Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 5210 - Omnibus Drug Initiative Act of 1988

(House)
(Foley (D) Washington and Michel (R) Illinois)

The Administration supports legislation to strengthen and improve the Nation's anti-drug abuse laws, especially efforts to achieve the six major goals outlined by the President in 1986:

—      Drug-free workplaces for all Americans;

—      Drug-free schools, from the elementary through post-secondary levels;

—      Expanded treatment for drug users;

—      Strengthened drug law enforcement;

—      Increased international narcotics cooperation; and

—      Increased public awareness and prevention.

The President has approved the policy guidance prepared by the National Drug Policy Board, which focused on: the illegal drug user; tougher laws; enhanced treatment; increased international cooperation; better tracking of demand and supply reduction activities; and heightened drug abuse awareness and prevention.

The Administration reiterates its support for the funding levels requested for drug-related programs in the President's FY 1989 budget, which have been reduced significantly in the House version of the Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill. Additional funding or earmarks for drug-related programs that are not consistent with the terms of last year's Bipartisan Budget Agreement must be accompanied by equal offsets. The Administration will work with Congress in a bipartisan effort to identify offsets.

The Administration would support — and recommends that the bill be amended to achieve — the following three reforms, each of which has been sought by the President throughout his Administration:

—    Imposition of the death penalty in serious and appropriate cases (the Gekas amendment);

—    Reform of the so-called "exclusionary rule" (the Lungren amendment); and

—    Reform of Federal habeas corpus procedures.

The Administration looks forward to working with Congress to pass and present to the President an acceptable legislative package, with such other amendments as may be mutually agreed upon, before the end of this year.

As a general matter, the Administration opposes provisions in H.R. 5210 that would: shift block grant authorities back to restrictive categorical grants; attach conditions to Federal grants that are unrelated to the purposes of the grants; detract from the Administration's zero tolerance policy; and establish highly prescriptive and burdensome requirements for certification of private laboratories. (In this regard, the Bliley amendment is preferable.) In addition, the Administration is adamantly opposed to proposals contained in section 8010 of the bill that would: (1) require the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to submit budgetary and legislative materials to Congress at the same time they are submitted to the Department of Transportation and/or the Office of Management and Budget; and (2) exempt the FAA from the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act in certain situations. These provisions would interfere with the exercise of the President's Executive authority and should be deleted.

The Administration views the provisions of H.R. 5210 that would create Federal protections for confidentiality of records related to Human Immunodeficiency Virus testing and counseling as premature. The Administration is conducting an expedited review of such Federal provisions, which could compromise effective State public health policy and practice.

With respect to the specific amendments to be offered to H.R. 5210, the Administration opposes the following proposals:

—    The Broomfield amendment regarding increased use of intelligence capabilities. This provision contains an unnecessarily specific definition of covert action.

—    The Levin amendment to prohibit imposition of the death penalty on a person who is mentally retarded. This amendment is unnecessary; this kind of consideration can be taken into account when deciding whether to impose the death penalty.

—    The Edwards amendment to add restrictions on imposition of the death penalty. These proposals would needlessly weaken the death penalty provisions contained in the Gekas amendment.

—    The Conyers amendment regarding representation of indigent defendants. Indigent defendants already have access to counsel; additional representation is not necessary.

—    The Ortiz amendment requiring the use of the Justice and Customs Forfeiture Funds for penal facilities. Current procedures for determining the purposes for which money in the Funds are used are adequate and provide needed flexibility in adjusting to differing circumstances.

—    The Shaw amendment concerning mandatory minimum sentences for simple possession of "crack." The Administration supports the concept of higher penalties for "crack" possession; however, the Administration opposes this amendment in its current form, because five grams of "crack" constitutes a trafficking amount, not a simple possession amount.

—    The Pepper amendment to authorize a local police department demonstration grant program in Dade County and Miami Beach, Florida. "Earmarked" grant programs of this nature are unwise and inappropriate.

—    The Studds innocent owner amendment. Adoption of this amendment would signal a serious and unwarranted retreat from the Administration's zero tolerance policy with respect to forfeitures conducted by the Customs Service and the Coast Guard.

—    The Davis amendment concerning vessel identification. There are serious questions about the scope and comprehensiveness of the proposed identification system, as well as other technical issues.

—    The Johnson/Dorgan amendment to authorize grants to States that adopt certain measures to combat drunk driving. A grant program of this nature is unnecessary and largely duplicative of an existing grant program.

—    The Anderson amendment to authorize grants to States that adopt certain drug enforcement programs. This amendment would establish a costly new grant program.

—    The Hughes anabolic steroid amendment. The Administration opposes this amendment as inappropriate interference with the drug control process.

—    The Alexander amendment concerning the disclosure of illegal foreign drug activities. The Administration vigorously opposes this amendment. Conflict over its cumbersome, vague and unnecessary reporting requirements would seriously detract from the overall anti-drug effort. Moreover, the amendment would seriously disrupt procedures for disseminating drug-related foreign intelligence.