CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE

decided under current law applicable

to all similar cases.

RONALD REAGAN.

THE WHITE HOUSE, January 14, 1983.

H.R. 3963-MEMORANDUM OF DISAPPROVAL

I am withholding my approval of

H.R. 3963, a bill concerning criminal

law matters, because its disadvantages

far outweigh any intended benefits.

In late September 1982, the Senate

overwhelmingly approved a major crime bill by a vote of 95 to 1. That

measure, the Violent Crime and Drug Enforcement Improvements Act of

1982 (S. 2572), would have resulted in

urgently needed reforms in Federal

bail laws to put an end to our "revolving door" system of justice, comprehensive reforms in Federal forfeiture

laws to strip away the enormous assets

and profits of narcotics traffickers and

organized crime syndicates, and sweeping sentencing reforms to insure more uniform, determinate prison sentences

for those convicted of Federal crimes.

That major crime bill also contained

other criminal law reforms. I strongly

supported the principal elements of

the Violent Crime and Drug Enforcement Improvements Act, especially the bail, sentencing, and forfeiture

provisions.

The House of Representatives failed

to approve this measure. It adopted a miscellaneous assortment of criminal

justice proposals, H.R. 3963, which was approved in the waning hours of the

97th Congress. Although some elements of the House-initiated bill are good, other provisions are misguided or seriously flawed, possibly even un- constitutional. While its provisions on forfeiture of criminal assets and prof- its fall short of what the Administration proposed, they are clearly desirable. Had they been presented to me as a separate measure, I would have been

pleased to give my approval. But H.R.

3963 does not deal with bail reform, nor does it address sentencing reform.

Both are subjects long overdue for

congressional action.

In addition to its failure to address some of the most serious problems

facing Federal law enforcement, this

"mini-crime bill" would in several re- spects hamper existing enforcement

activity. I am particularly concerned

about its adverse impact on our efforts

to combat drug abuse.

The Act would create a drug director

and a new bureaucracy within the Executive Branch with the power to coordinate and direct all domestic and

international Federal drug efforts, including law enforcement operations.

The creation of another layer of bureaucracy within the Executive

Branch would produce friction, disrupt effective law enforcement, and

could threaten the integrity of criminal investigations and prosecutionsthe very opposite of what its proponents apparently intend.

The seriousness of this threat is un- derscored by the overwhelming opposition to this provision by the Federal

law enforcement community as well as by such groups as the International

Association of Chiefs of Police and the

National Association of Attorney's

General. The so-called "drug Czar"

provision was enacted hastily without

thoughtful debate and without benefit

of any hearings. Although its aimwith which I am in full agreement-is

to promote coordination, this can be

and is being achieved through existing

administrative structures.

Upon taking office, I directed the

Attorney General and other senior officials of the Administration to improve the coordination and efficiency

of Federal law enforcement efforts,

with particular emphasis on drug-related crime. This has been accom- plished through the establishment of

the Cabinet Council on Legal Policy, which is chaired by the Attorney General and whose membership includes

all Cabinet officers with responsibility

for narcotics law enforcement. Working through the Cabinet Council, the

White House Office on Drug Policy is an integral part of the process by which a comprehensive and coordinated narcotics enforcement policy is car- ried out.

I am pleased with the results of this

process, which last Fall led to the cre- ation of a nationwide task force effort

to combat organized crime and narcotics trafficking. The war on crime and

drugs does not need more bureaucracy in Washington. It does need more action in the field, and that is where

my Administration will focus its efforts.

H.R. 3963 would also authorize the

Federal prosecution of an armed

robber or burglar who has twice been

convicted in State court. This provi- sion includes an unworkable and possi- bly unconstitutional restraint upon Federal prosecutions in this area, by

allowing a State or local prosecutor to

veto any Federal prosecution under

his or her authority, even if the Attorney General had approved the prosecution. Such a restraint on Federal

prosecutorial discretion and the delegation of Executive responsibility it

entails raise grave constitutional and

practical concerns. It would, for exam- ple, surely increase friction among

Federal, State, and local prosecutors

at a time when we are doing so much

to decrease it.

Other provisions of H.R. 3963 are also defective. For example, the provision that expands Federal jurisdiction

whenever food, drugs, or other products are tampered with, an expansion

that I strongly support, was drafted to

include tampering that occurs in an injured consumer's own home. It also

fails to distinguish between tampering

that results in injury and tampering

that results in death. These are, however, essentially technical matters

which might have been overcome but

for the press of time in the closing

days of Congress. I share the widespread public desire for new legislation on tampering and will work with the new Congress to produce an acceptable bill on that subject.

My Administration has proposed significant legislation to strengthen law

enforcement and restore the balance

between the forces of law ani the

forces of crime. Changes in sentencing,

bail laws, the exclusionary rule, the insanity defense, and other substantive

reforms in criminal law were not

passed by the 97th Congress. Such re- forms, if enacted, could make a real

difference in the quality of justice in

this country.

It would have given me great pleas- ure to be able to approve substantive

criminal justice legislation. I completely support some of the features of

H.R. 3963, such as the Federal Intelligence Personnel Protection Act.

Others I agree with in principle. But

the disadvantages of this bill greatly

outweigh its benefits. I look forward

to approving legislation that does not

contain the serious detriments of the

present bill, and my Administration

will work closely with Chairman

THURMoND and Chairman RODINO to secure passage of substantive criminal

justice reforms.

RONALD REAGAN.

THE WHITE HOUSE, January 14, 1983.

33442 December 21, 1982