[House Hearing, 105 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
NATIONAL GUARD SUPPORT IN THE FIGHT AGAINST ILLEGAL DRUGS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY,
INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE
of the
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT
REFORM AND OVERSIGHT
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MAY 14, 1997
__________
Serial No. 105-82
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
46-497 WASHINGTON : 1998
_______________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800, DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT
DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman
BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois TOM LANTOS, California
CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland ROBERT E. WISE, Jr., West Virginia
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
STEVEN SCHIFF, New Mexico EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
CHRISTOPHER COX, California PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida GARY A. CONDIT, California
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
STEPHEN HORN, California THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin
JOHN L. MICA, Florida ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington,
THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia DC
DAVID M. McINTOSH, Indiana CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
MARSHALL ``MARK'' SANFORD, South JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
Carolina JIM TURNER, Texas
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine
PETE SESSIONS, Texas HAROLD E. FORD, Jr., Tennessee
MICHAEL PAPPAS, New Jersey ------
VINCE SNOWBARGER, Kansas BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
BOB BARR, Georgia (Independent)
ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
Kevin Binger, Staff Director
Daniel R. Moll, Deputy Staff Director
William Moschella, Deputy Counsel and Parliamentarian
Judith McCoy, Chief Clerk
Phil Schiliro, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs, and Criminal
Justice
J. DENNIS HASTERT, Chairman
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut TOM LANTOS, California
STEVEN SCHIFF, New Mexico ROBERT E. WISE, Jr., West Virginia
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida GARY A. CONDIT, California
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois
JOHN L. MICA, Florida CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio JIM TURNER, Texas
BOB BARR, Georgia
Ex Officio
DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
Robert Charles, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Andrew Richardson, Professional Staff Member
Ianthe Saylor, Clerk
Mark Stephenson, Minority Professional Staff Member
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on February 14, 1997................................ 1
Statement of:
Owen, Brad, Lieutenant Governor of Washington; Michael J.
Bowers, attorney general, State of Georgia; Major General
Russell C. Davis, vice chief, National Guard Bureau; James
E. Copple, president and CEO, Community Anti-Drug
Coalitions of America; and Ronald E. Brooks, chair, drug
policy committee, California Narcotics Officers'
Association................................................ 7
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Bowers, Michael J., attorney general, State of Georgia,
prepared statement of...................................... 15
Brooks, Ronald E., chair, drug policy committee, California
Narcotics Officers' Association, prepared statement of..... 43
Copple, James E., president and CEO, Community Anti-Drug
Coalitions of America, prepared statement of............... 34
Davis, Major General Russell C., vice chief, National Guard
Bureau, prepared statement of.............................. 24
Hastert, Hon. J. Dennis, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Illinois, prepared statement of............... 4
Mica, Hon. John L., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Florida, letter dated May 12, 1997................ 71
Owen, Brad, Lieutenant Governor of Washington, prepared
statement of............................................... 10
NATIONAL GUARD SUPPORT IN THE FIGHT AGAINST ILLEGAL DRUGS
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 14, 1997
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on National Security, International
Affairs, and Criminal Justice,
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1 p.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. J. Dennis
Hastert (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Hastert, Souder, Mica, Shadegg,
LaTourette, Barrett, and Cummings.
Staff present: Robert Charles, staff director/chief
counsel; Andrew Richardson, professional staff member; Ianthe
Saylor, clerk; Michael Yeager, minority counsel; Mark
Stephenson, minority professional staff member; and Ellen
Rayner, minority chief clerk.
Mr. Hastert. The hour of 1 having arrived, the Subcommittee
on the National Security, International Affairs, and Criminal
Justice will come to order.
Today's hearing will focus on the important role that the
National Guard has played in the Nation's counterdrug effort.
Before I discuss the counterdrug mission of the National Guard,
I want to review the bidding. I think the continuing and
deepening nature of the menace we are facing from illegal drug
use and the drug cartels cannot be overemphasized.
A few facts make the point. Teenage drug use has doubled in
the last 5 years. Our children are using LSD and other
hallucinogens as well as cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine and
marijuana at shocking levels. Heroin's purity has as the same
time risen from 10 percent to 90 percent over the past two
decades, and marijuana is now up to 25 times more potent than
in the hippy era in the late 1970's. MDMA, commonly referred to
as ecstasy, has been used by 5 percent of 10th and 12th
graders, and is creeping into use by 8th graders. MDMA is just
one example of new and emerging drugs that threaten our youth.
Sadly, parents have stopped talking to their children about the
dangers of drug abuse.
I was in Dixon, IL, kind of the heartland of America last
week, talking to an assembly of 250 eighth graders. I asked how
many of your parents have sat down and talked to you about
drugs. Only about one in five of those kids raised their hands.
That is less than the average we talk about here, and that is
not good.
It is with facts like these in mind that we are here to
implore the administration to continue fully funding the
National Guard's counterdrug efforts, from border operations to
crucial support for local law enforcement, from critical
counterdrug training to life saving and innovative antidrug
prevention. No mission is more important or more underfunded.
Here are a few more facts in a nutshell. Historically, the
National Guard has performed missions tasked by the Governors.
As the drug epidemic has increased, the Governors have turned
to the National Guard to assist State and local governments to
combat the flow of illegal drugs. Indeed, they deeply rely on
the National Guard.
In fact, if you were traveling to the Southwest Border, you
could see the countless contributions being made by the
National Guard first hand. National Guard units in California,
Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas assist with counterdrug
operations across our over 2,000 mile Southwest Border.
Beyond this is the leadership that the Guard has played in
establishing the National Interagency Counterdrug Institute,
known as NICI, in San Luis Obispo, CA, where officials from all
government agencies meet to train and to coordinate counterdrug
efforts. One of the greatest challenges facing those of us who
participate in counterdrug policy is assisting with agency
coordination between Federal, State and local officials, and
the National Guard is at the forefront of this effort. NICI is
doing this.
But beyond all this, at the United States-Mexico border one
can view the roads that Guard engineers constructed that are
giving law enforcement officials better access to the border
and barriers that are deterring drug smugglers. At the land
port of Otay Mesa, CA, Guardsmen assist Immigration and Customs
officers with cargo inspection, traffic control, and security.
In Arizona, they operate sophisticated aircraft and
surveillance systems that help law enforcement pinpoint
methamphetamine labs and marijuana fields. These aircraft also
patrol the border and lend invaluable assistance and
intelligence to law enforcement officers on the ground.
However, I would be remiss if I mentioned only the National
Guard's interdiction and law enforcement programs. In Arizona,
for example, Project Challenge is also run by the Arizona
National Guard. This program is reaching out to the community
by providing positive alternatives to drugs and gangs that have
victimized far too many young people. These demand reduction
and youth assistance programs deserve our fullest support, and
the administration's proposed deep cuts in the National Guard
would eviscerate not only their interdiction and law
enforcement role, but also their prevention efforts. These are
vital programs and the Guard has performed the counterdrug
mission with distinction.
But let's be frank. To continue this high level of mission
performance, the Guard needs the right assets and support. I
have grave concerns that the budget does not support this role
for the Guard. Indeed, his lack of support is starkly reflected
in his fiscal year 1998 budget. The President's budget
submission for fiscal year 1998 reflects a 42 percent cut for
National Guard support plans. That simply is unconscionable.
This proposal, if adopted, would reduce the Governors' State
plans funding from their fiscal year 1997 level by $76.6
million. How can we, in good conscience, adopt a stance like
that? These funds provide critical National Guard assistance to
State and local law enforcement and individual communities in
their fight to reduce the supply and the demand for illegal
drugs. The Guard uses and is trained on specialized
surveillance equipment and other assets that State and local
governments cannot afford to operate.
A reduction in funding of the magnitude proposed by the
President would swiftly result in severe reductions in aviation
capabilities, intelligence gathering and analysis, as well as
tactical and engineer support to State and local law
enforcement. Does anyone doubt that this would have severe
implications for the Nation's counterdrug efforts? I think the
answer is obvious. We need to support the National Guard's
counterdrug efforts and support them fully.
And before asking the witnesses to begin, I will yield to
my colleague and friend, ranking member, Tom Barrett, for any
comments he might have.
[The prepared statement of Hon. J. Dennis Hastert follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Barrett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
holding this important hearing.
I think we all recognize the importance that the National
Guard plays in not only in the counterdrug effort, but in
security matters throughout the country.
I would like to welcome our distinguished panel of visitors
today, Lt. Governor Owen, Attorney General Bowers, General
Davis, Mr. Copple and Mr. Brooks. Together with the men and
women of the National Guard you have made significant
contributions in our fight against illegal drugs. I commend you
for your work.
The National Guard plays a unique role in our country's
counterdrug effort. The men and women of the National Guard
forces have all the training, organization and capabilities of
our Armed Forces, which are second to none in the world. But
Guard members bring even more to bear in this fight. National
Guard forces are community based, working together with law
enforcement and community organizations like those which make
up the Community Antidrug Coalition of America.
Guard members know and understand the differing needs of
their communities. With training and sophisticated surveillance
and communications systems, the National Guard adds important
operational capabilities to law enforcement agencies on the
ground. And we have seen results. Thanks to the National Guard
involvement, law enforcement agencies in 1996 seized 84 metric
tons of cocaine and 371 metric tons of processed marijuana, and
thanks to help from the Guard, the law enforcement made over
128,000 drug-related arrests.
Just as important, National Guard members serve as mentors
and role models in prevention programs around the country,
teaching kids how to resist gang involvement and peer pressure
to use drugs and building self-confidence and leadership
skills. In my home State of Wisconsin, the Guard has been hard
at work. Its Challenge By Choice low ropes course teaches young
people problem solving and self-confidence.
Working with the Milwaukee Police Department, the Guard's
gang resistance and education program teaches 7th graders at
school and at summer camp to avoid gang influences and become
responsible members of the community. And as part of the
Experimental Aircraft Association International Convention, the
Wisconsin National Guard provided drug-related information to
more than 60,000 people. This is important work. I look forward
to hearing about your past successes and challenges for the
future.
With respect to the budget issue, frankly, it is quite easy
to criticize the President's budget when the Republicans didn't
produce a budget of their own. It is my belief that the
American people don't want us to sit up here squabbling on
partisan issues and want us to work together. That is why I am
pleased that the President extended a hand to work with the
Republican majority, and, frankly, I think it is sort of a
cheap shot to go after the President when we are trying to work
together.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Hastert. If there are any other opening statements, we
will ask that they be entered into the record. And without
objection.
Today, we are joined by distinguished representatives from
Government and the private sector and from several States. We
are joined by the Honorable Brad Owen, the Lieutenant Governor
of Washington, welcome; the Honorable Michael Bowers, who is
the attorney general of Georgia, welcome.
We are also pleased to have Major General Russell Davis
here, General, the vice chief of the National Guard Bureau, who
will present us with an overview of the Guard's contribution
and counterdrug operations; Mr. James Copple, director of
Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America, thank you for being
with us, and Mr. Ronald Brooks, chair of the Drug Policy
Committee of the California Narcotics Officers' Association.
The gentlemen will present the views of their respective
organizations.
Gentlemen, we are pleased to have you here today and look
forward to your testimony. As a matter of committee rules, the
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight swears in all
witnesses and I would, therefore, ask you to stand up and raise
your right hands.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Hastert. Let the record show that the witnesses have
answered in the affirmative, and Lt. Governor Owen, please
proceed.
STATEMENTS OF BRAD OWEN, LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR OF WASHINGTON;
MICHAEL J. BOWERS, ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF GEORGIA; MAJOR
GENERAL RUSSELL C. DAVIS, VICE CHIEF, NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU;
JAMES E. COPPLE, PRESIDENT AND CEO, COMMUNITY ANTI-DRUG
COALITIONS OF AMERICA; AND RONALD E. BROOKS, CHAIR, DRUG POLICY
COMMITTEE, CALIFORNIA NARCOTICS OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION
Mr. Owen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate both of
your remarks on the issue.
Let me first say at a time when substance abuse is rising,
especially amongst our children, we need to be recruiting
troops, shoring up our forces, and analyzing our battle plans,
not selling the war effort short.
I hope that the esteemed members of the subcommittee do not
take offense to my using phrases associated with war. I am a
wholesale, 100 percent proponent of prevention and education as
the key elements in our strategy to take on drug abuse. But,
when faced with the absolutely devastating consequences of the
rising tidal of substance abuse, we have to prepare ourselves
and our communities for an all out assault.
If any foreign country inflicted as much pain and
suffering, killed as many of our people, threatened as many of
our children, injured 350,000 of our newborn American babies
each year, or stole as much of our property as drugs and drug
dealers do, we would be in an all out war of which the cost
would not be an issue.
Even though there is an absolute correlation between the
decrease in our Nation's public and private investment in
substance abuse prevention and the recent dramatic increase in
the use of illegal drugs, we still have to battle to maintain
what little we have. The proposal to cut the National Guard
support plans by 42 percent will make this cycle a great deal
worse.
We have got to find a way to resensitize America, our
families and friends, policymakers and media to the seriousness
of substance abuse and to the wisdom of consistent, long-term
funding of substance abuse prevention.
In Washington State, the strongest partnerships that we
have forged have been between the social services, school
community, law enforcement, and military community. Every
substance abuse prevention organization that I know of has had
an absolutely excellent experience with the Washington National
Guard. The high profile of the National Guard, with its high
physical and moral standards, brings a great deal of respect
and impact to our community drug prevention efforts.
The drug demand reduction effort by the National Guard is
involved with youth leadership training camps and mentoring
programs throughout my State. National Guard personnel annually
participate in or facilitate over 100 public/private school
visitations, 75 community events, 25 youth leadership camps, 50
civic group presentations, and 15 onsite training/mentoring
programs.
The National Guard has strengthened school based antidrug
programs and, of real importance, it has served as a catalyst
for coalition development among the diverse groups and
organizations across Washington State.
In terms of the very important interdiction efforts of the
National Guard, I find it difficult to believe we are even
talking about cutting this funding. The Counterdrug Task Force
provides support to 30 local, State, and Federal law
enforcement agencies, and 20 statewide multiagency,
multijurisdictional narcotic task forces. Specially equipped
aircraft provide regional support when asked by law enforcement
agencies.
During the last 18 months, approximately 2,488 flight hours
were flown in direct support of law enforcement agencies.
Because of the shortage of trained personnel with the Guard and
the increasing demand for services, approximately 15 percent of
requests are actually turned down. In the last 18 months,
National Guard interdiction efforts in Washington State were
instrumental in seizing in excess of $308 million in narcotics
and associated assets and approximately 4,047 arrests.
Make no mistake, in the battle against substance abuse, the
National Guard has made critical links and partnerships within
my State. It is an investment with a great return.
Marijuana use by our kids is higher than the national
average. Methamphetamine use has been described as at epidemic
levels, and Seattle's heroin problem was identified and covered
in national magazines as severe. Our ports and borders make our
State an easy mark for importation and distribution.
Consequently, Washington State has been identified as a high
intensity drug trafficking area.
I have every confidence that my troops on the front lines
of prevention in Washington State will fight well, and we can
beat back this epidemic. But we need the National Guard.
The impact of the National Guard's efforts to stop drug
abuse is real and is powerful. The impact is touching the lives
of tens of thousands of our children and our families.
Unfortunately, the impact of the National Guard's efforts will
be gone if this funding is taken away. We simply cannot let
that happen. When we call, in Washington State, we need the
National Guard.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee.
Mr. Hastert. Thank you, Governor Owen.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Owen follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Hastert. Mr. Bowers.
Mr. Bowers. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I
appreciate very much this opportunity to be with y'all. I am
the attorney general of Georgia, but I am also an International
Guardsman and I work for General Davis on my left as chairman
of the National Guard Counterdrug Board, so it's with those two
perspectives that I am going to share some remarks with you,
but I am here as the capacity of the attorney general of my
State.
First of all, let's look at from a national perspective
what is the problem. The problem is for the past few years the
budget for the counterdrug program of the National Guard has
gone up and down like a yoyo. In 1973, we had $193 million for
State counterdrug programs. By 1996, that had been reduced to
$134 million. In fiscal year 1997, it went back up to $180
million, and now it is being proposed to go back down to $132
million.
Well, whether you think the National Guard does good or
bad, that's no way to run any organization, because you can't
plan, you can't predict, you can't be dependable to your
customers, in this case the States and the various law
enforcement agencies.
And the way this problem manifests itself, and it will
manifest itself if this $132 million budget is put into place,
is that all of the accomplishments of the National Guard, both
Army and Air, with respect to the counterdrug program are going
to be put into jeopardy, and I think it's worthwhile to look at
those very briefly.
As Mr. Barrett mentioned earlier, some of those are very
significant accomplishments: 128,000 arrests the National Guard
participated in in fiscal year 1996; $337 million in seizures
of assets; 1.9 million marijuana plants eradicated; 371 metric
tons of processed marijuana. All of these sorts of things are
placed in jeopardy if that budget comes down, and I don't think
any of us, irrespective of our politics, would want any of
these accomplishments jeopardized by the reduction of that
budget. And that's what happens.
So from a national perspective, as best I can discern that,
I would urge y'all to do two things. No. 1, put somewhere like
$200 million or work toward putting somewhere like $200
million, working through the appropriators and the authorizers,
in the budget for the National Guard and fence that money so it
can only be used for that single purpose.
Now, if you will, let me turn to the State. Let me be very
specific with you as to what is going to happen if this budget
is reduced, the National Guard budget for counterdrugs to $132
million. This is my State. We are about a $3 million program,
mid level if you compared all of the programs from California
down to the smallest one. We are not the biggest, about in the
middle, fairly representative.
We have about 70 employees in this program. This is what my
people tell me will most likely happen: Now, when I say ``my
people,'' I am talking about the people in the National Guard,
and I can assure you from a law enforcement perspective if
these things happen it will cripple the 159 sheriffs and the
various police chiefs in Georgia in terms of their counterdrug
fight.
A 30 percent reduction is predicted in seizures, both of
assets, plants, processed drugs and whatever; 30 percent
reduction if this budget is cut in the manner that's planned.
Thirteen drug law enforcement agencies will lose their National
Guard support. Now, what kind of agencies are these? The DEA,
the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, the U.S. Marshall Service.
The Atlanta HIDTA, recently established, it will also lose
support.
Seven multi-jurisdictional drug task forces will lose
highly trained intelligence analysts. Five drug enforcement
agencies will lose their operational investigative case support
analysis. This is one of the most important. Our raid unit,
which is our reconnaissance and interdiction detachment, will
lose one pilot and two mechanics, and that means the marijuana
eradication in Georgia is going to severely suffer.
Now, not all of the marijuana eradication is done by the
Guard, but a great portion is, and in 1995, fiscal year 1995,
we destroyed over 30,000 plants. Now, it dropped way down in
1996 because so much effort was devoted to the Olympics, it
dropped down to 6,000 plants, but that effort is going to be
severely restricted by this.
We have an operation called Silent Watch. They are going to
be reduced by a significant percentage. All of our vehicles,
all of the National Guard vehicles being used for the
counterdrug program are going to be in jeopardy.
Georgia is a big State. It may not be as big as some of
y'all's, but it's the biggest State east of the Mississippi
River. We need a lot of vehicles. Fifty percent of the Federal
law enforcement officials that are trained at the Federal Law
Enforcement Training Center at Brunswick probably won't get
trained.
So from a Federal perspective, I would urge you from the
perspective of a State law enforcement legal officer, which I
am, to restore the proposed cut in the National Guard budget,
and more specifically, plus it up to about $200 million so we
can at least accomplish about 80 percent of what we are called
upon to accomplish through the local law enforcement agencies,
$200 million, and then fence it so nobody can touch it.
And I would challenge anyone to look at the record of the
National Guard, because you are going to find that of all the
DOD agencies, and I am not being disparaging of anybody, but of
all the DOD agencies, nobody can match the National Guard
dollar for dollar in terms of its effectiveness in fighting
drugs in this country. Thank you.
Mr. Hastert. Thank you, General Bowers.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bowers follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Hastert. And now Major Davis.
General Davis. Thank you, distinguished members of the
subcommittee. I would first like to thank you for holding this
hearing so we can have an opportunity to hear about the program
and understand the potential impacts on it. But as importantly
on behalf of Lt. General Ed Baca and the over 500,000 folks in
the National Guard, I would like to say thanks for empowering
us and allowing us to go out and assist the communities in this
great Nation in their fight against drugs, and we do it at all
levels.
As most of you are aware, the National Guard has a long
history of service to our great country. We did it during
colonial times protecting the frontiers, as we expanded west,
during the Revolutionary War, two world wars, Korea, Vietnam,
and the sands of Desert Storm. We still have some folks who
currently serve over there along with other soldiers and airmen
from the National Guard and Reserve in Bosnia.
As the founding fathers envisioned, the National Guard has
and always will be there for the call of this Nation, their
States, and communities in time of crisis. The National Guard
is called upon to help this time in our communities, a call
that we think is a call to serve and defend American's
children. This call to duty is one which we are proud and
pleased to have the opportunity to once again serve.
Counterdrug operations are a high priority in the national
security of the United States, and that's a top notch mission,
we think, for the National Guard. Each day we have about 4,000
soldiers and airmen, citizen soldiers, if you please, working
to restore health, safety, and economic well-being to the
communities of this great Nation that are infested by illicit
drugs.
Operating in programs that were authorized starting back in
1989, the National Guard has been a principal contributor to
supporting this great fight against illicit drugs in terms of
distribution, use, as well as providing specific support to
local, State, and national Federal law enforcement agencies.
The National Guard's long-range counterdrug plan directly
supports all five of the Presidents' National Drug Control
Strategy goals. In 1996, support of law enforcement agencies
resulted in eradication of almost 2 million marijuana plants,
seizure of 371 metric tons of marijuana, 84 metric tons of
cocaine, the confiscation of over $336 million in cash. And
when you combine all of that together, we talk in terms of
street value, value of illicit drugs of over $10 billion.
In 1997, the Guard will continue to conduct a lot of these
operations, some 10,000 of them throughout the territories and
jurisdictions of the United States.
In terms of eradication as well as interdiction, we will be
doing our jobs. Approximately two-thirds of these missions will
be in support of local and State law enforcement agencies. The
other, it's almost 40 percent, will be in support of Federal
law enforcement agencies, and this will be in the form of task
force multijurisdictional, as we have in many instances.
This support continues to be provided on a volunteer basis.
Our people volunteer to come out and we do pay them, but they
take their own time to come out, a lot of time on evenings,
weekends. We have a few folks that are full time. The bulk of
them go to their regular jobs and they will give us 1 or 2 days
a month to participate in this great effort.
Let me talk about some of the operational aspects of law
enforcement agency support. We have eight aircraft, which are
C-26s. They are metroliners, civilian style aircraft. We place
a part on the bottom of it and go out and work with law
enforcement agencies and do photo recon and infrared
surveillance, and we help support the marijuana effort.
Marijuana grows at a very high temperature. Right after
sunset I have had the opportunity to go out in one of these
aircraft, and at night they tend to glow in the dark almost.
They grow at much higher rates and temperatures than other
plants and it's easy to identify them.
In addition to those eight aircraft, and we will have two
more coming on line later this year in New Mexico and Arizona.
We still have and have today 116 Army helicopters which we have
out there with similar type equipment. They don't have the
range or the endurance, but they get out there and can do it.
With thermal imaging they can work with not only just the
eradication, but also with these. They are able to do some
observance of drug transactions and that kind of thing taking
place.
The Air National Guard also has some C-130 aircraft which
house tactical reconnaissance photos, and we can go out and
look in areas and determine where points are during the day as
well as support directly in the prosecution.
One of the problems we have, if we say this drug bust took
place at the corner of 5th and U here in DC, we take you down
5th and put you on that corner, we can take you down U and put
you on the corner and you know exactly where you are.
We are also operating 600 intercept missions in Panama with
our F-16s and rotating units. I was just talking to Governor
Owen about some of the folks from Washington involved in that
process. The National Guard is not in this alone. We are
fighting and working with a large number of agencies throughout
the Nation, and that's important.
Our role is support to law enforcement and other agencies.
Recently we have established a relationship, about a year and a
half ago, with CADCA, and Mr. Copple is going to talk about
that in a little bit here. But we are working with drug
coalitions, working in the community, trying to make that work.
During the next fiscal year, the Guard will network as a
potential to educate and motivate almost 10 million young
people under the age of 18 to reject the use of illicit drugs,
and we think that's important, as does he. We think education
is the key to avoiding and preventing young people being
involved in drugs.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, as I appear
before you here today, our National Guard is located in 3,400
communities throughout the Nation and have over 4,000 young
people out there every day working on this. Our commitment to
the successful
prosecution of this war is no less than our commitment to
prosecute our Nation's defense throughout the rest of the
world.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I thank you for
the opportunity to appear before you.
Mr. Hastert. Thank you, General.
[The prepared statement of General Davis follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Hastert. Now, Mr. Copple.
Mr. Copple. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee. I want to begin by expressing my appreciation to
this committee and its work in a bipartisan way, and especially
your leadership, Mr. Hastert, in your work around the Drug Free
Communities Act and your interest to protect the interests of
communities and what they are doing locally to address this
issue.
At a time when our organization has supported the
President's National Drug Control Strategy, we have at the same
time been very concerned about the lack of resources directed
to communities. We are at the same time concerned with what is
happening with the budget with the National Guard.
In the past 2 years, we have developed a close working
relationship with the National Guard that we believe has been a
critical piece in our contribution coalition building. The
problem of drug abuse is not only a problem in the local
community or individual States or the Nation as a whole, the
problem is a national problem that requires national solutions
effectively applied in local communities.
There is no single sector to blame for many of the
statistics and data you cited around increased drug abuse, nor
can any sector adequately address this issue alone. This
problem will require persistent and consistent messages from
preschool to high school from multiple sectors of the
community. The schools, parents, workplace, media, faith,
medical, criminal justice community must be consistent in their
messages and realize that it requires diligence and persistence
if we are to recapture the high ground necessary to win this
struggle.
I have been asked to describe our relationship with the
National Guard and its impact. As General Davis has indicated,
the Guard is in 3,400 communities; Community Antidrug
Coalitions of America is in 4,300 communities in every State
and in 3 territories. Several weeks ago we sent out a
communication to our members regarding the potential budget
issues around the National Guard, and there was no other single
issue in communication to our members that generated a more
dramatic response to our office of what can we do, because the
Guard is becoming a major, an important voice in local
communities addressing this issue.
And there are four areas that I wish to highlight about how
they are working with communities, especially in the demand
reduction arena. First of all, there is direct community
participation. These Guard members live in the community, they
work in the community, and when they are present with the
community coalition efforts, they give specific guidance and
assistance in strategic planning. Guardspeople are outcome
focused.
If we are to address this issue in a systemic and realistic
way, we are going to need outcome driven plans and strategies
in local communities. Many community activists have been
captured by process and activity oriented thinking that has
little or no effect in reducing substance abuse. When the Guard
has been involved in community planning, efforts to reduce
substance abuse and violence, and are part of the sectors that
are at that table, the result is a strategic plan that is
focused, outcome based and measurable. And that is critical if
we are to strategically place resources and use our resources
effectively in local communities.
Their participation has made a world of difference in local
communities, not only in terms of the planning process but in
implementing and helping to identify local community resources,
financial and human, to address the challenges we face in the
community. The demand of the Guard is found in 50 States and
four territories, and they are critical to our eventual success
in this issue.
The second area where the Guard has been most helpful in
the last several years is their distance learning capabilities.
The Guard has provided through its satellite telecommunications
network a valuable link for our communities to receive
additional education and information around critical issues in
the drug arena. Through its network, hundreds of communities in
48 States have participated in satellite teleconferences. These
programs have included an overview of Department of Defense
efforts to address the drug abuse issue in local communities
and a program on the CADCA-sponsored initiative, Say it
Straight, Our Health, Our Youth and Marijuana. This program was
picked up by 8 cable stations, 15 school districts, and
broadcast in 48 States. Future programs include topics on
methamphetamine, parenting, drug exposed infants, and community
alternative programs to address adolescent drug abuse. This
technology is critical to the ongoing education of our members
and of communities in general.
Increasingly, citizens are beginning to participate in that
downlink/uplink capability that the Guard provides. This is
very important for rural and frontier States, because that is
often the only means for them to receive ongoing training and
information, and that's where our members have expressly
identified as a value added of our Guard partnership.
The third is the liaison partnership. We have ongoing
consistent communication with the Guard as to a way we can
strategically plan together as well as the demand reduction
liaisons that are being used in local communities and community
coalitions. They work side by side, strategically planning
around particular areas.
The Guard was very visible in our National Leadership Forum
recently where they provided again an uplink capacity for
communities that could not attend the National Leadership
Forum, which is a major opportunity for training.
The fourth area is the National Interagency Counterdrug
Institute, which Mr. Chairman, you have already emphasized in
terms of its importance. Their capacity to provide ongoing
training, and now under the leadership of Congressman Portman
and Congressman Levin and others, the Congressional Coalition
Initiative, where about 60 Members of Congress are currently
working to organize community coalitions in their congressional
districts.
The institute is developing a curriculum to assist CADCA's
congressional coalition effort where Members of Congress are
launching community coalition efforts replicating the work, as
I said, of Congressman Portman and others.
This training link for communities, not only do communities
participate in the actual training of law enforcement officers
bringing the community voice to bear, but they also receive
valuable training at the NICI institute in San Luis Obispo and
the training facilities throughout the country.
These are just four areas where we think this partnership
is critical to our future. They will have not only an impact on
what they do in the counterdrug but will have a severe impact
on the demand reduction efforts and us thinking of a
comprehensive conclusive strategy.
In closing, I would say again our hope is we can provide
persistent and consistent messages from preschool to high
school for multiple sectors of the community. This cannot be
left to the media, law enforcement, or the schools. It will
take all of us. The Guard and its citizen soldiers are a
critical part of that and our efforts to reducing drug abuse in
our country. We stand ready to work with you, Mr. Chairman, in
any way we can to rally in support of the Guard's efforts.
Mr. Hastert. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Copple follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Hastert. Mr. Brooks.
Mr. Brooks. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee,
first of all, I applaud your leadership on this issue and I
appreciate the opportunity to be here to speak before you today
regarding the successes of the National Guard counterdrug
programs, and the devastating effects that a proposed 42
percent budget cut would have on our Nation's ability to fight
the evils of drug abuse.
I am here as a past president of the California Narcotics
Officers' Association, the chair of its Drug Policy Committee,
and as the chair of the National Narcotic Officers' Association
Coalition. In California, we represent 7,000 members and the
national coalition represents 33 State narcotic officers'
associations, 1 with 60,000 police officers.
Although I am not an expert in military matters, national
security affairs or our country's budget, I am a veteran
narcotic officer with 22 years of service in California, where
I continue to work.
California is a State that is plagued with drug problems.
As part of the Southwest Border, we are particularly vulnerable
to the vast quantities of heroin, marijuana, cocaine, heroin
and precursor chemicals that flow through our borders from
Mexico. We also produce much of the Nation's domestically grown
high grade marijuana, and have been labelled by the DEA as a
source country for methamphetamine. The California Attorney
General's Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement this last year in 1996
seized 835 operational methamphetamine labs. This is a dramatic
increase from the 465 labs seized by the same agency the year
before. If we don't win the war on drugs in California, then
the Nation will not win the war on drugs.
But California is not alone. No State, city or town in this
Nation has not been affected by drug abuse. With the end of the
cold war, the greatest threat to the security of our Nation is
drug use. Use that carries with it the misery of addiction,
ruined health, prolific violence, school dropout and failed
careers. The answer to this Nation's drug problem is a
comprehensive policy, including treatment, education and strong
law enforcement.
Americans, when polled, continue to describe drug use along
with crime and gangs as their major concerns, and they should
be. Quality of life including living in a safe, drug-free
environment should be the right of every American.
We live in a time when those of us in law enforcement face
yearly budget cuts and diminishing resources. We are frequently
asked to do more with less. One of the ways we have been able
to continue our success in the daily fight against drugs is
through a partnership formed with the National Guard
counterdrug programs. This partnership has proven to be
invaluable in aiding law enforcement's efforts to stop the flow
of drugs into our country, to eradicate domestically grown
marijuana, and to combat the growing epidemic of domestically
produced methamphetamine.
The review of the President's budget submission for fiscal
year 1998 reflects a 4 percent cut in the National Guard
counterdrug programs. This would cut much needed funds that are
currently used by the National Guard to provide assistance to
law enforcement in communities in their fight to reduce the
supply of and demand for illegal drugs. The reduction of
funding of this magnitude would decimate aviation,
intelligence, tactical and engineering support as well as
demand reduction training to State and local law enforcement.
My own State, California, will be forced to reduce its
National Guard counterdrug support by 35 percent. To put these
budgets statistics in real terms, we must look at the efforts
and successes of the Guard in California. They provide tactical
aircraft missions, ground surveillance, demand reduction
training, engineering efforts at the borders that help us in
law enforcement, Federal, State, and local, in doing our job
more efficiently. They truly are trained investigators who
perform functions for which they were trained.
The proposed budget cuts will be devastating to civilian
law enforcement counterdrug efforts. The cuts in California
will mean a 42 percent reduction in aerial reconnaissance and
observation missions for State and local agencies. This will
severely affect the support provided by the National Guard in
the aerial detection and suppression of cannabis cultivation
and methamphetamine manufacturing; the 60 percent reduction in
ground reconnaissance and observation, this is a key component
and complement of the aerial reconnaissance and observation
mission which provides early detection of cannabis gardens and
surveillance of methamphetamine labs; a 42 percent reduction in
the California-Mexico border engineering support mission, this
will severely hamper the efforts of the United States Border
Patrol on Operation Gatekeeper and other successful
interdiction operations; a 42 percent reduction in intelligence
analysis, translation, and linguist support to Federal, State,
and local law enforcement; a 60 percent reduction in
transportation support, which is utilized to extensively
conduct controlled drug deliveries for interdictions and to
transport special equipment and law enforcement personnel to
conduct complex narcotic investigations; and a 42 percent
reduction in drug demand reduction activities. This is in
direct contradiction to the President's Drug Control Policy
Strategy, which established as its No. 1 goal to educate and
enable America's youth to reject illegal drugs and alcohol.
Additionally, these cuts, as, Mr. Chairman, you have
alluded to, these cuts will severely affect and decrease the
training provided by the National Interagency Counterdrug
Institute, NICI. This program located at Camp San Luis Obispo
is a civil-military institute that trains management level
civilians and military personnel to work together in
counterdrug operations and drug demand operations.
To summarize, the proposed budget cuts will cost the
California National Guard to lose up to 42 percent of its
current counterdrug force. This will have a tremendous negative
impact on military support to each of the California's
designated HIDTAs. Law enforcement agency support will drop by
50 percent. More importantly, more than 60 percent of law
enforcement requests for support will have to be denied. This
translates into fewer resources being devoted to educating
youth about the dangers of drugs and a dramatic decrease in our
vigilance of drug traffickers smuggling their deadly loads into
the United States.
We in law enforcement are fighting a difficult battle, one
that will only get worse if support for the National Guard is
reduced. I know there is only a finite amount of funding
available and there are ongoing efforts to balance our Nation's
budget. Spending must be prudent and justified. I believe,
however, to fail to adequately fund the National Guard
counterdrug programs at the current level will clearly send a
message to law enforcement officers, community leaders, and
most importantly, to our Nation's young people.
I believe a request to cut funding and deemphasize the war
on drugs is due in part to a feeling of frustration and a
belief that our drug policies have been a failure. It's
important to remember that from 1979 to 1992 through
enforcement treatment and education, we reduced our Nation's
drug abuse by 50 percent. If we had a 50 percent reduction in
AIDS, cancer, heart disease or teenage pregnancy, we would all
rally in the streets. These would be tremendous successes. In
1992, we took our eye off the ball. Drug abuse, especially
among our young people, has increased. Much of this, I believe,
can be attributed to budget reductions and the deemphasis of
enforcement and demand reduction training.
It's time that we strengthen our resolve to look to our
previous success as an example of how we can reduce drug abuse
and the devastation to our great Nation. Based on my own
involvement with the National Guard, I know that their programs
are well designed, professionally administered, cost-effective,
and user friendly. The National Guard has earned the admiration
of law enforcement and deserves full funding for its programs.
I would urge you to restore funding to the National Guard's
State programs' counterdrug effort to the fiscal year 1997
budget level and provide line item funding for the National
Interagency Counterdrug Institute. I urge this on behalf of the
7,000 CNOA members, the 50,000 National Narcotic Officers'
Association Coalition members, along with all the men and women
of law enforcement that risk their lives each day to stop the
flow of drugs in our country, and I urge it in memory of the 66
California police officers that have lost their lives since
1965 enforcing our drug laws, and most importantly, I urge the
funding on behalf of our country's young people, because they
are truly the future of the Nation. Thank you.
Mr. Hastert. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Brooks follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Hastert. Mr. Bowers, talk me through a typical National
Guard and local law enforcement action that would happen in
Georgia.
Mr. Bowers. You would have a multijurisdictional task
force, let's say in Hinesville, GA, down on the coast. In that
group, you would have the local sheriff, you would have the
Georgia Bureau of Investigation, you might have DEA, other
Federal agencies, you would have the local police from
Hinesville, you would have the National Guard.
Let's say they are busting crack houses. What could very
well happen is they would have conducted intelligence before to
say this most likely is a locale from which crack is being
sold. Sometime during the day, the task force would move out to
that crack task force, there would be a National Guard
helicopter in the air to, actually as a communications
platform. More than likely, with this Operation Silent Watch,
some of the LURSU people, that's the MPs who are Sneaky Petes,
they go out through the woods, get around the crack house to
make sure that nothing goes wrong, make sure nobody gets
killed, let the folks, the task force come and know exactly
what is happening on the ground. That communication is relayed
to a National Guard helicopter then back down to the law
enforcement officials who go out to the crack house. Before
anybody can get away, the bust is made.
I have been on one of those. I have been on several of
them, but I have been on one in a little town, Warrenton, GA,
which is in east Georgia, in a trailer. In this tiny community
of maybe 2,500 people, this trailer had several thousands, I
think $17,000, almost a kilo of powdered cocaine, several
wafers of crack, and that's the kind of thing that can be done
in these joint operations. And that's sort of the way it works.
It's all under civilian control. The National Guard's only role
is to provide assistance, intelligence analysts, communications
platform, the LURSU people, again, doing surveillance. That
sort of thing. That's a typical operation.
Mr. Hastert. General Bowers, you mentioned the fluctuating
budgets the Guards received over the last few years. General
McCaffrey recently came before us and discussed both his
proposal for ONDCP reauthorization. One of the things he talked
about was the proposal to change his budget to a 5-year budget
for counterdrug efforts.
Do you think that a 5-year budget would provide the Guard,
other counterdrug agencies, with the stability necessary for
effective counterdrug planning?
Mr. Bowers. No question about it, sir, yes, absolutely, and
that would be an enormous windfall and boon to the National
Guard, and I say that from my experience working on the
counterdrug board, being able to predict and then to be able to
communicate a predictable level of support to the law
enforcement in the field would be enormously valuable.
Mr. Hastert. General Davis, one of the pleas that we have
heard throughout the country from law enforcement agencies is
they need and want more National Guard intel analysis and
linguistic services that you would provide.
Who can translate--you are doing the translation for
languages that sometimes small communities can't do that. Do
you have the funding necessary to meet the demand for these
specially trained personnel?
General Davis. The missions we are doing now, which we
can't fulfill all the requests, Mr. Chairman, because we get
more requests than we currently have linguists available to do
the translating. Our funding is directly related to the number
of people we can put out there to support law enforcement
agencies, so a lot of this is done for DEA. If we had more
money, we could send more people out. It's kind of directly
proportional to the number of dollars.
Ninety-two percent of the dollars we get in this program go
for flight hours as well as for personnel, pay and allowances
for the individual people we have on board. So if we had more
dollars, we could do more of that.
It's not a problem getting more linguists. We have got some
programs and have expanded significantly in the past 4 or 5
years, and could expand it some additionally. So if we had more
money, we could obviously hire more people to do it.
Mr. Hastert. So you are pretty much at capacity, you are
actually over capacity--under capacity of the demand with the
people? And where are these actions basically taking place?
Mr. Davis. Well, a large percentage, significant percentage
is taking place at Utah. We have linguists out there who do
multilanguage translations, so we have a large number of folks
who can do it.
We have other linguists located at other parts of the
country which we have not used as extensively because we have
to put together equipment to provide that support.
Mr. Hastert. Let me ask you one more question. We talk to
Customs, all these people on the border, what is the advantage
of using Guardsmen to assist the Border Patrol, as opposed to
simply hiring more Customs agents and Immigration officers?
General Davis. Part of that would be we have people already
trained. We have them today; you don't have to train them. You
only pay for them when you use them. We come with a large
amount of high-tech equipment.
We talked about the night sensors that we used very
successfully in prosecuting the war in the Gulf. We have that
on board for virtually no cost, just the cost of operations.
Those are available----
Mr. Hastert. Those are like FLIRs, and those types of
things?
General Davis. Yes, sir. Those are available and our people
are trained to use them. Long term, I think we should look at
that as an option.
One of the advantages also with the Guard is you have
people stationed in, permanent people stationed there. You
can't move them around quite as easily as with the Guard. We
just put them on the ground in whatever location and move them,
but you could certainly do a significant amount of that if you
had fully trained Customs available. You could substitute
those.
Mr. Hastert. Thank you. The gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr.
Barrett.
Mr. Barrett. Thank you. I want to thank all of you for your
fine testimony this afternoon.
I represent a district where drug use is a significant
problem, so obviously I am interested in any effective efforts
we can make to combat drug use, either from the demand side or
the supply side. I also come from a community in a State where
there is very little defense spending, so to the extent that I
can get defense spending in my State, the National Guard is one
of the areas, which is, frankly, an area where I see the
potential for the growth.
What concerns me, and we have talked a lot about the budget
here, in some way it reminds me of the town hall meeting where
the politician fields many, many questions and they are
conflicting questions about priorities and where money should
be spent, and the politician listens to all the questions and
doesn't give an answer to each question, but after all the
questions were asked he said, I wanted to agree with every one
of you, so I am going to ask that we meet privately, so I can
agree with every one of you.
The reason it reminds me of that is we are dealing with a
situation now where basically there has been an agreement
between the President and the leadership in Congress, and I
don't, frankly, know what is going to happen with that
agreement. I assume that the budget blueprint will be approved.
But that is going to set the parameters for the defense
spending, and I think each of us understands that. And what
concerns me today with the criticism of the President's figures
is that, frankly, that is water over the dam at this time. Now
the ball is in Congress's court.
And I don't think that it is an accurate reflection of the
process to say, well, it is the President's terrible numbers.
It reminds me a little bit of the Flip Wilson character on
Rowen and Martin where he says ``The devil made me do it, the
devil made me do it,'' because now we are beyond or we will
soon be beyond the White House. And the priorities will be set
in the committees here on Capitol Hill, and you will be
competing with other parts of the defense establishment who are
looking for dollars.
So I don't want anybody to leave this room today under
the--what I believe is a mistaken belief that if you don't get
the funding that you probably deserve, that it was President
Clinton's fault. Because each person in this room and actually
the Republican leadership has a far greater role at this point
in shaping how much money will be spent on the National Guard.
I think it is accurate to say, and, again, I think most of
you will agree with me, whether we want it to be or not,
National Guard spending is not the tail that wags the dog. I
can't see President Clinton saying, ``I am going to veto this
appropriations bill because there's too much spending for the
National Guard.''
So I think you are doing a service today by presenting the
case for the National Guard. I think that that is a very
important function. And I am glad that we are having the
hearing for that reason.
But my concern is that there are hearings all around
Capitol Hill that are going on where the majority is
criticizing the President for his submission, knowing full well
that there has never been a submission by the Republicans for a
budget. And so, to the extent that there are decisions, it will
be difficult decisions that will have to be made; that they
will blame the President when we are all grown ups, and at this
point it is Congress and the President working together.
So I don't want this to be a kick fest against the
President. And to the extent that there is a legitimate
disagreement as to what the level of funding should be, from a
submission from Secretary Cohen or anyone else in the
administration, I think that is fair game for debate. But I
think that we should definitely keep in mind that what you are
up against, basically, is other demands in defense spending.
So I am going to ask each of you where you think that we
should be curtailing defense spending in order to fully fund
the National Guard. Maybe, Mr. Owen, if you have any thoughts.
Mr. Owen. Thank you, Congressman. I specifically didn't run
for Congress so I wouldn't have to answer that question. That's
not true. I couldn't tell you. I don't know the defense budget
adequately enough to try to guess whether or not you should
make the shifts. But what I do know is, in the battle that
we've been fighting for years, the biggest problem that we've
had is consistent, ongoing funding in----
Mr. Barrett. And I agree.
Mr. Owen [continuing]. In this area.
Mr. Barrett. I agree. I think that Mr. Bowers' comments
were very well taken. The worst thing we can do is have an up
and down budgeting process. I think that is unfair to anyone.
So I agree. I don't mean this to be a loaded question, but I
just--if anyone has any ideas where we should be moving from.
Mr. Bowers. I think it's easy, Your Honor.
Mr. Barrett. I am not Your Honor.
Mr. Bowers. I've forgot I wasn't in court. I think that's
an easy question to answer. You go to the other DOD agencies--
and I can say this, I am a civilian here--you go to the other
DOD agencies and take counterdrug money from them and put it
here, for a very simple reason. This is where you get the best
bang for the buck. I mean, that's a given in terms of a
question. Take it from the Navy, take it from the Army, take it
from the active Air Force, because this is where you get the
bang for the buck, right here.
Mr. Barrett. OK. I appreciate that.
Mr. Copple. And I, as another citizen, I would agree with
General Bowers 100 percent. I think that the Guard's capacity
to coordinate and strategically plan, and the continuum from
law enforcement to prevention, is critical for communities.
I mean, our organization has continually been concerned
about the split. This would be an issue with some of the
members of the panel, I'm sure, between the split and the drug
budget as a whole, between supply side and demand side.
I think there's a critical issue in this country that we
have to face, that demand continues to fuel supply. And we're
very concerned about how resources get to the communities.
What we have in the National Guard out of the Department of
Defense--and if you would have asked me this 20 years ago, I
would have thought no way would this have happened--but out of
the Department of Defense we are getting a major commitment to
do a continuum, a comprehensive approach, not just supply side,
not just prevention side, but a continuum of service that I
think is critical to the future.
I think your comments are appropriate that what we're
dealing with, either in a national drug control strategy or as
a budget, is that this is a baseline from which we're beginning
this discussion. And from a community perspective, we were very
concerned from both the Democratic and the Republican side and
from a congressional side and from a White House side as to
what we were seeing in communities.
I'm here today because the Guard is one resource that
really gets to local communities. And we're very concerned
about it being cut. I'm concerned about any program that takes
away from community.
Mr. Barrett. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hastert. The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Souder.
Mr. Souder. I have been sitting here very patiently, but I
want to make a couple of comments. One is that, first, Mr.
Brooks, I had the privilege of being out along the California
border over spring break, took an unofficial tour with a member
from Duncan Hunter's staff--both in the middle of the night and
the next day around--along the Tijuana border and along Campo.
Without the roads and changes that have been done there, I
don't know how you can begin to watch the border. It is up and
down, it is back in. And I think your work is to be commended
in the 442 miles and 550 miles along the border, because it is
essential to try and enforce any national policy, and we all
have a lot of frustrations with that.
I can think of a couple places we could cut. Possibly we
could reduce funding for crucifixes in urine and calling it
art. Perhaps we could fund a few less abortions in China. In
other words, it is an artificial construct to say it has to
come out of the defense of our country.
We have to look at the full budget, and the budget, in
fact, does show priorities. If the drug war is our No. 1
priority, and people know back home that the crime on the
streets and the gangs and the drugs are totally interrelated,
along with alcohol, then we have to focus on that area.
And when there are proposed cuts to start, I understand it
is a negotiating process, but it does say whose priorities are
what. And this committee has focused on this for now 2 years,
to try and keep this priority up there.
And I know the election is over. But as soon as the
election is over, we can't say the drug war over, and that is
the danger we have right now. I personally am so upset about
Governor Weld being proposed as Ambassador to Mexico, when he
has insulted our drug czar by saying that he shouldn't enforce
the national laws and should back off on just so-called
medicinal use of marijuana. You can get the THC component in
other drugs. It is back door legalization.
I am now also, to be bipartisan with this, upset at
Congress. Today or tomorrow we are going to vote on an
international bill, that an amendment was put in in committee
that would change it so Congress doesn't have the right to work
on the decertification question, to put that in.
And I wanted to ask Mr. Brooks: Do you think this is going
to help in California, if we back off from the pressure on
Mexico and say that we are no longer going to raise the
decertification issue with them? Is that going to help the
narcotics officers in California and your relationships with
Tijuana border patrol and so on?
Mr. Brooks. No, I don't think it will. I just recently
testified in the Senate on the decertification issue, and I
think it's very important that we keep the pressure on Mexico.
I think Administrator Tom Constantine from DEA was exactly
correct, from my experience, being from a border State, when he
says right now in Mexico there's not one single law enforcement
component that we can trust.
We are being inundated with drugs from Mexico, and with
methamphetamine labs. When I spoke about these 835
methamphetamine labs, the vast majority of those are run by
cartels in Mexico operating them in California. They're run by
the Carillo Fuentes group and the Arellano Felix group with the
money going back to Mexico.
When we hit those labs, we don't get their money. We don't
find their palatial estates here in California. We find that
that money is channeled directly to Mexico. And so it's
absolutely imperative, in my opinion, that we keep the pressure
up on Mexico and other source and transshipment countries in an
effort to get some cooperation.
Mr. Souder. The scary thing is that, amazing thing with
these numbers, they go up in election years and down in
nonelection years. Drugs can't be an election issue. We have to
keep the pressure on all across the board and on many fronts.
I also had--this is more of a technical question to
Attorney General Bowers. You mentioned about fencing the money.
Mr. Bowers. Yes.
Mr. Souder. Could you explain how you would do that and
what exactly you mean? I mean, I know what you mean in the
sense it goes for Guard, for just drug operations. And you made
an interesting side comment, and I wondered how it related. You
said eradication went down because of the Olympics in Georgia.
Did that mean that drug money got diverted and wasn't fenced,
or what did you mean?
Mr. Bowers. No. It means that assets that would have been
used for drugs were used for other things associated with the
Olympics. And it was a dramatic drop in the number of marijuana
plants destroyed from 1995, 1996: 30,000 in 1995, about 6,000
in 1996. But it was not diversion of drug money. That's a
criminal offense, and I can assure you we weren't doing that.
Mr. Souder. So what--how do you mean fencing, in the sense
of----
Mr. Bowers. Fencing, something like the Senate bill, I
think it's S. 862, which says that of this appropriation, so
much will be for the National Guard counterdrug program. And,
quite frankly, the purpose behind that is to make sure that
that is not diverted into other DOD counterdrug programs, and
is used right here where you get the best bang for the buck.
And I would challenge anybody to look at it in terms of a
dollar-for-dollar effectiveness. Nothing comes close to the
Guard in terms of where you get the bang for the buck. And the
other thing that's critical is, this is money that is being
used to support your home town law enforcement agency, not some
Federal bureaucracy up here in Washington, although I'm very
fond of them, and they do wonderful jobs. I would much rather
that dollar be spent for the sheriff of Clinch County, GA, or
whatever county you're from.
Mr. Souder. Lieutenant Governor, I had a question for you,
too. We focused mostly on the Southern borders. Could you
explain a little bit the challenges you face? Is it more coming
in through water into Washington State, across the border from
Canada? Give me a little idea. Or up from California?
Mr. Owen. Washington State has a number of challenges in
that area, because we are a border State both with other
States--with Canada, I mean, and of course the ocean with all
the ports.
Our ports, I think that we're something like sixth in the
Nation for container port activity in Washington State. We've
got one of the busiest airports, activity coming from all of
the world into Seattle, Tacoma International Airport. We have a
tremendous amount of international travel, from people coming
up from Mexico to work, et cetera. We have a tremendous number
of challenges.
But at the same time, Washington State's youth lead the
Nation in increasing marijuana use and are still ahead of the
rest of the Nation. And I think there are significant pressures
there that contribute to that.
A child that uses marijuana is 85 percent more likely than
another child that doesn't to use another drug. So you have
that compounding problem when you let that get out of hand.
Washington State has a huge music industry that is very,
very popular amongst the kids who openly espouse the
legalization and use. We are a targeted State for legalization.
We are under medicinal use attack right now of any schedule one
drug, not just marijuana.
So we have pressures that are not just international
pressures. We have pressures from within, as well, to try to
deal with the problem.
And I want to make it crystal clear that I don't believe
that this is a President Clinton or any other President issue,
a problem here. If you take a look at the increase in use by
the citizens of America, it started back when the attention
went down and the investment went down in 1989 to 518 network
news stories about substance abuse. Four years later there were
only 78. Public service announcements went down by 20 percent.
Today they think they're down by 30 percent, and those that
have been placed are placed in nonpeak hours. At the same time,
the attack or the open assault for legalization just went
crazy.
Those are contributing factors, as well as the public and
private investment into the issue that has driven up the use.
Washington State just has all those factors funneled at it, as
well as the ports and the borders to deal with.
Mr. Souder. I thank you all for your leadership.
Mr. Hastert. The gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Cummings.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much. I want to thank you all
for being here. As I was just sitting here, I was just
listening and thinking that just this morning, on my way here
from Baltimore, which has a major drug problem, I saw about
five or six drug deals just in about six or seven blocks. That
is not an unusual picture for me, living in the area that I
live in near downtown Baltimore, so I see it up front and very,
very personal.
And, you know, I want to commend the National Guard in
Maryland. They have done a great job. They have been very
helpful to us, to our law enforcement agencies. As a matter of
fact, working with the National Guard, our U.S. Customs and
U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration agents seized about 2,400
pounds of cocaine worth $25 million back in February. So that
is very, very significant, and that is real good.
But it just seems like there is so much flowing into our
country that even a big hit like that, $25 million worth, you
would think that that would have a tremendous impact, but I get
the impression that that is part of the cost of dealing in
drugs. I guess they just assume there are going to be some
situations where they are going to lose out.
But, Mr. Attorney General, I just want to ask you
something. I listened to the example that you gave just now,
talking about the small town. What are you guys doing with
regard--I mean, how is it the National Guard helps you in the
urban areas?
Mr. Bowers. Same kinds of ways.
Mr. Cummings. Same types of ways?
Mr. Bowers. Exactly the same kinds of ways: communication
support, aviation support, surveillance, reconnaissance, all of
those kinds of things, not dissimilar from what's done out in
the rural areas.
Mr. Cummings. How do you all make that determination? I
heard you use the words ``task force.'' How to you make the
determination as to which types of--I practiced criminal law
for 20 years, so I kind of, you know, I mean, I have a lot of
mixed feelings about drug--our so-called war on drugs. But I am
just wondering, when you make a determination as to how you are
going to use the National Guard, how is that done? Is your
office involved?
Mr. Bowers. No. No. It would be the local law enforcement
officials.
Mr. Cummings. OK.
Mr. Bowers. We're prosecutors.
Mr. Cummings. Right.
Mr. Bowers. We're not--I don't--I have one investigator. So
I'm not really in the law enforcement business. But it could be
the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, which is a State-wide
entity. It depends on which part of the State, what geographic
multijurisdictional task force. Or it might be just working
directly for a local sheriff or a local police chief.
Mr. Cummings. When you say that--I think several of you
have said that you get your most bang for your buck from this.
Can you elaborate just a little bit for me?
Mr. Bowers. Yes. If you look at seizures, if you look at
confiscations, dollars, weapons, arrests, drugs, and you
compare the various DOD agencies, there is no question where
you get the most for the dollar spent. And that is with the
National Guard, and that should not be surprising.
I would attribute it to two things. One, posse comitatus
does not apply to the National Guard. As long as the National
Guard is in State service, which it is in in performing these
duties, posse comitatus doesn't apply. So it can have a much
bigger role in law enforcement, albeit not performing arrest
functions and functions where the Guards might have to be
witnesses and such, but it can still help out a lot more.
And the second reason is, rather than working for Federal
agencies, it's working for the local police chief, the local
sheriff, the local multijurisdictional task force, where really
street crime is dealt with in this country in the main.
So if you compare all those objective statistics to see
where are you getting value, I will guarantee you, the Guard
will come out way ahead of all the Department of Defense
agencies. And I'm not being disparaging of them. They're all
essential, but this is where you get the dollar, right here.
General Davis. If I might add something to that, please,
just a couple of statistics we throw out: 92 percent of the
marijuana drug seizures are seizures as a result of the Guard
being involved in support of law enforcement agencies; 90
percent of heroin seizures; 34 percent of cocaine seizures.
I was a commanding general of the District of Columbia for
about 4 years, the National Guard in the District of Columbia
about 4 years. We work with these multiagency task forces
routinely. I was out, as General Bowers, Attorney General
Bowers was out on a number of instances with these, just to see
what our young people are doing in terms of the activity.
And the activities will relate to those which relate to
active drug operations. They'll relate to, as we had in the
District, we closed about four or five crack houses every year.
We supported a number of requests from the attorney general who
was the prosecute--she would prosecute, as Attorney General
Bowers is in Georgia.
Here in Washington, whenever they were prepping for a case,
they would always have us come in and help do that as they
developed the evidentiary portions of the--the visual display,
primarily, so we can put in a drug deal on that corner. It's
very difficult for a lot of people to visualize it. But, as I
said a little earlier, if you come down T Street from one
direction, I can put you on the corner. From the other
direction, I can put you on the corner of 14th and T. I can
come down 14th Street. And all of a sudden, your head and your
mind, as the jury, are on 14th and T on the northwest corner.
And when that drug bust takes place, you can relate to it,
identify with it, and it makes it happen.
Mr. Cummings. You all may have talked about training a
little bit earlier, but I am just curious, what kind of
training got into the National Guard with regard to these
issues?
General Davis. A lot of that would be training we already
have.
Mr. Cummings. OK.
General Davis. I would say probably 85, 90-plus percent of
it is people who are trained as military policemen or doing
military police types of things, be that evaluating data in
intelligence analysis, computer inputting. We do have some
specialized training. We haven't talked, but we deal with
support to Customs, mail inspection, those kinds of things, bag
inspection, port inspection, as we do out in the State of
Washington. And when we do that, people are using--95 percent
of those people are using skills that they already possess.
We do do some specialized training in mail handling,
operation of the special x-ray type machines and that kind of
thing. But most of the folks who are out there doing--and
that's the beauty of using the Guard, we don't have to have a
lot of additional training. We come as a trained resource. I
talked a little bit ago, we talked about Customs agents. We
come trained. And we have a large amount of high-tech
equipment: night vision goggles, infrared sensing, those kinds
of high-tech equipment that's part of the military operation,
and we just convert that use over for purposes of the drug
operation to, on a cost basis, to utilizing it with our already
trained folks and equipment we have available.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much.
Mr. Hastert. The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. LaTourette.
Mr. LaTourette. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As I listened to all of your testimony, I want to focus on
the asset forfeiture section. I used to be an old broken-down
county prosecutor before I came to Congress, and we are very
interested in asset forfeiture. And, more particularly, after
we seized the assets, we were very interested in what we could
do with the assets we seized.
As you testified, I wrote down from the Lieutenant Governor
$308 million in assets, $337 million in Georgia from the
attorney general, and General Davis, I think you said $336
million in cash.
Do each of you have in place, when the National Guard is
involved in a task force or joint operation, does the National
Guard get to share in the proceeds of the seized cash or
assets? Is there an equitable sharing arrangement in place in
Georgia and in Washington?
Mr. Owen. I'm not aware in Washington State. General Barlow
has consistently said that it's his mission to support the
efforts of the local folks. It's not his place to take the--for
the National Guard to take the lead, but to be there to provide
the equipment, the talent, the support services and that. So I
don't believe that they are taking a share of that, that I
know.
Mr. LaTourette. Attorney General Bowers?
Mr. Bowers. In Georgia, the answer to your question is yes.
And as best I understand, that is going to vary State-by-State.
Mr. LaTourette. Sure. OK.
Mr. Bowers. But Georgia, yes.
Mr. LaTourette. We used to have--what we drew up is a
contract based upon the level of participation of each law
enforcement agency. And, General Davis, do you have a response
to that? Is that a widely practiced practice?
General Davis. It's--I don't know. I would say, as far as
my last recollection, it was around a third of the States who
were having some level of participation in asset seizure. Some
of them it's difficult to work.
In the District of Columbia we were involved in asset
seizure. We never could do it because of the nature of the way
we do funding for the District of Columbia. But many States
have it, and they do participate in it.
More States are seeking it. In many instances they require
special legislation within a State in order for them to
participate in asset seizure. It's an unusual process in the
law, which is not typical and probably hadn't been thought of
15, 20 years ago.
Mr. Bowers. Also, at one time, a year or so ago, there were
a couple of Federal agencies that had balked at asset
forfeiture sharing with the National Guard.
Mr. LaTourette. OK.
Mr. Bowers. I think that's been cleared up now, and we are
sharing, but that was the case a couple years ago.
General Davis. In other States, as opposed to asset
seizure--and I was just handed a note here by our real true
experts behind me that said 10 States have programs where they
do share in asset seizures.
But a number of the States, what happens is, if they have a
special requirement for equipment--as an example, in the
District of Columbia, we inherited through the Metropolitan
Police two vans which we could use. And they will customize
vans that they use for undercover work and all, and we could
use these vans. Actually, one of the vans we used to transport
our people back and forth to Dulles Airport, where we did mail
inspection and evaluation for our counterdrugs.
Mr. LaTourette. Sure. The reason I asked the question is,
one, regardless of the funding level that eventually comes out,
whether it is the $179 million that was in this fiscal year, or
whether or not the President's proposal of $103 million, or
whether there is some other figure that comes out of the
appropriations process, those States that don't have asset
sharing and equitable distribution, I think you can make up
some of the shortfall that way.
But more seriously, in Georgia, Attorney General Bowers, I
wrote down when you were testifying that if the reduction that
was proposed in the budget were to come to pass in the final
budget, that there would be a 30 percent reduction in seizures.
Now, I would take that to mean that you would not only take the
whack and whatever the reduction in the State's planned budget
was, but you would likewise see, if you received $1 million,
for instance, in asset forfeiture, you would see that reduced
by a third as well. So that the problem is not just a problem
of less Federal participation, it is a problem that is going to
compound itself in the Guard's ability in those States that
share.
Mr. Bowers. That is correct.
Mr. Owen. Congressman, can I clarify?
Mr. LaTourette. Certainly.
Mr. Owen. $308 million was narcotics and assets. We can't
sell the narcotics. And I just wanted to make clear that----
Mr. LaTourette. The only one I wrote down cash for was
Major General Davis. Everyone else, I just wrote down those
were assets that were seized, and I assumed that you included
drugs in those assets as well.
But out of that $300 million, everyone, at least every drug
enterprise I have been involved in, you not only find your
kilos or rocks of crack cocaine, but you also find that they
have a little cash laying around that is labeled in most States
as contraband.
Mr. Owen. Cars, boats.
Mr. LaTourette. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bowers. May I clarify one thing?
Mr. LaTourette. Oh, sure, you can.
Mr. Bowers. We may have miscommunicated, and I probably
have misspoken, but the $336 million that you mentioned seized,
that is a national figure. That's not a Georgia figure. That's
for the whole National Guard.
Mr. LaTourette. Well, I am from Ohio, and I know the folks
down in Georgia are a lot wealthier than we are. I thought that
was a lot of money but I wasn't going to quibble with it. Thank
you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hastert. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman from
Florida, Mr. Mica.
Mr. Mica. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, I want to take
just a moment to thank you all for the tremendous contribution
you make, not only to our national security but also to this
tremendous domestic threat that we face and where the drug war
has inundated every community and affected so many people
across our land.
I just returned about a week ago from south Florida, where
I met with some of our DEA officials and Customs and other law
enforcement folks, and they also were praising the work that
you do. I believe you work with some of the HIDTAs, the high
intensity drug traffic areas.
One of the things that was raised is--well, first of all,
they compliment you again on your fine efforts, the
contributions you make. But they were concerned that the tenure
and rotation of these folks, just by the time they--and some of
the work that they are doing is a bit technical. And you
provide great resources and personnel backup assistance. But by
the time they get someone acquainted with the mission and the
task that they are--their history, is there anything that we
can do to address that? Because we want your presence. We want
your assistance, but we want it to be helpful, useful to these
folks in this effort. Anyone can respond. General Davis?
General Davis. I will take a cut at that, sir. One of the
problems that we have is that these programs are funded from
year to year. And I think Attorney General Bowers talked about
some of the fluctuation, as did some of the other panelists.
So the people we hire for those programs, we hire basically
on kind of almost a 1-year contract basis. And at the end of
that year, then we will see what the funding is to see whether
they will continue the following year. So it's almost an at-
will type hiring arrangement. And so that's one of the problems
of getting the continuity of personnel that you discussed.
We talked a little bit earlier about, I think before you
joined us, about some of the folks who don't require training
because they work pretty much in the same areas that they have
military skills in. But we do have some people who are trained.
And some of those folks who are trained, it's very
disquieting to them, as well as the agencies we support, when
they leave the program. But if you have basically what amounts
to a 1-year contract with no guarantee of employment the
following year, and you have an opportunity to go to work--let
me give you an example.
We have lost people in the District of Columbia, I know, to
DEA, to ATF and some of the agencies we worked for. They've
left us as full-time military members working in a counterdrug
program, to go work as civilians and then participate on drill
weekends as our--what we call our mobilization day soldiers. So
there's that kind of problem that we have also with continuity.
It's in part related, I think, to the fact we don't have
long-term funding, that it is year-to-year. And sometimes
during the course of the year we've had money withdrawn from
the counterdrug program in the Department of Defense, from the
National Guard, so we end up having to make up that deficit by
releasing people. So there's some insecurity involved in it.
And the long-term continuity is definitely impacted by year-to-
year funding.
Mr. Mica. Is there any way we can assure some longer-term
personnel commitment, or is that not possible under the
structure?
General Davis. We get money to hire people for this
program, sir. And I would say probably 60 percent of them work
for us through the entire year, maybe a higher percent of that
now that we've been in it, will work for us for the entire
year.
The remainder of the people will work for us for 2 or 3
months, and then they will go and get a full-time job doing
something else. They may be between school terms. We have a lot
of students who we utilize in these kinds of programs, and
they'll be there during the Christmas break and during the
spring break and that kind of thing, in the summer, but then
they go back to school full time. If the program allows them to
work evenings, sometimes they'll participate at that level.
So these are not our full-time cadre people who are
designed and hired by us to produce readiness in the National
Guard. These are people over and above that, and they're paid
for out of these counterdrug funds that we get.
Mr. Mica. Are there any other instances where we could use
your personnel if you had, you know, the funding, support? And
I notice, of course the administration's proposal to
dramatically cut, I guess it is 42 percent of your support plan
funding. But if you had additional funding, could you tell me,
are there other areas where you could help? I, too, am
concerned about the District of Columbia, other high intensity
drug traffic areas. Are you doing all you can do with the
resources, the resources and personnel that you have?
General Davis. If we base all we can do, sir, on the fact
that we have more requests than we can fulfill, no. There's a
lot more that could be done if we had the funding. We fulfill
now something in the area of 50 to 60 percent of the requests
at the current funding. More money, we could fund a greater
percentage of the requests.
The requests for National Guard support have to fall within
certain guidelines. I might say that. So this is not just
requests for anything we do. All of this has to be approved
through State plans that the Governors submit to the National
Guard Bureau and they're approved at Department of Defense. So
we've already preapproved these given sets of plans and actions
that we can take. Once we tell our law enforcement agencies
about it, they make their request. Some of those we can't
fulfill because we just don't have the manpower.
Mr. Mica. So you have requests now beyond what you have
financial capability?
General Davis. Yes, sir, we do. And I might let Attorney
General Bowers--because the requests come through, the State
requests would come through his agency.
Mr. Mica. If you like to respond, I would appreciate that.
Mr. Bowers. Yes, sir. One thing that immediately comes to
mind, that would be a boon to law enforcement officials in this
country, would put us back in the transporting of prisoners
business.
If you have a major drug bust in this city, right here, and
there are a lot of illegal immigrants involved, most likely the
U.S. attorney is only going to prosecute ring leaders. So
you're going to be left with a group of people who are not
going to be prosecuted, who are illegal immigrants in this
country, and for whom the INS does not have money to send them
to a port of debarkation. So what's going to happen to them?
They're going to be turned loose, right back out on the
streets, I'll guarantee you.
At one time we were authorized to take prisoners in our
transport aircraft and take them to ports of debarkation. If
you asked the Federal law enforcement officials, like the
people at North Star and projects like that, I think they'd
tell you, if you all were willing to give us the money, that
would be one of the No. 1 priorities: get these illegal
immigrants, most likely criminals, back out of the country.
Mr. Mica. Thank you.
Mr. Hastert. I thank the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. Brooks, you have talked about watching the crack
epidemic in the 1980's, and going through the boom in
production of methamphetamine. Can you kind of tell us, what
are the similarities, and where the stuff comes from, and how
does it affect your ability in law enforcement?
Mr. Brooks. Well, they're both central nervous system
stimulants. They affect the body very similarly, except that
methamphetamine is a much longer lasting, much more easily
obtained drug. And it's a drug that can be made in small and
large production labs throughout this country with readily
available precursor chemicals.
This has caused such a tremendous problem throughout the
West Coast and now throughout the Nation. You know, I was
surprised, as I travel across the country and talk on this
issue, that they told me--that law enforcement executives in
Des Moines, IA tell me that the single biggest problem they
face is California-manufactured methamphetamine; that they make
more arrests for methamphetamine-related crime in Des Moines
than any other crime, DUIs, family violence, public
intoxication.
What we find with methamphetamine use is it is so consuming
that people are unable to parent. They cannot provide for their
children. They become very paranoid and violent. There's
tremendous family violence and abuse that's associated with it.
And a study in the Antelope Valley, which is north Los Angeles
County, 86 percent of all child abuse cases were related to
persons that were under the influence of meth and couldn't take
care of their kids.
Mr. Hastert. Did you say 86 percent?
Mr. Brooks. Yes, sir. We have a case in Riverside County,
CA, southern California, where a methamphetamine laboratory
blew up in a trailer. And the parents allowed their children to
perish in the fire because they were busy moving the precursor
chemicals and trying to save those chemicals from the fire.
You've probably heard about the case in New Mexico, an
Arizona man that cut his own son's head off and threw it out
the window while his 13-year-old son watched in horror, because
this person had been on a 3- or 4-day methamphetamine run, had
not slept, was hearing voices, was delusional, and thought that
God had told him to hack this child's head off.
And I can go on. I still run a narcotic task force where I
am out on the street every single day, and I can go on with
stories like this forever. The violence and the destruction of
family is so tremendous with methamphetamine, it's the single
biggest problem we face in narcotic enforcement.
And California's meth problem is the Nation's meth problem.
When I go to Florida, I was in Florida, and they said, ``Hey,
you know, we always think of ourselves as the cocaine capital
in south Florida.'' The biggest problem they face in south
Florida today is California methamphetamine being shipped
across the country.
Mr. Hastert. Mr. Copple, you talked persuasively about the
National Guard's role in prevention. Can you tell me precisely
what does the Guard do to help your communities, and how many
communities do you represent?
Mr. Copple. We represent 4,300 communities, but I would
like to finish General Bowers' story, if I could. I will move
it to Kansas where I lead a local coalition.
The same National Guard that would be working on
counterdrug strategies are the same Guard who were in
neighborhoods that had a number of crack houses, and a major
task force worked to close down those crack houses. In some
cases there were crack houses where gang members were being
jumped in.
And for a year I rode with our gang unit 4 nights a week,
doing street interventions and volunteer Guard on weekends.
When a crack house was torn down, the Guard worked with us to
put in what we call progressive playgrounds. And this lot, we
put swing sets; three lots down, we put basketball courts; five
lots down, we put jungle gym activities. We turned lots that
were basically vacated by crack houses and gang houses in
neighborhoods where the houses were boarded up, and the Guard
worked with us in that community to build those.
Those were the kinds of resiliency and prevention
activities which were important to our communities. And it's
that kind of thing that is going on in numerous communities,
again, where the Guard is working to get coalitions to think
more strategically and comprehensively in the way they plan,
and in the way they work together, and to reach out to do
mentoring programs where Guards--members are actively involved
as mentors, to work with them to do, in collaboration with law
enforcement, prevention education programs and working directly
in the schools.
So those are just a couple of things that work. So they
run, again, the continuum of activity from law enforcement to
very real prevention activities, making very substantive
community change.
Mr. Hastert. I thank the gentleman. And I recognize the
gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. Barrett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General Davis, what percentage of the Guard's personnel
man-hours and budget is devoted to the counterdrug effort?
General Davis. We're talking in terms of total budget of
about $9 million, Army Guard and Air Guard. And it's $180
million. I guess that's something, 1 percent, somewhere along
in there.
Mr. Barrett. OK. I was trying to get a feel of what
percentage of it. And when you--Mr. Copple was talking about
the interaction with community. When the Guard goes into the
community, maybe either one of you can answer this, who is the
spark that brings them into the community? Is it something that
the Guard does or is it something that the community asks the
Guard to do?
General Davis. It's actually at the request. As I talked a
little earlier, sir, the Guard is in support of activities. As
an example, a coalition would request that we come in.
Sometimes we go in and do planning and help with some of the
strategic planning. That's part of what the Guard brings as how
we organize and equip ourselves and all. So we will take that
to a community.
But it's a request, usually will come from a law
enforcement agency more typically. It will come in and it will
get filtered through the process of a letter comes in and we
would like to have you support us on this.
In DC, we have a process, and most States have something
similar, where we look at the request to see whether it falls
within the Federal guidelines that have been approved by DOD
for spending money or funding for that type of activity. On the
basis of that, we will decide whether we can do it or not and
then contact the agency and then move out and do it.
Other times it will come, as I said, through one of the
coalitions. If they're in the counterdrug, we will request from
them maybe, what's your charter? You're a nonprofit
organization. We will ask those kinds of questions before we
send our people out, to make sure we're not subsidizing their
payroll, we're out there with nonprofit organizations, people
who really need. If they're a member of CADCA-MET, we can get
with Jim and his folks right down here in Old Towne and talk to
them. We can--they have--they're kind of like the Red Cross.
You have to send them all your charters and all those other
things, fiscal statements, and everything else. So that's how
we go about it, to make sure we aren't just out subsidizing an
organization that doesn't have any legitimacy.
Mr. Copple. I would add that, to me, one of the real silent
powerful forces working with the Guard in each of the States
are the demand reduction administrators. These demand reduction
administrators, again, it may come as a request through law
enforcement.
Mr. Barrett. I'm not understanding. Who is that person?
Mr. Copple. That is an assigned staff member in each State.
Mr. Barrett. For the National Guard?
Mr. Copple. For the National Guard who works on demand
reduction issues. Part of what's happened in the last couple of
years is we've partnered with the National Guard. We've let our
members know who those demand reduction members are. Coalitions
are made up of law enforcement, prevention, treatment,
education, and continuing care folk.
It may be the district attorney in Wichita, KS, that
contacts the demand reduction administrator and says, you know,
we could use some help from the Guard in a variety of
activities, and they would meet, begin to strategically plan,
work with the local Guard unit in those respective communities
in a variety of areas.
Mr. Barrett. And again you used the example of building.
Mr. Copple. Playgrounds.
Mr. Barrett. Playgrounds. Did they actually build them or
were they involved in it?
Mr. Copple. They were involved in the actual building.
What happened was the Guard--once we decided that's what we
were going to do, and we strategically planned it, we
identified the lumber company, the resources that were going to
help fund it to raise the money to actually build the
playground equipment, the volunteer Guard on weekend, the Guard
unit was assigned, and also a Reserve unit that was attached to
McConnell Air Force Base where we were at were also working
side by side in this effort. The resources for it were
generated from the private sector.
Mr. Barrett. And the localities, how were they identified,
and how were they approved? Were they private pieces of
property?
Mr. Copple. Yes. But they were properties that lapsed
either in taxation. The city took them over. We had a major
code enforcement measure dealing with gangs and drug issues, so
that if properties that were being rendered or lost, and code
enforcement was not applied, then we gave the community the
power to take over those crack houses.
Mr. Barrett. If you could give me more information on that
committee, I would be very interested.
Mr. Copple. Sure.
General Davis. One of the things we'll do during the course
of the years is we'll set up a letter of agreement, and this
will be one we will just ratify it each year in terms of making
sure it's current with all the law enforcement agencies, other
agencies we routinely deal with. And that list will come out as
a result of there either being a Federal agency or a--an
organization that's been identified by the police.
You see the orange hat coalitions. I've got an orange hat
in my office because I've been around here in the District with
those orange hat coalitions. And what they do is they are
nonprofit organizations and, many times, loose associations who
are out there trying to take their communities back. And so we
will know who they are and we will deal with them from time to
time. And then those requests, formal written requests come
from the Metropolitan Police here in the District. So there's
some process similar to that in each and every one of our
jurisdictions so that we have an official sanction of that
organization and the activity.
Mr. Barrett. OK.
General Davis. And as a reasonable script to assure
ourselves that we're doing appropriate things with taxpayers
money, sir.
Mr. Barrett. Thank you very much.
Mr. Mica [presiding]. Thank you. I had a couple of
questions.
General Davis, one contribution I understand the Guard is
making to the community of Tyler, TX, is that they are
contributing personnel and assets to the raising of former
crack houses that have been abandoned. If you can, could you
elaborate a bit on this program? And I would like to know if
other communities in Texas or elsewhere have considered this
program?
General Davis. I want to look at my cheat sheet on Texas
here. I don't see that particular program in Tyler. But one of
the things that we do is we do raise crack houses, and that's a
very involved procedure, because it takes a court order to
declare the property a public nuisance. Then there are appeal
opportunities and all. Once that's all done--we don't get
involved in that. That's done typically by the local prosecutor
or by the local, one of the local law enforcement agencies.
Once that's done and then they come to us and make the
written request, and if all the paperwork is in order, then we
will do it.
Frequently what we will try to do with that is get an
engineer unit who has demolition as one of their requirements.
We'll take them over there and let them do it. Now, we don't
use any explosives or anything like that. But we will take--you
normally--normally a ball or something like that to raise the
crack house and then carry it away.
So we do that in a large number of instances, not only
raising crack houses, but we board up crack houses, whatever
seems to be appropriate to the issue and whatever the request
is. As I said before, the Guard does not initiate these
activities, sir. These activities are initiated by the local
law enforcement agencies more typically.
Mr. Mica. Thank you.
Mr. Brooks, as you know, a couple of months ago, the
President of the United States has certified Mexico as
cooperating in the war on drugs. In your experience as a law
enforcement officer, can you describe what cooperation you have
received from your fellow law enforcement officers across the
border or anything you may be familiar with as far as the
threat assessment of Mexico and its flow of drugs, illegal
narcotics into the United States? Can you elaborate on that?
Mr. Brooks. Yes. You know, the problem with dealing with
Mexico right now is, it is completely internally corrupt. The
institutions in Mexico in law enforcement, from the INCD all
the way down to municipal police departments that we deal with
on a regular basis, are corrupt and controlled by the ``rule of
mordida'' or payoffs. These are agencies that we cannot, and as
I said before, the DEA has said, that we cannot deal with these
agencies because there is no one there that we know can be
trusted.
You know, this is clearly demonstrated by the discovery
that--that INCD Director General Guitierrez-Rebollo was
completely compromised and corrupt and had been placed in
charge of what their equivalent of DEA would be. We know that
our 2,000 mile border with the United States and Mexico makes
us extremely vulnerable to drug trafficking from Mexico, that
Mexico is not only a producing nation of marijuana and of opium
and heroin, but it's also a transshipment point for precursor
chemicals for the manufacturer of methamphetamine, for steroid,
and for heroin, and cocaine from other source countries. So,
you know, we're extremely vulnerable with Mexico. We receive no
cooperation, no credible cooperation.
The threat to our Nation's security and our Nation's drug
problems from Mexico is extremely real. And we know that, in
California, we face drug cartels that are run directly out of
Mexico on a daily basis. On a daily basis, we have Mexican drug
cartels coming in to San Diego and Imperial Counties and
carrying out their drug trafficking in hits. And we know that
the drug cartels, especially the Arellano Felix group, has
employed American citizens, drug gang members from Logan
Heights and other neighborhoods in San Diego to carry out
murders and witness intimidation.
Mr. Mica. I appreciate your insight.
One of the other questions I had, I guess you are from the
California area and represent the Narcotics Officers'
Association there. There is a study, I guess it was a Rand
study recently sort of blasting the mandatory, minimum
mandatory sentences and also advocating more emphasis on
treatment programs for offenders. I don't know if you know the
details of that report. I haven't seen it. But what is your
opinion on that? Should we do away with minimum mandatory
sentences for drug dealers, and should we put more of our eggs
in the treatment basket?
Mr. Brooks. Well, I haven't read the report, but I've
certainly read the newspaper coverage on the Rand report. And
you know, it's my position and the position of our association
that if we're going to be successful in our Nation's fight
against drug abuse, then we're going to have to do so through a
comprehensive approach. That we can't put all our eggs in any
one single basket.
As a law enforcement officer, you know, certainly I believe
in strong drug enforcement, but I would never be so naive as to
believe that we don't absolutely need treatment and education,
because without education and treatment, we're never going to
win this. We're never going to win this battle.
So we feel that--you know, there are studies in California
and New Jersey where 76 percent of all the youth that choose
not to use drugs in this Nation say they don't use drugs
because they're afraid of getting caught. They don't want the
consequences of law enforcement. So we know that education, the
treatment and that enforcement in partnership can have an
impact on our drug problem.
Mr. Mica. I appreciate your response. I will now recognize
Mr. Shadegg.
Mr. Shadegg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate you gentlemen being here today, and I
apologize that I couldn't have been here earlier. I want to
kind of run through some points very quickly to get them on the
record that I am concerned about.
I have a 15-year-old daughter and an 11-year-old son. I
represent a district in Phoenix, AZ, and I am gravely concerned
about the effect of the increased flow of drugs in this
society.
I want to start with the first one, which is a factual one.
I want to ask each of you to confirm, it is my understanding,
and I want you to confirm for me that it is also your
understanding, that in the President's budget proposal right
now before us, his budget calls for a reduction in the funding
of this category of interdiction by roughly 26 percent from the
current number to a number of about $132.4 million down from a
$179.9 million.
Is that your understanding, Governor Owen or Lieutenant
Governor Owen?
Mr. Owen. My understanding is the reduction. I don't know
the specific percentages that you quoted.
Mr. Bowers. Yes.
Mr. Shadegg. General?
General Davis. That's roughly the part that directly
impacts on the State programs. The actual reduction is slightly
larger than that, because there's some other things that are
included.
Mr. Shadegg. So the actual reduction is slightly larger
than that?
General Davis. Would be, yes, sir.
Mr. Shadegg. And that is a reduction in interdiction funds;
is that correct?
General Davis. Primarily in interdiction funds, because
that's what most of the State programs are related to.
Mr. Shadegg. Mr. Copple, would that be your understanding?
[Witness nodded affirmatively.]
Mr. Shadegg. And Mr. Brooks?
Mr. Brooks. Yes, that's correct.
Mr. Shadegg. I have a strong belief that we have made a
grave mistake in this country in reducing rather radically
interdiction funding over the last several years and increasing
drug treatment funding.
Is it your understanding, and, again, I would like to go
down the line that we have, in fact, in recent years reduced
interdiction funding compared to drug treatment funding over
the last several years and actually at the beginning of this
administration reduced interdiction funding rather
dramatically?
Lieutenant Governor Owen, is that your understanding?
Mr. Owen. I don't think that I can appropriately answer
that question.
Mr. Shadegg. OK. Mr. Owen--Mr. Bowers, I'm sorry.
Mr. Bowers. Yes, that's correct.
Mr. Shadegg. General?
General Davis. That number has both gone down and up. You
know, we had some money added last year, so it's kind of
difficult.
Mr. Shadegg. It is actually during the President's first
year, it went from a $196--$191.6 million down to $150.3
million. It then, you are right, did go up a couple of times.
And in last year, an election year, again, interestingly, it
went up to $179.9. And now in the post election year it is
being dropped from $179.9, at least under the President's
proposal, to $134.4. So it has gone up and down, but it is
quite clearly down over time you would agree.
Mr. Bowers. Are you asking----
Mr. Shadegg. No.
General Davis. As a general trend, it has been down, yes,
sir.
Mr. Shadegg. Mr. Copple.
Mr. Copple. My answer is a little bit more complicated. I
think we've increases in the State block grants for treatment.
But we've seen overall decreases for treatment. We're very
concerned. We--the similar Rand studies that have been quoted
here show that for every dollar we spend on treatment, we save
$7 in what we do in law enforcement. Interdiction dollars have
gone down, but, at the same time, the treatment dollars have
not picked up the slack.
Mr. Shadegg. Mr. Brooks.
Mr. Brooks. It's my understanding, also, that certainly
dollars for interdiction are down overall.
Mr. Shadegg. Let me ask this last question, since I am
running out of time. I have a personal belief that we need to
be funding interdiction, even though that fight is difficult,
and we need to be funding prevention. I would like to see the
children of America taught the devastation of this disease. For
example, I would like the children of America to understand how
much more dangerous today's drugs are than the drugs that were
around when I was a kid. So I personally think we need to be
emphasizing interdiction dramatically and emphasizing
prevention dramatically.
I guess I would be interested in your perspectives on what
the policy of this country and this committee and this Congress
ought to be vis-a-vis both prevention and interdiction as we go
forward. Should we be reducing funding for those two
objectives? Mr. Owen.
Mr. Owen. Well, if I were king for a day, I would put
significant resources in in both of them. If you give me the
budget that the beer companies and the rock stars and the movie
folks and the legalizations and the George Soros' of the world
are spending, I can show you a reduction in the use and
attitudes--and the change of attitudes by our young people
today. If in fact we could do that. But you cannot do one, you
have to do both. And you have to do it significantly. But I
think the primary message, from my perspective in dealing with
this for a number of years, is it's got to be consistent and
ongoing and long-term.
Mr. Shadegg. And not shrinking, not getting smaller over
time.
Mr. Owen. But I think it's a misrepresentation to say today
the problem is Clinton's, when, in fact, if you go back over
the history the roller coaster has been through both parties.
Mr. Shadegg. I am not trying to pick that fight. I do, in
fact, think this President has reduced interdiction and
prevention and increased treatment. And we can get into a
policy discussion of whether that is good or not. I really am
not interested in blame pointing. I am interested in trying to
win this fight, as much of it as we can, going forward.
Mr. Owen. The frustration, from my perspective, is
consistent, ongoing, long-term, planning and funding.
Mr. Shadegg. Thank you.
Mr. Bowers. If you consider that drugs and crime are
inextricably intertwined, which they are, it's far worse than
you have described. It's not your daughter and your children
that's the problem, Congressman. It's the very social fabric of
this country.
Let me tell you something real quick about my home town,
Atlanta, GA. I left there in 1959 to go to college. In 1960, it
had a population of 485,000 people. That year, we had 67
murders, 44 rapes, and 308 robberies. Thirty-five years later,
the population has dropped to 404,000 within the corporate
limits. Instead of 67 murders, we have 184. Instead of 44
rapes, 441. Instead of 308 robberies, 5,260.
Now, drugs and crime as to the increase of those numbers
are just one and the same. So I would urge you not, not to
worry about where you spend the money, but spend the dickens
out of it, because there's nothing in this country that is as
important as getting this whole thing under control. Prevent,
yes. Interdict, absolutely. And we've got to trade. I don't
hold out a lot of prospect for the efficacy in treatment in
terms of solving the drug problem, but this is a good Nation,
and we've got to do it because we're a good people.
Mr. Shadegg. I agree. I couldn't agree more with your
discussion of the issue.
Mr. Copple. We have to do treatment.
Mr. Bowers. For a prosecutor, it's a disaster.
Mr. Shadegg. Could I get the other gentleman to answer
quickly?
Mr. Mica. There is a vote, and I would like to defer. What
we could do is ask them if they would submit their responses in
writing, if that's OK, Mr. Shadegg. I would like to yield for
just a minute to the ranking member, if I might.
Mr. Barrett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And just to clarify,
just to flush out the record, I don't even like doing this but
since Mr. Shadegg wanted to talk about the President's budget,
as you all know, there is no Republican budget, so I would ask
you and will go down the line too, are you aware of any formal
submission from the Republicans to fund any National Guard drug
money this year? Mr. Owen.
Mr. Owen. No, I'm not.
Mr. Bowers. Well, I'm a Republican, so I don't know whether
this advocacy counts. But it doesn't matter. We just want the
money to try to operate.
Mr. Barrett. I understand. Formal submissions, do you know
of any?
Mr. Bowers. No, sir.
Mr. Barrett. General Davis.
General Davis. We are not aware of any, but we don't get
involved.
Mr. Barrett. I understand. I am sorry to drag you into
this. Mr. Copple.
Mr. Copple. No, I see no budget of that nature.
Mr. Barrett. Thank you. Mr. Brooks.
Mr. Brooks. I'm not aware of any.
Mr. Barrett. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mica. Thank you.
Just for the record, I understand we did submit $132
million last year for the budget. But we are out of time. I do
ask unanimous consent--I have a letter from Governor Pete
Wilson of California regarding the critical role that the
California National Guard is playing in the Nation's
counterdrug effort. Without objection, it will be made part of
the record.
[The letter referred to follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Mica. Also, any Member who wishes may submit questions
for the record.
Also, we will, without objection, leave the record open for
one additional week for responses.
There being no further business, I would like to thank our
witnesses for being with us and for your valuable contributions
to this subcommittee and our effort, too, for the country.
There being no further business to come before the
subcommittee, this meeting is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional information submitted for the hearing record
follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
-