Full text of "Dominican drug trafficking : hearing before the Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse and Control, House of Representatives, One Hundred Third Congress, first session, March 24, 1993"

See other formats

W DOMINICAN DRUG TRAFFICKING

Y 4. N 16: 103-1-1 ^====^===

Doninican Drug Trafficking* SCNAC-1...

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SELECT COMMITTEE ON

NAECOTICS ABUSE AND CONTROL

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MARCH 24, 1993

Printed for the use of the
Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse and Control

SCNAC-103-1-1

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON '. 1993

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
ISBN 0-16-040728-1

W DOMINICAN DRUG TRAFFICKING

Y 4. N \b: 103-1-1 ===_ ====

Doninican Drug Trafficking* SCNAC-1. . .

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SELECT COMMITTEE ON

NARCOTICS ABUSE AND CONTROL

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MARCH 24, 1993

Printed for the use of the
Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse and Control

SCNAC-103-1-1

Sttft^

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
66-254 WASHINGTON I 1993

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
ISBN 0-16-040728-1

SELECT COMMITTEE ON NARCOTICS ABUSE AND CONTROL

(102d Congress)
CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York, Chairman

JACK BROOKS, Texas

FORTNEY H. (PETE) STARK, California

JAMES H. SCHEUER, New York

CARDISS COLLINS, Illinois

FRANK J. GUARINI, New Jersey

DANTE B. FASCELL, Florida

WILLIAM J. HUGHES, New Jersey

MEL LEVINE, California

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas

LAWRENCE J. SMITH, Florida

EDOLPHUS "ED" TOWNS, New York

JAMES A. TRAFICANT, Jr., Ohio

KWEISI MFUME, Maryland

NITA M. LOWEY, New York

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey

ROMANO L. MAZZOLI, Kentucky

RON de LUGO Virgin Islands

GEORGE J. HOCHBRUECKNER, New York

CRAIG A. WASHINGTON, Texas

ROBERT E. ANDREWS, New Jersey

LAWRENCE COUGHLIN, Pennsylvania
BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York
MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Ohio
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr.,

Wisconsin
ROBERT K. DORNAN, California
TOM LEWIS, Florida
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
WALLY HERGER, California
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut
BILL PAXON, New York
WILLIAM F. CLINGER, Jr., Pennsylvania
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio
JIM RAMSTAD, Minnesota

Committee Staff

Edward H. Jurith, Staff Director
Melanie T. Young, Minority Staff Director

(II)

CONTENTS

OPENING STATEMENT

Page

Charles B. Rangel, chairman of the Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse and
Control 1

TESTIMONY

Robert Bonner, Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration 18

R. Grant Smith, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of International Narcot-
ics Matters, Department of State 30

Mark M. Richard, Deputy Assistant Attorney, Criminal Division, Department
of Justice 44

William Slattery, special agent in charge, New York Field Division, Immigra-
tion and Naturalization Service 55

John Holmes, chief, Organized Crime Bureau, New York City Police Depart-
ment 69

PREPARED STATEMENTS

Hon. Charles B. Rangel 4

Hon. Ron de Lugo 9

RobertC. Bonner 22

R. Grant Smith 42

Mark M. Richard 46

William Slattery 59

(in)

DOMINICAN DRUG TRAFFICKING

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 24, 1993

House of Representatives,
Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse and Control,

Washington, DC.

The select committee met, pursuant to call, at 12 noon, in room
2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Charles B. Rangel
(chairman of the select committee) presiding.

Members present: Charles B. Rangel, and Ron de Lugo.

Staff Present: Edward H. Jurith, staff director; Melanie T.
Young, minority staff director; James Alexander, press secretary;
George Gilbert, staff counsel; Michael J. Kelley, staff counsel; Re-
becca L. Hedlund, professional staff; Jennifer Ann Brophy, profes-
sional staff; Richard Baum, minority professional staff; Mary
Frances Valentino, minority professional staff; and Christina
Stavros, administrative assistant.

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHARLES B. RANGEL, CHAHtMAN

Mr. Rangel. This will be probably the last session of the House
select committee. As most of you know, the House, caught in the
frenzy of budget cutting, got themselves involved in not reconstitut-
ing any of the select committees. But since there has been so much
interest in this subject — especially from our witnesses today — you
should know that that does not mean our committee is going out
of business.

I have talked with all of the members that are interested in con-
tinuing our work. We are going to do it individually and coming to-
gether as a group, as a caucus, as a legislative group, and we will
continue to have our hearings and we will be going into the com-
munities that are substantially affected by drug abuse and traffick-
ing. So for those of you that wish we were out of business, we are
coming back stronger than ever.

Let me thank all of you for coming today. Most of you have
worked very closely with the committee and I want to thank you
on behalf of all of us. This is one of the few committees that would
never distinguish between Republicans and Democrats, even
though, for some reason, I think the Republicans will believe that
they got some word from high above that they shouldn't attend
even meetings.

But if that is so, this would be a first time since I have chaired
the committee that we have ever done this according to party lines.
I want to welcome Judge Robert Bonner, of course, the Adminis-
trator, Drug Enforcement Administration; the Honorable Grant
Smith, Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of International

(l)

Narcotics Matters; the Honorable Mark Richard, Deputy Assistant
Attorney, Criminal Division, Department of Justice; the Honorable
Bill Slattery, special agent in charge of the New York Field Divi-
sion of INS; and John Holmes, chief of the organized crime control
bureau in New York City.

What we will do — we have had a series of briefings by the Select
Narcotics Committee. Most of this started as a result of the tragic
events that took place in my congressional district in Washington
Heights where we could see the connection between Dominican
drug gangs in New York and certain towns in the Dominican Re-
public.

These towns from the formerly poor communities suddenly dis-
played new signs of money, lots of it, discos, expensive cars, swim-
ming pools, and the source of money was reported to be illegal drug
profits sent back home from New York. As a matter of fact, it was
reported they had some of the most expensive funerals for the en-
trepreneurs that came back in body bags.

It was reported that these communities also served as safe ha-
vens for Dominican drug fugitives that were wanted in the United
States. Also, research of our laws indicate that we have an out-
dated extradition treaty and that the Dominican Republic does not
consider extraditing Dominicans charged with crimes in the United
States except for murder.

Also, it has come to our attention that the Dominican Republic
serves as a strategic point for drug trafficking dealers and produc-
ers in South America to North America, and that strong ties exist
between the Colombian cartels and the drug trafficking and the
drug traffickers in the Dominican Republic.

I would like to just add that the Dominican Republic has enjoyed
extraordinarily good relationships with the United States, espe-
cially as relates to drug control cooperation. But this is a different
type of problem, whether or not they are towns that are known to
produce drug traffickers for the purpose of coming into the United
States, reaching a certain amount of money that they predetermine
and going back home to the Dominican Republic without fear of
being further prosecuted.

Also, it seems as though a large number of the Dominicans that
arrive in the United States illegally are doing so coming from Puer-
to Rico. We wanted to look into that today, to see what we could
do to tighten up our immigration laws to see why illegal aliens in
the Mona passage have not been diverted.

We have been able to do so well with Haitian people seeking asy-
lum in the United States and yet we have done very little here.

It has been reported that many of the illegal aliens just pass
through our United States airports in Puerto Rico without docu-
ments and without any checks at all, merely by indicating that
they are citizens. So we would like to review the entire immigra-
tion problems, the connection between Colombia, the Dominican
Republic, and New York.

In conclusion, I would like to laud the law enforcement, espe-
cially in New York, and Judge Bonner should be pleased to hear
this, the extraordinary and strong cooperative working relationship
between all of the law enforcement agencies and our city and State,
we hope, would be a model for the rest of the country.

Being a former prosecutor, I do know how certain jurisdictions
carefully guard who gets the arrest, who gets the bust, and who
gets the publicity, and who is there for the press and however they
work that, because they are not shy.

In New York, they manage to work as a team and to make cer-
tain that whatever divisions they may or may not have, they cer-
tainly never forget that the targets are the wrongdoers and what-
ever I can do to share them with the rest of the country, to show
that it can be done, especially recognizing the deep-seated divisions
that we used to have in the past, it is just great to see how well
they work together.

[The statement of Mr. Rangel follows:]

OPENING STATEMENT

THE HONORABLE CHARLES B. RANGEL, CHAIRMAN
SELECT COMMITTEE ON NARCOTICS ABUSE AND CONTROL

BRIEFING ON DOMINICAN DRUG TRAFFICKING

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 24, 1993

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I would like to welcome all of
you to the last public session of the House Select Committee on Narcotics
Abuse and Control. Before we begin with the substance of this meeting, I
would like to thank all of the Committee Members that supported the
Committee through this difficult time, as well as the numerous
organizations in the public and private sectors that fought for the
reauthorization of the Committee. Most of our witnesses here today are old
friends of the Committee and have been strong advocates of the work of this
Committee. Your support has been greatly appreciated.

I would like to welcome today our distinguished panelists from the
Federal government and from local law enforcement:

Judge Robert Bonner

Administrator

Drug Enforcement Administration

The Honorable Grant Smith

Deputy Assistant Secretary

Bureau of International Narcotics Matters

Department of State

The Honorable Mark M. Richard
Deputy Assistant Attorney
Criminal Division
Department of Justice

The Honorable Bill Slattery

Special Agent in Charge

New York Field Division

Immigration and Naturalization Service

The Honorable Charles B. Rangel Page 2

The Honorable John Holmes

Chief

Organized Crime Control Bureau

New York City Police Department

This briefing will conclude the series of briefings held by the Select
Committee on the Dominican drug trafficking situation. We have been
investigating this problem for the past year, and although this will be our
last briefing, the problem is a long way from solved. I personally plan to
continue this work and I hope that our colleagues on the Foreign Affairs
and Judiciary Committees will also follow-up on what we have started.

Following the tragic riots in Washington Heights last summer,
several investigative reporters unearthed a link between the Dominican
drug gangs in New York City and certain towns in the Dominican
Republic. These towns, formerly poor farm communities, were suddenly
displaying signs of new money, and lots of it. Discos, expensive cars and
swimming pools were becoming de rigueur. The source of this money was
reportedly illegal drug profits sent home from New York. There were
allegations that the Dominican Republic was a safehaven for Dominican
drug fugitives wanted in the U.S. The Dominican authorities allegedly
either did not have the will or the authority to do anything about this.

These were pretty serious charges. For years, the Select Committee
has been aware of the Dominican Republic's strategic location in terms of
cocaine transit from South America to North America. We had also been
aware that there were Dominican gangs operating as cocaine distributors
in a number of Northeastern urban areas. We had always been told of the
great cooperation on drug control between the Dominican and U.S. law
enforcement authorities. These allegations against the Dominican
authorities were quite a shock to us.

We have talked with Dominican officials since we began this
investigation and have been convinced that the government has the political
will to continue to fight drug trafficking. The Dominican authorities admit
that there are some serious problems of bribery and intimidation of low
level law enforcement and judicial officials, who are extremely poorly paid
and are ripe targets for such corruption. If the democratic institutions in
the Dominican Republic are indeed as weak as reported, I would hope that
we could work with our friends in the Dominican government to help them
in strengthening these important democratic entities.

The Dominican government has also told us that, in terms of drug
control cooperation with the U.S., they have done everything that has been
asked of them. I would like to note two very recent actions that have shown
a willingness on the part of the Dominican Government to cooperate on this
issue. Last Friday, President Balaguer sent two important international

The Honorable Charles B. Rangel Page 3

narcotics control agreements to the Senate with his favorable
recommendation for ratification. I also urge our Dominican legislative
colleagues to make ratification of these agreements a priority.

In addition, on Monday Dominican authorities arrested Francisco
Franco. Franco was a fugitive wanted in the U.S. on cocaine trafficking
charges, and had been in the Dominican Republic for several years,
allegedly continuing to orchestrate his cocaine operation from there. His
case had been mentioned time and again as an example of how the
Dominican Republic had become a safehaven for drug criminals. His
arrest is a very positive step. I commend President Balaguer for the arrest
and for his legislative recommendations. I hope we will hear more about
both today.

Following our series of inquiries last year, the Administration sent
an interagency team to the Dominican Republic to meet with Dominican
officials to develop a more productive arrangement of drug enforcement
cooperation, and to formally present a list of Dominican fugitives wanted in
the U.S. We are anxious to learn more about the results of this mission.

We understand that the existing extradition treaty between the D.R.
and the U.S. is over 80 years old and obsolete. It could take several years to
negotiate a new treaty. In the meantime, there may be ways to cooperate in
this area, such as through ratification of multilateral agreements. We are
eager to hear of progress in this area.

One of the more complex aspects of this problem is that many of the
Dominican drug traffickers in this country are here illegally. They enter
Puerto Rico by boat and once there, pass themselves off as Puerto Ricans in
order to travel freely to the U.S. mainland. We hear reports that both
Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands are being inundated by drugs, CTiminal
organizations and illegal aliens. The Coast Guard apparently has done
little to interdict the illegal aliens in the Mona Passage in the past year
because their resources have been diverted to interdicting Haitian refugees.
Many illegal Dominicans are arrested in Puerto Rico, but many convince
authorities that they are Puerto Rican and do enter the U.S. without
passports or visas.

Some aliens simply arrive at U.S. airports without any documents,
requesting asylum status. As such, they are entitled to a hearing before
being deported. We have learned that in the New York City area, the
backlog for such hearings is nearly 14 months. About 15,000 aliens without
papers were allowed to enter New York last year to await their hearings.

We were told that INS has had difficulty deporting many of the low
level traffickers that have been arrested and convicted by state or local
authorities, and who are not in the federal system. We were told that the
U.S. immigration laws addressing this problem are weak and need to be
strengthened. I understand the new administration is reviewing the need

The Honorable Charles B. Rangel Page 4

for new immigration legislation, but has yet to make any
recommendations. I hope that this briefing can serve as a focal point for
discussing this problem and possible solutions.

The Dominican gangs in New York have forged close working
relationships with Colombian traffickers, particularly from the Cali cartel.
They now are developing connections to Chinese and other ethnic criminal
organizations that traffic heroin. The Dominican operations have been
extremely violent, especially in the Washington Heights area. Last year
over 130 bodies were returned to the Dominican Republic from New York
City.

This is no longer just a New York City problem. Dominican gangs
are reportedly operating out of Manchester, New Hampshire; Reading,
Pennsylvania; Boston and Lawrence, Massachusetts; and numerous other
cities and towns all over the Northeast. We have also heard of Dominicans
operating outside the Northeast in states such as Florida and Texas.

I thank you again for sharing your time with us today. And,
although the Select Committee will not be here, I want to reiterate that I
still plan to work with you on this important issue in the future.

Mr. RANGEL. This will not be a formal hearing, but we can start
with you, Judge Bonner, and then we will hear from the rest of the
witnesses. I hope that you might feel comfortable in adding to each
other's testimony because this issue will be picked up from here
and we will be following through.

Just so that you would know how we would have to work in the
future, the members that I will be pulling together will be mem-
bers that will be able to have specific hearings on specific subjects
in the standing committees. So we are not going to lose any hear-
ings. Bill Hughes will continue to be on Judiciary and continue to
be concerned with DEA matters and whatnot. So you will still have
your forum here on the Hill and we will keep working until we get
it right.

Ron de Lugo from the Virgin Islands is recognized for an opening
statement.

Mr. DE LUGO. I will withhold the opening statement, Mr. Chair-
man. Thank you.

Mr. RANGEL. We will reserve the right for you to place it in the
record at this time.

[The statement of Mr. de Lugo follows:]

STATEMENT AND QUESTIONS OF THE HONORABLE RON DE LUGO
SELECT COMMITTEE ON NARCOTICS HEARING/ BRIEFING
ON DOMINICAN DRUG TRAFFICKING
MARCH 24. 1993
2167 RAYBURN

Mr. Chairman:

I would like to thank you for holding this
important briefing on Dominican Drug
Trafficking.

As you can imagine, I have a particular
interest in this issue. The Virgin Islands,
which I represent, has been unable to escape
the scourge of drugs that is wreaking havoc
all across our country.

Our unprotected shorelines are very
attractive to drug traffickers, and our
being a part of the United States, has very
special advantages in the minds of drug
traffickers.

So I want to thank all of the witnesses for

coming here today to help us shed some light
on this very perplexing problem.

Today we have the Honorable Robert Bonner,
Administrator of the Drug Enforcement
Administration; the Honorable Grant Smith,
Deputy Assistant Secretary in the State
Department's Bureau of International
Narcotics Matters; the Honorable Mark M
Richard, Deputy Assistant Attorney in the
Justice Department's Criminal Division; the
Honorable Bill Siattery, Special Agent in
Charge of the INS' New York Field Division;
the Honorable John Holmes, Chief of New York
City's Organized Crime Bureau; and the
Honorable Pedro Toledo, Superintendent of
Puerto Rico's Police Department.

Thank you all very much for being here.

1 . I would like to ask the witnesses to
comment on the phenomenon of illegal
immigrants entering Puerto Rico and the
Virgin Islands and posing as Puerto Ricans
in order to travel freely to the United
States.

Are we getting a handle on this problem, or
is it becoming less controllable as time
goes by?

Also while these illegal immigrants are in
Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, what has
their impact been on criminal activity in
these territories? I have been told that
prostitution, sexual assault, and other
forms of crime have increased considerably
as a result of this problem, and so I would
like some expansion on this subject by the

witnesses.

Mr. Richard? Are you able to answer this?
And Senor Toledo: I am sure that you have
special insights on this matter.

2. Mr. Slattery, up until recently it had
been my understanding that the U. S. Coast
Guard interdiction around Puerto Rico and
the Virgin Islands had returned to its
pre-Haitian crisis levels.

Lately, however, I have been advised that
very little interdiction is occurring in the
Mona Passage, for example, because the Coast
Guard is otherwise occupied interdicting
Haitian refugees.

Could you kindly let me know which claim is

66-254 0-93-2

accurate.

3. Mr. Bonner: there is a matter that has
been concerning me for a long time. As we
know, drug traffickers often use large
shipping containers to transport narcotics
out of the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico,
secure in the knowledge that it is
impossible for customs agents to check every
single container.

Could you please bring us up to date on the
status of this problem?

Are there other methods that these drug
traffickers are using? I am particularly
interested in those problems which could
possibly be addressed and curbed
legislatively. In other words, are there

any ways in which the Congress would be able
to provide you with some legislative or
statutory "back-up"?

No loop-holes in existing law that need to
be closed?

4. In my opinion, the drug problem is so
vast, so slippery, and changes so quickly
that our only hope is to have maximum
co-operation at the federal, state and local
levels.

Superintendent Toledo: the Puerto Rico's
Anti-Drug Task Force is a great example of
this.

Tell us about this. How is it working?
What plans do you have for expansion and

reinforcement?

Have you had any problems making
co-operation at all three levels worked, and
how have you overcome them?

5. Mr. Slattery: the Virgin Islands and
Puerto Rico currently conduct extradition
hearings via fax and telephone. Not only is
this a less than ideal way to conduct these
hearings, but I am told that by the time all
of these files are faxed to the Judge, and
then by the time he or she gets around to
reviewing them, the illegal aliens are often
back on the streets.

Could you comment on this?

Do you see the fax and telephone continuing

to be the main means of holding these
extradition hearings for illegal immigrants
in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, or
does the INS have plans to change this?

STATEMENTS OF ROBERT BONNER, ADMINISTRATOR, DRUG
ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION; GRANT SMITH, DEPUTY
ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU OF INTERNATIONAL NAR-
COTICS MATTERS, DEPARTMENT OF STATE; MARK M. RICH-
ARD, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY, CRIMINAL DIVISION,
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; BILL SLATTERY, SPECIAL AGENT
IN CHARGE, NEW YORK FIELD DIVISION, IMMIGRATION AND
NATURALIZATION SERVICE; AND JOHN HOLMES, CfflEF, OR-
GANIZED CRIME CONTROL BUREAU, NEW YORK CITY PO-
LICE DEPARTMENT

STATEMENT OF ROBERT BONNER

Mr. Bonner. Mr. Chairman, members of the Select Committee
on Narcotics, I truly appreciate the opportunity to appear before
the committee on the issue of Dominican nationals engaged in drug
trafficking and the connections between the Dominican Republic
and the United States with respect to that activity.

Before I begin my statement, Mr. Chairman, I would like to
make a few observations on a slightly different subject, that is the
select committee itself.

I must say I am profoundly disappointed that the Congress de-
cided not to reauthorize the Select Committee on Narcotics. I am
delighted, however, to hear from you, Mr. Chairman, that the work
of this committee in one form or another will continue.

I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that under your leadership regard-
ing the drug issue and calling the attention of our Nation to the
drug problem over the years, it has been a source of inspiration,
I think, to all of us in law enforcement and I can say that is espe-
cially so for the Drug Enforcement Administration.

The committee has served, it has been said, as the conscience of
the Congress calling for additional resources for the drug effort, fo-
cusing increased international attention on the drug problem and
the international nature of the drug trafficking problem, and de-
manding that this issue which is so vital to our country's future
well-being be given appropriate attention within the executive
branch of our Government.

I fear that the formal demise of the select committee may signal
the declining interest in the drug problem in the Congress and to
others both in and outside the United States, which would be most
unfortunate. The select committee has, over the years, helped the
cause of effective drug law enforcement and the DEA focusing at-
tention on many drug abuse issues that other committees of Con-
gress neglected or did not call hearings on, and they include every-
thing from the rise of heroin availability in the United States to
the lack of control over methadone and the consequences of that to
the appearance of fentanyl, the drug problem in the inner cities of
our country, and many other issues.

So I just want to say that the select committee itself is some-
thing that I think will be profoundly missed, but I am glad and I
am heartened and I hope that you, Mr. Chairman, in particular,
will continue to have your strong voice heard in the Congress even
after the formal demise of the Select Committee on Narcotics on
March 31.

Mr. Rangel. Thank you, Judge.

Mr. Bonner. I am glad to hear that you intend to do just that.

Let me say, Mr. Chairman, if I could turn my attention now to
the problem posed by drug trafficking and particularly the use of
drugs — the Dominican Republic as a safe haven for drug traffickers
who violate United States laws against drug trafficking while in
the United States, let me say that this hearing that you called
today has already had a positive impact on at least one aspect of
this problem.

I was informed yesterday that a DEA fugitive named Franklin
Franco, or also known as Francisco Franco — not to be confused
with the former Spanish dictator by the same name — was arrested
by Dominican Republic police a few days ago in the Dominican Re-
public.

The message that I received is that Franco's arrest came about,
certainly in part, as a result of word that one Congressman Rangel
would be holding hearings at which Mr. Franco's U.S. fugitive sta-
tus would be discussed. So the Select Committee on Narcotics has
yet again gotten immediate action.

In addition to being a safe haven for Dominican traffickers who
deal drugs in the United States and return home when the heat
is on to enjoy the fruits of their illegal trafficking activity, the Do-
minican Republic is increasingly being used as a transit area by
the Colombian cartels for large shipments of cocaine destined for
the United States, primarily to New York via Puerto Rico and
Miami.

The methods used by the Colombian cartels involved shipment of
multikilogram shipments of cocaine by private aircraft which di-
rectly land in the Dominican Republic and offload large loads of co-
caine at generally uncontrolled airstrips or air drops of loads of co-
caine generally off the coastline of the Dominican Republic.

Dominican traffickers or transporters smuggle this into Puerto
Rico by vessel from the Dominican Republic. Once in Puerto Rico,
as is I think well known to all of us here, the traffickers are more
or less home free. They have cleared Customs; there is no further
Customs check.

The reasons the Dominican Republic is being used as a transit
area for significant quantities of Colombian cocaine are three:
First, the established connections between the Colombian cartels
and Dominican traffickers that date to the 1980's; second, the rel-
atively increased difficulty of moving large loads of cocaine from
other locations by the Colombians in other transit areas like Mex-
ico and Guatemala and the Bahamas; and third, and of course this
is most important, I think, the geographic proximity of the Domini-
can Republic to United States territory, that is to Puerto Rico, a
mere 40 miles, 40 nautical miles more or less, across the Mona
Passage into United States territory.

In the New York area, traffickers control a large segment of the
mid-level wholesale and retail cocaine and crack cocaine market in
New York. These Dominican traffickers are the major customers of
the Cali cartel, that is to say, the distribution cells of the Cali car-
tel that operate and are based in New York City.

When I say they are major customers, let me give you one exam-
ple, and that is, I know you will recall, Mr. Chairman, that DEA
along with the New York Police Department, New York State Po-

lice, and other agencies, brought down a major distribution cell of
Pancho Herrara a little over a year ago. Just one of the Herrara
cells operated in New York; they had 23 customers purchase within
a short period of time many, many tons of cocaine. The primary
customers of these Cali cartel cells were Dominican traffickers.

There are also indications that Dominicans are involved with the
Colombians in the emerging trade in Colombian heroin. This is a
great concern to DEA and I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that
we are and will be vigorously investigating this heroin connection.

Recently, I might say, there were, just to give one example of the
concerns we have in this area, six overdose deaths from heroin re-
ported in Providence, RI. As a result of a DEA investigation there,
it was determined that that heroin was of extremely high purity.
One sample was 99 percent pure heroin, sold on the retail level.
The other samples were 84 percent pure heroin. It was distributed
by Colombians to Dominicans who were selling it to end-users in
Providence, RI.

I know, Mr. Chairman, that you are familiar with the aggressive
investigative efforts of the DEA's New York field division and the
New York Drug Enforcement Task Force. I will not go into those
now.

I want to make a couple of quick points in terms of the particular
issues that are raised by this particular hearing. First of all, in the
Dominican Republic, as you know, Mr. Chairman, DEA has three
special agents working out of our Santo Domingo country office and
we have had and enjoyed a good working relationship with the Do-
minican police authorities, particularly the National Drug Control
Directorate in the Dominican Republic over the years.

I should note that, there are obstacles, Mr. Chairman, that you
have raised in your opening remarks regarding the Dominican drug
trafficking situation. I would like to report to you that last Novem-
ber, special agents in charge of both our New York office, Mr.
Bryden, who is here; and Mr. Cash from my Miami field division,
accompanied by officials from the New York City Police Depart-
ment and New York City Special Narcotics Prosecutors Office, trav-
eled to the Dominican Republic to meet with Dominican officials
and United States Embassy personnel.

During those meetings, discussions were held about the lack of
adequate control over both legal visa immigration and illegal immi-
gration to the United States by Dominican nationals; the lack of ef-
fective drug asset forfeiture laws in the Dominican Republic; and
the need to facilitate exchange of information between law enforce-
ment authorities in New York and in the Dominican Republic.

As a result of those meetings, I want you to know that imme-
diate action has been taken. DEA is now the conduit and focal
point for exchange of law enforcement information between the
NYPD and the American Embassy in the Dominican Republic and
authorities in the Dominican Republic.

This will assist United States consular officials in canceling visas
of known Dominican traffickers and screening new visa applicants,
and provide the Dominican authorities the information needed to
identify and locate Dominican nationals who fled from New York
seeking safe haven in the Dominican Republic.

In my view, large sums of profits that are generated from illegal
drug trafficking activities in New York by Dominican traffickers —
large sums are being returned to the Dominican Republic, but the
Dominican Republic, at the present time, does not have adequate
drug asset forfeiture and seizure laws.

To assist the Dominicans in strengthening their forfeiture laws,
we have provided model asset forfeiture legislation and are work-
ing with the United States Embassy and Dominican authorities to
implement stronger forfeiture provisions in their law.

At the root of this is the concern that the Dominican Republic
is being used — and unless something is done, will continue to be
used — as a safe haven or safe harbor for Dominican traffickers who
have engaged in drug trafficking violations in the United States
and then returned to the Dominican Republic after the heat gets
turned up on them.

In most instances, DEA has been successful in having non-Do-
minican nationals wanted in the United States expelled from the
Dominican Republic, but I believe that a change in the extradition
treaty and in Dominican law is needed in order to permit extra-
dition of Dominican nationals when those nationals have commit-
ted narcotic trafficking, major serious drug trafficking crimes in the
United States, or other serious offenses in the United States.

Let me just say in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, that the problem
of Dominican drug traffickers is certainly a serious one. During the
coming months, we intend to work very closely with the Depart-
ment of Justice and Department of State to pursue strategies to ad-
dress these issues and I pledge to you that I will keep you informed
about developments as they occur.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to answer any ques-
tions you or any member of the committee may have. Thank you.

[The statement of Mr. Bonner follows:]

Statement

Robert C. Bonner

Administrator
Drug Enforcement Administration
United States Department of Justice

Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse and Control

U.S. House of Representatives

Concerning
Drug Trafficking From the Dominican Republic to the United States

March 24, 1993

-30A//T&A-

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse and Control: I
appreciate this opportunity to appear before the Committee on the subject of the Dominican
Republic and to discuss drug trafficking patterns between the Dominican Republic and the
United States.

The Dominican Republic is primarily used as a drug transshipment point in international
drug trafficking. Because it is strategically located midway between Colombia and the
southeastern United States, the Dominican Republic serves as a convenient stagging area and
refueling stop, especially for aircraft. As a result, the Dominican Republic is increasingly
being used as a transit point for Colombian cocaine en route primarily to New York and
Miami, via Puerto Rico.

The principal trafficking method involves airdrops of cocaine shipments to waiting
pick-up vessels offshore, or overland to pick-up vehicles. Cocaine is also transported via
private aircraft to clandestine and uncontrolled airstrips in the Dominican Republic. In
addition, motherships also off-load cocaine to pick-up vessels within Dominican territorial
waters. Motherships and offload vessels find the Dominican Republic a favorable staging
and rendezvous point because of its close proximity to the Mona Passage and the United
States Customs zone in Puerto Rico.

Drug trafficking organizations with links to criminal elements in Santo Domingo and
New York City's large Dominican population dominate the country's illegal narcotics trade.
There are primarily two types of major trafficking organizations with ties to the Dominican
Republic.

Members of the first eroun. comoosed of Dominicans primarily from the San Francisco
de Macoris and Santiago areas, have emigrated to the United States and have taken partial
control of the crack cocaine traffic in the New York City area and other parts of the

northeastern United States. Although their drug source of supply and customers are in the
United States, this group calls itself the "San Francisco Cartel," and draws its human
resources from the Dominican Republic.

The other drug trafficking group is composed of Dominicans working with Colombians
and Cuban-Americans. This group provides the services and expertise for the use of the
Dominican Republic as a transshipment point for drugs destined for the United States.

Cocaine

In the New York area, Dominican cocaine and crack traffickers are major
customers of the Cali cartel, which is made up of Colombian-based cocaine
trafficking organizations headquartered in Cali, but with distribution cells in New
York. As such, the Dominicans control a large segment of the retail cocaine market
within the New York Metropolitan area. This alliance began to form in the early
1980s when the Colombians began using the Dominican Republic as a refueling and
transshipment point for drugs destined for the United States.

An early 1984 investigation involving the principals associated with the Cali
cartel illustrate this connection between Colombian and Dominican traffickers.
During this investigation, a Dominican national who was arrested in New York was a
major customer linked to the Cali cartel, purchasing wholesale quantities of cocaine
from the organization. In a later investigation of another key member of the Cali
cartel, further information was obtained to show that the Dominican national was, in
fact, purchasing multi-kilogram quantities of cocaine directly from the Cali cartel in
Colombia.

There are also indications that Dominican trafficking groups are entering into a
higher level of drug trafficking by importing their own cocaine shipments for
wholesale and resale distribution. Recently, numerous Dominican nationals have been

arrested in the New York metropolitan area transporting large shipments of cocaine
for major Colombian cocaine trafficking organizations.

This alliance between the Colombian and Dominican traffickers has done much
to enhance the role of the Dominicans involved in cocaine and crack distribution in
New York City. After the Colombians, the Dominicans are now the most prominent
dealers in New York City's cocaine trade.

Heroin

There are also indications that the Dominicans may be involved with the Colombians
in the emerging Colombian heroin market. This is, indeed, a concern to DEA, and we will
aggressively investigate this emerging heroin connection.

Traditionally, Dominican trafficking groups have established working relationships
with other ethnic criminal organizations in order to sell and distribute heroin. They have
formed alliances with ethnic Chinese, who have a well-documented history of dealing in
heroin originating from Southeast Asia.

During a late 1980s investigation, DEA first documented that Dominican dealers were
directly connected to major Chinese multi-kilogram heroin importers. Following a raid of a
Dominican heroin mill operation in Queens, blocks of Southeast Asian heroin wrapped in
Chinese newspapers were found, which indicated that the Chinese wholesalers bypassed the
middlemen who had previously diluted and resold their heroin.

In New York, the Dominicans are firmly established dealers who also supply heroin
to a variety of other ethnic criminal organizations. In early 1991. DEA conducted an
investigation that uncovered a group of Dominicans who supplied heroin to several

independent retail distribution networks in Brooklyn and Manhattan. There are also
indications from a more recent investigation that Asian organizations are collaborating with
Dominicans, and quite possibly trading heroin for cocaine.

DEA's Response

In the Dominican Republic, DEA has three Special Agents working out of our Santo
Domingo Country Office. The Country Attache, who is the head of that office, operates
under the policy direction of the United States Ambassador. Operational direction for the
office is provided by DEA's Miami Field Division.

DEA has for many years enjoyed a productive working relationship with the National
Drug Control Dictorate (DNCD) in the Dominican Republic. The DNCD is the lead agency
in combating illicit drug trafficking into and through the Dominican Republic. We frequenUy
use the excellent cooperation between DEA and the DNCD as a model for other nations to
follow.

A major milestone that resulted from our relationship with the Dominican Government
was the development of the Joint Information and Coordination Center (JICC), which began
operations on November 4, 1985. The JICC, which is modeled after DEA's El Paso
Intelligence Center, is an attempt by the Dominican Government to control international drug
trafficking within its own borders by effectively monitoring the arrival and departure of all
private aircraft and marine vessels. Under the direct operational control of the DNCD, the
JICC pools together all law enforcement resources of the Dominican Republic by utilizing the
combined skills of the Dominican National Police, all branches of the Armed Forces, and the
National Department of Investigations.

The Government of the Dominican Republic also signed an agreement on International
Narcotics Control with the U.S. Government last year. This agreement outlined continued
joint support of host government counternarcotics projects, including the JICC, DNCD
communications, canine and maritime/container units, DNCD academy, support for military
interdiction and CND drug use prevention, court watch and legislative reform projects.

DEA is also working with the Dominicans in the area of prevention and education. We
have an agreement with both the Department of State and Major League Baseball to provide
Sports Drug Awareness training seminars for high school coaches in the Dominican Republic.
This is the first time that the Department of State and DEA have established a formal
agreement to conduct prevention and education programs in a foreign country.

Challenges

To address some of our specific concerns regarding the Dominican drug trafficking
situation and drug control cooperation, last November the Special Agents in Charge of
DEA's Miami and New York Field Divisions, accompanied by officials of the New York
City Police Department and the New York City Special Narcotic Prosecutors Office,
travelled to the Dominican Republic to meet with Dominican officials and United States
Embassy personnel. During these meetings, in-depth discussions were held on the lack of
adequate controls on illegal immigration to the United States by Dominican nationals— a
problem that I know is also of major concern to you Mr. Chairman--the lack of adequate
asset forfeiture laws in the Dominican Republic, and the need to facilitate the exchange of
information between law enforcement authorities in New York and the Dominican Republic.

As a result of these meetings, we have taken immediate action. DEA has now become
.i«. tul,uun oiiu hjwi youu ior uie excnange 01 law eniorcement lniormauon among me Mew
York City Police Department, the American Embassy in Santo Domingo, and Dominican
Republic authorities. This exchange of information will not only significantly assist the

American Consular officials in canceling visas of known Dominican drug traffickers and in
the screening applicants for new visas, but should also provide Dominican authorities the
information needed to locate and identify Dominican citizens who have fled from New York,
seeking a safe haven in the Dominican Republic.

In response to our concerns regarding the lack of adequate asset forfeiture laws in the
Dominican Republic, a DEA attorney participated in the Dominican Republic's National
Drug Council's seminar in January to discuss amendments to the Dominicans controlled
substance law as it relates to the strengthening of asset forfeiture provisions. This legislation
is sorely needed in the Dominican Republic. Dominican traffickers who reside in New York,
specifically in the Washington Heights area, are reportedly sending a portion of their drug
proceeds back to the Dominican Republic to buy or build lavish mansions, usually in the
name of relatives of friends. Because the seizure laws in the Dominican Republic are
inadequate, the authorities, unfortunately cannot go after these properties.

While the Dominican authorities do seize millions of dollars worth of properties-
particularly conveyances-tied to drug trafficking every year, there are no adequate laws
specifying the disposition of these assets. As a result, there are currently a number of
airplanes at San Isidri that are literally rotting away. In many other instances seized
property — especially vehicles — are simply returned to traffickers.

To assist the Dominicans in strengthening their forfeiture laws, we have provided
samples of model asset forfeiture legislation and are working with American Embassy and
Dominican authorities to implement stronger asset forfeiture provisions in the Dominican

Republic.

Mr. Chairman, we share your concerns about the number of Dominicans coming into
this country illegally. As you well know, most Dominican nationals who want to illegally
immigrate to the United States first illegally enter Puerto Rico, and then take a domestic
flight to New York or other U.S. cities. To address this concern, elements of the Justice

Department are exploring the possibility with Puerto Rican police authorities of implementing
a program in conjunction with other federal agencies to monitor domestic flights in an effort
to identify and deport illegal Dominican nationals before they can reach the continental
United States.

During the coming months, we will be working with the Department of Justice to
develop programs and concrete proposals to address many of these and other issues,
including corruption in the Dominican judicial system and the extradition of Dominican
citizens to the United States.

In most instances, DEA has been successful in having non-Dominican citizens wanted in
the United States expelled from the Dominican Republic. DEA strongly supports efforts to
change Dominican law to permit extradition of Dominican nationals so that they can be
prosecuted for drug crimes committed in the United States.

Conclusion

Mr. Chairman, DEA considers the problem of Dominican traffickers a serious one.
During the coming months, we intend to work closely with the Departments of Justice and
State to recommend strategies to address the full range of Dominican trafficking problems,
including closer cooperation with police in that country. I will keep you informed about
developments as they occur.

I will be happy to answer any questions you or any Members of the Committee may
have.

66-254 0-93-3

Mr. Rangel. I think we will hear the full panel. Do you know
whether or not this Francisco Franco will be extradited? If so, how
would that be handled?

Mr. Bonner. I would like to think he would be extradited, but
I have no expectation that it will happen. As you may know, Mr.
Chairman, Mr. Franco is a DEA fugitive; he returned to the Do-
minican Republic, he had been arrested before and held in custody
actually for a couple of years and then was released, and now he
has been taken back into custody.

That is the root of the problem. Mr. Franco ought to be returned
to the United States to stand charges for crimes he committed
while he resided in the United States, and that is a problem that
is going to require — I will defer to Mr. Smith from the State De-
partment on this, Secretary Smith — but will require in all prob-
ability some vigorous effort on our part to discuss with the Govern-
ment of the Dominican Republic a revision to the extradition treaty
at least in those limited circumstances where we are talking about
serious crimes committed by Dominican nationals, committed in
the United States.

Mr. Rangel. This committee was informed on Friday, March 19,
President Balaguer sent the 1972 protocol and a 1988 U.N. conven-
tion to the Dominican Senate with a favorable recommendation for
ratification.

Could you tell me just roughly how many of the Dominicans ar-
rested by the task force are legal aliens, just a guesstimate?

Mr. Bonner. I can say this, that there are perhaps a surprising
number of Dominicans that are arrested for drug trafficking in the
United States that have legal status in the United States. I don't
have a good estimate. I would defer to, I believe, a representative
here from INS who can give you more specific estimates on that,
Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Rangel. All right.

Mr. Richard, did you want to be recognized?

Mr. Richard. I just wanted to add, Mr. Chairman, that given my
understanding of the charges that we have against Mr. Franco, and
given the status of Dominican law, he would not be subject to the
current extradition process.

He is wanted on narcotics charges and, as you pointed out, nar-
cotics charges are not included under the present extradition ar-
rangement. His Dominican national status would suggest that the
Dominicans would be reluctant to, if you will, expel him to us.

I am not optimistic, Mr. Chairman, given the current legal situa-
tion and the past conduct of the Dominicans in these kinds of situ-
ations, that we will likely receive him.

Mr. Rangel. OK.

Mr. Smith, State Department.

STATEMENT OF GRANT SMITH

Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

To begin, I would like to add the appreciation of the Department
of State to you and to your committee for your efforts in publicizing
narcotics problems and pushing for solutions. You certainly kept us
on our toes and have given us opportunities to tell you what we
are doing and, further, what we need to get the job done.

We are pleased to have another opportunity to continue our dia-
log. We are very glad to hear that, even though the committee will
not be in existence, you and the members will be assuming the
work of the committee even after it is no longer here.

The Department of State shares your concerns, Mr. Chairman,
over drug problems involving the Dominican Republic. We take
these problems seriously and accordingly have made them a prior-
ity in our bilateral relationship with that country.

We believe the Government of the Dominican Republic is also
concerned about the numbers of Dominicans linked to drug traffick-
ing, not only because of the damage it does to the United States
and to the image it gives to the Dominican Republic, but also be-
cause of the criminal activity being fostered in the Dominican Re-
public and the scores of Dominican victims of drug related homi-
cides in New York.

In previous discussions with you, Mr. Chairman, we have focused
on the very different problems of gangs of Dominican immigrants
dealing drugs in United States streets versus narcotics trafficking
through the Dominican Republic. We have not, in the past, really
examined how these two problems intersect.

The Department of State, both directly and through the United
States Embassy in Santo Domingo, has placed a high priority on
attacking these intersecting or common areas in concert with the
Dominican Republic. Specifically, we are focusing on the control of
the flow of illegal aliens, pursuit of United States based traffickers
who flee to the Dominican Republic to escape United States justice
and seizure of the assets of these drug traffickers.

Judge Bonner has already discussed the trafficking through the
Dominican Republic. Let me go on and say a little bit more about
the programs that we have, about money laundering, and about
Dominican cooperation.

On money laundering, there is no evidence the Dominican Re-
public is a major money laundering center. However, we are con-
cerned about the unregulated flow of money to the Dominican Re-
public. Estimates range from $300 to $800 million annually.

This money is coming from the approximately 1 million
Dominicans residing in the United States. Much of it is simply the
flow of legitimate remittances and business transactions, but some
clearly is from drug trafficking. More needs to be done to control
currency imports such as establishing a reporting requirement.

The major thrusts of our bilateral program in the Dominican Re-
public are in drug control legislation, drug law enforcement, and
drug awareness.

Our legislative enhancement project, begun last year, supports
the National Drug Council's Legal Advisory Commission, a legisla-
tive initiatives task force established to supplement Dominican
Law 50-88, the Drug and Substance Control Law of 1988.

An important focus of this project is the adoption of new legisla-
tion to cover asset seizure, money laundering, and control of essen-
tial precursor chemicals. We are also working with the National
Drug Council to develop a narcotics court watch that would track
cases to ensure that final sentences in narcotics cases include for-
mal seizure of assets used in the commission of the crime.

To support development of Dominican law enforcement institu-
tions, we are providing training and equipment to the National
Drug Control Directorate which integrates the narcotics control ef-
forts of the Dominican Republic armed services and the national
police. We also support the Joint Intelligence Coordinating Center.

Another focus of our support is on drug awareness projects de-
signed to publicize the drug trade's negative effects on the country
and build public pressure and political will to take strong
counternarcotics action.

For its part, the Dominican Republic has demonstrated its com-
mitment to drug control by allocating a substantial
counternarcotics budget, by strong support for its narcotics control
directorate, and by readiness to support enhanced Caribbean
counternarcotics interdiction efforts.

It has been responsive to requests for assistance for cooperation
from U.S. law enforcement agencies, for investigative assistance,
background investigations, and deportations.

Now, I would like to turn to the issues of immigration and extra-
dition.

The consular section in our Embassy in Santo Domingo has
taken extraordinary measures, Mr. Chairman, to prevent visa issu-
ance to narcotics traffickers. One officer has been assigned to inter-
view all applicants from San Francisco de Macoris. Another officer
who has visited that city twice reviews all nonimmigrant visa ap-
plications from Dominicans residing in neighborhoods known to be
frequented by drug traffickers.

Judge Bonner has already referred to the special cooperation be-
tween DEA and the New York Police Department and our Embassy
in Santo Domingo. That cooperation provides the names of
Dominicans arrested for drug trafficking in New York, which are
entered into the lookout system in our Embassy in Santo Domingo.

In addition, immigrant visa applicants who have lived in the
United States are asked to produce a local U.S. police certificate at
the time of their interview. Through these and other efforts, the
consular section identified and took appropriate action in about 30
cases during the past 6 months in which the applicants were in-
volved with drugs.

I believe, Mr. Chairman, that is a specific example of the effect
of the kind of cooperation which we have with the task force in
New York.

In addition, the Embassy revokes visas or initiates immigration
and naturalization information services when derogatory informa-
tion is received after a visa is issued; for example, in the case of
the three principal suspects involved in shipping 399 kilograms of
cocaine from the Dominican Republic to Miami last year.

The consulate canceled the visa issued to one, placed a notice in
the lookout system to prevent the second from obtaining a renewal
of his visa, and is asking the Immigration and Naturalization Serv-
ice to investigate the third with a view to revoking his status as
a legal permanent resident.

Even the most stringent screening systems cannot prevent those
turned down from visas to attempt to enter the United States clan-
destinely, however. Most entering illegally come from Central
America and Mexico or, more likely, through Puerto Rico.

In addition to the efforts of United States enforcement agencies,
the Dominican Navy works to control the movement of vessels de-
parting the Dominican Republic. Just a few weeks ago, the Domini-
can Navy intercepted 100 Dominican nationals attempting to mi-
grate to Puerto Rico.

It has also undertaken more investigations of embarkation points
on the eastern side of the island and has increased cooperation
with us in intercepting the illegal voyagers. They have pressed for
stronger penalties against alien smugglers. Unfortunately, the
navy requires more resources to control its coast effectively. Our
ability to support these efforts of the Dominican Navy is limited by
reduction in security assistance levels and extensive earmarking.

Let me turn to the question of extradition which has been dis-
cussed to some extent here.

As you have noted, Mr. Chairman, our current extradition treaty
with the Dominican Republic, which dates from 1909, is outdated
in that it does not include drug offenses among its enumerated ex-
traditable crimes.

To advance our mutual law enforcement efforts, we believe the
treaty should be revised to include drug offenses. We and the De-
partment of Justice are prepared to explore this with the Domini-
can Republic Government. We would like to work toward beginning
negotiation of a new treaty this year if possible.

In the meantime, we are urging the Dominican Republic to ratify
at least one of the two international conventions: The 1972 protocol
to the 1961 convention on narcotic drugs, or the 1988 U.N. conven-
tion on narcotic drugs, either of which would automatically incor-
porate drug offenses into the existing bilateral extradition treaty.
Ratification of the 1972 protocol could appear to be accomplished
most quickly, more quickly than renegotiating the extradition trea-
ty.

Unlike the 1988 U.N. convention, it does not require adoption of
domestic legislation first.

As you have already noted, Mr. Chairman, we learned from the
U.S. Embassy that the Dominican Republic President has reviewed
these agreements and on Friday, last Friday, sent the 1972 proto-
col and the 1988 convention to the Dominican Congress with a
positive recommendation for action. We will continue to follow this
closely.

Once the 1972 protocol is in place, we will be able to test the Do-
minican Government's willingness to extradite its own citizens
wanted on narcotics charges.

The existing treaty, as has been noted already, makes discre-
tionary the extradition of each party's nationals. Although a domes-
tic Dominican Republic law prohibits the extradition of Dominican
nationals, President Balaguer, citing the public's overriding inter-
national obligations, has agreed in the past to extradite Dominican
citizens to the United States.

Looking ahead, Mr. Chairman, although some progress has been
made, we cannot let up either on exerting pressure or on our sup-

Eort for the efforts of the Dominican Government. Extradition will
e the principal focus for us. Another will be money laundering.
We believe the Dominican Republic is prepared to continue work-
ing with us in addressing these areas of mutual concern.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Rangel. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

[The statement of Mr. Smith follows:]

Statement of

R. Grant Smith
Deputy Assistant Secretary of State
for International Narcotics Matters

before

The Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse and Control

House of Representatives

March 24, 1993

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Select
Committee, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Grant Smith and
I am the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for
International Narcotics Matters. I have been asked to
participate in this panel to discuss drug control cooperation
with the Dominican Republic.

The Department of State shares your concerns over drug
problems involving the Dominican Republic, both drug
trafficking through the Dominican Republic as well as the
illegal activities of some Dominican immigrants in the United
States. We take these problems seriously and, accordingly,
have made them a priority in our bilateral relationship with
the Dominican Republic.

This hearing presents the Department of State with a
public opportunity to express our appreciation to Chairman
Rangel and the House Select Committee on Narcotics for your
noteworthy efforts in publicizing narcotics problems and
continually pressing for solutions. You have kept us on our
toes and have given us opportunities to tell you what we've
needed to get our job done. We are happy to have another
opportunity today to continue our counternarcotics dialogue.

Both the Department of State and our Ambassador to the
Dominican Republic have previously expressed to you, Mr.
Chairman, and to this committee our belief that the
Government of the Dominican Republic shares our concern about
the numbers of Dominicans linked to drug trafficking, not
only because of the damage it does to the U.S. and the
negative image it gives the Dominican Republic, but also
because of the criminal activity being fostered in the
Dominican Republic and the scores of Dominican victims of
drug-related homicides in New York. The cooperation we enjoy
with the Dominican Government reflects our mutual interest in
solving the drug problems.

However, regardless of the Dominican Government's
demonstrated commitment to combatting drug trafficking, it is
not able to exercise direct control over the actions of
Dominicans living in the United States. I will ask my
colleagues from the law enforcement community to address the
guestion of measures being taken against criminal gangs of
Dominican immigrants operating in the United States.

-2-

In previous discussions, we have focussed on the very
different problems of: (1) gangs of Dominican immigrants
dealing drugs on U.S. streets, versus (2) narcotics
trafficking through the Dominican Republic. We have not in
the past really examined where and how the two problems
intersect .

The Department of State, both directly and through the
U.S. Embassy in Santo Domingo, has placed a high priority on
attacking those intersecting or common areas in concert with
the Dominican Government. Specifically, we are focusing on
control of the flow of illegal aliens, pursuit of U.S. -based
traffickers who flee to the Dominican Republic to escape U.S.
justice, and seizure of the assets of these drug traffickers.

We appreciate this opportunity to give you a report on
our efforts to date and draw your attention to some
progress. At the same time, we have to admit to some of the
same frustrations you are feeling when corrective actions are
not immediately taken and U. S . -Dominican drug problems are
not yet under control.

The Narcotics Threat

Cocaine transshipment through the Dominican Republic is
moderate, compared to trafficking indicators and events in
other areas such as The Bahamas or Mexico, and is probably
about evenly divided between air and maritime shipments.
Known air trafficking events in the several hundred kilo
range average less than one per month. This appears to be
largely controlled by Colombian cartels, rather than by
U.S. -based Dominican organizations.

There is no evidence that the Dominican Republic is a
major money laundering center. In the Dominican Republic,
foreign currency exchanges and currency exports are strictly
controlled, limiting the appeal of the commercial banking
system to broader-scale money laundering activities by
international drug organizations. We are concerned by the
unregulated flow of money, estimates of which range from $300
million to $800 million annually, into the Dominican Republic
from the approximately one million Dominicans residing in the
U.S. Much of it is simply the flow of legitimate remittances
and business transactions, but some is clearly the proceeds
of drug trafficking. More should be done to control currency
imports, such as establishing reporting requirements. In
order to ensure comprehensive implementation of the 1988 UN
Convention, we are urging the Dominican Republic and other
governments both bilaterally and through multilateral
organizations to use the OAS Model Regulations on Money
Laundering and Asset Forfeiture. A major provision of the
regulations is criminalization of money laundering, the first
step needed in any effective program of money laundering
countermeasures .

-3-

Drug trafficking threatens the Dominican Republic by
undermining public institutions, such as the courts and the
law enforcement sectors, and promoting increased drug abuse.
The Dominican Government is also concerned about the negative
image created by the large numbers of Dominicans linked to
drug trafficking in the U.S. as well as the criminal activity
spawned in the Dominican Republic itself.

Narcotics-related corruption is a problem of great
concern to the Dominican Government and is considered a major
obstacle in the fight against drugs. Four judges were
brought before the Supreme Court in 1992 for disciplinary
trials following guestionable decisions in narcotics cases,
but the Supreme Court found insufficient evidence against
them. While corruption is a subject of intense public debate
in the Dominican Republic, it is deeply rooted and will take
years to solve.

The Response: Overview of USG Support to the GODR

U.S. support to the Government of the Dominican Republic
is directed toward the entirety of the narcotics threat. The
major thrusts of our bilateral program there are on drug
control legislation, drug law enforcement, and drug
awareness. These involve both support for the legislative
process and strengthening drug enforcement and drug awareness
institutions .

The State Department's counternarcotics program, which
assists the Dominican Government, is part of a broader effort
to strengthen capabilities to combat the drug threat in
transit countries. The strategy's ultimate goal is to stem
the flow of drugs into the U.S., reducing supply to
complement domestic demand reduction efforts.

The Bureau of International Narcotics Matters' (INM)
legislative enhancement project, begun in 1992, supports the
National Drug Council's Legal Advisory Commission, a
legislative initiatives task force established to amend
and/or supplement Dominican Law 50-88, the Drug and Substance
Control Law of 1988. An important focus of this project is
the adoption of new legislation to cover assets seizure,
money laundering, and control of essential and precursor
chemicals. To that end, we have drawn to the attention of
the Dominican Government model legislation developed by the
OAS Drug Abuse Control Commission (CICAD) and examples of
legislation from other countries; we have also arranged for
workshops and other technical advice on implementation,
bilaterally and via the UN and OAS. Once the Dominican Drug
and Substance Control Law has been amended, the government
will be in a position to ratify and implement the 1988 UN
Convention Against Illegal Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances.

-4-

We are also working with the National Drug Council to
develop a Narcotics Court Watch that would track cases and
ensure that final sentences in narcotics cases include the
formal seizure of assets used in the commission of the
crime. The Court Watch will also be tasked with tracking
narcotics cases through the court system to identify where
corruption is occurring, in an effort to reduce this problem.

USG institution-building support to the judicial system
is provided through the Dominican Republic program of the
International Criminal Investigation Training Assistance
Program (ICITAP). This program provides training for
prosecutors and sponsors periodic training for Dominican
judges by the Costa Rica-based Latin American Institute of
the United Nations for the Prevention and Treatment of Crime
(ILANUD) program. This center will be enhanced into a
regional training center through the Inter-American Drug
Abuse Control Commission of the OAS (CICAD) .

To support development of Dominican law enforcement
institutions, INM provides training and equipment to the
National Drug Control Directorate (DNCD) , which integrates
the narcotics control efforts of the Dominican armed services
and the national police. INM also supports the Joint
Intelligence Coordinating Center (JICC), since intelligence
is critical to effective law enforcement.

Another focus of INM's support is on drug awareness
projects, designed to publicize the drug trade's negative
effects on the country and build public pressure and
political will to take strong counternarcotics actions. A
portion of the drug awareness effort has involved discussions
with Dominican officials to generate political support for
the legislative actions needed to control drug trafficking,
including accession to the 1988 UN Convention.

Cooperation

As we noted in the March 1992 "International Narcotics
Control Strategy Report," cooperation between the U.S. and
the Dominican Republic continues to be close. The Dominican
Government has demonstrated its commitment to drug control by
allocating a substantial counternarcotics budget, by strong
support for its National Drug Control Directorate, and by its
readiness to support enhanced Caribbean counternarcotics
interdiction efforts.

It is not clear what actions the GODR could take to
prevent Dominican citizens from entering the drug trade in
New York City. Many factors, such as the massive flow of
immigrants — both legal and illegal — arriving in NYC with
inadequate education and skills, push many people into this
activity.

-5-

The Government of the Dominican Republic has been
responsive to requests for assistance and cooperation from
U.S. law enforcement agencies — relayed through the U.S.
Embassy -- for investigative assistance, background
investigations, deportations, etc. My colleagues from the
law enforcement community can describe their efforts to
strengthen our bilateral investigative cooperation.

The U.S. and Dominican Governments are both concerned
about allegations that Dominican drug dealers in the U.S.
maintain "safe havens" in the Dominican Republic. We do not
know the scope of this.

We are, however, pressing forward with several
initiatives to bolster mutual legal assistance, such as
implementation of the OAS Inter-American Convention on Mutual
Assistance in Criminal Matters and ways to improve our
bilateral extradition relationship. In the area of money
laundering control, the USG and the GODR have already signed
a bilateral Tax Information Exchange Agreement in 1989, which
facilitates money laundering investigations.

Progress

Immigration

The Department of State is acutely aware of the impact
of both legal and illegal immigration on the drug-related
problems of New York and other U.S. cities. The Chairman
visited the U.S. Embassy in Santo Domingo and is aware of the
measures they have implemented to identify drug and alien
smugglers among non-immigrant and immigrant visa applicants.

The Consular Section has taken extraordinary measures to
prevent visa issuance to narcotics traffickers. One officer
has been assigned to interview all immigrant visa applicants
from San Francisco de Macoris, a city suspected of being the
origin of a disproportionate number of Dominican drug
traffickers in the United States. Another officer has
visited San Francisco de Macoris twice and spoken with
government officials and community leaders there. He reviews
all non-immigrant visa applications from Dominicans residing
in neighborhoods known to be frequented by drug traffickers.

Visa refusal rates are very high. Historically, 80% of
first-time non-immigrant (visitor) visa (NIV) applicants are
refused. Some 30% of immigrant visa (IV) applicants were
refused in 1992. Ineligible applicants identified by
Dominican or U.S. anti-drug authorities are entered into the
Consular Lookout and Support System (CLASS). However, there
is no predictive ability; these systems do not help in cases
where applicants with no prior involvement in trafficking
become involved after arriving in the U.S.

-6-

The NYPD/NY-DEA Task Force has been providing names of
Dominicans arrested for drug trafficking in New York. This
information is being turned over to the U.S. Consulate for
entry into the lookout system. The DEA office at the U.S.
Embassy in Santo Domingo routinely uses its direct access to
the DEA/NYPD Task Force "red run" group for exchange of
information. The Consul General traveled to New York to
consult with the NYPD, DEA, INS and others on ways to improve
information sharing and cooperation, and coordination of the
NYPD Certificates of Good Conduct. Exchange of information
between the NYPD/NY-DEA Task Force and the DNCD is
accomplished through the DEA Country Office in Santo Domingo.

The U.S. Embassy enters the names of all Dominicans
arrested in the United States reported to it into the visa
lookout system, as are Dominicans arrested for drugs in the
Dominican Republic. However, there is no automatic reporting
of drug-related crimes by U.S. law enforcement agencies in
place at this point in time. Lack of access to FBI criminal
records by consular sections around the world handicaps the
State Department's efforts to keep drug and other criminals
out of the U.S. In Santo Domingo's case, immigrant visa
applicants who have lived in the U.S. are asked to produce a
local U.S. police certificate at the time of their
interview. Through these and other efforts, the Consular
Section identified and took appropriate action in about 30
cases (22 non-immigrant visa and about 8 immigrant visa
cases) during the past six months in which applicants were
involved with drugs.

As you are aware, the U.S. Government provided a list of
40 fugitives to the DNCD last year. However, information
provided to post was too sketchy for tracing fugitives; it
did not even include the citizenship of the fugitives. Given
the fact that many were or are now using an alias, locating
them will be difficult. The Embassy has not received any
additional information from the New York Task Force on these
fugitives which would assist in their apprehension.

In addition, the U.S. Embassy revokes visas or initiates
Immigration and Naturalization Service investigations when
derogatory information is received after a visa is issued.
Take, for example, the case of three accused drug dealers,
principal suspects in the case in which 399 kilograms of
cocaine shipped from the Dominican Republic were seized in
Miami last April. The Consulate cancelled the visa issued to
Guillermo Torchio and placed Roberto Tonas Mauad on the
lookout system to prevent him from obtaining a renewal of his
visa. The Consulate also is asking the Immigration and
Naturalization Service to investigate Francisco Jose Valdes
Garcia with a view to revoking his status as a Legal
Permanent Resident.

INM has convened a working group to examine various
issues. Its long-term objective is to support the start-up
of the Interagency Border Inspection System (IBIS). Through
its "clearinghouse" concept, IBIS offers our best opportunity

-7-

to create a single USG standard for the coordinated and
timely exchange of information on known and suspected
narcotics traffickers. In the meantime, this group is
bringing relevant agencies together to better coordinate
efforts at the working level. The group is examining the
problems within the current visa processing system and
information sharing procedures and developing recommendations
for decision-makers on appropriate changes to current
policies and practices that will address the problems posed
by foreign nationals engaged in drug trafficking and other
criminal activities.

Short-term objectives include improving the flow of
pertinent information from law enforcement agencies to
consular officers to enhance their vigilance against
traffickers, facilitating Bureau of Consular Affairs' efforts
to help the U.S. law enforcement agencies better understand
consular procedures, speeding up or systematizing INS
notification to consular officers of deportations,
identifying ways to make the U.S. Customs* Combined Agency
Border Intelligence Network (CABINET) better support the
CLASS system, and encouraging DEA to become members of the
IBIS work group. These efforts are helping to build a more
effective partnership among these important agencies.

Even the most stringent screening systems cannot prevent
those who are turned down for visas from attempting to enter
the U.S. clandestinely. Drug trafficking is increasingly
attractive to young Dominicans and other immigrants -- both
legal and illegal — who arrive with few skills and encounter
stiff competition for the declining number of lower-skill
jobs. Under U.S. immigration law, immigrant visa applicants
must be screened to ensure that they will not become public
charges and that they do not have criminal records or medical
ineligibilities. However, employment skills and education
are not criteria for family-sponsored immigration.

Most Dominicans entering the U.S. illegally come through
Central America and Mexico or through Puerto Rico. The
illegal entry of Dominicans into Puerto Rico via boats across
the Mona Passage and, from there, to the mainland U.S.
appears to be increasing. Over 1,200 Dominicans were
intercepted attempting to cross into Puerto Rico in 1992, and
the flow has doubled in the first few months of 1993.

The Dominican Navy works to control the movement of
vessels departing the Dominican Republic. Just a few weeks
ago, the Navy intercepted 100 Dominican nationals attempting
to migrate to Puerto Rico. Recent changes in the Dominican
Navy's command structure have resulted in more investigations
of embarkation points on the eastern side of the island and
increased cooperation with the USG in intercepting illegal
voyagers. The Dominican Navy has also pressed for stronger
penalties against alien smugglers. Unfortunately, the
Dominican Navy requires more resources to patrol its coasts
effectively. Our ability to support these efforts of the
Dominican Navy is limited by reductions in security

-8-

assistance levels and extensive earmarking. Fiscal year 1993
Congressional Foreign Military Financing (FMF) appropriations
were $700 million below request levels and 97 percent
earmarked.

Extradition

Our current extradition treaty with the Dominican
Republic, which dates from 1909, is outdated in that it does
not include drug offenses among its enumerated extraditable
crimes. To advance our mutual law enforcement efforts, we
believe the treaty should be revised to include drug
offenses. We and the Department of Justice are prepared to
explore with the Dominican Government the possible
negotiation of a new treaty as a priority in 1993. However,
since the negotiation and ratification of a new extradition
treaty usually takes several years, and since we are not
certain how receptive the Dominican Government might be or
what positions it might bring to the table, we have sought a
more expeditious solution to the problem. We are urging the
GODR to ratify at least one of two international conventions
— the 1972 Protocol to the 1961 UN Single Convention on
Narcotic Drugs or the 1988 UN Convention Against Illicit
Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances --
either of which would automatically incorporate drug offenses
into the existing bilateral extradition treaty. Ratification
of the 1972 Protocol could be accomplished quickly -- more
quickly than renegotiating the Extradition Treaty. Unlike
the 1988 UN Convention, it does not require adoption of
domestic legislation first.

During the past six months, the U.S. Embassy has made a
concerted effort to help the Dominican Government present the
1972 Protocol, the 1988 UN Convention, and the OAS Convention
on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters to the Dominican
Congress for consideration and ratification. The Narcotics
Affairs Section of the U.S. Embassy provided financial
assistance for the National Drug Council's (CND) workshop on
January 28-29, 1993, to discuss amendments to the Dominican
Drug and Substance Control Law.

The Commission on Narcotic Drugs' legislative
subcommission has been tasked with writing a report
recommending legislative action. The U.S. Embassy will
continue its efforts with a view toward achieving some
definitive action now that the Dominican Congress has
reconvened.

We have good news to report on this front. We learned
from the U.S. Embassy that President Balaguer has reviewed
those agreements and on Friday, March 19, sent the 1972
Protocol and the 1988 UN Convention -- with a positive
recommendation -- to the Dominican Congress for action. We
will continue to follow this closely.

-9-

Once the 1972 Protocol is in place, we will be able to
test the Dominican Government's willingness to extradite its
own citizens wanted on narcotics charges. One solution
adopted by some countries which refuse to extradite their own
nationals is to prosecute them domestically on the basis of
evidence provided from abroad. The existing treaty makes
discretionary the extradition of each party's nationals.
Although a domestic Dominican law prohibits the extradition
of Dominican nationals, President Balaguer, citing the GODR's
overriding international obligations, agreed in the past to
extradite two Dominican citizens to the United States. A
Dominican citizen was extradited to the United States in
1991, and three U.S. requests for the extradition of
Dominican nationals (on non-drug-related charges) are
currently pending with the GODR.

At the same time, the U.S. Embassy has been successful
in obtaining deportation from the Dominican Republic to the
United States of U.S. citizens and third country national
fugitives charged with drug-related offenses.

The Road Ahead

Although some progress has been made, we cannot let up
either on exerting pressure or on our support for the efforts
of the Dominican Government. In addition, we need to work
more with the Dominican Government on such thorny areas as
money laundering. Ratification of the three key Conventions
and new counternarcotics legislation will represent the two
first steps in rectifying the money laundering problem.
However, the weak judicial system and the National Drug
Control Directorate's limited ability to carry out
complicated money laundering investigations will hamper
efforts to achieve substantial results, at least in the short
term.

There is no simple solution to this series of
complicated interrelated problems. Today's discussion,
however, illustrates that there is greater awareness of the
issue and greater determination to work together to identify
and implement solutions. We believe that the Dominican
Republic is prepared to continue working with us in
addressing these areas of mutual concern. Thank you.

44
Mr. Rangel. Mr. Richard.

STATEMENT OF MARK M. RICHARD

Mr. Richard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With your permission,
I would summarize my statement.

Mr. Rangel. Without objection.

Mr. Richard. I would like to join my colleagues, Judge Bonner
and Secretary Smith, in their expression of sentiment regarding
the effectiveness of this committee. We in the Criminal Division
have been heartened over the years through the existence of this
committee and in working with the members and the staff, and we
are appreciative of the past work and look forward to working with
you in the future in this new arrangement.

Mr. Chairman, I want to focus on the difficulties we face return-
ing fugitives from the Dominican Republic and options we see that
can be pursued to address this problem.

As already noted, Dominican nationals are involved to a signifi-
cant degree in illicit drug trafficking in the United States and
when they flee to the Dominican Republic to avoid prosecution,
there may be considerable obstacles to effecting their return.

It should be noted that the Dominican Republic has been cooper-
ative in returning certain categories of fugitives. However, extra-
dition of Dominican nationals, particularly those wanted in drug of-
fenses, has to date proven most difficult. Impediments to extra-
dition of citizens are not problems unique to the Dominican Repub-
lic. Several other countries in Latin America and many European
jurisdictions do not extradite their own nationals.

Fortunately, we believe that the current obstacles to extradition
of Dominican citizens are not insurmountable. However, extra-
dition of citizens, particularly in this hemisphere, is a difficult and
divisive issue.

The Dominican Republic has been cooperating in deporting to the
United States non-Dominican nationals wanted in the United
States for any crime, including drug trafficking. This includes third
country nationals and former Dominican nationals who have be-
come naturalized United States citizens.

Fortunately, the Dominican Republic does not recognize dual citi-
zenship. The Dominican Republic continues to deport non-Domini-
can fugitives, wanted in the United States, to the United States.
However, as noted, the problem arises in connection with the sta-
tus of Dominican nationals and there the only recourse is formal
extradition.

As noted, extraditions are made pursuant to the archaic provi-
sions of a 1910 treaty that lists the category of offenses warranting
extradition but glaringly does not include narcotics offenses within
them.

As already noted, article 4 of the Dominican law 489 also pro-
hibits the extradition of nationals from the Dominican Republic.
This further compounds the problems, although, as already noted,
this is not necessarily insurmountable, inasmuch as the extradition
treaty does provide discretionary ability to extradite nationals.

As noted by Secretary Smith, President Balaguer has indicated
that the treaty provision, with respect to its effect on nationals,

overrides the domestic law precluding extradition of such Domini-
can nationals.

However, as already noted, if the Dominican citizen is wanted for
a narcotics offense, there is no option because the extradition of
narcotics offenses is not covered and embraced by the treaty.

In the past, we have been able to deal with these kinds of situa-
tions with other countries by invoking the provisions of two impor-
tant multilateral treaties. As already noted, the 1972 protocol
amending the 1961 convention and the 1988 Vienna Convention all
provide an independent basis for amending, bilaterally, extradition
treaties to make sure they embrace narcotics offenses within the
scope of their extradition arrangement. They, nevertheless, still re-
main discretionary with respect to the extradition of nationals. Nei-
ther treaty mandates the extradition of nationals.

Given the position of the Dominican Republic Government, with
respect to extraditing nationals and the fact that they would con-
sider a multilateral treaty overriding domestic law, we are encour-
aged that at least this would enable us to urge upon them that
they extradite nationals once either the 1972 protocol or the 1988
Vienna Convention goes into effect. As already noted, it appears
that the Dominican Government is moving to ratify one or both of
these conventions.

As Secretary Smith has noted, the Vienna Convention requires
passage of a variety of domestic provisions which may delay its ul-
timate coming into force. We are very confident that purely as an
interim solution, the passage of the 1972 protocol would at least
open up the spigot, so to speak, and permit us to move into, in ef-
fect, a bilateral extradition relationship. The ultimate we would
like to move to, of course, is amendment of the extradition treaty.

There are additional deficiencies in the current extradition treaty
beyond the absence of narcotics offenses. It doesn't cover a variety
of offenses we would like to see covered, pertinent both to narcotics
enforcement but irrelevant to other enforcement interests.

Long term, I think this is where we want to go and, as Secretary
Smith indicated, there was agreement between the Departments of
Justice and State that we should afford a high priority to the ac-
complishment of a renegotiation of that treaty.

That, Mr. Chairman, summarizes my statement, and I would be
glad to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you.

Mr. Rangel. Thank you.

[The statement of Mr. Richard follows:]

department of Justice

STATEMENT
OF

MARK RICHARD

DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL

CRIMINAL DIVISION

BEFORE
THE

SELECT COMMITTEE ON NARCOTICS
ABUSE AND CONTROL

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

CONCERNING

DRUG CONTROL COOPERATION
WITH THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC

PRESENTED ON

MARCH 24, 1993

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:

In my remarks today, I will focus on the difficulties we face
in returning fugitives from the Dominican Republic, and what
options we can pursue to address this problem.

As this Committee is well aware, Dominican nationals are
involved to a significant degree in illicit drug trafficking in the
United States, particularly in our Northeastern States. Moreover,
as Chairman Rangel has pointed out in his letter to Attorney
General Reno, these drug traffickers have often proven to be
extremely violent. When such offenders flee to the Dominican
Republic to avoid prosecution in the United States, there may be
considerable obstacles to effecting their return.

As I believe my testimony today will illustrate, the Dominican
Republic has been cooperative in returning certain categories of
fugitives. However, extradition of Dominican nationals, and
particularly those wanted for drug offenses, has to date proven
most difficult. Obviously, because of the significant involvement
of Dominican citizens in serious drug crimes in the United States,
this problem is of deep concern to the Department of Justice.

Impediments to extradition of citizens are not problems unique
to the Dominican Republic. Several other countries in Latin
American and many European jurisdictions do not extradite their

nationals. For example, Colombia's new constitution specifically
prohibits extradition of Colombian citizens. Fortunately, we
believe that the current obstacles to extradition of Dominican
citizens are not insurmountable. However, extradition of citizens
-- particularly in this hemisphere -- is often a difficult and
divisive issue.

I. Deportation of Non-Dominican Nationals Wanted in the U.S.

The Dominican Republic has been very cooperative in deporting
to the United States non-Dominican nationals wanted in the United
States for any crime, including drug-trafficking. This includes
third country nationals and former Dominican nationals who have
become naturalized U.S. citizens. (The Dominican Republic does not
recognize dual citizenship.) The Dominican Republic continues to
deport non-Dominican fugitives, wanted in the United States, to the
United States. Indeed, as recently as last week, the Dominican
Republic deported to the United States a U.S. citizen wanted in the
Southern District of New York, on narcotics-related offenses.

II. Extradition for Dominican Nationals

In the case of Dominican nationals, however, the only recourse
is formal extradition. Requests for extradition are made pursuant
to the Extradition Treaty between the United States and the
Dominican Republic which entered into force on August 2, 1910. To

3
date, we have only had to invoke the Extradition Treaty when the
fugitive sought is a Dominican national. Unfortunately,
extradition of nationals is discretionary under the terms of that
treaty, as it is under several other of our extradition treaties.

A. Problem with Extradition of Nationals

Article 4 of Dominican law 489 prohibits the extradition of
nationals from the Dominican Republic. Notwithstanding this law,
in May 1991, the first Dominican national was successfully
extradited to the United States for murder and sexual assault. (In
fact, this was the second Dominican national who was found
extraditable. In the late 1980s, the Dominican Republic granted
the extradition of Daniel Mirambeaux, who was wanted for the murder
of a New York City police officer. However, Mirambeaux committed
suicide before he could be returned to the United States.)

Both extraditions were approved by President Balaguer based on
the premise that the international obligations of our extradition
treaty took precedence over the Dominican statutory prohibition on
extradition of citizens. In both cases, the offenses involved --
murder and sexual assault -- were specifically covered by our
extradition treaty. Unfortunately, although we currently have
three extradition cases for non-narcotics offenses pending in the
Dominican Republic, no Dominican citizen has been extradited since
May 1991.

4
B. Problems in Extraditing Nationals on Narcotics-
Related Charges

The two murder cases I have noted constituted a significant
breakthrough, for they indicated that treaty obligations could
overcome the prohibition against extraditing Dominican nationals.
However, where a Dominican citizen is wanted for a narcotics
offense, we face another problem. Our bilateral extradition
treaty, like others from the same era, does not cover narcotics
offenses .

As with all extradition treaties, our treaty with the
Dominican Republic mandates extradition only for those offenses
specifically covered by the treaty. The problem of non- inclusion
of narcotics offenses is a common problem with our older
extradition treaties. However, with many countries, we are able to
overcome this obstacle by invoking the provisions of two important
multilateral treaties: the 1972 Protocol Amending the 1961 Single
Convention on Narcotic Drugs, and the 1988 U.N. anti-narcotics
convention .

Both agreements in effect amend the bilateral extradition
treaties of contracting states to include extradition for drug
offenses. Unfortunately, the Dominican Republic has not ratified
either of these conventions. However, we have learned that at the
end of last week, the Dominican President forwarded both the 1972
Protocol and the 1988 Convention to the Dominican Senate, with a

5
favorable recommendation. This is certainly an encouraging
development .

III. What are the options for solving these problems?

The Departments of Justice and State have identified three
mechanisms which could address the problem of extraditing
Dominicans for drug offenses: (1) Dominican ratification of the
1988 U.N convention -- commonly known as the Vienna Convention; (2)
Dominican ratification of the 1972 Amending Protocol to the 1961
Single Convention on Narcotics; and (3) negotiation and entry into
force of a new bilateral extradition treaty. Each has certain
advantages and disadvantages.

A. The Vienna Convention

The 1988 Vienna Convention is an ambitious, far-reaching
instrument that holds great promise for improving international
cooperation in combatting drug trafficking. In addition to its
provisions regarding extradition for drug crimes, it requires
criminalization of drug-money laundering (and extradition for such
offenses) , establishment of laws for freezing and forfeiting drug
assets, mechanisms for international cooperation in obtaining
evidence for drug and money laundering investigations, and controls
on essential and precursor chemicals.

The United States was among the first nations to ratify the
Convention, and has engaged in an active program to encourage other
countries, including the Dominican Republic, to do the same.
Presently, more than seventy nations have ratified this important
international agreement.

Clearly, it is in the interests of the United States that the
Dominican Republic join the Vienna Convention. Because of the
Convention's promise as a mechanism for curing the extradition
problems we are discussing today, our Embassy has given particular
emphasis to encouraging the Dominican Republic to proceed towards
ratification. Indeed, because of the broader counternarcotics
benefits of the Vienna Convention, we will continue this effort
irrespective of whether we pursue some other avenue for addressing
our extradition problems.

However, in order for a country to ratify the Convention, it
must first have in place domestic laws sufficient to meet the
treaty's obligations. These include laws that are, for many
countries, novel. This is especially true with respect to the
money laundering and asset forfeiture provisions of the Convention.
Thus, we face the prospect that, because of the need for new
implementing legislation under the Vienna Convention, ratification
by the Dominican Republic may be delayed. Mr. Smith's statement
describes the efforts of the United States, both directly and
through its work with the OAS Drug Abuse Control Commission

7
(CICAD) , to assist the Dominican Republic in identifying and
preparing the legislation that would permit ratification of the
Vienna Convention, and the Department of Justice is prepared to
provide further assistance, as necessary.

B. The 1972 Amending Protocol

While not encompassing the comprehensive benefits of the 1988
Vienna Convention, the more modest 1972 Amending Protocol would
also provide a treaty basis for extradition of drug offenders from
the Dominican Republic. Moreover, ratification of the Protocol
would be easier, because we do not believe it would require the
Dominican Republic to enact new implementing legislation. Our
Embassy has urged the Dominican Republic to ratify the Protocol,
and we are very pleased that President Balaguer has now transmitted
the Protocol and the Vienna Convention to the Dominican Senate for
action. In our view, the 1972 Amending Protocol may be the most
efficient short-term option for extradition of Dominican nationals
for drug offenses.

C. A new bilateral extradition treaty

A third option would be to negotiate a new extradition treaty
with the Dominican Republic. This option has two advantages over
those concerning the multilateral drug conventions. First, in
negotiating a new treaty we would seek a clearer legal basis for

8
extradition of nationals. Neither of the multilateral conventions
mandates extradition of citizens for drug offenses. Second, our
current bilateral treaty is antiquated in both its scope and
procedures, and a more modern treaty could provide a better means
for extradition for all serious offenses. Obviously, the
multilateral drug conventions would not have the same effect.

Because of these benefits, and because of uncertainty about
how soon the Dominican Republic might ratify either the Vienna
Convention or the 1972 amending protocol, the Departments of
Justice and State are prepared to explore with the Dominican
Republic making negotiation of a new extradition treaty a priority
for 1993. However, negotiation and ratification of a new
extradition treaty will be very time consuming, and we do not yet
know how receptive the Dominican Republic will be to a new
bilateral treaty, or what position it might take regarding
extradition of nationals.

Thus, negotiation of a new extradition treaty should not be
considered a short-term solution to our extradition problems with
the Dominican Republic. Accordingly, even as we pursue this
option, we will continue to urge the Dominican Republic to ratify
the Vienna Convention as well as the 1972 Amending Protocol.

55
Mr. Rangel. Mr. Slattery.

STATEMENT OF BILL SLATTERY

Mr. Slattery. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate this op-
portunity to appear and express the views of the INS regarding
drug trafficking and related violent crime perpetrated by
Dominicans. The Immigration and Naturalization Service has initi-
ated a multipronged strategy to address this problem through its
inspections, border patrol, and investigations programs.

This strategy encompasses cooperative efforts with Puerto Rican
officials to deter illegal entries into Puerto Rico and enhanced de-
tection efforts at John F. Kennedy Airport, use of an institutional
hearing program, a system designed to complete deportation pro-
ceedings while an alien is incarcerated; increased efforts to deter
smuggling from and through the Dominican Republic, and coopera-
tive efforts with Federal, State, and local law enforcement authori-
ties to dismantle Dominican drug gangs and criminal organizations
through the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force and
violent gang task force efforts; enhanced detection efforts at New
York City port of entry. New York City serves as a focal point for
criminal activities by Dominican nationals.

Approximately 400,000 of the 2.3 million foreign-born residents
of the city of New York are Dominican, representing the largest
Dominican community in the United States.

John F. Kennedy Airport is a major port of entry for the city of
New York. JFKIA receives approximately 10 million passengers an-
nually, including 5 million aliens. Of this total, approximately
15,000 are found, upon inspection, to be excludable from the United
States. Many are determined to be excludable based on criminal
records.

Through a joint effort between INS and U.S. Customs Service,
known as Operation Turnstile, any aliens apprehended in the Fed-
eral inspections area for possession of drugs are targeted for return
to the INS for the institution of exclusion proceedings. This does
not preclude criminal prosecution, but ensures that INS takes im-
mediate steps to prevent entry of the alien.

Dominican nationals are among the top eight nationals appre-
hended for possession of drugs. During fiscal 1992, 997 Dominican
nationals were found to be inadmissible at the port of entry. A sub-
stantial increase over 561 who were determined to be inadmissible
in fiscal 1991.

The figures for the first 5 months of this fiscal year indicate that
the number of inadmissible Dominicans is increasing. Of the 997
found inadmissible in 1992, 636 chose to withdraw their applica-
tion for admission to the United States as opposed to appearing be-
fore an immigration judge. They departed the United States on the
next available flight.

Another 107 Dominican aliens were detained for an exclusion
hearing and, due to lack of detention space, the remaining 138
were allowed into the United States and scheduled for subsequent
exclusion proceedings before a judge. Of the 15,000 aliens deter-
mined inadmissible each year, only 7 percent can be detained for
hearings due to lack of detention space.

Hearings for nondetained aliens are currently scheduled for 18
months following the date of arrival into the United States.

INS Acting Commissioner, Chris Sale, recently met with the
Governor of Puerto Rico to discuss cooperative law enforcement ef-
forts aimed at identifying and removing illegal Dominican aliens
from Puerto Rico. The INS Intelligence Division estimates that 90
percent of the illegal aliens residing in Puerto Rico are Dominican,
comprising approximately 100,000 illegal Dominican aliens. Puerto
Rico also serves as a staging area for smuggling operations aimed
at transporting aliens to the mainland, especially to the Northeast.

Aliens who gain entry to the United States, either lawfully or un-
lawfully, or who engage in criminal activity, may be amenable to
both criminal prosecution and deportation. The New York prison
population was 64,904 as of December 10, 1992. Of those, 7,815
were foreign nationals, and Dominicans comprised the largest
group of foreign-born inmates, 29 percent, 2,283.

The chairman asked before about their status. I have a chart
here. The permanent residents, of the 2,283 permanent residents,
make up 1,350. That is the green area. Most of the inmates are
permanent residents of the United States. Another 367 have en-
tered without inspection, 150 were nonimmigrants to the United
States, and 426 have yet to have had their status determined.

I would be glad to give the chairman that chart if you like.

Mr. Rangel. Thank you.

[The information follows:]

Ph 3

5 "c7>

tip

S 5

O a>

o
1

C/3

H
Z

^ to

O CO T3
zfN *

+■»

-^ c

f= T3 3
a«C/)

-£ "E §
*- <5 '■£

2 <D O)

lie

o -= II

2 s

III

Mr. Slattery. Through cooperative efforts with the State of New
York and Executive Office of Immigration Review, the INS has de-
veloped an effective tool aimed at preventing dangerous convicted
aliens from being released into the community.

Similar cooperative efforts exist in other States and with the Bu-
reau of Prisons. Deportation hearings commenced and concluded
during the aliens' incarceration in State and Federal penal institu-
tions result in an effective and efficient use of resources to identify,
to locate, and to remove aliens convicted of serious offenses.

It should be understood, however, that many aliens convicted of
criminal violations in the United States are not amenable to depor-
tation. One factor impacting the deportation process is administra-
tive relief. Section 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act
provides relief for lawful permanent resident aliens who have 7
consecutive years of unrelinquished domicile in the United States.

The Immigration Act of 1990, Public Law 101-649, amended sec-
tion 212(c) to deny relief to the aliens convicted of aggravated fel-
ony and have served a term of imprisonment of at least 5 years.

Due to overcrowded prison conditions, however, many courts and
correctional systems have reduced sentences or given lesser sen-
tences to individuals convicted of those aggravated felonies. This
results in unintended eligibility for relief under 212(c) for aliens
convicted but served less than 5 years.

In addition to the sentencing issue, the law permits time spent
while incarcerated to count toward establishing the 7 years contin-
uous residence needed to meet the basic waiver.

The INS believes that most Dominicans enter the United States
either through Puerto Rico or through airports in the Eastern Unit-
ed States. Puerto Rico serves as a main access route for the illegal
flow of Dominican aliens into the United States.

During fiscal 1992, the Border Patrol agents in Mayaguez, PR,
apprehended 3,551 aliens. Of these, 3,514, 99 percent, were
Dominicans. In addition, the INS district office in San Juan appre-
hended 1,243 Dominican nationals accounting for 76 percent of all
arrests.

Dominican criminal activities are accelerating at an alarming
rate. The east coast of the United States is being particularly im-
pacted by Dominican drug gangs. Dominicans have been very suc-
cessful in the drug trade due, in large part, to their willingness to
conduct business with different ethnic groups. They are known to
supply Jamaican, Cuban, and American gangs with cocaine and
heroin and employ Nicaraguans and Puerto Ricans within their or-
ganizations.

This concludes my statement. Thank you for the opportunity. I
will be pleased to answer any questions.

Mr. Rangel. Thank you so much, Mr. Slattery.

[The statement of Mr. Slattery follows:]

TESTIMONY OF NEW YORK DISTRICT DIRECTOR WILLIAM SLATTERY
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE

BEFORE THE
BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE ON
NARCOTICS ABUSE AND CONTROL

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

CONCERNING DRUG CONTROL COOPERATION
WITH THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC

MARCH 24, 1993

ROOM 2167 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
12:00 PM

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to
express the views of the Immigration and Naturalization Service
(INS) regarding drug trafficking and related violent crime
perpetrated by Dominican nationals. The Immigration and
Naturalization Service has initiated a multi-pronged strategy to
address this problem through its Inspections, Border Patrol and
Investigations programs. This strategy encompasses: cooperative
efforts with Puerto Rican officials to deter illegal entries by
Dominican aliens into Puerto Rico; enhanced detection efforts at
the port of entry at John F. Kennedy Airport; use of the
Institutional Hearing Program (IHP) , a system designed to complete
deportation proceedings while an alien is incarcerated, permitting
expedited deportation at the conclusion of his confinement, and
preventing his release back into society; increased efforts to
deter smuggling from and through the Dominican Republic; and,
cooperative efforts with Federal, state and local law enforcement
authorities to dismantle Dominican drug gangs and criminal
organizations through the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task
Force (OCDETF) and Violent Gang Task Force (VGTF) efforts.

It was a joint investigation by the INS Organized Crime Drug
Enforcement Task Force Office in New York City and the Manhattan
District Attorney's Office, in the Spring of 1992, which brought
the magnitude of the Dominican drug trafficking problem to light.

The INS believes that successful efforts at combatting this serious
problem will require concerted efforts of Federal, state and local
enforcement agencies. Cooperation of authorities in the Dominican
Republic in combatting smuggling operations is a key factor in
addressing the smuggling of aliens and contraband.

Enhanced Detection Efforts at the New York City Port of Entry

New York City serves as a focal point for criminal activities
by Dominican nationals. Approximately 400,000 of the 2.3 million
foreign born residents in New York City are Dominican, representing
the largest Dominican community in the United States. The city
serves as both a major destination point for Dominicans entering
the United States, and as a temporary stopover for those destined
for Lawrence and Boston, Massachusetts; Manchester, New Hampshire;
Reading, Pennsylvania; and many other cities and towns in the
Northeast.

John F. Kennedy Airport (JFKIA) is a major port of entry for
the City of New York. JFKIA receives over 10 million passengers
annually, including 5 million aliens. Of this total, approximately
15,000 are found upon inspection to be excludable from the United
States. Many aliens are determined to be excludable based upon
criminal records.

Through a joint effort between the INS and the United States

Customs Service, known as Operation Turnstile, any aliens
apprehended in the Federal Inspections Area for possession of drugs
are targeted for return to the INS for the institution of exclusion
proceedings. This action does not preclude criminal prosecution,
but ensures that INS takes immediate steps to prevent the entry of
the alien.

Dominican nationals are among the top eight nationalities
apprehended for possession of drugs. During FY 1992, 997 Dominican
nationals were found to be inadmissable at the port of entry, a
substantial increase over the 561 who were determined to be
inadmissable in FY 1991. The figures for the first five months of
FY 1993 indicate that the numbers of inadmissible Dominicans is
steadily increasing. Of the 997 found inadmissible in FY 1992, 636
chose to withdraw their application for admission as opposed to
appearing before an Immigration Judge in exclusion proceedings.
They departed from the United States on the next available flight.
Another 107 Dominican aliens were detained for an exclusion hearing
and, due to lack of detention space, the remaining 138 were allowed
into the United States and scheduled for subsequent exclusion
proceedings before an Immigration Judge. Of the 15,000 aliens
determined to be inadmissable each year, only 7 percent can be
detained for hearings due to lack of detention space. Hearings for
non-detained aliens are currently scheduled for fourteen months
following the date of arrival due to the crowded court docket.

Cooperative Efforts with Officials from Puerto Rico

INS Acting Commissioner, Chris Sale recently met with the
Governor of Puerto Rico to discuss cooperative law enforcement
efforts aimed at identifying and removing illegal Dominican aliens
from Puerto Rico. The INS Intelligence Division estimates 90
percent of the illegal aliens residing in Puerto Rico are
Dominican, comprising approximately 100,000 illegal Dominican
aliens. Puerto Rico also serves as a staging area for smuggling
operations aimed at transporting aliens to the mainland, especially
to the Northeast. In December 1992, Operation Coqui, a multi-
agency operation targeting illegal Dominican aliens, resulted in
the arrest and institution of removal proceedings against 156
illegal Dominican aliens from Puerto Rico. This operation is being
evaluated now for efficiency and effectiveness as compared to other
enforcement approaches to deter illegal immigration to Puerto Rico
from the Dominican Republic.

The institutional Hearing Program

Aliens who gain entry to the United States either lawfully or
unlawfully, and who engage in criminal activity, may be amenable to
both criminal prosecution and deportation proceedings. The New
York State Prison population was 62,904 as of December 10, 1992.
Of those, 7,815 were foreign nationals, and Dominicans comprise the
largest group of foreign born inmates, 29 percent (2,283). Through

a cooperative effort with the State of New York and the Executive
Office of Immigration Review (EOIR) , the INS has developed an
effective tool aimed at preventing dangerous convicted aliens from
being released into the community. Similar cooperative efforts
exist in other states and with the Bureau of Prisons. Deportation
hearings commenced and concluded during the aliens' incarceration
in state and Federal penal institutions result in an effective and
efficient use of resources to identify, locate, and remove aliens
convicted of serious criminal offenses. This methodology also
reduces the chance that incarcerated deportable aliens will be
released into society to commit further offenses.

It should be understood, however, that many aliens convicted
of criminal violations in the United States are not amenable to
deportation. This occurs for a number of reasons. Lawful
permanent residents may not be amenable to deportation proceedings
unless they are convicted of two or more crimes, depending upon the
offense, sentence and date of last entry. Other lawful permanent
residents may be deportable for a single offense if it occurred
within five years following entry to the United States. Aliens who
have entered without inspection or violated the conditions of their
entry are subject to deportation even without a criminal
conviction.

Another factor impacting the deportation process is
administrative relief. Section 212(c) of the Immigration and

Nationality Act provides relief for lawful permanent resident
aliens who have seven consecutive years of unrelinquished domicile
in the United States. The Immigration Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-
649) amended Section 212(c) to deny relief to those aliens
convicted of an aggravated felony, and who have served a term of
imprisonment of at least five years. Due to overcrowded prison
conditions, however, many courts and correctional systems have
reduced sentences, or given lesser sentences to individuals
convicted of aggravated felonies. This results in unintended
eligibility for relief under 212(c) for aliens convicted of
aggravated felonies, but have served less than five years. In
addition to the sentencing issue, the law permits for time spent
while incarcerated to count towards establishing the seven years
continuous residency needed to meet the basic waiver of eligibility
requirements .

Deterrence of Smuggling From and Through the Dominican Republic

The INS believes that most Dominicans enter the United States
either through Puerto Rico or through airports in the Eastern
United States. Although we have no specific data on the numbers
who may enter illegally through Mexico, INS intelligence indicates
that the vast majority of illegal entries occur through smuggling
operations in small boats through the Mona Passage to Puerto Rico.
The Dominican Republic is 77 miles from the west coast of Puerto
Rico. Puerto Rico serves as a main access route for the illegal

flow of Dominican aliens into the United States.

During FY 1992, Border Patrol agents in Mayaguez, Puerto Rico,
apprehended 3,551 aliens. Of these, 3,514 (99 percent) were
Dominican nationals. In addition, the INS District Office in San
Juan, Puerto Rico, apprehended 1,243 Dominican nationals,
accounting for 76 percent of all arrests.

The Dominican Republic is also utilized by international
smuggling organizations as a staging area to move people and drugs
into Florida. INS is aware of Chinese nationals and narcotics
being smuggled into South Florida through the Dominican Republic.
The INS, U.S. Customs Service and the Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA) are jointly investigating this matter.

The Investigations Division of the INS in concert with the San
Juan District will host a multi-agency conference April 13-15 in
San Juan to discuss cooperative efforts to deter smuggling
operations from and through the Dominican Republic. The Department
of State will be in attendance at this conference.

INS Efforts Through the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force
(OCDETF) and Violent Gang Task Forces (VGTF)

Dominican criminal activities are accelerating at an alarming
rate. For example, in 1985, there were no known criminal
activities by Dominican aliens in Lewiston, Maine. However, by

1989, over two hundred arrests of Dominican aliens involved in drug
trafficking had been made. The East coast of the United States is
being particularly impacted by Dominican drug gangs. They are
known to cooperate with Colombian, Nigerian, and Chinese drug
organizations, and are currently operating drug enterprises in
Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Texas, and
West Virginia. Dominicans have been very successful in the drug
trade due, in large part, to their willingness to conduct business
with different ethnic groups. They are known to supply Jamaican,
Cuban, and American gangs with cocaine and heroin, and employ
Nicaraguans, and Puerto Ricans within their organizations. They
are involved in the following criminal activities:

o narcotics trafficking o tax evasion

o counterfeit currency o kidnapping

o import/export violations o immigration fraud

o weapons trafficking o alien smuggling

o money laundering o homicide

o armed robbery

Dominican gangs are known for moving in and taking over
neighborhoods through violence and intimidation. They freguently
employ addicts to act as spotters for police or rival gangs and use
children as runners because of law enforcement's lenient attitude
towards minors.

INS is investigating Dominican organizations and gangs
involved in criminal activities through Federal, state, and local
task forces. We have arrested hundreds of Dominicans involved in
drug trafficking and related criminal activities, but their sheer
number make progress difficult.

This concludes my statement. Thank you for this opportunity.
I am pleased to answer any questions you may have.

Mr. Rangel. Mr. Holmes.

Mr. Holmes. With your permission, I will waive my statement
and just answer any questions you may have.

Mr. Rangel. Very good.

Is there anything before the Attorney General's Office, Mr. Slat-
tery, that would obviously correct the way the immigration laws
are today. The two cases that you cited, for example, where the
time served is actually considered toward residence and the terms
being cut back; do you recommend legislative changes or have you?

Mr. Slattery. I am unaware of anything pending currently be-
fore the Attorney General's Office on that.

Mr. Rangel. I was lauding the efforts of the New York City task
force. Judge Bonner, are there meetings where all of those involved
in attacking this problem come together so they can recommend to
other agencies and departments how the law could be changed so
that they could do their work more easily?

Mr. BONNER. Let me say, there is a regular set of meetings for
this and that is partly because we tend to — when I say we, I mean
the U.S. Government — tends to divorce the international dimen-
sions of drug trafficking from the domestic dimensions and domes-
tic impact in New York or other places in the United States.

And this is a classic illustration, I think, of that kind of division.
So that the — you have one set of agencies and departments, DEA,
participating in this, by the way, that are concerned with our for-
eign counternarcotics efforts, which include the Dominican Repub-
lic and we have another set of individuals concerned with the do-
mestic part.

Mr. Rangel. I don't follow that.

Mr. Bonner. No, other than what has been provoked and gen-
erated by your inquiries in this area, Mr. Chairman

Mr. Rangel. You have your people all over the world as well as
in the local communities. An agent is an agent is an agent. If he
works hard over in the Dominican Republic with all this coopera-
tion only to see the bums going back and forth, there comes a time
where he says, you know, Chief, there should be a law against this,
you know. I am seeing the same guys that left the Dominican Re-
public, they are back here and we know they are wrongdoers. The
same as the police with immigration.

If immigration was not complaining — I am not saying that they
have not — that they didn't say they had the resources to do the job.
Maybe it should be someone in the DEA or FBI or even in the
State Department to say that it is only one team that we have.

Mr. Smith, could you share with me, if you know, whether the
State Department has set up a bureau where they have a Deputy
Secretary of State involved in multifunctions, violence and terror-
ism; and are you familiar with that and how will narcotics abuse
fit into that?

Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, the new arrangement is not in place
yet, but I can describe what is envisaged. What is envisaged is
there will be an Under Secretary of State for global issues. Senator
Wirth has been nominated for that position.

The Under Secretary for Global Issues will have under him a
number of bureaus that are dealing with functional issues such as
refugee programs, such as human rights, democratization. One of

these bureaus will be a new Bureau of Narcotics, Terrorism and
Crime.

This new bureau will incorporate the existing Bureau of Inter-
national Narcotics Matters, and there will be some legislative
changes perhaps necessary to fully incorporate that as well as the
existing Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism.

Finally, there would be created a new Office of Crime that would
deal with the international aspects of organized crime so you would
have in this new bureau three separate operations, one of which
would be the existing counternarcotics operation. One of the pur-
poses of naming the new Under Secretary for Global Issues, of
course, is to give greater prominence within the State Department
and with our overall foreign policy to global issues, functional is-
sues which cut across countries. One of those is obviously inter-
national narcotics matters.

Mr. Rangel. Mr. Secretary, the crime would be separate from
narcotics? That would be a separate department?

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. There would be three offices within the new
bureau. One would be the Office of Narcotics Control, one would be
the Office for Counterterrorism, and the third would be the Office
for Crime Control.

Obviously, there is a lot of overlap among those three offices, and
crime in many cases would include narcotics trafficking, but it
would include areas other than narcotics trafficking, Mafia-type or-
ganizations involved in narcotics trafficking, but also in other types
of international crime would obviously be covered by this new of-
fice.

Mr. Rangel. Will there be assistant secretaryships in addition to
the deputies in charge of these departments?

Mr. Smith. The Under Secretary for Global Issues would be Sen-
ator Wirth. Then there would be an Assistant Secretary for Narcot-
ics, Terrorism, and Crime.

Mr. Rangel. Would that be the equivalent of what we have now?

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir.

Mr. Rangel. Same level?

Mr. Smith. The level that Mr. Levitsky now is.

Mr. Rangel. That will continue?

Mr. Smith. Yes. And under him would be a Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Narcotics Control, a Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Counterterrorism and a Deputy Assistant Secretary for Crime Con-
trol. And I believe he would do some crosscutting issues within the
Bureau as well, such as policy planning and congressional rela-
tions.

Mr. Rangel. Let me hear once again, the Assistant
Secretaryship would be called what?

Mr. Smith. He would be Assistant Secretary for Narcotics, Ter-
rorism and Crime.

Mr. Rangel. OK.

Mr. de Lugo.

Mr. de Lugo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, gentlemen, you know, I am sitting here and I just
don't know how anyone — I know you are all dedicated to this battle
against drugs and what its doing to every community in our Na-

tion. How can you continue to do your job? How are you just not
totally frustrated.

As I listen to the testimony today, it was more than a decade ago
when a President declared that this was a war on drugs, a war on
drugs. And there is no real coordination in this so-called war on
drugs.

In the last Presidential election, it was hardly debated. And lis-
tening here, after more than a decade now you make arrests, the
Federal law — the criminal is put in jail under the law but under
Federal law quote, the Immigration Act.

Mr. Bonner. 212(c).

Mr. DE LUGO. Yes, 212(c) of the Immigration Act, denies relief to
aliens convicted of aggravated felony, who served a term of impris-
onment of at least 5 years, and then we hear the heartbreaker, due
to overcrowded prison conditions, however, many courts and correc-
tional systems have reduced sentences.

Mr. Slattery. That is correct.

Mr. DE Lugo. This is tragic. You know, if you listen to it, it is
that the American people don't want to pay the bill to fight this
war on drugs. It costs a lot of money to build prisons. We tell you,
make the arrests. We tell the policemen and the immigration offi-
cers, make the arrests and we won't build enough jails.

There is so much more to it, of course. We know there should be
education in the schools. I am from the Virgin Islands. Look, we
have been talking about Puerto Rico, and the same things you de-
scribe in Puerto Rico exist in my small community in the Virgin
Islands. It all spills over there.

We have in my schools a degree of violence that 5 years ago, if
you had told me that, I would say you are a liar or you are crazy
or something — and it all comes from drugs. And it is all throughout
this country.

I think the chairman asked the question, if I understood it, are
you aware, has there been a recommendation from the Justice De-
partment that the law be amended, that it not be tied to time
served but rather to the crime itself?

Mr. Slattery. Let me elaborate on that a little bit, that law was
just changed in 1990 where they tightened the 212(c) standards.
Up to 1990, we did not have the ineligibility with the 5 years. Un-
fortunately, although the law was changed, it was toughened, State
prisons are not sentencing people to that length of time.

We have a working document within INS that we are sending
back to the Department, but that law is just 2 years old and we
are already going back and saying it needs to be tightened further
if it is going to be effective.

Mr. DE LUGO. You know, it is frustrating.

That is the reason we wanted a new crime bill.

Look, may I ask, Mr. Slattery, the Virgin Islands and Puerto
Rico currently conduct extradition hearings via fax and telephone.
Not only is this less than an ideal way to conduct the hearings, but
I am told that by the time all these files are faxed to the judge,
and then by the time that he or she gets around to reviewing them,
the illegal aliens are often back on the streets.

Would you comment on this?

Mr. Slattery. Well, the Executive Office of Immigration Review
is not under the direction of the Immigration Service.

We understood last year they were going to add 22 additional
judges but the funding was never made available. I do know in
New York we are getting two additional judges and they are trying
to assign judges to areas where they can establish increasing work
loads.

I think it is just a question of prioritizing where they put a
judge. What factors they weigh in determining to do telephonic
hearings to the islands, I really don't know, Congressman.

Mr. DE Lugo. You are not aware of the situation that nearly all
of this is done via fax and telephone?

Mr. Slattery. I know the Immigration Service engages in tele-
phonic hearings in certain locations. I was unaware that it took
place in the Virgin Islands.

Mr. DE LUGO. Regarding the interdiction, the Coast Guard, it had
been my understanding that it had returned to its pre-Haitian cri-
sis levels. Lately, however, interdiction — I am advised that very lit-
tle interdiction is occurring in the Mona Passage, for example, be-
cause the Coast Guard is otherwise occupied interdicting Haitian
refugees.

Could you kindly let me know which claim is accurate?

Mr. Slattery. I have the statistics for last year, Mr. Chairman.
Apprehensions by border patrol was 3,551. I do understand that
the Coast Guard: is prioritizing where the ships are placed and
there was emphasis put on the Haitian situation, but we are still
apprehending about an average of 300 a month by the Puerto Rico
border patrol.

Mr. DE Lugo. Let me tell you what it is like over there. The
focus, as we know now, is on Haiti. The Dominicans are pouring
into Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. They are coming in, they
come up the Mona Passage, they come through — there is a lot of
illegals coming in from St. Martin.

Are you aware of that?

Mr. Slattery. We are aware that there is a large number of ille-
gal Dominicans in Puerto Rico. We estimate about 100,000. So we
certainly understand they are coming in in large numbers.

Mr. DE Lugo. Puerto Rico is not the only place. The Virgin Is-
lands is there, too, and right next door and we are getting clob-
bered. It is not only — it is more than Dominicans, too. The business
in illegals is big business down in this area now, and now it is a
lot of Indians and Chinese and they are paying big money and they
are coming through St. Martin.

Mr. Slattery. Yes. We have seen a surge in Asian illegal immi-
gration on the east coast. Some 75 percent of the 15,000
inadmissibles arriving at JFK each year are from the Asian con-
tinent with China leading it. They are not coming directly from
China, they are coming from South America and the Caribbean and
Europe.

Mr. DE Lugo. That is right. Now they are coming in primarily
through the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico. There has been a big
increase. They are coming in, dropped off at the beaches at night.
My people run in, you are driving along the road, and you see peo-
ple walking who don't even know where they are because they have

been dropped off at some beach. And sometimes the police come
across them and make an arrest, but it is a very bad situation.

Mr. Slattery. Yes.

Mr. DE Lugo. And what is being done about that? You know, as
you know, once you are in the Virgin Islands or Puerto Rico, you
are in the United States.

Mr. Slattery. That is correct.

Mr. DE LUGO. That is why they all come in here. It is not only
that they move to Charlie Rangel's district and a lot of other dis-
tricts, but a lot stay right in Puerto Rico or in the Virgin Islands.
There are tremendous problems created down there.

Mr. Slattery. Yes. I agree with you. The 15,000 that we are ex-
periencing at Kennedy is up from 5,000 in 1991. The problem is 3
times what it was 2 years ago.

We are not unique. Aliens are coming into the United States in
record numbers, both legal and illegal. They are not coming
through traditional routes. You have a lot of Asians coming into
the United States from your area of the world. The Chinese in par-
ticular are paying about $30,000 apiece to be smuggled into the
United States. They go through South America, through the Carib-
bean, and when we tighten up there, they move to Western Europe.
But they are coming.

I get about 360 a month coming into New York City alone.

Mr. de Lugo. You and I are aware of it, but the American public
is not aware of it. They are not aware of this problem. It is a real
problem, Mr. Slattery. It is growing. Unless it is addressed, it is
going to — the spinoff on this is not only the drug problem, but then
you have the social problem where suddenly persons who look dif-
ferent who are in this country illegally and a part of communities,
suddenly become the focus of resentment and the fall guy for all
kinds of problems that we fail to address.

This is a real — Mr. Chairman, I just will say that the brief ex-
change that we have had this morning, if that doesn't show what
a tragedy it is for your committee to go out of existence, then what
signal are we sending to the American people?

The glamour has gone out of drugs or something? There is no

{>ress here today. The American people have decided they can just
ive with this situation? I don't know.

Mr. Rangel. Mr. Slattery, recognizing the dedication to the men
and women with INS, and taking into consideration the last state-
ment you made as to the onslaught of illegals coming into the Unit-
ed States, does there come a time when whoever is in charge writes
a paper to the President or someone saying that, notwithstanding
efforts that we find this situation, and that we ought to really de-
velop a strategy along with the Congress as to what we are going
to do about it?

Mr. Slattery. I think we are discussing various strategies now.
I was down here yesterday working with some of the congressional
staffs discussing this situation and proposing possible remedies. We
are doing some things locally in New York. We are increasing de-
tention from the 100 beds

Mr. Rangel. I am OK, I guess, in New York. But what I am say-
ing is, when I am down here, I am really just — I have never been
able to understand how we have so many different agencies and de-

partments and we have got one major problem and somehow you
would not talk with each other. Bonner arrests somebody, and they
do the 2 months and they are illegal aliens and they turn them
over to you and you say, well, I can't prosecute.

Then the agent wants to know why I spent this much time on
the case in the first place. Someone is working over in the Domini-
can Republic and they recognize someone on the street that is
wanted for drugs in New York City. We got this great monitoring
system, the height of cooperation, but so what? No one is busted.
No one is arrested.

I just hate to see what the situation would be if we were not re-
ceiving the highest degree of cooperation from the Dominican Re-
public.

You walk through the San Juan Airport and they ask you: Are
you an American citizen? You say, yes, in any language, and you
go on the plane.

Someone in Washington, DC knows we are having a very serious
problem with illegals and with drugs and, again, I am not being
critical of individual departments, but somebody is the quarterback
and someone has to say there are leaks in this strategy.

I haven't the slightest idea who that person was supposed to be,
since it is clear now that whoever it was supposed to be, he ain't
around now. The new President has now said that he wants to
have this pushed up to a Cabinet level.

You are the people in the trenches. I will accept a tight-willed
position but I want to know how it works. How would it work if
you were in charge of drafting this darn thing? It just doesn't make
sense for one to arrest, one to let go, one to monitor the computers
and yet we find the drug traffickers laughing their way from Bo-
gota to Santo Domingo to Washington Heights.

Someone mentioned something about money laundering is not
the problem; that most of the money is legal money. You bet your
life most of it is legal money, but drug traffickers have absolutely
no problem in getting their illegal money to the Dominican Repub-
lic.

I am not convinced that the Dominican Republic cares that much
where it comes from once it gets there. Somebody here ought to
say, Mr. Richard

Mr. Richard. I couldn't agree with you more. But let me com-
ment, if I may just briefly, and try to express at least from my per-
spective what I have seen in 20-some years with the Criminal Divi-
sion observing the criminal justice system, if you will, at work.

It is only in the last decade or so that law enforcement and gov-
ernment or segments of government are beginning to look at the
problems in terms of systems. We have tended to divide the prob-
lems— and this is law enforcement problems, not just drug prob-
lems— and focusing on narrow aspects of the problems.

So we appropriate more prosecutors not realizing, when you do
that, you send up more cases before the same number of judges.
We don't think in terms of systems, what is the impact when you
put in more police on the courts, on the prosecutors and on the
prisons. We don't think in terms of systems generally.

We are just beginning to look at this now in a systems approach
and I think the more we do that, and the more we all look at the

problem in that fashion, we will see this as a continuum, not just
as criminal law enforcement problems, a prosecutor problem, or a
penal problem. We will look at the entire spectrum of enforcement
responses, civil, criminal, and administrative. Then you would be
able to address it in the fashion you are reaching for.

Mr. Rangel. Mr. Richard, I can almost swear I heard this 20
years ago when I came down here.

Mr. Richard. Pardon me?

Mr. Rangel. I could almost swear I heard that 20 years ago
when I first came down here.

It just doesn't make any sense, Mr. Richard. I know what you are
saying and I know what you are up against with some subcommit-
tees and committees that treasure their jurisdiction and appropria-
tions which sometimes get politically slanted based on who can
make the best case. I know what it is like.

But it seems to me, if the President ever gets a Cabinet position,
it should be someone like Hillary Clinton coming in to say,
straighten out this mess and go to the people and say in a no-non-
sense way that you don't get gold stars for what you have done in-
dividually in your department and agency, but we get the gold
stars when we move the country ahead.

That is whether it is the State Department, an ambassador or
charge trying to become ambassador or whether or not it is in Jus-
tice where you are not just concerned with conventions, you want
to know whether you are moving the ball forward.

I try to think in terms of the fellow who is trying to do the job.
You get someone busted and do they get their citizenship residency
if they are in jail, too, you can become American citizen?

Mr. Slattery. No.

Mr. Rangel. Does the time count, if you are in jail, toward that?

Mr. Slattery. No, it is 5 years, good moral character.

Mr. Rangel. Can you get time for good moral character while
you are in jail?

Mr. Slattery. No, but it counts for unrelinquished residence for
212(c) purposes. I might say our agents in New York work closely
with DEA. Five percent of my staff is assigned full time with DEA
in addition to the task force where additional staff works.

Mr. Rangel. Don't we have problems, though, in prosecuting
them for deportation after they get out of jail?

Mr. Slattery. We do. That is where 212(c) comes in. If you look
at the immigration services role in this and determine where we
can make the greatest contribution, it is not in making the crimi-
nal case but it is in making the administrative case, the deporta-
tion subsequent to arrest and incarceration.

Our job is to get the body out of the United States so he does
not return to criminal activity. We deport 1,000 criminals out of
New York alone from the State prison system alone. Dominicans
represent the highest number of aliens involved in that program.

Mr. Rangel. OK Well, we can cut a deal here. I would just like
to get from you privately any changes that each one of you would
like to see in existing law and regulations which you are forced to
work under. We will just act as though this is a new administra-
tion that has no idea where they are going or when they are going

to get there. We will make believe that is the case and that they
have plenty of flexibility in determining what is going to be best.

Now, I have to be honest with you, that the President has con-
stantly asked what you think we should do. That is frightening to
me when the President of the United States and the leader of the
new world order is asking me what we should do.

But this might be an opportunity, perhaps, for this to be that
task force. If all of you could assure me that you think that it
makes some sense, and you don't have to answer publicly, then I
would tell the President I have got some people that may have
some ideas about what we should do. What is the sense in having
a Cabinet official unless that person is going to have people work-
ing for him or her that can remove the obstacles that you have
with your work?

I have found no government or no people more friendly than the
people in the Dominican Republic. Yet this is the same situation
where we find more drug trafficking money going through legiti-
mate money transfer systems, more illegals coming into the United
States, more safe haven given to a Dominican who violates our
laws, more cooperation between police where they monitor what is
going on so they know the bums that break the law in the United
States.

What happens when they pick this up in the Dominican Repub-
lic, Mr. Smith or Mr. Bonner? They know that they have got this
big narcotic trafficker and he returned home loaded with money,
with half a dozen bodies of those who were transferred. What hap-
pens?

Mr. Bonner. I think it is pretty clear what happens right now.
At least there is no reason to be optimistic that that person is
going to be extradited or brought back to the United States to
stand trial. There are inadequate forfeiture laws in the Dominican
Republic and also, by the way, a very weak court or criminal jus-
tice system. So, there is no reasonable prospect now that the ill-
gotten wealth of that individual, which is part of doing justice, is
going to be seized and confiscated and removed from him.

So there are, by the way, tremendous frustrations, as you know,
Mr. Chairman, and I can tell you that the dedicated and committed
special agents of the DEA feel these frustrations very, very keenly
that we are talking about here.

I would like to amplify one thing. It is not as if no concerns are
ever raised. Obviously, the concern of the Dominican Republic as
safe haven and extradition law have been raised by DEA. The
State Department and Justice Department have both been working
on trying to do something about this rather difficult issue of
amending the treaty, the difficult issues of at least getting the trea-
ty to a point, this old treaty to the point where drug trafficking of-
fenses are extraditable under the treaty.

Mr. Rangel. I might interrupt by saying that, as often as this
committee has gone to the Dominican Republic, we have been
briefed by the Ambassador about the treaty and a variety of other
things. But we had no idea that these towns were set up to produce
drug traffickers to send to New York, nor did we know that this
was just an area that you can bring home the money and build a
disco or — we never knew, our Embassy never told us. So I am there

taking pictures and saying, you are doing a great job, and we have
a riot and we find out all the bodies have gone to one place.

Would it make any sense if a task force could be set up just to
informally advise the President of the United States? There has to
be some way, Mr. Richard, that we can recognize the international
problem we have and what it is really doing in terms of busting
the deficit, if you will, and what we are paying to put these people
in jail, to putting them in the hospitals as addicts and having chil-
dren born, what it does to the school system.

What does it do when they have no homes and no hope for the
future and drugs are available to them? What does it do for a kid
who doesn't know how to do anything and he sees the only success
story is the guy selling drugs in Washington Heights?

So there has to be someone, no matter what GS level, they have
to say, someone in charge, if you have a comprehensive health in-
surance program, that means all the little pieces are not working —
and all the little pieces are not working — and unfortunately we
have not had anyone to indicate that they are going to make a ca-
reer out of just making it work and changing the laws so that it
fits in.

Mr. Smith.

Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, if I could comment on two inter-
national aspects of this. First, on the question of an overall strat-
egy and recommendations to the President, there is a review under
way of our international counternarcotics strategy which should be
finished next month, the purpose of which is to do just what you
said.

Second, you raised the question of reaction in the Dominican Re-
public and implicitly the cooperation of the Dominican Republic.

We have, I said in my statement and we have said before you
previously that we believe the cooperation of the Dominican Repub-
lic is good and it is good in some areas. There is one area where
more cooperation is needed and where progress is being made but
where more is needed and you may be able to help yourself on this,
Mr. Chairman and that is getting in place the legal instruments we
need to deal with the problem of extradition and the problem

Mr. Rangel. Don't some countries deal with that without a
whole lot of legal instruments?

Mr. Smith. They do need to adopt — to ratify the 1972 protocol to
the 1961 convention or the 1988 convention. They need to adopt
laws which permit them to do a better job of asset seizure to make
money laundering a crime, to prevent somebody from smuggling
$100,000 out of the United States and walking into a bank in the
Dominican Republic and putting it in in the form of cash without
questions being asked.

Mr. Rangel. They do the same in Washington Heights, except it
is just a smaller

Mr. Smith. They are not supposed to.

Mr. Rangel. I know, but in smaller amounts.

Mr. Smith. These are the kinds of things that need to be done.
Where we need additional cooperation and perhaps you with your
contacts among parliamentarian's there, can help move this process
forward.

Mr. Rangel. We are going to do that because the Dominican Re-
public officials have been in touch with us in trying to avoid any
problems that would adversely affect the friendship we have en-
joyed, the cooperation we have enjoyed, or anything that would
look politically disagreeable. So we will continue to work there.

But what I am hoping for, and it has probably already been done,
is to see whether or not the departments and agencies could kind
of give this administration its best shot as to things that can be
done better without being critical of what has been done in the
past. .

I will be glad to receive any papers, or if you think it might be
better, even to informally get your own group together. If I say that
because of budgetary reasons this select committee will not be
functioning in its present form, the problem doesn't go away, we
are not going away, it will be coming back more streamlined. A lot
of people will be working with us, not because they want to be on
the letterhead, but because they have a problem and they want to
work with us.

But it would be great if your group could form just as informally,
selecting after this meeting is over, anybody else you would want
to join with you where we can have a meeting one afternoon and
see how we can help each other and, more importantly, not that
you just share the problem among yourselves, but see how the Con-
gress can be helpful in streamlining these things and working with
you.

I think, Mr. Richard, that if we do this before the President gets
too firm in his position as to what he wants to do, that this could
serve as a guideline for whomever — even the Attorney General who
I have worked with over the years. I know that she is an effective
and flexible person. If she can hear of the problems that other peo-
ple have been having before she became Attorney General, I know
she would listen to them.

It makes a difference when it is presented to the Congress as a
national problem rather than having agencies fight for their turf.
How embarrassing can it be when the DEA has to be charged by
the military because they are overseas and it comes out of their
budget instead of out of the military budget when it is only one
team?

So I thank you for the kind things that you have said about the
committee. It sounded more like a funeral than a hearing.

But, still, we will be asking to meet with you again. Please give
consideration. I will ask Mr. Bonner to serve as the spokesperson.
It may be impossible what I am asking, but if at some time, infor-
mally, you can meet with a dozen Members of Congress, Repub-
licans and Democrats, to share what you think we could do or the
new administration can do, we can continue to meet and try to
meet our responsibilities in a different way.

I thank you for the contributions that all of you have made over
the years and will continue to make. I hope as soon as we finish,
the President finishes with the health bill, I have every reason to
believe that narcotics is the next up.

Thank you.

Mr. Bonner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Whereupon, at 1:45 p.m., the select committee was adjourned.]

66-254 (82)

BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY

3 9999 05982 727 7

ISBN 0-16-040728-1

9 780160M407284

90000

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Dominican drug trafficking : hearing before the Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse and Control, House of Representatives, One Hundred Third Congress, first session, March 24, 1993"

See other formats