HILL GROUP OFFERS PLAN TO STANCH DRUG FLOW

$2.6 Billion Sought For Aircraft, Vessels

Accusing the Clinton administration of doing too little to stem the flow of
cocaine and heroin to the United States from Latin America, congressional
Republicans yesterday proposed a $2.6 billion effort that they claim would
reduce the traffic by 80 percent in three years.

The plan, unveiled by Sen. Mike DeWine (R-Ohio) and Rep. Bill McCollum
(R-Fla.), calls for the money to be spent on strengthening interdiction
efforts in the Caribbean region as well as along the Pacific coast of
Central America and Mexico. Bills that would implement the proposal will be
submitted in both the House and Senate today.

"The great untold story in recent years is the decline in interdiction
efforts," DeWine said, noting that spending on drug-use prevention programs
and anti-trafficking efforts in the United States has tripled since 1987,
while funding for interdiction has risen less than 20 percent.

Part of the reason for that, law enforcement officials say, is that the
Clinton administration chose to focus on blocking the transshipment of
drugs across the Mexican border and on expanding efforts to reduce the
demand for drugs at home rather than concentrating on reducing the supply
from drug-producing regions.

The Republican lawmakers, who have been joined in the Senate by Democrat
Bob Graham of Florida, say that funding for the effort would not come at
the expense of domestic prevention programs or law enforcement. Beyond
saying that House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) had promised to include
funding for the plan in a supplemental appropriations bill later this year,
however, they did not specify where the money would come from.

McCollum said the expenditure is necessary to intercept drugs before they
reach the United States and that the plan would greatly enhance the
capabilities of the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Coast Guard and
the Customs Service to track and interdict illegal drug shipments. While
most of the money would be spent on equipment, some would be targeted at
improving intelligence-gathering functions, he said.

McCollum said law enforcement officials in the United States and across
Latin America had told him they could reduce the flow of drugs to the
United States by more than 50 percent within two years if they are given
the necessary resources. "The Clinton administration calls for a 50 percent
reduction in 10 years," McCollum said. "That is unacceptable; we are
calling for an 80 percent reduction in three years and think that is very
feasible."

Robert Weiner, spokesman for the Office of National Drug Control Policy,
said the administration "supports interdiction as part of a comprehensive
strategy to fight drug trafficking, but let's see where the money comes
from." Weiner said the plan's sponsors had yet to say how they would fund
the program and that the proposed allocation did not take into account that
the administration had increased funding for interdiction by 9 percent in
the past year.

DeWine said a large, quick infusion of money is necessary because Pentagon
funding for interdiction operations dropped by 57 percent from 1992 to 1995
- -- $505 million to $215 million. During the same time, he said, the Coast
Guard's interdiction budget shrank from $444 million to $301 million. As a
result, DeWine and McCollum said, there are no radar systems to monitor
planes carrying cargoes of illegal drugs and no interdiction capabilities
along the Pacific coast from Peru to California.

"There is not a ship, not a plane out there," McCollum said.

Of the proposed expenditures, $580 million would be used to buy 20 P-3B
early-warning aircraft, and $300 million would be allocated to build a U.S.
military base at a site in Latin America that has not yet been selected.
The new outpost would replace U.S. bases that are being closed in Panama as
a result of the Panama Canal Treaty, which calls for all U.S. property
there to be turned over to Panama by the end of next year. An additional
$289 million would pay for six new Coast Guard patrol vessels.

Checked-by: (Joel W. Johnson)