$2.6 Billion for Drug Fight Sails Through Senate

The Senate, departing from the White House summit agreement on federal spending limits to launch an election year “war on drugs,” voted unanimously Wednesday to authorize another $2.6 billion to enforce anti-drug laws.

By a vote of 93 to 0, Democrats and Republicans joined in supporting the extraordinary measure that would not take effect unless President Reagan declared that narcotics addiction in the United States has created a “dire emergency.”

Added as Amendment

It was added as an amendment to the $1.1-trillion budget resolution that otherwise follows the ceilings on spending and revenues in the deal worked out by the President and congressional leaders last November.

“There just wasn’t enough money in there (the budget) for combatting drugs,” explained Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.), ranking Republican member of the Senate Budget Committee. The budget-stretching amendment was just one of several anti-drug measures that are being offered for congressional approval as the November election approaches.

This flurry of anti-drug legislation also reflects congressional reaction to disclosures that the Administration failed to take action against Panamanian strongman Manuel A. Noriega until recently, despite overwhelming evidence that he was profiting from the Latin American drug trade.

The Senate may vote as early as today on a measure that would impose sanctions on Mexico for failing to cooperate with U.S. efforts to stem the flow of illegal drugs from Latin America into the United States. Two congressional panels have deadlocked this week on similar legislation to penalize drug-supplier nations in the Western hemisphere.

In addition, the Senate earlier Wednesday approved another budget amendment authored by Rep. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) that would shift $125 million from government travel allowances. Instead, $100 million would be used to build prisons and $25 million would go to create a drug-fighting division of the Treasury Department.

Although the $2.6-billion budget amendment exceeded the spending limits set late last year in negotiations between Congress and the White House, Senate Budget Committee Chairman Lawton Chiles (D-Fla.) and Domenici said that it would not be a “budget-buster” since it requires a commensurate increase in revenues.

Tied to Revenue

Under its terms, an additional $1.4 billion would be spent above the agreed upon limit for domestic spending. Nevertheless, sponsors said that the congressional budget committees would not release the funds unless the same amount of revenue could be raised by tightening enforcement of income tax laws and collecting more debts owed to the federal government.

According to Sen. Alphonse M. D’Amato (R-N.Y.), the Internal Revenue Service has estimated that it could bring in $1.2 billion in additional taxes if it received $269 million to hire more enforcement staff, thus collecting most of the funds that would be spent under the proposal.

Asked whether the White House would go along with this device for breaking the November summit limits, D’Amato, who co-sponsored the measure with Sen. Dennis DeConcini (D-Ariz.), said: “They’d be damned fools if they don’t think it’s a dire emergency.”

Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Tex.), one of the few senators to express any doubts about the wisdom of the procedure, warned that the Senate eventually will be forced to cut other programs to pay for the drug-enforcement measure. “This is the easy part tonight,” he said.

Funding Breakdown

Under the measure, federal law enforcement budgets would be increased by $800 million, including $231 million more for the Coast Guard; $112 million for the Drug Enforcement Administration; another $125 million for the Customs Service; $100 million more for the Defense Department and $59 million more for the Immigration and Naturalization Service’s border patrol.

An additional $485 million would be allocated for drug treatment programs, with another $200 million for new prison construction and $50 million more for drug education programs.

Federal aid to state and local drug enforcement agencies would be raised $250 million.

The measure also would add $39 million for drug interdiction in Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Jamaica and the Dominican Republic. It would set aside $10 million for a Latin American anti-drug strike force.

Subcommittee Deadlocks

Earlier Wednesday, the House Foreign Affairs subcommittee on international economic policy deadlocked 6 to 6 on a measure that would impose sanctions on Mexico, the Bahamas, Peru, Paraguay and Bolivia for failing to “fully cooperate” with U.S. anti-drug efforts. It came just one day after the Senate Foreign Relations Committee had voted 8 to 8 on sanctions directed only at Mexico.

Sen. Pete Wilson (R-Calif.), who co-authored the resolution to impose sanctions against Mexico, argued that passage of the legislation would “send a clear message” to the drug supplier countries that they must do more to eradicate drug crops, to arrest known drug traffickers within their borders and to crack down on banks that launder money derived from sale of illegal drugs.

Opponents of sanctions insist, however, that the legislation would undermine diplomatic relations with the drug supplier nations and encourage them to be less cooperative in cracking down on the drug traffickers under their jurisdiction.

“To have our whole relationship with Mexico hang on this one issue is bad foreign policy,” said Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.). “It would cause a major breach in our relations with Mexico. . . . If this resolution is adopted, you can expect the worst kind of cooperation.”