WAT18
D 83/02/16
583,0216
Referral Note:
/
/
/
/
-
Referral Note:
/
/
/
/
-
Referral Note:
/
/
/
/
-
Referral Note:
ACTION CODES:
DISPOSITION CODES:
A Appropriate Action
I - Info Copy Only/No Action Necessary
A Answered
C Completed
C Comment/Recommendation
R - Direct Reply w/Copy
B - Non-Special Referral
S Suspended
D Draft Response
S For Signature
F Furnish Fact Sheet
X Interim Reply
to be used as Enclosure
FOR OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE:
Type of Response = Initials of Signer
Code = "A"
Completion Date = Date of Outgoing
Comments:
Keep this worksheet attached to the original incoming letter.
Send all routing updates to Central Reference (Room 75, OEOB).
Always return completed correspondence record to Central Files.
Refer questions about the correspondence tracking system to Central Reference, ext. 2590.
5/81
Document No.
WHITE HOUSE STAFFING MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 16
ACTION/CONCURRENCE/COMMENT DUE BY: 3:30 TODAY
TESTIMONY OF CARLTON TURNER BEFORE SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME,
SUBJECT:
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
ACTION FYI
ACTION FYI
VICE PRESIDENT
GERGEN
"
MEESE
HARPER
BAKER
JENKINS
DEAVER
MURPHY
STOCKMAN
ROLLINS
CLARK
WHITTLESEY
DARMAN
P
ISS
WILLIAMSON
DUBERSTEIN
"
VON DAMM
FELDSTEIN
BRADY/SPEAKES
FIELDING
ROGERS
FULLER
Remarks:
Please provide any comments/edits di
Hampen
Thank you.
Richard G. Darman
Assistant to the President
(x2702)
Response:
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 16, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR RICHARD G. DARMAN
FROM:
PUMEDWIN EDWIN L. HARPER by ?. Ruck
SUBJECT:
Testimony for Carlton Turner
Attached is a copy of Carlton Turner's testimony on coordination
of drug enforcement efforts before the House of Representatives
Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Crime for clearance.
He is scheduled to testify tomorrow at 9:30am, I would appreciate
clearance no later than 3:30pm today.
BRAFT
STATEMENT
OF
CARLTON E. TURNER
DIRECTOR
DRUG ABUSE POLICY OFFICE
OFFICE OF POLICY DEVELOPMENT
ON
THE COORDINATION OF
DRUG ENFORCEMENT EFFORTS
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
FEBRUARY 17, 1983
DRAFT
Page 1
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee on Crime, it is
a pleasure to appear before you today. We share a common
concern: the problem of drug abuse in America. The subject of
this hearing, the coordination of drug enforcement efforts, is a
key element of the overall drug abuse program. During the past
decade, a great deal of attention was placed on improving
coordination between drug law enforcement agencies. Both new
coordinating mechanisms and major reorganizations were used. The
Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) was created in 1973 as part
of one such effort.
President Reagan has added an important element to the drug
abuse effort. He has emphasized increasing the overall
effectiveness of drug law enforcement by bringing all available
Federal, State and local statutes, expertise and resources to
bear on the full spectrum of drug trafficking and related
criminal activities.
The special expertise in drug interdiction provided by the
U.S. Customs Service, for example, is a product of their total
mission, of which drug enforcement activities are only a part.
The same is true for the U.S. Coast Guard and the Federal Bureau
of Investigation. Other agencies, such as the Internal Revenue
Service, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the
Immigration and Naturalization Service, the U.S. Marshals
Service, the Federal Aviation Administration, and the Department
of Defense each bring important resources and capabilities to the
Page 2
total effort. These Federal agencies, working together, have a
synergistic effect which could not be achieved by a single drug
enforcement agency, regardless of its size.
Before I discuss drug law enforcement, I would like to give
you a brief summary of the overall Federal Strategy which is
guiding our drug abuse policy. In addition to enforcement
activities which are part of the overall supply reduction effort,
we also sponsor diplomatic efforts overseas and a major domestic
effort to reduce the demand for illicit drugs.
President Reagan called drug abuse "one of the gravest
problems facing us." His Administration has recognized from the
outset that there is no simple answer to this national problem.
The President's five point plan of action, as outlined in the
1982 Federal Strategy for Prevention of Drug Abuse and Drug
Trafficking, includes:
International Cooperation - To eliminate illicit drugs at
their source;
Drug Law Enforcement - To stop the drugs and apprehend
those responsible for transporting and distributing illicit
drugs;
Education and Prevention - To discourage drug and alcohol
use among school-aged children, and to reduce the abuse of
drugs in all age groups;
Detoxification and Treatment - To encourage use of the
least expensive and most effective treatment methods to
help the individual user learn to live without drugs; and
Research - To support basic and applied research and to
disseminate the results in a timely and meaningful form.
The President's drug program also includes full support of the
Department of Defense program to achieve a military force which
is free of the effects of drug and alcohol abuse.
Page 3
In addition to the Federal programs which are part of the
Federal budget, the President has included private sector support
by individuals and organizations as an integral part of the
national drug abuse program. The President has called for every
segment of our society, both public and private, to take action
against the particular drug problems on which they can have the
greatest impact. Cabinet officials, legislators, state
governors, law enforcement officers, health care professionals,
businessmen, community and civic leaders, professional sports
associations, teachers, students, parents, and wives have
responded, as concerned citizens, to the call.
As the President's drug adviser, my job is to ensure that the
activities of all the agencies are consistent with the
President's established policies and his national strategy, to
provide coordination between the numerous agencies involved in
all aspects of the total drug abuse program, and to stimulate
private sector involvement. Department and agency heads are
responsible for achieving the most effective and efficient use of
the resources assigned to them by statute and the President. The
consensus of department heads, agency heads and many observers is
that existing interagency cooperation is the best they have ever
seen.
Most importantly, we are making visible progress in the fight
against drug abuse. According to the National Household Survey
on Drug Abuse, the annual High School Senior Survey, and several
independent surveys, the number of Americans who currently use
various illicit drugs dropped significantly between 1979 and
Page 4
1982. Daily use of marijuana among high school seniors declined
to approximately the same level as in 1975. The rapid increase
in cocaine use by young Americans (aged 12-25) during the late
1970's has leveled off. Other data indicate that the number of
heroin addicts in the country remains relatively constant.
We still have an unacceptably high level of drug abuse in the
United States. Drug related injuries and deaths have increased,
primarily because of chronic use, increasing dose, more dangerous
routes of administration (especially cocaine and heroin), and the
use of combinations of drugs. Nevertheless, our efforts have
established a foothold and we are working to accelerate the
downward trend.
On October 2, 1982, President Reagan said, "The mood toward
drugs is changing in this country and the momentum is with us.
We're making no excuses for drugs, hard, soft or otherwise.
Drugs are bad and we're going after them." The recent survey
results confirm this mood change. The public is becoming aware
of the hazards of drug abuse and its profound effects on our
society, economy and future. We are no longer dealing only with
heroin use in urban centers. The effects of drug abuse have
reached into nearly every family and every community throughout
the United States. This has led both to a widespread public
demand for action against all drugs of abuse and a willingness
on the part of individuals and organizations throughout the
private sector to get involved in doing something about their
immediate drug situation.
Page 5
I am convinced that we have a rare opportunity to make real
progress in reducing drug abuse in the United States and we must
not fail to take advantage of the opportunity.
DRUG LAW ENFORCEMENT
Drug law enforcement is a key element of the Federal Strategy
as part of the supply reduction effort. Each of the six Federal
Strategies which have been published since 1973 have included
strong law enforcement as an essential element of the drug abuse
program. However, it would be wrong to suggest that interdiction
or investigations, alone, provide the ultimate answer to drug
abuse. We must have a broad effort directed at all links in the
chain from producer to user. Stated simply, we must take the
drugs away from the user through supply reduction efforts and
take the user away from the drugs through prevention, education,
and treatment.
Controls on narcotics and psychotropic substances have
evolved from a patchwork of laws and agreements targeted at
various segments of the drug supply chain, to complex
international treaties and comprehensive Federal and state
legislation which address all aspects of drug supply and demand.
Since 1915, when the Bureau of Internal Revenue was assigned
responsibility for enforcing the Harrison Narcotic Act, drug
control in the United States has evolved from a domestic narcotic
revenue collection matter to a sophisticated network of supply
reduction and demand reduction efforts against many different
drugs throughout the country and around the world. Our
organization for drug law enforcement has evolved significantly
during the past two decades.
Page 6
An Advisory Commission on Narcotic and Drug Abuse was
established by President Kennedy in the early 1960's to provide
recommendations on the nations's drug problem. In 1963, the
Commission recommended that the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (FBN)
be transferred to Department of Justice; and a new unit be
established in the Department of Health, Education and Welfare to
regulate the licit distribution of narcotic and dangerous drugs
and to determine their safety.
In early 1966, the Drug Abuse Control Amendments to the Food,
Drug and Cosmetics Act were passed, providing control over
depressant, stimulant and hallucinogenic drugs, requiring
practitioner and manufacturer registration, and giving the Food
and Drug Administration (FDA) enforcement powers. FDA
established the Bureau of Drug Abuse Control (BDAC). By February
1966, the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, Customs and BDAC were
enforcing the drug laws in our nation.
In 1968, under Reorganization Plan No. 1, BDAC and FBN were
abolished and the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (BNDD)
was created in the Department of Justice. U.S. Customs retained
smuggling jurisdiction.
In 1969, President Nixon sent a special message to Congress
which called for fundamental revision of both Federal and state
legislation to control what President Nixon called "this rising
sickness in our land." The resulting Comprehensive Drug Abuse
Prevention and Control Act of 1970 replaced more than 50 pieces
of drug legislation patched together in as many years. Title II,
the Controlled Substances Act, was built on new Constitutional
Page 7
grounds, resting on the authority of the Congress to regulate
interstate commerce. In response to the President's call for "a
more coordinated effort," a companion piece of legislation, the
Uniform Controlled Substances Act, was made ready to synchronize
State drug laws.
In 1972, two offices were created within the Department of
Justice, the Office of Drug Abuse Law Enforcement (ODALE) to
attack drug trafficking at the street level, and the Office of
National Narcotics Intelligence (ONNI) to coordinate the
collection, analysis and dissemination of drug intelligence.
Continuing allegations of excessive competition and lack of
cooperation between Federal drug law enforcement agencies led to
a major reorganization in 1973 when the Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA) was established in the Department of
Justice. Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1973 transferred all of
the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, the U.S. Customs
agents who were primarily involved in drug investigations, ODALE
and ONNI, providing approximately 2,000 agents for the newly
created DEA. The consolidation of drug enforcement forces under
a single command did not eliminate charges of interagency rivalry
and lack of cooperation. However, much of the continuing problem
involved the absence of a clear dividing line between
interdiction (anti-smuggling activities) and drug trafficking
investigations. It should be noted that the same systemic
problem allegedly existed prior to the reorganization as an
internal matter between Customs investigators and Customs
inspectors.
Page 8
Significant innovations have occurred in drug law enforcement
during the past two years in response to the President's call for
aggressive investigation and prosecution of all criminal
activities associated with drug trafficking. Emphasis has been
placed on cooperation between law enforcement officials and
prosecutors at all levels of government. The Administration has
created Law Enforcement Coordinating Committees across the
country. For the first time in its history, the Federal Bureau
of Investigation (FBI) entered into the fight against drugs. An
exception to the Posse Comitatus Act now permits military
assistance in identifying the drug traffic. The South Florida
Task Force and the 12 Drug Enforcement Task Forces which are
being established around the country have brought law enforcement
and prosecutorial-resources together in an integrated effort
against the highest levels of the drug traffic in each area. As
I stated earlier, the agency heads report that current inter-
agency cooperation is the best they have ever seen.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OVERSIGHT
At this point, I would like to address the Executive Office
oversight function, with particular attention on drug law
enforcement coordination. To put the present organization for
oversight and coordination in perspective, I will present a brief
historical review of the management of the Federal drug program.
The need for Executive Office oversight of the drug abuse
program was recognized as far back as 1963 when the Advisory
Commission on Narcotic and Drug Abuse recommended "the President
appoint a Special Assistant for Narcotic and Drug Abuse from the
Page 9
White House staff to provide continuous advice and assistance in
launching a coordinated attack." The Special Assistant was to
have general coordinating authority and the organizational
responsibility to follow through on the evaluation and
implementation of the Commission's recommendations.
From the beginning of the Nixon Administration, drug abuse
policy was set by people working in the Executive Office of the
President. The Special Action Office for Drug Abuse Prevention
(SAODAP) was established as an Executive Office agency in 1971.
However, the authorization expired in 1975 and some of the staff
members were transferred to the National Institute on Drug Abuse,
created in the Department of Health, Education and Welfare in
1974.
In early 1973, a separate Federal Drug Management Staff was
created within the Office of Management and Budget. Cabinet
Committees were established to coordinate activities for
International Narcotics Control and Drug Law Enforcement. In
addition, a Strategy Council was authorized by the Drug Abuse
Office and Treatment Act of 1973, but was never fully
implemented.
The Congress authorized and provided appropriations for an
Office of Drug Abuse Policy (ODAP) in 1976 and ODAP was opened in
March 1977. On March 31, 1978, ODAP was abolished and recreated
as part of the Domestic Policy Staff, reporting to a Special
Assistant to the President for Health Issues. The stated intent
of the change was to integrate drug abuse policy into the
mainstream of policy development within the Executive Office.
Page 10
President Reagan has assigned drug abuse responsibilities to
two Cabinet Councils and established the White House Drug Abuse
Policy Office to provide coordination of the drug effort. The
Cabinet Councils provide an excellent forum for the President to
discuss drug abuse policy matters with his Cabinet members.
Working Groups on Drug Supply Reduction and on the Drug Abuse
Health Issues have been established under the Cabinet Councils to
assist in implementation of Federal Strategy objectives.
On June 24, 1982, President Reagan signed Executive Order
12368, formally designating the Director of the Drug Abuse Policy
Office in the White House Office of Policy Development as his
adviser on drug abuse policy matters, responsible for White House
oversight and coordination of all drug abuse matters.
As the Director of the Drug Abuse Policy Office, I am
responsible for the overall coordination of drug abuse policies
and overseeing all Federal domestic and international efforts to
prevent drug abuse and drug trafficking. My responsibilities
also include development of the Federal Strategy, overseeing its
implementation, fostering cooperation among the agencies,
mediating problems and seeking support for the President's drug
program.
To assist in coordinating all elements of the Federal drug
abuse program, including international control, drug law
enforcement and the health agencies, I have established the
Oversight Working Group. The Oversight Working Group is
comprised of senior officials from eleven agencies, including the
Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration; the Commissioner,
Page 11
U.S. Customs Service; the Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard; the
Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation; the Director, Bureau
of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms; the Deputy Assistant Secretary
of Defense for Drug and Alcohol Abuse; the Chief, Department of
Justice Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs Section; the Director,
National Institute on Drug Abuse; the Director, National
Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; the Commissioner, Food
and Drug Administration; and the Assistant Secretary of State for
International Narcotics Matters.
The group meets with me each month and the agenda includes a
monthly progress report on operations and ongoing issues. We
discuss anticipated policy and management issues and identify how
the members can assist each other.
I believe that the current Executive Office system for
oversight and coordination of the drug abuse program is working
well. This system was set up by the President and I am confident
his keen interest and personal support will insure its continued
success.
OTHER COORDINATION ACTIVITIES
Other mechanisms and initiatives exist which involve
coordination of specific elements of the drug program. I shall
briefly mention a few of these which contribute to coordination
of law enforcement activities at the operational level.
The Attorney General has created Law Enforcement Coordinating
Committees (LECC's) in each of the 94 Federal judicial districts
-- a network covering the entire nation. The heads of Federal,
State and local prosecutorial and law enforcement agencies in the
Page 12
area are members and work together to focus all available
resources on the most serious crimes in each district. In
virtually every district, the LECC's have identified drug
trafficking as the single worst problem facing all levels of law
enforcement. Major investigations are coordinated from their
inception in order to ensure the highest possible rate of
conviction for drug traffickers, the seizure of their assets and
ultimate destruction of their criminal organizations.
On January 21, 1982, the Attorney General assigned to the FBI
concurrent jurisdiction with DEA to investigate drug law
enforcement and assigned to the Director of the FBI general
supervision over drug law enforcement efforts and policies.
Since that time, the carefully planned implementation of
procedural guidelines and completion of cross training are
resulting in full integration of FBI resources and expertise into
drug investigative activities. The Attorney General recently
reported that the FBI had less than 100 significant drug
investigations underway in January 1982 and one year later, in
January 1983, had 1,115 significant drug investigations underway.
The South Florida Task Force was created by President Reagan
on January 28, 1982, to address the special problems of drug
trafficking and related crime in the South Florida area. Vice
President Bush heads the Task Force which is an exemplary
cooperative effort by the Drug Enforcement Administration; U.S.
Customs Service; U.S. Coast Guard; Federal AviCtion
Administration; Federal Bureau of Investigation; Internal Revenue
Service; Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms; U.S. Attorney's
Office; U.S. military personnel; and State and local authorities.
Page 13
On October 14, 1982, President Reagan announced a major new
program, headed by the Attorney General, to combat drug
trafficking by organized crime. Twelve joint investigative task
forces have been established across the country, in addition to
the South Florida Task Force. Guidelines for the Drug
Enforcement Task Forces were developed jointly by the agencies
involved, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Drug
Enforcement Administration, the U.S. Attorneys, the Internal
Revenue Service, the U.S. Customs Service, and the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. The task forces will be at full
strength by the end of the summer and represent an immediate
infusion of resources to priority drug trafficking investigations
in each core area.
SUMMARY
We have an extremely efficient system for coordination of the
entire Federal drug effort. President Reagan provides strong
personal leadership. An effective mechanism is in place to
ensure operational coordination and to bring major difficulties
promptly to the President's attention at the Cabinet Council on
Legal Policy and the Cabinet Council on Human Resources. Policy
oversight and coordination is provided by the Director of the
Drug Abuse Policy Office. The Cabinet Council Working Groups on
Drug Supply Reduction and Drug Abuse Health Issues work in close
cooperation with their respective Cabinet Councils and with the
Drug Abuse Policy Office.
The system works well. The spirit of cooperation and
innovation is apparent at all levels, from the Executive Office
Page 14
of the President and the Cabinet members to the agency heads and
individual law enforcement officers and support personnel.
The President has assigned a high priority to the total drug
abuse program and has provided strong personal leadership in
supporting each area, including international cooperation, drug
law enforcement, and drug abuse health activities. I would like
to reiterate that a key element of the President's drug abuse
program is to bring to bear all available Federal, State and
local resources, including private sector support, in fighting
drug abuse. Most importantly, we are making progress in the
fight against drug abuse.
I encourage and welcome your support. Working together we
can do much toward eliminating drug abuse in the United States.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 22, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS &
SUBJECT:
Proposed Testimony of Stan Morris
on Justice System Improvement Act
Stan Morris has submitted testimony he proposes to deliver
on February 23 before the House Judiciary Committee Subcom-
mittee on Crime. The testimony details the work of the
Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) and the National Institute
of Justice (NIJ), indicates Administration support for what
is essentially a "mini-LEAA" program, and describes the
Administration proposal to create an Office of Justice
Assistance headed by a new Assistant Attorney General. The
testimony is occasioned by the imminent (September 30)
expiration of the programs authorized by the Justice Systems
Improvement Act, including BJS and NIJ.
1. The review of the work of BJS and NIJ is generally
non-controversial, except for a reference to the recent NIJ
exclusionary rule study. This study found that 30% of those
arrested for drug felonies in Los Angeles in 1981 were
released because of perceived exclusionary rule problems.
The study, referred to in President Reagan's speech on
Friday before the Conservative Political Action Conference,
refutes the implications of a previously much-touted GAO
study on court dismissals of federal prosecutions because of
the exclusionary rule. The NIJ study is being used in the
Administration campaign to reform the exclusionary rule, and
unsympathetic subcommittee members may view it as evidence
of the "politicization" of the research and statistics
agencies within DOJ.
2. Morris states that the Administration agreed, after
meetings with the Subcommittee Chairman and Ranking Minority
Member, and members of the Senate, "to endorse the concept
of a modest, highly targetted program of assistance to state
and local criminal justice operating from within a stream-
lined and efficient organizational structure." The proposal
he details calls for proportional allocation to each state
of 50/50 Federal matching funds, the Federal funding of any
project to last no more than three years.
-2-
3. The reorganization proposal would establish the Office
of Justice Assistance, headed by a new Assistant Attorney
General. The Office would supervise BJS, NIJ, and a new
Bureau of Justice Programs (BJP), each headed by a director
appointed by the Attorney General. BJP would administer the
new mini-LEAA program. The new Assistant Attorney General
would be advised by a board appointed by the President,
which would replace the current separate Presidential boards
advising NIJ and BJS.
The current situation at BJS and NIJ is intolerable.
Presidential appointees or prospective Presidential
appointees -- the directors of NIJ and BJS -- report to the
Attorney General through a career official, the Acting (for
two years) Director of the Office of Justice Assistance,
Research, and Statistics (OJARS). Apparently the appoint-
ment of a new OJARS director has been postponed pending the
reorganization described in this testimony. I see no
objection to the contemplated reorganization, but the
Congress may object to having NIJ, BJS, and BJP directors
appointed by the Attorney General rather than the President,
since this removes the Senate's advice and consent role over
what can be sensitive positions. In this regard, it may be
advisable to have Morris delete the paragraph-long reference
to NIJ's exclusionary rule study, since that reference
highlights the political sensitivity of the area. I do not,
however, feel strongly about this. I can call Morris with
the suggested deletion if you agree.
125805
ID #
CU
JV
WHITE HOUSE
FG017
CORRESPONDENCE TRACKING WORKSHEET
o OUTGOING
Roberts
H INTERNAL
I . INCOMING
Date Correspondence
Received (YY/MM/DD)
/
/
Name of Correspondent:
Stanley E. Morris
MI Mail Report
User Codes: (A)
(B)
(C)
Subject:
Statement before the Subcommittee on Crime, Committee on
the Judiciary concerning Reauthorization of the Justice
System Improvement Act
ROUTE TO:
ACTION
DISPOSITION
Tracking
Type
Completion
Action
Date
of
Date
Office/Agency
(Staff Name)
Code
YY/MM/DD
Response
Code
YY/MM/DD
DD
WHalland
ORIGINATOR 83,02,17
/
/
Referral Note:
WATI8
A and 83,02,17
58302222
Referral Note:
/ /
/ /
-
Referral Note:
/ /
/
/
-
Referral Note:
/ /
/
/
-
Referral Note:
ACTION CODES:
DISPOSITION CODES:
A Appropriate Action
I Info Copy Only/No Action Necessary
A Answered
C Completed
C Comment/Recommendation
R. Direct Reply w/Copy
8 - . Non-Special Referral
S Suspended
D Draft Response
S. For Signature
F - Furnish Fact Sheet
X - Interim Reply
to be used as Enclosure
FOR OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE:
DD
Type of Response = Initials of Signer
Code = "A"
Comments: SECID 082719cu
Completion Date = Date of Outgoing
Keep this worksheet attached to the original incoming letter.
Send all routing updates to Central Reference (Room 75, OEOB).
Always return completed correspondence record to Central Files.
Refer questions about the correspondence tracking system to Central Reference, ext. 2590.
5/81
DRAFT
125805
STATEMENT
OF
STANLEY E. MORRIS
ASSOCIATE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
CONCERNING
REAUTHORIZATION OF THE
JUSTICE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT ACT
FEEBRUARY 23, 1983
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to present the views of the Department
of Justice concerning the proposed reauthorization of the Justice
System Improvement Act.
As you know, the current programs authorized by the JSIA,
including the criminal justice research and statistics programs,
will expire next September 30th. Consequently, we share the
Subcommittee's sense of urgency and commitment to the enactment
of reauthorizing legislation. We also share your interest in
designing a new Federal effort to assist state and local criminal
justice agencies in their battle against violent crime and the
criminal element responsible for a major portion of the serious
crimes in our Nation.
Before I discuss the Administration's proposal for the future of
the JSIA agencies, the Subcommittee may be interested in a brief
review of the recent and current activities of the Bureau of
Justice Statistics and the National Institute of Justice.
Since its inception, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) has
taken major steps toward meeting its statutory mandate.
Specifically, it maintains major on-going national statistical
series, supports state statistical analysis centers; informs the
Administration, Congress and the public concerning issues in
criminal justice; expanded its analytic function in support of
Departmental policy making; established Federal criminal and
civil justice statistical series; developed national criminal
justice statistical policy; completed state and local information
system development efforts; and, evaluated its own and other
major Department of Justice statistical programs.
BJS has become the national repository of criminal justice
information, either by initiating new statistical series or by
assuming responsibility for on-going data programs from other
Federal agencies. Perhaps the best known BJS data program is the
National Crime Survey, which provides victimization data on the
extent and severity of crime in America and which is the third
largest survey sponsored by the Federal Government. Other major
data programs and statistical series now sponsored by BJS include
the National Prisoner Statistics, National Court Statistics, the
Uniform Parole and National Probation Reports, and the
Expenditure and Employment series which provides information on
the expenditures, manpower and total operation costs of state and
local criminal justice systems. These and the other national BJS
programs provide extensive coverage of all aspects of the
administration of justice.
In creating the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Congress
directed that attention be given to the problems of state and
local justice systems. In addition to the scope and coverage of
the national statistics, BJS meets this responsibility through
cooperative agreement programs with state statistical analysis
centers and uniform crime reporting agencies. The Bureau now
supports a state statistical capability in over forty states
which provides information services and policy recommendations on
criminal justice matters to the Governors and legislatures of
these jurisdictions. The Bureau also assists the operation of
uniform crime reporting programs, also in over forty states, in
order to facilitate the submission and improve the quality of
arrest and clearance data submitted to the Federal Bureau of
Investigation by local police agencies.
After over a decade of developing criminal justice data bases,
the Bureau is now placing its primary emphasis on the analysis,
publication, and wide dissemination of the data. The Bureau now
produces topical Bulletins and Reports to provide brief, concise,
and non-technical interpretations of the key data bases; such
publications include Households Touched by Crime, Characteristics
of the Parole Population, Sourcebook of Criminal Justice
Statistics, Crime and the Elderly, and Violent Crime by
Strangers. It has initiated focused analytical projects that
utilize the Bureau's major data programs and statistical series
to address topics of particular relevance to policy makers at all
levels of government, including career criminals and recidivism,
sentencing, bail reform, and plea bargaining. BJS also supports
a national criminal justice data archive to assist outside
academic analysis of its data bases.
Having been at the forefront of developments related to the
security, privacy, and confidentiality of criminal justice
records and histories, BJS will continue to focus on issues in
information policy such as the interstate exchange of criminal
records, disclosure to adult courts of the juvenile justice
records of violent juvenile offenders, new kinds of white collar
crime appearing as computer and data communications technology
advances and matures, and related fraud and abuse issues.
In perhaps its two most important efforts, the Bureau is now
supporting and directing evaluations of the Uniform Crime Reports
program of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and its own
National Crime Survey of personal and household victimizations.
Implementation of the findings and recommendations of these
assessments in 1985-1986 will enhance this nation's two most
important indicators of the extent and magnitude of crime
behavior in American society.
The National Institute of Justice is the research arm of the
Department of Justice. It conducts research, development,
evaluation and dissemination activities aimed at increasing
knowledge about the causes and control of crime and improving the
effectiveness of the criminal justice system. During the past
year, the Institute has made fundamental changes in the way it
sets its research agenda in order to better bridge the gap
between theory and practice. We expect these efforts to continue
under the administration's reauthorization proposal.
In the spring of 1982, the Department began a process to better
sharpen and focus its research programs by convening under the
auspices of the National Academy of Sciences a panel to recommend
priorities for research and to suggest how research could be
better managed. The report prepared by the panel was widely
circulated to criminal justice practitioners.
The panel report and the practitioner responses were reviewed and
the conclusion was drawn that a very wide gulf had developed that
needed to be closed if research was going to fulfill its real
potential to influence criminal justice policy and
decisionmaking. Further meetings were held between the Board and
Institute staff members at Atlanta and New Orleans. The
Institute's research agenda for the next two years is now being
prepared on the basis of this input.
The Institute also has undertaken several other initiatives
designed to enhance the impact of research resources. In January
of this year, a $1.8 million award was made to the Police
Foundation to conduct an 18-month experiment in two cities
designed to reduce the fear of crime in inner-city neighborhoods,
preserve commercial vitality in these areas, and have an impact
on the crime rate itself. Based in Houston and Newark, the
project will involve citizens and police working together in
formulating and implementing strategies to reduce the fear of
crime and to test the premise that citizens can regain control of
their streets and neighborhoods from the violent criminal.
Earlier, the results of the Institute's six-year study by the
RAND Corporation on career criminals were released at the first
Annual Repeat Offender Conference jointly sponsored by the
Institute and the State of Maryland. This research corroborates
earlier findings that a relatively few offenders commit a larger
amount of crime. The research provides evidence of the magnitude
of crime committed by a relatively few violent predators. The
study goes beyond existing knowledge in identifying some of the
characteristics of these offenders that police, prosecutors,
judges, and parole officials may ultimately be able to use to
identify them and make more informed judgements about their
disposition and treatment.
The Institute has also in the past year attempted to divert some
of its staff resources to short-term studies designed to
illuminate the debate over implementation of policy at the
national level. A recent study was completed by the Institute on
the impact of the exclusionary rule in California. It shows that
a significant number of felony cases declined for prosecution
were rejected because of search and seizure problems. The NIJ
study indicates that effects of the exclusionary rule were
concentrated on felony narcotics cases. Approximately half of
the defendants released because of the exclusionary rule were
rearrested an average of three times each within two years for
new offenses. The study is cited in the amicus curiae brief
prepared by the Department of Justice in Gates vs. Illinois.
The Institute also is taking steps to improve its dissemination
efforts and to achieve greater implementation of research results
at less cost. Toward this end a two-day seminar on crime
prevention was recently held in Detroit. At the seminar, an
Instltute-sponsored study "Partnerships for Neighborhood Crime
Prevention" was released. The 67-page report is based on a
survey of 59 crime prevention programs across the country, some
of which have prompted actual crime reduction and can be
replicated in other urban neighborhoods.
Violent crime has been consistently shown to be a national
problem of major proportions, both in the number of violent
crimes committed annually and in the public perception of crime
as a leading personal concern. The national news media have
given unusual prominence to the problem of crime, heightening
public awareness of its magnitude and sustaining the public's
demand for effective action by government at all levels.
The burden of dealing with the so-called "fear crimes" falls
almost entirely on state and local governments, which increased
their expenditures for criminal justice by 146 percent during the
1970's. State and local governments account for 87 percent of
the total expenditures for criminal justice, while the Federal
Government accounts for 13 percent. Consequently, in periods of
runaway inflation such as we experienced in the late 1970's and
the difficult economic readjustment period of the early 1980's,
the disparity between needs and available resources is magnified,
particularly with regard to maintenance of the capacity for
effective law enforcement.
In recognition of these factors, the Administration agreed,
following meetings with the Subcommittee Chairman and Ranking
Minority Member and members of the Senate, to endorse the concept
of a modest, highly targetted program of assistance to state and
local criminal justice operating from within a streamlined and
efficient organizational structure. We do not advocate a return
to the past by resurrecting the former LEAA program of across the
board "criminal justice improvement". Instead, we propose a new
beginning which incorporates the lessons learned from the LEAA
experience and sharpens the focus of the Federal effort, so that
the limited available resources can be brought to bear on a
limited number of high-priority objectives. Those objectives can
be summarized as violent crime, repeat offenders, and crime
prevention.
As presently structured, the assistance program merited wide
ranging criticism. It was too broadly targetted, providing funds
for all aspects of the criminal justice system; bound in red tape
generated by extensive, statutorily mandated administrative
requirements; costly, because of both the complex funding
formulas prescribed in the Act and the unrealistically ambitious
objectives of the program; and cast in an inefficient and
ambiguous administrative structure.
The state and local financial assistance portion of the Act, the
old LEAA program, has been phased out. No funds for that
activity had been appropriated since FY 1980. The prior history
of LEAA, however, provides us with some important lessons. It
shows, for example, that after the expenditure of $8 billion over
12 years, money alone was not the answer to the problem of
crime. It demonstrated that a program whose priorities were
unclear and constantly shifting resulted in scattershot funding
with minimal payoff. And the history indicates that overly
detailed statutory and regulatory specification produces
mountains of red tape but little progress in the battle against
crime.
On the positive side, we have learned that the concept of Federal
seed money for carefully designed programs does work and can
result in a high rate of cost assumption by state and local
governments: that a small amount of Federal money can be an
invaluable resource for innovation at the state and local levels.
The Administration proposal is designed to reflect an
appreciation for these lessons and to embody the program concepts
agreed upon last year in the discussions between members of the
Subcommittee, the Senate and representatives of the
Administration. Moreover, evidence of the durability of the
Administration's commitment can be found in the FY 1984 budget
proposal submitted to the Congress last month.
I would like to highlight the key provisions and objectives of
the Administration proposal.
The proposal would establish an Office of Justice Assistance
(OJA), headed by an Assistant Attorney General. Within this
Office would be three separate units - the Bureau of Justice
Statistics (BJS), the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), and a
new Bureau of Justice Programs (BJP) - each headed by a director
appointed by the Attorney General. The directors would be
responsible for the day-to-day management of their units and
would have grantmaking authority, subject to the coordination and
policy direction of the Assistant Attorney General. LEAA and the
Office of Justice Assistance, Research, and Statistics would be
abolished.
Both the National Institute of Justice and the Bureau of Justice
Statistics would continue to carry out justice research and
statistical programs as authorizd in the current statute. The
Bureau of Justice Programs would administer the new technical and
financial assistance program.
Advising the Assistant Attorney General would be a Justice
Assistance Advisory Board appointed by the President. This
board, replacing the two separate boards advising NIJ and BJS,
would consider the full range of criminal justice issues and
policies, rather than the compartmentalized consideration of only
research, or only statistical programs.
Under the Administration proposal, the BJP would have the
responsibility to provide technical assistance, training and
funds to state and local criminal justice and nonprofit
organizations. This assistance would be provided through a
combination of block and discretionary grant funds.
Under the block grant provision, each State would receive an
allocation based on its relative population with the requirement
that a proportional share of the funds be passed-through to local
governments. The Federal funds would be matched 50/50 and
individual projects would be limited to no more than three years
of Federal assistance. The use of these funds would be limited
to specific types of activities based on program models with a
demonstrated track record of success.
The discretionary funds would focus on technical assistance,
training and multi-jurisdictional or national programs, all
related to the same objectives specified for the block grant
funds. In addition, discretionary funds may be used for
demonstration programs to test the effectivenes of new ideas.
The Administration proposal strips away the complex and
burdensome application submission and review processes required
under the current legislation. It retains only those
administrative provisions necessary to exercise appropriate
stewardship over public funds and to assure that the funds are
being effectively used for the purposes identified in the
proposal.
The proposal would also require a single, comprehensive annual
report and it would establish an emergency assistance program to
aid state or local jurisdictions confronted by unique law
enforcement problems.
I hope, Mr. Chairman, that you recognize in my description of the
Administration proposal the many similarities it bears to H.R.
1338. When you have the opportunity to examine the text of the
proposed legislation you will see that we have drawn much of the
language directly from H.R. 1338 and its predecessor in the past
Session of Congress. Where differences exist, we believe they
can be justified in favor of the Administration proposal. More
importantly, we want to work with you, Mr. Sawyer, and others who
share our objective of assisting state and local law enforcement
through a program targetted on those aspects of the crime problem
which are of major concern to public officials and the public we
serve.
I will be pleased to respond to any questions you may have.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 22, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
SUBJECT:
Proposed Testimony of Gary Liming, Deputy
Assistant Administrator of DEA, on Organized
Crime in the Mid-Atlantic Region
The above-referenced testimony is scheduled to be delivered
February 23 before the Permanent Subcommittee on
Investigations of the Senate Committee on Governmental
Affairs. The testimony concerns two themes: the
involvement of Mid-Atlantic Mafia families and the Pagan
motorcycle gang in drug trafficking. It describes the drug
dealings of the New Jersey Gambino family and the links
between this family and Sicilian heroin sources. The
testimony also covers the growing involvement of the
Philadelphia Bruno family in methamphetamine production and
distribution. Finally, the testimony describes the growth,
organization, and activities of the Pagan motorcycle gang,
founded in Prince George's County 24 years ago, and now
active throughout the Mid-Atlantic area. I see no legal
objection to the testimony.
ID #
CU
WHITE HOUSE
CORRESPONDENCE TRACKING WORKSHEET
Roberts
o OUTGOING
H. INTERNAL
1. INCOMING
Date Correspondence
Received (YY/MM/DD)
/
/
Name of Correspondent:
Gary D. Liming
MI Mail Report
User Codes: (A)
(B)
(C)
Subject:
Statement on Organized Crime-Mid-Atlantic Region
ROUTE TO:
ACTION
DISPOSITION
Tracking
Type
Completion
Action
Date
of
Date
Office/Agency (Staff Name)
Code
YY/MM/DD
Response
Code
YY/MM/DD
WHolland
ORIGINATOR 83,02,21
/
/
Referral Note:
CUAT18
A 83/02/21
5831022
Referral Note:
/ /
/ /
-
Referral Note:
/
/
/
/
-
Referral Note:
/ /
/ /
Referral Note:
ACTION CODES:
DISPOSITION CODES:
A - Appropriate Action
I . Info Copy Only/No Action Necessary
A- Answered
C Completed
C Comment/Recommendation
R - Direct Reply w/Copy
B - - Non-Special Referral
S - Suspended
D - Draft Response
S - For Signature
F - Furnish Fact Sheet
X. Interim Reply
to be used as Enclosure
FOR OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE:
Type of Response = Initials of Signer
Code = "A"
Completion Date = Date of Outgoing
Comments:
Keep this worksheet attached to the original incoming letter.
Send all routing updates to Central Reference (Room 75, OEOB).
Always return completed correspondence record to Central Files.
Refer questions about the correspondence tracking system to Central Reference, ext. 2590.
5/81
DRAFT
STATEMENT OF
GARY D. LIMING
DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR INTELLIGENCE
DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
ON
ORGANIZED CRIME - MID-ATLANTIC REGION
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
WILLIAM V. ROTH, JR., CHAIRMAN
FEBRUARY 23, 1983
MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE, I AM PLEASED TO
APPEAR BEFORE YOU TODAY. IT IS APPROPRIATE THAT DISCUSSIONS
REGARDING ORGANIZED CRIME INCLUDE THE DRUG ENFORCEMENT
ADMINISTRATION (DEA) SINCE DRUG TRAFFICKING IS INHERENTLY
AN "ORGANIZED" CRIME, INVOLVING SOPHISTICATED GROUPS FROM A
VARIETY OF ETHNIC, CULTURAL, AND GEOGRAPHIC BACKGROUNDS, AT
ANY POINT IN TIME, GROUPS FROM DIVERSE BACKGROUNDS ARE ENGAGED
IN ORGANIZED CRIME TO VARYING DEGREES. DEA MAINTAINS THE
FLEXIBILITY TO TARGET THE MOST SIGNIFICANT INDIVIDUALS AND
GROUPS, WHOEVER THEY MAY BE, IT IS THESE HIGHLY SOPHISTICATED
GROUPS THAT DEA CONSIDERS TO BE ORGANIZED CRIME. DEA RECORDS
INDICATE THAT, DURING FY-82, A TOTAL OF 12,183 DRUG TRAFFICKERS
WERE ARRESTED OF WHICH 2,119 WERE MAJOR VIOLATORS, THIS IS
A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE LEADING FIGURES BEHIND THE BILLIONS
OF DOLLARS IN RETAIL DRUG SALES MADE IN THE UNITED STATES
ANNUALLY. DRUG TRAFFICKING, AS WELL AS A MYRIAD OF OTHER
CRIMES, INCLUDING PROSTITUTION, COUNTERFEITING, THEFT, ASSAULT,
AND MURDER, IN WHICH ORGANIZED CRIME ENGAGES, HAS A DEVASTATING
EFFECT ON OUR SOCIETY AND ECONOMY.
IN THE UNITED STATES, THERE ARE BETWEEN 25-30 COMPLEX CRIMINAL
ORGANIZATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH EACH OTHER IN WHAT IS KNOWN AS
THE AMERICAN MAFIA, THE MoB, THE SYNDICATE, OR LA COSA NOSTRA,
THESE GROUPS OPERATE EXTENSIVE, SOPHISTICATED, POWERFUL DRUG
TRAFFICKING NETWORKS AND POSE A SERIOUS THREAT TO DRUG LAW
ENFORCEMENT FOR SEVERAL REASONS:
O
As YOU ARE AWARE, TRADITIONAL ORGANIZED CRIME
ORGANIZATIONS ARE USUALLY BOUND BY BLOOD AS WELL
AS BY PHILOSOPHY, IN THE UNITED STATES IT FRE-
QUENTLY DIRECTS ITS BUSINESSES IN MUCH THE SAME
MANNER AS RELATIVES LEAD THE CLANS IN SICILY AND
OTHER PARTS OF ITALY. OFTEN, SICILIAN AND OTHER
ITALIAN ORGANIZED CRIME HEROIN SOURCES OF SUPPLY
WILL ONLY DEAL WITH THOSE U.S. CUSTOMERS BOUND BY
BLOOD.
O
BECAUSE OF THE EXTREMELY SECRETIVE NATURE OF THESE
GROUPS, LAW ENFORCEMENT OFTEN FINDS IT DIFFICULT
TO PENETRATE THEIR DRUG TRAFFICKING OPERATIONS.
O
TRADITIONAL ORGANIZED CRIME IS ALSO INVOLVED WITH
A MULTITUDE OF LEGITIMATE AND ILLEGITIMATE BUSINESSES,
WHICH ARE USED TO MEET THE NEEDS OF DRUG TRAFFICKING
OPERATIONS. IN SOME INSTANCES, TRADITIONAL ORGANIZED
CRIME CAN CONTROL THE DRUGS FROM THE TIME OF ENTRY,
UNTIL THEY REACH THE STREET MARKET. OTHER DRUG
ORGANIZATIONS OFTEN PAY "TRIBUTE" TO TRADITIONAL
ORGANIZED CRIME FAMILIES WHICH CONTROL THE GEOGRAPHIC
AREAS AND MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION THE TRAFFICKERS MUST
USE TO CONDUCT THEIR ACTIVITIES. THIS NOT ONLY PROVIDES
TRADITIONAL ORGANIZED CRIME WITH ADDITIONAL INCOME,
BUT ALSO WITH AN INFLUENCE OVER AN IMPORTANT PORTION
OF THE DRUG TRADE IN THE UNITED STATES.
DURING THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS, LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES HAVE
MADE SIGNIFICANT STRIDES TOWARDS THE DISRUPTION OF TRADITIONAL
ORGANIZED CRIME'S INVOLVEMENT IN DRUG TRAFFICKING. FOR EXAMPLE,
LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS IN THE UNITED STATES, ITALY, AND OTHER
FOREIGN COUNTRIES RECENTLY JOINED FORCES TO BREAK UP AN INTRICATE
CONSPIRACY WHICH INVOLVED ITALIAN ORGANIZED CRIME GROUPS IN
ITALY THAT WERE SMUGGLING HEROIN INTO THE UNITED STATES TO
RELATIVES AND ASSOCIATES IN AMERICAN TRADITIONAL ORGANIZED CRIME
FAMILIES. WE BELIEVE THAT ONE OF THE PRIMARY RECIPIENTS OF
THIS HEROIN WAS THE NEW JERSEY GAMBINO FAMILY, LED BY THE
BROTHERS ROSARIO AND GIUSEPPE.
ALTHOUGH RELATED TO THE LATE CARLO GAMBINO FAMILY OF NEW YORK,
THE NEW JERSEY GAMBINO DRUG OPERATIONS ARE INDEPENDENT FROM THE
NEW YORK FAMILY. THERE ARE DIRECT LINES OF COMMUNICATION AND
INFLUENCE BASED ON ACTUAL BLOOD TIES BETWEEN THE NEW JERSEY
GAMBINOs AND OTHER TRADITIONAL ORGANIZED CRIME FAMILIES IN
NEW YORK. GAMBINO FAMILY MEMBERS OWN SIGNIFICANT INTERESTS
IN THE PIZZA INDUSTRY IN SOUTH JERSEY AND PARTS OF PENNSYLVANIA.
THESE BUSINESSES HAVE BEEN USED FOR CONCEALING ILLEGAL SICILIAN
IMMIGRANTS, FOR LAUNDERING MONEY AND FOR. STORING DRUGS. THEY
ARE KNOWN TO HAVE EMPLOYED ILLEGAL ALIENS AND OTHER NON-FAMILY
MEMBERS WHO WERE MORE EXPERIENCED IN DRUG TRAFFICKING TO SMUGGLE
HEROIN INTO AND TRANSPORT IT WITHIN THE UNITED STATES.
THE GAMBINOs DID NOT ESTABLISH THEMSELVES IN THE LARGE URBAN
AREAS AS DID THEIR OLDER RELATIVES. INSTEAD, THEY ESTABLISHED
BOTH LEGITIMATE AND ILLEGITIMATE BUSINESSES IN THE SUBURBS OF
NEW JERSEY, THEY ARE CURRENTLY HEADQUARTERED IN CHERRY HILL,
NEW JERSEY. THIS MOVE FROM LARGE URBAN CENTERS IS ALSO EVIDENT
AMONG OTHER TRADITIONAL ORGANIZED CRIME FAMILIES THROUGHOUT THE
UNITED STATES.
IN MARCH 1980, GIUSEPPE AND ROSARIO GAMBINO WERE ARRESTED IN
THEIR CHERRY HILL RESTAURANT AND CHARGED WITH PARTICIPATING IN
AN INTERNATIONAL HEROIN SMUGGLING OPERATION AFTER POLICE IN
MILAN, ITALY, CONFISCATED 41.5 KILOGRAMS OF HEROIN DESTINED
FOR THE UNITED STATES. THE HEROIN HAD AN ESTIMATED STREET
VALUE OF ABOUT $60 MILLION, ONE OF THE SUSPECTS ARRESTED IN
ITALY HAD OWNED AND MANAGED PIZZA SHOPS IN NEW JERSEY AND
PENNSYLVANIA. You ARE PROBABLY AWARE THAT THE GAMBINO BROTHERS
WERE RECENTLY ACQUITTED OF CHARGES RELATING TO THIS SEIZURE.
THE GAMBINOs MAY ALSO HAVE BEEN THE INTENDED RECIPIENTS FOR
ONE OR MORE OF THE SHIPMENTS OF HEROIN SEIZED FROM ALITALIA
FLIGHTS FROM ITALY AT JFK INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT. THE ALITALIA
CASES CONSIST OF SIX SEPARATE INCIDENTS BETWEEN DECEMBER 1977
AND OCTOBER 1980 IN WHICH APPROXIMATELY 31 KILOGRAMS OF HIGH
QUALITY SOUTHWEST ASIAN HEROIN WAS SEIZED. COMPLICITY OF
ALITALIA EMPLOYEES WAS FOUND IN SEVERAL CASES AND SUSPECTED
IN OTHERS.
WE BELIEVE THAT GAMBINO FAMILY ASSOCIATES RESIDING IN SOUTH
JERSEY CONTINUE TO BE INVOLVED IN THE INTERNATIONAL HEROIN
TRAFFIC,
THE REASONS FOR THE MARCH 21, 1980, ASSASSINATION OF ANGELO
BRUNO, LEADER OF THE PHILADELPHIA ORGANIZED CRIME FAMILY FOR
TWO DECADES, HAVE NOT YET BEEN DETERMINED. No ONE HAS BEEN
ARRESTED FOR THAT MURDER. BRUNO ALLEGEDLY TRIED TO PREVENT HIS
PEOPLE FROM DEALING DRUGS AND HIS DEATH COULD HAVE BEEN CAUSED
BY INTERNAL FAMILY DIFFERENCES OVER WHETHER TO BECOME INVOLVED
IN THE HEROIN, COCAINE, AND METHAMPHETAMINE TRAFFIC, THE
SUBSEQUENT GANGLAND-STYLE MURDERS IN PHILADELPHIA ARE BELIEVED
TO BE THE RESULT OF A CONTINUING STRUGGLE FOR CONTROL OF THE
FAMILY,
IT IS NOW EVIDENT THAT THE BRUNO FACTION ADVOCATING INVOLVEMENT
IN DRUGS HAS THE UPPER HAND IN THIS STRUGGLE. ALTHOUGH THERE
CONTINUE TO BE STRONG INDICATIONS THAT HIGH LEVEL BRUNO FAMILY
ASSOCIATES ARE INVOLVED IN HEROIN TRAFFICKING IN THE PHILADELPHIA/
SOUTH JERSEY AREA, AND THAT THEY ARE NEGOTIATING FOR COCAINE
AND MARIHUANA SHIPMENTS, THEY ARE PREDOMINANTLY INVOLVED IN THE
MANUFACTURE AND DISTRIBUTION OF METHAMPHETAMINE. FAMILY MEMBERS
ARE ACTIVELY ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURING P2P, AS WELL AS IDENTIFYING
NEW OVERSEAS SUPPLIERS FOR THIS PRECURSOR CHEMICAL THAT IS
ESSENTIAL TO METHAMPHETAMINE PRODUCTION.
5
IN FACT IT IS IN THE AREA OF DANGEROUS DRUG TRAFFICKING THAT
THESE TRADITIONAL ORGANIZED CRIME FAMILIES BECAME INVOLVED WITH
ANOTHER GROUP THAT HAS RECEIVED A GREAT DEAL OF ATTENTION
DURING THESE HEARINGS, THE PAGAN MOTORCYCLE CLUB,
THE PAGANS AND SEVERAL TRADITIONAL ORGANIZED CRIME FAMILIES
OPERATE IN CLOSE PROXIMITY IN VARIOUS LOCATIONS IN THE MID-
ATLANTIC REGION, BUT FRICTION IS AVOIDED BY THE FACT THAT THE
TWO GROUPS HAVE SEPARATE TERRITORIES AND ALSO BY THEIR FEAR OF
ONE ANOTHER. DURING THE 1970's, THE TRADITIONAL ORGANIZED
CRIME FAMILIES IN THE MID-ATLANTIC STATES DID NOT EXERT SUFFI-
CIENT CONTROL AND THE PAGANS WERE CONSEQUENTLY ALLOWED TO GAIN A
STRONGHOLD IN THE AREA, SINCE THAT TIME THE TWO GROUPS HAVE
OCCASIONALLY COOPERATED FOR MUTUAL FINANCIAL GAIN ON VARIOUS
ENDEAVORS INCLUDING THE DISTRIBUTION OF METHAMPHETAMINE. THERE
IS CURRENTLY NO OPEN RIVALRY BETWEEN THE PAGANS AND TRADITIONAL
ORGANIZED CRIME FIGURES, ALTHOUGH THERE IS SOMETIMES OPEN
CONFRONTATION BETWEEN THE PAGANS AND OTHER OUTLAW GROUPS,
THE PAGANS ARE ONE OF THE FOUR MOST SIGNIFICANT OUTLAW MOTOR-
CYCLE GANGS IN THE UNITED STATES, A NUMBER OF SMALLER GROUPS,
SUCH AS THE BREED AND THE WARLOCKS, OPERATE IN THE MID-ATLANTIC
REGION, BUT THE PAGANS ARE THE MAJOR MOTORCYCLE GANG IN THE
AREA. THE ORGANIZATION ORIGINATED IN PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY,
MARYLAND, IN 1959 AND SINCE THAT TIME IT HAS EXPANDED ALONG
THE ENTIRE NORTHEAST COAST OF THE UNITED STATES. THE CENTER
6
OF INFLUENCE CONTINUED TO BE THE BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON, D. C.,
AREA UNTIL 1975 WHEN THE CLUB'S HEADQUARTERS WAS MOVED TO
MARCUS HooK, PENNSYLVANIA, FOLLOWING THE ARREST OF SEVERAL
MEMBERS INVOLVED IN A MASS MURDER IN VIRGINIA. AFTER A MASSIVE
LAW ENFORCEMENT EFFORT DIRECTED AGAINST THE PAGANS IN PENNSYLVANIA
RESULTED IN NUMEROUS ARRESTS ON DRUG AND FIREARMS CHARGES ABOUT
A YEAR LATER, THE HEADQUARTERS WAS AGAIN MOVED, THIS TIME TO
ISLIP, LONG ISLAND, NEW YORK,
ALTHOUGH THERE IS SOME DISAGREEMENT AMONG LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS
AS TO THE LOCATIONS OF CHAPTERS, IT IS GENERALLY AGREED THERE
ARE 40 TO 45 CHAPTERS NATIONWIDE, AT LEAST 26 OF WHICH ARE IN
THE FOUR STATE AREA OF NEW JERSEY, PENNSYLVANIA, DELAWARE, AND
MARYLAND. SOME CITIES HAVE MORE THAN ONE CHAPTER, SUCH AS
PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA, WHICH IS REPUTED TO HAVE FOUR SEPARATE
CHAPTERS, IT HAS BEEN DIFFICULT, HOWEVER, TO ASSOCIATE MEMBERS
WITH A SPECIFIC CHAPTER SINCE MEMBERS OF DIFFERENT CHAPTERS
CONSTANTLY ASSOCIATE WITH ONE ANOTHER AND BECAUSE EXISTING
CHAPTERS SOMETIMES CLOSE IN THE FACE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT SCRUTINY
OR DECLINING PROFITS. NEW CHAPTERS ARE ALSO FORMED WHEN AN
OPPORTUNITY FOR PROFIT IS IDENTIFIED.
THE TOTAL MEMBERSHIP OF THE "PAGAN NATION" IS UNKNOWN, BUT
ESTIMATES RANGE FROM 450 TO 800 ACTIVE MEMBERS. THERE MAY BE
400 MEMBERS IN PENNSYLVANIA ALONE, APPROXIMATELY 600 MEMBERS
AND ASSOCIATES HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED NATIONALLY. UNLIKE THE HELLS
ANGELS, OUTLAWS, AND BANDIDOS, THE OTHER THREE MAJOR NATIONAL
7
GANGS, THE PAGANS DO NOT GENERALLY HAVE FORMAL CLUBHOUSES, BUT
RATHER MEET IN EACH OTHER'S HOMES OR OTHER LOCATIONS, FURTHER
COMPOUNDING THE DIFFICULTY OF DETERMINING THE CHAPTER MEMBER-
SHIP OF AN INDIVIDUAL,
THE PAGANS ARE ORGANIZED IN THE MANNER OF 1930's TO 1940's
TRADITIONAL ORGANIZED CRIME ORGANIZATIONS, WITH WELL-DEFINED
POWER FIGURES AND STRICT RULES. THE ORGANIZATION IS HEADED BY
A NATIONAL PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT, THE INDIVIDUALS
OCCUPYING THESE POSITIONS ARE GENERALLY FIGUREHEADS, ALTHOUGH
THEY DO PARTICIPATE IN THE ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES OF THE CLUB.
THE PRESIDENT IS IN A POSITION TO SKIM PROFITS OFF THE TOP
OF MOST CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES, MAKING HIS POSITION A VERY PROFIT-
ABLE ONE. THE SECOND ECHELON OF THE PAGANS IS OCCUPIED BY THE
MOTHER CLUB, WHICH HAS APPROXIMATELY 20 MEMBERS, THE MOTHER
CLUB, WHICH ACTS AS A GOVERNING BODY IN SETTING NATIONAL POLICY,
IS UNIQUE TO THE PAGANS ALTHOUGH IT IS SIMILAR IN SOME RESPECTS
TO THE NOMAD CLUB OF THE BANDIDOS AND OTHER GANGS. THE MOTHER
CLUB GIVES ADVICE AND GUIDANCE TO CHAPTERS IN A SPECIFIC GEO-
GRAPHIC AREA, RULES ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW CHAPTERS, AND
LITERALLY SERVES AS ENFORCER OF CLUB POLICY, OFTEN VIOLENTLY
PUNISHING MEMBERS WHO FAIL TO FOLLOW DIRECTIONS. THE MOTHER
CLUB SETS UP ILLEGAL VENTURES, SUCH AS SYNDICATES TO TRAFFIC
IN DRUGS OR STOLEN VEHICLES, AND DELEGATES MOST OF THE WORK
AND RISK TO THE NEXT ECHELON IN THE PAGAN HIERARCHY, THE
CHAPTERS. THE MOTHER CLUB RECEIVES MUCH OF THE PROFIT FROM
8
THESE ACTIVITIES, KEEPING A PORTION FOR THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS
AND PAYING A PERCENTAGE INTO THE PAGAN TREASURY AND DEFENSE/
BAIL FUND. EACH CHAPTER IS GOVERNED BY ITS OWN SET OF OFFICERS,
IN ACCORDANCE WITH POLICY SET BY THE MOTHER CLUB,
THE PRIMARY MOTIVE FOR FORMING NEW CHAPTERS AND ACCEPTING NEW
MEMBERS IS PROFIT. NEW MEMBERS ARE ACCEPTED ONLY ON THE RECOM-
MENDATION OF A CURRENT MEMBER AND PRIMARILY AS A RESULT OF THE
PROSPECTIVE MEMBER'S WILLINGNESS AND ABILITY TO COMMIT ILLEGAL
AND SOMETIMES VIOLENT ACTS FOR PROFIT AND TO TURN MUCH OF THAT
PROFIT OVER TO THE PAGANS.
THE SIGNIFICANT PROFITS GENERATED BY DRUG TRAFFICKING MAKE IT
AN ATTRACTIVE VENTURE FOR THE CLUB, PER DOLLAR OF PROFIT, THE
RISKS ARE PROBABLY LESS THAN THOSE ASSOCIATED WITH OTHER CRIMES,
IT IS ESTIMATED THAT OVER 50% OF THE PAGANS ARE INVOLVED IN
DRUG TRAFFICKING. THEY HAVE A LARGE CONTROL OVER THE MANUFAC-
TURE AND DISTRIBUTION OF METHAMPHETAMINE AND PCP IN THE NORTH-
EAST AND HAVE DEALT IN COCAINE AND MARIHUANA AS WELL. BASED
ON SEIZURES, IT IS CONSERVATIVELY ESTIMATED THAT THE STREET
VALUE OF THE METHAMPHETAMINES AND PCP DISTRIBUTED BY THE PAGANS
ANNUALLY IS $15.5 MILLION, THEY MANUFACTURE SIGNIFICANT
ADDITIONAL QUANTITIES WHICH ARE CONSUMED WITHIN THE CLUB, LEADING
TO STILL INCREASED CRIMINAL ACTIVITY TO SUPPORT THE HABIT. PAGAN
MEMBERS OPERATE NUMEROUS OTHER BUSINESSES IN THE MID-ATLANTIC
STATES, WHICH UNTIL SCRUTINIZED APPEAR TO BE LEGITIMATE, THESE
INCLUDE MOTORCYCLE SHOPS, BARS AND RESTAURANTS, WHICH ARE USED
AS FRONTS FOR ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES AND TO LAUNDER THE MONEY INVOLVED
IN THESE ACTIVITIES.
PAGAN MOTHER CLUB MEMBERS DOMINATE THE DRUG DISTRIBUTION
ACTIVITIES ALMOST ENTIRELY. THE FEAR AND GREED OF LOWER-ECHELON
MEMBERS DRIVE THEM TO ASSIST IN DISTRIBUTION SCHEMES, EACH
TIME THE DRUGS MOVE BETWEEN INDIVIDUALS IN THE HIERARCHY, TWO
THINGS OCCUR: ONE, THE DRUGS ARE CUT WITH ADULTERANTS AND, TWO,
MONEY CHANGES HANDS. By THE TIME THE DRUGS REACH THE ULTIMATE
CUSTOMER, IT IS NOT UNUSUAL FOR THEM TO HAVE BEEN DILUTED 500%
AND FOR THE PRICE TO HAVE INCREASED 1000%. FREQUENTLY AT THIS
STAGE THE DRUGS ARE DILUTED so MUCH THAT THEY ARE NOT WORTH
THE PRICE BEING ASKED, THE CHAPTER MEMBER, HOWEVER, FINDS A
WAY TO SELL THE INFERIOR PRODUCT BECAUSE HE FEARS RETRIBUTION
IF HE FAILS TO CARRY OUT HIS ASSIGNMENT. THERE IS NO SHORTAGE
OF PROSPECTIVE MEMBERS WAITING TO REPLACE THOSE WHO FAIL TO
PERFORM. THE ONLY CHECK ON SENIOR MEMBERS IS THEIR CONSTANT
AWARENESS THAT, IF THEIR ENEMIES OUTNUMBER THEIR FRIENDS, THEY
TOO COULD BE ON THE RECEIVING END OF THE VIOLENCE THAT PERMEATES
THE ORGANIZATION.
THERE ARE A NUMBER OF READILY IDENTIFIABLE PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED
WITH INVESTIGATIONS OF ORGANIZED CRIME. FOREMOST IS THE FACT
THAT SENIOR LEVEL PERSONNEL ARE USUALLY WELL INSULATED BY
10
LOWER LEVEL MEMBERS WHO RISK DETECTION BY LAW ENFORCEMENT
PERSONNEL. SECOND, THE CODE OF SECRECY AND THREAT OF VIOLENCE
INHIBIT MEMBERS WHO MIGHT OTHERWISE SUCCUMB TO LAW ENFORCEMENT
EFFORTS TO GATHER INFORMATION. MEMBERS ARE STRICTLY CONTROLLED
BY THE ORGANIZATION. LASTLY, BECAUSE OF THE INCREASING COMPLEXITY
OF THESE ORGANIZATIONS, MORE TIME AND EXPERTISE ARE REQUIRED TO
CONDUCT INVESTIGATIONS. THIS AFFECTS NOT ONLY FEDERAL LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES, BUT ALSO STATE AND LOCAL EFFORTS. BECAUSE
OF THE PROMINENCE THAT THESE ORGANIZATIONS HAVE GAINED DURING
THE LAST DECADE, HOWEVER, THEY HAVE BEEN TARGETED FOR ENFORCEMENT
ACTION BY VARIOUS LAW ENFORCEMENT ORGANIZATIONS, INCLUDING DEA
AND THE FBI. THERE ARE CURRENTLY A NUMBER OF COOPERATIVE EFFORTS
UNDER WAY WHICH ARE TARGETED AT THEIR OPERATIONS IN THE MID-
ATLANTIC REGION AND HOPEFULLY, THESE EFFORTS WILL HAVE A MAJOR
IMPACT ON THEIR ILLICIT ACTIVITIES.
I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR INVITING DEA TO PARTICIPATE. STEPS
THAT THIS SUBCOMMITTEE HAS TAKEN IN THE PAST TO EXPOSE ORGANIZED
CRIME HAVE HAD A SUBSTANTIAL IMPACT ON THE LIVES OF ALL
AMERICANS. WE BELIEVE THAT THESE HEARINGS WILL CONTINUE TO
FOCUS ATTENTION ON A GROWING THREAT TO THE SAFETY AND SECURITY
OF OUR CITIZENS, AND TO PROVIDE MORE EFFECTIVE MEANS OF DEALING
WITH THIS THREAT.
11