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
135839538
label
JGR/Testimony Approval (09/29/1983-10/12/1983)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
135839538
contentType
document
title
JGR/Testimony Approval (09/29/1983-10/12/1983)
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
135839538
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
610ff51a490eae4d
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
(09/29/1983-10/12/1983)
Box: 53
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
September 29, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
SUBJECT:
Statement of Steven R. Schlesinger
Regarding the National Criminal Justice
Information and Statistics Service (Bureau
of Justice Statistics) on October 5, 1983
Steven R. Schlesinger, Director of the Bureau of Justice
Statistics, proposes to deliver the attached testimony
before the Subcommittee on Courts of the Senate Judiciary
Committee on October 5. The testimony is not likely to be
of interest to anyone other than statisticians, and frankly
will not fascinate many of them. The testimony emphasizes
the importance of uniform identification criteria to
ensure statistical system security, data accuracy, and the
protection of individual rights. Schlesinger reviews the
work of his agency in assisting states in developing
comprehensive criminal justice statistics systems.
He cites an example of the way in which nonuniformity
compromises the integrity and usefulness of statistics
(juvenile records often cannot be used in adult criminal
systems because they are not supported by adequate
identification, i.e., fingerprints), reviews the efforts of
BJS to link the statistical systems in several federal
agencies, and emphasizes the importance of uniform systems
of identification in assessing broader criminal justice
trends.
I have no legal objection.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 29, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR GREGORY JONES
LEGISLATIVE ATTORNEY
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING Orig. signed F
SUBJECT:
Statement of Steven R. Schlesinger
Regarding the National Criminal Justice
Information and Statistics Service (Bureau
of Justice Statistics) on October 5, 1983
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced proposed
testimony, and finds no objection to it from a legal
perspective.
FFF:JGR:aea 9/29/83
bcc: FFFielding
JGRoberts
Subj
Chron
ID # 173800
CU
WHITE HOUSE
FG017.14
CORRESPONDENCE TRACKING WORKSHEET
o OUTGOING
H INTERNAL
JR
I - INCOMING
Date Correspondence
Received (YY/MM/DD)
/
/
Name of Correspondent:
greg Jones /
MI Mail Report
User Codes: (A)
(B)
(C)
Subject:
Statement of Steven R. Schlesinger
re: the National Criminal Justice Information and
Statistics Service (Buseau of Justice Statistics)
on October 5, 1983
ROUTE TO:
ACTION
DISPOSITION
Tracking
Type
Completion
Action
Date
of
Date
Office/Agency
(Staff Name)
Code
YY/MM/DD
Response
Code
YY/MM/DD
CUHOIL
ORIGINATOR 83,09,275
/
/
WE
Referral Note:
WAT 18
D
83/09/28
5 83,10,03
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
173800 cu
DRAFT
STATEMENT
OF
STEVEN R. SCHLESINGER
DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS
BEFORE
THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COURTS
ON
OCTOBER 5, 1983
Mr. Chairman: I am pleased to have this opportunity to participate in today's hearings on
the significant issue of Federal information systems. The Bureau of Justice Statistics
was established in 1980 pursuant to Title III of the Justice System Improvement Act. As
described in its legislative mandate, the Bureau of Justice Statistics serves as the
primary Federal agency for the collection, analysis and dissemination of statistics
describing crime and the response of the criminal justice system at the Federal and state
level. Pursuant to this mandate, the Bureau of Justice Statistics presently supports
major data collection efforts in the area of victimization, adjudication, prison, probation
and parole, white collar crime, and prosecution activity. A new program to develop
statistics describing system wide transactions in the Federal criminal justice system has
also recently been initiated. Support is also provided for a national archive to facilitate
multiple uses of data and for the intensive analyses of particular issues relevant to
criminal justice policy.
Consistent with the activities of its predecessor entity, the National Criminal Justice
Information and Statistics Service, the Bureau of Justice Statistics also encourages the
development of state and local automated systems which are capable of generating
criminal justice data for operational and statistical purposes. Support is also provided to
ensure the continued development and analysis of information policies which impact on
the use and collection of criminal justice data.
Before addressing the substance of my comments I would like to indicate that, as you
know, the Bureau of Justice Statistics collects no identifiable data for operational
purposes and maintains no identification or information system serving operational law
enforcement purposes. I believe, however, that the experiences of the Bureau of Justice
Statistics and its predecessor agency, the National Criminal Justice Information and
Statistics Service, in the area of criminal history information systems development are
of relevance to the issues under consideration today since they (1) highlight the
importance of uniform identification criteria, (2) emphasize the extent to which inter-
agency coordination is necessary to ensure system security and data accuracy, and (3)
reflect the extent to which effective information policies governing security, accuracy,
and disclosure of data can protect the integrity of the system and the rights of the
individual record holders. Additionally, our experiences in reviewing the development of
state and local automated criminal justice systems over the past 10 years indicate that
technical and administrative procedures can be developed to meet system operating
needs and that information policies can be implemented to protect the systems against
unauthorized use and manipulation.
I am firmly committed to the view that accurate and comprehensive information is
critical for the efficient operation of criminal justice and other types of systems.
Specifically, I think that accurate and uniform identification of record subjects is
necessary to ensure that operational decisions are based on relevant data and that
critical government systems are protected against fraudulent abuse. Similarly, I believe
that inter-agency coordination at the Federal and state level is significant since it
formulates the basis for data exchange, precludes duplication of records and minimizes
the opportunity for abuse of individual systems. Accurate and uniform identifiers are
also necessary for statistical purposes since they permit system-wide linkage of data (as
is presently being undertaken in the Bureau of Justice Statistics Federal Statistics
project), facilitate longitudinal analysis of prior record information, and support the
validity of statistical data which are developed from operational data bases.
The activities of the Bureau of Justice Statistics and its predecessor agency in the area
of criminal history systems development were basically initiated in the early 1970's. At
that time, few states had introduced automated procedures for criminal justice record
processing. Centralization of criminal records was at a primitive stage of development
and policy guidelines governing the use and disclosure of criminal history information
were almost non-existent. Operationally the absence of accurately and uniformly
identified records severely limited the ability of law enforcement agencies to obtain and
utilize criminal history data for ongoing investigations, personnel reviews, sentencing
decisions and other criminal justice purposes. From a statistical point of view, the
absence of uniform identification criteria and the use of differing data element
definitions precluded the development of meaningful statistical data which could help to
shape future criminal justice policies.
The overall objective of the Federal effort was the establishment of statewide
automated systems capable of maintaining and disseminating data describing all criminal
justice transactions involving state offenders. Over the long term, such systems were
also intended to facilitate the rapid exchange of criminal justice data among the states
and between the states and the Federal government. Such interstate exchange of
criminal justice data is, of course, considered critical in light of the greater mobility of
individual offenders and the growing awareness of the impact of "career criminals"
operating in several jurisdictions.
To achieve these goals, extensive technical and fiscal support was provided to assist
states both in automating individual components of the criminal justice system and in
developing overall procedures for the statewide collection and exchange of such data.
Accòmpanying these efforts and consistent with its legislative mandate, regulations were
promulgated requiring that states receiving funds for the development of criminal justice
systems implement procedures to ensure the accuracy, completeness and security of data
maintained therein. Specific programs were supported to develop technical
identification standards, uniform data entry criteria and rapid communications
capabilities.
Such programs included, for example, the development of models for increasing the
efficiency of state identification bureaus and the development of automated processes to
expedite the fingerprint identification process. The Comprehensive Data Systems (CDS)
program, a 50-state effort to improve criminal histories, research, and statistical
capabilities within a state, was also initiated in the early 1970's. Additionally, both the
State Judicial Information System (SJIS) program, a multi-state effort to identify and
demonstrate standardized recordskeeping functions for the courts, and the Offender-
Based State Corrections Information System (OBSCIS) program, a 20-state program with
objectives similar to SJIS were implemented. In developing these programs it was
recognized that there was a need for accurate, positive identification of individuals in
order to permit the interface and analysis of standardized data collected by individual
operating agencies. Taken together, the programs represented landmark efforts to
establish the framework for system-wide data collection involving all components of the
criminal justice system.
Experience in these programs indicates that the implementation of procedures for
uniform and accurate subject identification and the establishment of interagency
coordination were key factors in the development of state-wide criminal justice data
exchange systems. Similarly, experience indicates that the implementation of policies to
limit data access and to ensure data security were critical factors in protecting systems
against the unauthorized use and release of data. Accurate identifiers also provided the
basis for regular audits designed to prevent illegal system use and manipulation. Such
audits are required under the Regulations established at the initiation of these efforts.
I would like to note at this point that the Congressional establishment of requirements to
ensure security and accuracy of data, coupled with the decision by BJS' predecessor
agency to provide parallel assistance in both technical and policy areas, were
significant. These actions reflected Federal recognition of the fact that technological
advances could provide substantial benefits for criminal justice operation and that
potential threats to individual privacy could be averted through the development of
policies and standards to protect against system abuse. I mention this issue now since I
believe that similar issues can be expected to arise in connection with proposals for use
of uniform identifiers and linkage of data resources at the Federal level. I feel it is
relevant to note, therefore, that we are unaware of any major incidents in which
interfaced criminal justice systems at the state level have been illegally manipulated to
intentionally harm the individual record subjects. Additionally, it should be noted that
the use of accurate identifiers is a primary factor in protecting against misuse of
erroneously identified data.
As indicated previously, no formal studies were conducted at the initiation of the Federal
efforts in this area. It is clear, however, that the states in the early 1970's had achieved
minimal levels of system development. Although state identification bureaus had
frequently been established, duplicative records were often maintained and procedures to
ensure law enforcement access to timely and accurate data were not routinely in
effect. When measured against these conditions, the progress which has been made
during the past 10 years is substantial.
Specifically, I am pleased to report that a survey of state legislation conducted for the
Bureau of Justice Statistics in 1981 by SEARCH Group Inc. reports that almost all states
had authorized the establishment of some type of central repository to serve. as the Iocus
for criminal justice information system activity. Although the survey noted that
substantial variation exists among state systems and that not all repositories are fully
operational, the concept of central coordination of criminal justice data has clearly been
achieved in the majority of states. Similarly, although the survey did not specifically
identify the operational requirements at each repository, the establishment of positive
identification as a condition for data input appears to be generally required.
It should be understood, of course, that further progress must still be made in this area
and that fiscal constraints have precluded full implementation of procedures to ensure
data quality. I am pleased with the achievements which have been made in this area in
the past 10 years, however, and hope that the experiences which I have described today
demonstrate the extent to which the development of identification criteria,
establishment of state agency coordination and implementation of security and accuracy
standards have been key factors in the development of effective criminal justice systems
at the state level.
In closing, I would like to mention three additional areas which illustrate, in my view, the
importance of the issues under consideration at this hearing.
Initially, I refer to a finding in a recent study of juvenile justice record policy which was
conducted for the Bureau of Justice Statistics by SEARCH Group, Inc. The study
indicated that although juvenile justice records were frequently legally available for
consideration in the adult criminal justice system, the fact that such records were
generally not supported by adequate identification (e.g. fingerprints) and accordingly
were not acceptable to the central repository, essentially foreclosed the use of juvenile
record data for legitimate criminal justice purposes. In light of the significant impact of
juvenile crime and the current concern over career criminal programs, I believe that this
example highlights the significance of adequate and uniform identification standards.
Secondly, I note the recent efforts initiated by the Bureau of Justice Statistics in the
area of Federal statistics. In this program, we have undertaken pilot efforts to link data
collected by various components of the Federal criminal justice system in order to
develop a comprehensive statistical data resource. Such a resource which, consistent
with our statistical mandate will be used for research and statistical purposes only, will
permit more effective analyses of Federal criminal justice activity, workload and policy
options. As of this date, we are pleased to report that a data base tracing 1979 Federal
transactions from investigation through prosecution, adjudication, and corrections has
been established. It is relevant to note, however, that although the project has developed
techniques to achieve acceptable levels of data-match, it is clear that the absence of
more uniform identification standards has substantially limited more comprehensive data
analysis.
Last, I would like to mention that the offender based transaction statistics (OBTS)
program which was initiated by our predecessor agency and which we are currently
funding provides another example of the importance of accurate and uniform
identification standards for statistical purposes. Under this program, data collected
from individual agencies in each participating state are linked by a single identification
characteristic in order that state recidivism patterns and system-wide processing
practices can be analyzed.
The use of parallel data elements in all states also permits cross-state comparisons of
data collected under this program. In light of the previously mentioned concern over
individual record confidentiality, however, procedures have been developed under which
individual identifier codes used in the project are encrypted prior to release for
statistical analysis. The success of this effort is obviously dependent upon the level of
accuracy of data identified to particular record subjects.
In closing, I would like to indicate again my recognition of the importance of the issue
being addressed here today. Although as I have previously noted, our agency neither
collects data for operational purposes, nor maintains an operational information system, I
believe our experience in the areas of system development and statistical analysis serve
to highlight both the significance of the issues raised today and the extent to which
efforts in this area can be beneficial to both law enforcement and the overall public
safety.
THE WHITE HOUSE
John - FFF
WASHINGTON
Cwas not able
October 4, 1983
to look at
this untilafter
MEMORANDUM FOR GREGORY JONES
the testimony
LEGISLATIVE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT ATTORNEY AND BUDGET had bun given.
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
D.
SUBJECT:
Statement of Frank V. Monastero on
Eradication of Marijuana with Paraquat
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced
testimony, and finds no objection to it from a legal
perspective. On page 6, line 13, we assume that "almost"
should be "also."
FFF:JGR:aea 10/4/83
CC: FFFielding
JGRoberts
Subj
Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 4, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
8262
SUBJECT:
Statement of Frank V. Monastero on
Eradication of Marijuana with Paraquat
DEA Assistant Administrator for Operations Monastero
proposes to deliver the attached testimony on October 5
before the House Subcommittee on Crime. The testimony
begins by noting the dramatic increase in domestic marijuana
cultivation, and the difficulties associated with
eradicating marijuana plots. The testimony reviews the
assistance provided to the states by DEA, including
supplying training, airplanes, and scientific expertise.
The most controversial aspect of the testimony concerns the
use of paraguat in the United States. The testimony notes
that paraquat is a registered weed and grass killer used in
large amounts on many common crops. The testimony reviews
the extensive research and analysis conducted by DEA on the
use of paraquat, and concludes that aerial spraying is the
most effective means of marijuana eradication. The use of
paraquat by DEA in Georgia and Kentucky last August is
discussed, and the testimony concludes by noting that
although DEA is temporarily restrained by judicial decree
from further use of paraquat, the agency's aggressive
eradication efforts, in cooperation with the states, will
continue.
I have no objection to the testimony. It reviews the
evidence supporting the use of paraguat in marijuana
eradication efforts, and it is important that Congress be
made aware of this evidence in the face of erroneous
judicial decisions barring the use of paraquat.
Attachment
ID #
CU
WHITE HOUSE
CORRESPONDENCE TRACKING WORKSHEET
o . OUTGOING
H - INTERNAL
I - INCOMING
Date Correspondence
Received (YY/MM/DD)
/
/
Name of Correspondent:
Breaf Jones
MI Mail Report
User Codes: (A)
(B)
(C)
Subject: Statement of Frank V. monasters
on Paraguat Cradication of Marijuana with
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 83,10,03
/ /
WAT 18
Referral Note:
D 83103
583,10,04
Referral Note:
/
/
/
/
Referral Note:
/
/
/
/
Referral Note:
/
1
/
/
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
JR
Statement of
Frank V. Monastero
Assistant Administrator for Operations
Drug Enforcement Administration
U. S. Department of Justice
on
Eradication of Marijuana with Paraquat
Subcommittee on Crime
United States House of Representatives
William J. Hughes, Chairman
Washington, D. C.
October 5, 1983
Chairman Hughes, Members of the Subcommittee on Crime, I am
pleased to appear before you to discuss the Drug Enforcement
Administration's (DEA) efforts along with the other Federal,
state and local authorities to counter the illicit cultiva-
tion of cannabis in the United States. This statement
presents an overview of the domestic marijuana production
problem in the United States and the efforts to eradicate
and suppress cannabis cultivation. In particular, the use
of paraquat to eradicate cannabis is described in detail.
Nature and Extent of the Problem
The rapidly escalating problem of illicit cannabis cultiva-
tion poses relatively new challenges to narcotics law
enforcement in the United States. The seriousness of this
problem can be judged in terms of the quality and the
quantity of marijuana produced domestically.
From the standpoint of quality, the production of sinsemilla
has increased substantially in the United States. Through
the process that produces sinsemilla, a single plant can
yield approximately one pound of product that has on the
average a higher THC (Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol) content
than other types of marijuana. The quality of the marijuana
produced is significant from a commercial merchandising
standpoint and in terms of its potential health hazards;
-1-
i.e., the higher the THC content, the more serious the
health consequences associated with its use.
In terms of quantity, the estimated size of the cannabis
crop grown in the U. S. has increased in recent years. The
estimated amount of marijuana produced from the domestic
crop for 1981 as reported by the National Narcotics Intelli-
gence Consumers Committee (NNICC) was 1200 metric tons.
Although this estimate was based on the best information
available at the time, it was considered conservative. A
primary goal of the 1982 DEA Domestic Marijuana
Eradication/Suppression Program was to develop an intelli-
gence data base concerning domestic cannabis cultivation.
The data collected indicate the previous NNICC estimate may
have been very low.
It should be noted, however, that these estimates and the
methods used to calculate the amount of marketable marijuana
produced remain imprecise. Several major initiatives are
underway to develop better estimates. Samples of plants
from sites throughout the country will be submitted for
analysis to a contractor for the National Institute on Drug
Abuse. Dr. Carlton E. Turner, a renowned expert in this
field who presently serves as the Special Assistant to the
President and Director of the Drug Abuse Policy Office,
through an interagency effort has established standards for
-2-
estimates in this area. In addition, major refinements are
being made in survey questions and other information col-
lection activities under the DEA 1983 Domestic Marijuana
Eradication/Suppression Program. Despite possible
variations in total weight estimates we believe that there
are greater amounts of marijuana being produced in the
United States than ever before.
Obstacles to Law Enforcement
DEA's experience with domestic marijuana production has
increased significantly in the last two years; however, our
knowledge of the trafficking patterns of domestic marijuana
is very limited. Our state and local counterparts also have
this problem. The fact that there is a cross-section of
individuals engaged in cannabis cultivation contributes to
the difficulties in determining trafficking patterns because
generalities cannot be applied. Growers range from coun-
ter-culture holdouts to former moonshiners; from out-of-work
lumberjacks to legitimate farmers and to the marijuana user
who wants to try to grow his own. Other than certain outlaw
motorcycle gangs, we have seen no single group such as
organized crime elements, emerging in control of a signifi-
cant part of the market at this time.
Ten states have signed Memorandums of Understanding with
their state National Guard and considerable support is being
-3-
provided by some National Guard Units. However, weather
extremes and natural disasters during the past year also
placed demands on the National Guard and used resources
which might otherwise have supported the cannabis
eradication program.
The prosecution of individual cannabis growers is also a new
challenge for many prosecutors. Given terrain and security
measures that often make pre-raid surveillance impossible,
it is difficult to establish an association between growers
and specific cannabis plots. Ground access to mountaintop
or other remote sites is often limited to one road. Under
such conditions, one lookout or cooperative resident some
miles from the growing site can warn the growers of intrud-
ers by CB radio.
Prosecutors are often reluctant to indict and judges and
juries are likewise hesitant to convict and adequately
sentence growers. Further, local budget restrictions, which
have resulted in layoffs of deputies, have prevented some
sheriffs from applying the manpower to the program which
they would otherwise.
Finding a site and the means to safely destroy thousands of
pounds of wet, bulky cannabis plants is a challenge for any
-4-
law enforcement officer. The DEA Office of Science and
Technology is currently seeking solutions to these problems.
For U. S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
employees, personal and resource safety have become a major
concern as growers retaliate for the destruction of their
cannabis crops. U. S. Forest Service and BLM employees have
been threatened and their personal and agency equipment
damaged or destroyed by angry growers. U. S. Forest Service
officials have told us they suspect that some forest fires
have been set by individuals seeking retaliation for en-
forcement action.
DEA's Marijuana Suppression/Eradication Program
Prior to 1981, DEA's cooperative eradication programs were
limited to Hawaii and California. These were expanded
during 1981 to include Oregon, Florida, Missouri, and
Kentucky. Since that time, the program has expanded rapidly
to include 25 states in 1982 and 40 states in 1983. While
some states are more significant than others with regard to
the amount of cannabis cultivation discovered thus far, all
of the participant states are experiencing some illicit
growth for financial profit.
A number of variables were considered in developing plans
for the Domestic Marijuana Eradication/Suppression Program.
-5-
First, the type and level of state and local resources
available for eradication vary from state to state.
Secondly, there have been state agencies, such as state
Forest Services, Offices of Emergency Services, etc., which
have begun to make equipment and expertise available to the
state enforcement elements. In addition, the states are
attempting to identify and use alternate labor sources to
cut down cannabis plants, and greater use of helicopters for
transportation of raid personnel and removal of personnel
and evidence.
The process of manual eradication is, by far, the most
widely used technique to eradicate cannabis grown in the
United States. It is almost the most highly
labor-intensive. As noted, the plot sites are often remote,
and in states such as California, Oregon and Washington, are
in steep rugged terrain. Law enforcement officers must
secure the area, arrest the growers, check for concealed
traps, perform a plant count, take photographs and process
samples in response to search warrants and evidentiary
requirements. Only then can they begin the task of cutting
the cannabis plants, which can reach 12-15 feet in height,
and which in some circumstances, grown in groves as thick as
bamboo thatches. The plants must be bundled and tied and
then carried some distance to the nearest trail or road to
be loaded on trucks. Irrigation hoses, which often run for
-6-
considerable distances and have been buried to avoid de-
tection, must be removed from the site. The seized cannabis
plants must then be trucked to a suitable site for burning.
This represents an extensive use of law enforcement person-
nel.
DEA's strategy has been to provide a varying level of
support, depending upon the perceived volume of cultivation,
but in every case sufficient to support an aggressive search
program in each state. DEA's role in this cooperative
venture has been to encourage state and local efforts and to
contribute training, equipment, funding, investigative and
aircraft resources to support their efforts.
In 1983 the number of DEA-sponsored training schools in-
creased from 4 to 17. These schools are designed to train
state and local law enforcement officers in aerial observa-
tion techniques, the legal requirements to obtain search
warrants in their state, methods to conduct raids to destroy
the cannabis crop, and procedures to arrest and prosecute
those individuals identified with the cultivation. Partici-
pants will include not only state and local officers, but
also agents of the U. S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land
Management who will play an active role.
-7-
In 1983, DEA has committed 11 aircraft to complement state
and local air surveillance efforts. The importance of
aircraft in the eradication/suppression effort cannot be
overstated; of the 481 missions flow by DEA in support of
the program in 1982, 82 percent resulted in positive sight-
ings of cannabis plots. In addition to their critical role
in locating plots, aircraft are required to move enforcement
personnel into the often remote growing areas and to remove
the plants once eradication takes place.
The DEA Office of Science and Technology, in cooperation
with the U. S. Department of Agriculture, developed "Guide-
lines for the Eradication of Cannabis with Paraquat" for use
during the 1983 season. This Guideline is consistent with
the 1982 Federal Strategy for Prevention of Drug Abuse and
Drug Trafficking and has been developed in close coordina-
tion with appropriate Federal agencies.
DEA will also work with the states and other Federal
agencies to enhance public awareness of the cultivation
problem. As a part of this initiative, we have produced a
film depicting the Federal and state effort in 1982. The
film has been widely distributed to make state executives,
legislators, law enforcement personnel and the general
public more aware of the domestic marijuana production
problem and of the steps being taken to counter it.
-8-
During the past three years, use of National Forest lands
for illegal cultivation of marijuana has increased dramat-
ically. Illegal growers take extreme measure to protect
their crops, including use of armed guards, guard dogs, and
various sabotage devices (e.g., firearms with trip wires,
armed hand grenades with trip wires, camouflaged pits with
punji sticks, and treble fish hooks suspended from
monofilament line at face height). During 1982, 250 visi-
tors to the National Forests filed reports of threats or
assaults in the National Forests in or near marijuana sites.
One hundred seventy-five Forest Service employees filed
similar reports. In 1980, approximately 3,650 cannabis
cultivation sites were reported in the National Forest
system, and the associated danger of physical violence
excluded public use of 220,000 acres of National Forest
lands. By 1982, according to the U. S. Forest Service, the
numbers had risen to 6,200 sites and 1,534,000 acres closed
to public use.
Illegal marijuana cultivation in the National Forests often
produces significant environmental damage. For example,
growers place large quantities of rodenticides adjacent to
the marijuana plants to protect them from rodents; such
outdoor use of poisons designed only for indoor use allows
the poisons to enter the soil and the food chain. In the
-9-
West, illegal growers make heavy use of nitrogen fertiliz-
ers, which leach into nearby streams and cause fish kills.
The 1982 Federal Strategy for Prevention of Drug Abuse and
Drug Trafficking states that herbicidal eradication of
marijuana is effective and efficient in appropriate circum-
stances and should be available to Federal, state and local
officials as one of the tools in the Domestic Marijuana
Eradication/Suppression Program. As a result, in 1983, DEA
prepared for the appropriate use of herbicides to eradicate
marijuana on Federal lands by Federal personnel and on other
lands by state and local officials. It was concluded that
paraquat was the most effective herbicide for this purpose.
Registration and Use of Paraquat in the United States
Paraquat is registered under the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (7 USC 136 et.seq.)
for use in the United States as a weed and grass killer and
harvest aid chemical. Based on scientific studies concern-
ing the effects of paraquat on the environment generally and
on specific plant and site applications, EPA has determined
paraquat to be reasonably safe and appropriate for uses
specified on the label. Consequently, EPA accepted paraquat
for registration under FIFRA.
-10-
Paraquat was first registered for use in the United States
in 1967. By 1974, EPA estimated that over one million
pounds of paraquat were used in the United States. A 1976
survey by the Department of Agriculture found that 651,000
pounds of paraquat were used on 12 major crops totalling
1,378,000 acres. Chevron Chemical Company, the manufacturer
of paraquat in the United States, reports that four million
gallons of paraquat were used in the United States in 1981
and that 8.6 million acres in the United States were sprayed
with paraquat in 1982. It is noted that aerial spraying of
paraquat is a common method of application in agricultural
uses.
Once sprayed on a target site, paraquat is rapidly absorbed
by the sprayed vegetation. Paraquat photodegrades (decom-
poses in light) when deposited on plant surfaces. When
sprayed, paraquat binds extremely tightly to soil particles
and becomes biologically inactive; consequently, leaching
and surface runoff do not occur. Paraquat does not
bioaccumulate, i.e., it is not taken up the food chain and
concentrated in higher organisms. Paraquat is nonvolatile
and, therefore, cannot disperse into the environment as a
vapor. After paraquat spray has dried, there is no hazard
from contacting treated dried foliage. Consequently, the
paraquat label does not include any warning or prohibition
on re-entry into sprayed areas.
-11-
Paraquat is registered for use in the production of food
crops, including control of weeds in orchards and vineyards
and in field crops such as asparagus, alfalfa, corn, let-
tuce, melons, peppers, sorghum, sugar beets, tomatoes,
barley and wheat. Paraquat is also registered for use as a
harvest aid chemical for soybeans, sugar cane, grain,
sorghum and other crops.
EPA has established safe tolerance levels for paraquat on
raw agricultural commodities ranging from .01 to 5 parts per
million. Agricultural uses of paraquat in this country
since 1976 show no evidence of herbicide residues in food
harvested or processed from crops on which paraquat was
used. The National Pesticide Monitoring Program conducted
buy several federal agencies has not shown paraquat residues
in plants, soil, water, and wildlife.
DEA's Environmental Assessment
Paraquat is registered for use to control annual broadleaf
weeds. Since cannabis is an annual broadleaf weed, the use
of paraquat on cannabis is consistent with Federal statutes
controlling the application of such chemicals.
When sprayed on cannabis, paraquat destroys the plants
within 24 to 72 hours, turning the plants yellowish and
-12-
making them brittle and unusable. If, however, the plants
are harvested immediately after spraying and removed from
the sunlight, the marijuana remains saleable and some
residue of paraquat may remain on the plant.
During planning for the Domestic Marijuana
Eradication/Suppression Program in 1983, DEA considered use
of paraquat as one potential method of eradication. A
Programmatic Environmental Assessment was prepared at that
time to analyze whether use of paraquat to eradicate il-
legally cultivated cannabis would cause any significant
environmental impact. This assessment incorporated by
reference and adopted: 1) "Guidelines for the Eradication
of Cannabis with Paraquat," prepared by DEA's Office of
Science and Technology in June, 1983; 2) the Final Environ-
mental Impact Statement and the Environmental Analysis
issued by the Department of State in April 1979 in con-
nection with Mexico's narcotics eradication program; and 3)
the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement issued
by the Department of State in November 1982 in connection
with proposed United States assistance to various Western
Hemisphere nations to eradicate marijuana with paraquat.
In preparing the "Guidelines for the Eradication of Cannabis
with Paraquat", various alternative methods of eradication
were evaluated by DEA, including genetic, biological,
-13-
incendiary, chemical and mechanical techniques. This
analysis concluded that chemical eradication, on a selected
basis, was the best technique available to eradicate
cannabis. In addition to being the most effective and
efficient manner to eradicate illicit crops, risks associ-
ated with other techniques such as introducing new elements
or organisms into the environment, inadvertent destruction
of licit crops, or the inability to control the eradication
effort, were not found to exist with chemical applications.
The analysis also included assessment of alternative
herbicides. Based on data prepared by the United Nations
Laboratory in its 1979 paper, "Methods for the Eradication
of Illicit Narcotic Crops", paraquat was determined to be
the most effective and suitable herbicide to use for drug
enforcement purposes.
Extensive research and analysis was also conducted by DEA on
the technology for applying herbicides and on methods to
minimize any possible adverse effects from application of
paraquat, including aerial application. The possible
problem of drift to nontarget areas was specifically as-
sessed at this time and several precautions to avoid drift
were developed. The Programmatic Environmental Assessment
also provides for a site specific analysis, once illegal
fields are located, to determine whether proposed spraying
-14-
sites meet the criteria established by DEA to avoid any
possible adverse environmental impacts.
Based on the information and analysis identified and incor-
porated in the Environmental Assessment, the DEA Acting
Administrator concluded that eradication of marijuana with
paraquat in the manner described in the Environmental
Assessment will not involve any significant impact on the
human environment. The "Programmatic Environmental Assess-
ment and Finding of No Significant Impact", prepared by DEA,
was approved by the Acting Administrator on July 19, 1983.
Notice of DEA's findings was published in the Federal
Register on August 11, 1983.
DEA's Use of Paraquat to Eradicate Illegal Marijuana in
Georgia and Kentucky
In August, 1983, DEA and the U. S. Forest Service located
several illegal marijuana sites in the Chattahoochee Nation-
al Forest in Georgia and in the Daniel Boone National Forest
in Kentucky.
U. S. Forest Service personnel familiar with those forests
examined the sites to determine whether they were environ-
mentally acceptable for spraying paraquat. The U. S. Forest
Service established additional criteria for site selection:
spray sites must be at least 200 feet from streams or open
-15-
water and at least 500 feet from private lands; human
habitation must be no closer than 1/4 mile from the site,
and there can be no possible effect on threatened, endan-
gered, or proposed species. The U. S. Forest Service
concluded that eradication of marijuana with paraquat on the
selected sites in accordance with DEA's environmental
assessment would not significantly affect the forest re-
sources or environment.
Paraquat was used to eradicate marijuana in the
Chattahoochee National Forest on August 12, 1983 and in the
Daniel Boone National Forest on August 19, 1983. In both
cases, DEA secured the target sites prior to spraying to
assure that no one was present and to prevent unauthorized
entry. The areas were again secured after spraying to
prevent illegal harvest of the sprayed marijuana. The
operation was conducted in compliance with all applicable
safety and environmental restrictions. The helicopter pilot
had extensive experience spraying agricultural chemicals,
and the helicopter was equipped with an extremely accurate
spray boom designed to prevent drift. Subsequent to the
spraying operation, an analysis was made by the Research
Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences at the University of
Mississippi of the residual paraquat present on the plants
and surrounding areas. Based on this analysis, the dirt
from the cannabis field, the water from a nearby stream and
-16-
the stalks and roots of the plants were not found to contain
any paraquat. Only the cannabis leaves had positive
indications of paraquat present.
Conclusion
The eradication and suppression of domestically produced
marijuana is an obligation placed upon the United States as
a result of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (1961),
the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, and the 1982 Federal
Strategy for Prevention of Drug Abuse and Drug Trafficking.
In addition to these obligations, a vigorous eradication
campaign in the United States is necessary to demonstrate to
foreign governments our commitment to controlling illicit
cannabis cultivation.
The vast majority of domestic cannabis detected in this
country is destroyed manually - a process which is an
extremely labor intensive law enforcement activity. The use
of herbicides will substantially reduce the physical re-
sources needed to eradicate this illicit cultivation and
will not create a negative impact upon the environment.
The use of paraquat is only one aspect of DEA's 1983 Domes-
tic Marijuana Eradication/Suppression Program. Although we
are temporarily restrained by prevailing judicial decree
from the continued use of paraquat, our aggressive
-17-
eradication efforts in cooperation with state and local law
enforcement agencies will continue. DEA is committed to its
partnership with federal agencies and the state and local
enforcement community. We believe we have a program that
can succeed in substantially reducing domestic marijuana
production. We appreciate the support and concern of the
Congress as evidenced by this hearing.
-18-
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 5, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS OPR
SUBJECT:
Statement of William M. Lenck
Regarding Conveyance Seizures
William M. Lenck, DEA Forfeiture Counsel, proposes to
deliver the attached statement on October 14. The statement
reviews typical DEA forfeiture procedures, outlining the
distinctions between criminal and civil forfeiture and
administrative and judicial forfeiture. Lenck expresses
DEA's strong support for legislative proposals to increase
the use of administrative forfeiture by raising the current
maximum level from $10,000 to $100,000. He also expresses
DEA's support of proposals to establish a forfeiture fund to
collect forfeiture proceeds and pay costs of forfeiture, and
legislation to permit transfer of forfeited property to
state and local law enforcement agencies. I have no
objections.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 5, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR GREGORY JONES
LEGISLATIVE ATTORNEY
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
C2
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Statement of William M. Lenck
Regarding Conveyance Seizures
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced proposed
statement, and finds no objection to it from a legal
perspective.
FFF:JGR:aea 10/5/83
CC: FFFielding
JGRoberts
Subj
Chron
ID #
CU
WHITE HOUSE
CORRESPONDENCE TRACKING WORKSHEET
o . OUTGOING
H . INTERNAL
1. INCOMING
Date Correspondence
Received (YY/MM/DD)
/
/
Name of Correspondent:
Greg Jones
MI Mail Report
User Codes: (A)
(B)
(C)
Subject: Statement of William on. Senck
M: conveyance seizures
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 83/10/03
/
/
CUAT18
Referral Note:
D 83/10/03
583,10113
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
WAT
Statement of William M. Lenck
Forfeiture Counsel
JR
Drug Enforcement Administration
Department of Justice
October 14, 1983, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), and its predecessor
agencies, have been involved in the seizure of conveyance used
in violation of the Federal drug laws since 1939. From 1939
to 1970 the statutory basis for such seizure was contained in
the Contraband Transportation Act, 49 U.S.C. § 781-788. From
1970 to date, DEA has used the forfeiture provisions of the
Controlled Substances Act (CSA), codified as 21 U.S.C. § 881,
to forfeit property including currency and other assets which
are traceable to drug exchanges or which are used to
facilitate drug activities. Since the scope of this hearing
is concentrating on conveyance seizures, I will generally
limit this statement to conveyance seizures. I have been
involved in these drug forfeiture matters since 1962, and have
been engaged exclusively in such activities since July of 1982
as Forfeiture Counsel of DEA.
The great majority of the forfeiture matters handled by DEA
are civil actions in rem against the property under 21 U.S.C.
§ 881, while a lesser number of forfeitures are processed by
DEA as criminal forfeitures under the Continuing Criminal
Enterprise Section of the CSA (21 U.S.C. § 848). The civil
forfeitures processed by DEA are of two types - administrative
and judicial. Administrative forfeitures involve property
valued at $10,000 or less at time of seizure, while judicial
forfeitures involve property valued at more than $10,000 at
-2-
time of seizure, or where claim and bond is filed to convert
an administrative forfeiture into a judicial forfeiture.
In a typical administrative forfeiture, the forfeiture can be
completed by DEA within 60 days of seizure. Within that 60
days the seized property will either be returned to an innocent
party or lienholder, placed in official Government service, or
referred to the General Services Administration for sale. In
Fiscal Year 1983, DEA placed 365 vehicles, 5 aircraft and 5
vessels in official use.
The procedures applicable in administrative forfeitures are:
(1) publication in a newspaper of general circulation
in the place of seizure for three consecutives
weeks advising that in order to contest the
probable cause for forfeiture a claim and bond
must be filed within 20 days of the first date of
publication;
(2) a notice to parties from DEA that is sent by
registered mail/return receipt advising that
petitions for remission or mitigation of
forfeiture should be filed within 30 days of the
receipt of the letter. This notice from DEA also
encloses
-3-
copies of Justice Department regulations in 21
CFR 9 and DEA/FBI regulations in 21 CFR 1316.71-
1316.81, as well as a copy of the proposed
publication. As a result, all registered owners
and lienholders are fully advised as to their
possible judicial and administrative remedies
regarding the seizure and forfeiture.
(3) and if no claim and bond are filed within the
required 20 day period, the agent in charge of
the DEA office involved executes a Declaration of
Forfeiture to forfeit the property.
Approximately one-half of the petitions submitted by owners
and lienholders are granted in drug cases under the remission
procedures in 28 CFR 9. No hearings are held on administrative
petitions and parties have a period of ten days to request
reconsideration of a DEA petition denial. Such requests must
be based on evidence recently developed or not previously
considered.
DEA also uses a "quick release" procedure on some conveyances
in lieu of proceeding with a formal forfeiture. This procedure
allows for the "quick release" of conveyances to innocent
parties or substantial lienholders and results in substantial
-4-
savings in storage costs, agents' time and prosecutors' time.
DEA has been using a "quick release" policy since 1972, when
the Coin & Currency case from the Supreme Court resulted in
the Justice Department remission policy being amended to only
deny lienholder's petitions when actual knowledge of drug
record or reputation is present. The authority for DEA to
"quick release" property is contained in 28 CFR 0.101(c). DEA
currently uses a policy of returning conveyances to
lienholders when the lienholders equity is within $1,000 of
the appraised value of the property. In a typical case,
conveyances are "quick released" by DEA field officials within
a week of seizure providing the person receiving the property
pays costs and will execute a hold-harmless agreement to
protect DEA.
In judicial forfeiture cases, the property is referred by DEA
to the U.S. Attorney's office in the place of seizure. These
judicial forfeitures necessarily take longer than
administrative forfeitures, and if an answer is filed to the
Government's Complaint for Forfeiture, the case may not come
up for civil trial in the U.S. District Court for a year or
more. When such forfeitures are completed, forfeited
conveyances will either be placed in official Government
service or sold by the U.S. Marshal.
-5-
DEA strongly supports the various legislative proposals before
the Congress which would reform and add various features to
the drug forfeiture statutes. Particularly, the proposal to
raise the line between administrative and judicial forfeiture
from its current level of $10,000, to an unlimited level for
conveyances, and a level of $100,000 for all other property,
would result in most forfeiture actions being completed within
a 60 day period. Once forfeiture action is completed the
property would either be placed in official use or referred to
GSA for sale. The obvious savings in storage costs, record-
keeping, prosecutors time and court time would be of great
advantage to all concerned. Also, the legislative proposal to
creat a central fund in the Justice and Treasury Departments
to collect forfeiture proceeds and to use the collections to
pay costs of forfeiture, liens, and awards to persons furnishing
information leading to forfeitures, would greatly assist law
enforcement efforts. This is particularly true as far as awards
in forfeiture matters under the CSA are concerned since DEA
lost such award authority in 1979 when the CSA was erroneously
amended to delete such award authority during an effort to
amend the award authority to prevent the payment of awards
based on the value of seized contraband drugs.
-6-
In addition to benefiting DEA, the proposals to create such
central funds would also benefit lienholders since they could
be paid their liens shortly after forfeiture from the central
fund, rather than waiting for many months for the property to
be sold at public auction.
The proposed legislation which would allow the transfer of
forfeited property to State and local agencies that assist in
Federal drug enforcement matters would also materially assist
DEA in its enforcement activities which often require close
coordination with local authorities.
Beginning in February of 1983, DEA sought to streamline its
forfeiture process and provide for meaningful and accurate
data reporting by means of a centralized, computerized
automatic data processing system. The program, now completing
its final test stages, provides for electronic data transfer
of seizure information from the responsible seizing office to
headquarters within 48 hours of seizure. From that point in
time, one unit within DEA headquarters handles all aspects of
the forfeiture process up to the point of disposition,
including notice to all parties, public notice by way of
newspaper advertistment or letters to U.S. Attorneys,
petitions for remission or mitigation of forfeiture and
-7-
assignment of the asset to the proper entity responsible for
disposition or use. Initial evaluation of the program has
shown it to appreciably expedite routine forfeiture actions,
thereby reducing agency storage costs and reducing asset
depreciation, and allowing for a reduction in waiting periods
prior to an asset being utilized for the benefit of the
government. The program has also proved to be capable of
producing a nearly perfect accounting of asset inventory,
costs attendant to each forfeiture and net amounts tranferred
to the Treasury. It is now projected that the computerized
assets forfeiture program will be implemented on a national
basis within the following fiscal year.
Attached are seizure statistics which reflect DEA seizures for
FY 82 and about one-half of FY 83. I will be happy to answer
any questions.
FY 83* DEA Seizures by Type of Asset
Vehicles
$5,011,825 ##: (637)
Vessels
2,657,250 (25)
Aircraft
4,310,000 (22)
Other Conveyances
17,850
(15)
Currency
17,602,599 (741)
Financial Instruments
4,200,233 (99)
Real Property
6,986,381 (55)
Equipment - Chemicals
236,836 (106)
Regulatory
6,617
(2)
Other
1,865,564 (330)
TOTAL DEA SEIZURES
43,150,405 (2,032)
S/L TASK FORCE SEIZURES
13,900,000
FY 82 DEA Seizures by Type of Asset
Vehicles
$10,080,317 # (1,269)
Vessels
4,028,500
(55)
Aircraft
4,548,922
(31)
Other Conveyances
20,275
(15)
Currency
23,945,309
(1,259)
Financial Instruments
2,306,315
(69)
Real Property
31,909,298
(73)
Equipment - Chemicals
669,449
(288)
Regulatory
2,000
(1)
Other
25,991,352
(414)
TOTAL DEA SEIZURES
103,501,737
(3,474)
Total DEA Seizures** FY 80 through FY 83
FY ao
$39,381,705
F Y al
54,657,278
FY 82
103,501,737
FY 83
43,150,405
(through May 19, 1983)
TAS of May 19, 1983
**Does not include other agency cooperative seizures.