U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

46–497 CC 1998

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

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT 

DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman 

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York 

J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois 

CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland 

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut 

STEVEN SCHIFF, New Mexico 

CHRISTOPHER COX, California 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York 

STEPHEN HORN, California 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia 

DAVID M. MCINTOSH, Indiana 

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana 

JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

MARSHALL ‘‘MARK’’ SANFORD, South 

Carolina 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

PETE SESSIONS, Texas 

MICHAEL PAPPAS, New Jersey 

VINCE SNOWBARGER, Kansas 

BOB BARR, Georgia 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

TOM LANTOS, California 

ROBERT E. WISE, JR., West Virginia 

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania 

GARY A. CONDIT, California 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington, 

DC 

CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio 

ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois 

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois 

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts 

JIM TURNER, Texas 

THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine 

HAROLD E. FORD, JR., Tennessee 

———

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

(Independent) 

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 

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut 

STEVEN SCHIFF, New Mexico 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

BOB BARR, Georgia 

THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin 

TOM LANTOS, California 

ROBERT E. WISE, JR., West Virginia 

GARY A. CONDIT, California 

ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

JIM TURNER, Texas 

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 

(III)

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

(1)

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 

2

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 asVerDate jul 14 2003 10:23 Jan 13, 2004 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 W:\DISC\46497 46497
3

sistance 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:] 

4


g:\graphics\46497.001
5


g:\graphics\46497.002
6

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 drugrelated 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. 

7

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. 

8

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 

9

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:] 

10


g:\graphics\46497.003
11


g:\graphics\46497.004
12


g:\graphics\46497.005
13

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 enVerDate jul 14 2003 10:23 Jan 13, 2004 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 W:\DISC\46497 46497
14

forcement 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:] 

15


g:\graphics\46497.006
16


g:\graphics\46497.007
17


g:\graphics\46497.008
18


g:\graphics\46497.009
19


g:\graphics\46497.010
20


g:\graphics\46497.011
21

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. 

22

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

23

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:] 

24


g:\graphics\46497.012
25


g:\graphics\46497.013
26


g:\graphics\46497.014
27


g:\graphics\46497.015
28


g:\graphics\46497.016
29


g:\graphics\46497.017
30


g:\graphics\46497.018
31

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. 

32

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 CADCAsponsored 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 trainVerDate jul 14 2003 10:23 Jan 13, 2004 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 W:\DISC\46497 46497
33

ing 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:] 

34


g:\graphics\46497.019
35


g:\graphics\46497.020
36


g:\graphics\46497.021
37


g:\graphics\46497.022
38


g:\graphics\46497.023
39


g:\graphics\46497.024
40

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 

41

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. 

42

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:] 

43


g:\graphics\46497.025
44


g:\graphics\46497.026
45


g:\graphics\46497.027
46


g:\graphics\46497.028
47


g:\graphics\46497.029
48


g:\graphics\46497.030
49

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 

50

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. 

51

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. 

52

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. 

53

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 

54

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 dollarfor-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 

55

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 

56

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 comVerDate jul 14 2003 10:23 Jan 13, 2004 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 W:\DISC\46497 46497
57

itatus 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. 

58

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. 

59

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. 

60

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 

61

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? 

62

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? 

63

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. 

64

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 manhours 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 

65

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. 

66

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 coVerDate jul 14 2003 10:23 Jan 13, 2004 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 W:\DISC\46497 46497
67

caine 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 

68

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—

69

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. 

70

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:] 

71


g:\graphics\46497.031
72


g:\graphics\46497.032
73

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:] 

74


g:\graphics\46497.033
75


g:\graphics\46497.034
76


g:\graphics\46497.035
77


g:\graphics\46497.036
78


g:\graphics\46497.037
79


g:\graphics\46497.038
80


g:\graphics\46497.039
81


g:\graphics\46497.040
82

Æ