Answer. DoD is not micromanaging the Services operational support. Secretary Cheney's initial guidance to the Services concerning counterdrug support of September 18, 1989 reserved to the Secretary and the Deputy Secretary certain limited deployment decisions in the interest of political and international sensitivities. Since the initial guidance and after maturing in an area new to DoD, a series of messages from the Secretary to the Service Secretaries and the CINCS has given increased delegated authority for decision making in the counterdrug support area. The most recent message was on December 19, 1991.

LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES

Question. Why is DoD's current 275 personnel self-imposed ceiling so sacrosanct?

What is the DoD policy which limits DoD TDY support to LEAS? What approval is necessary and how long does it take, for military personnel supporting counterdrug operation to be cleared for overseas travel?

Is more flexibility needed in order to attract and hire retired military expertise for the LEAS?

Answer. On September 18, 1989, the Secretary of Defense directed the DoD Drug Coordinator to arrange for the detail of DoD personnel to drug law enforcement agencies (DLEAs) and the Office of National Drug Control Policy to perform liaison, training, and planning functions as appropriate to assist in the implementation of the National Drug Control Strategy and the DoD Guidance for implementation of that strategy.

On October 5, 1989, a meeting was held with senior representatives of the DLEAS, the Department of State, and the Office of National Drug Control Policy to explain the Secretary of Defense's guidance and solicit specific requests from the agencies for the detail of DoD personnel.

Subsequent to the October 5 meeting, DoD received requests for the detail of 1,075 DoD personnel to ĎLEAS. Based on a detailed review of the requests, 275 were determined to be justifiable, despite the constraints of the Economy Act, and were approved by the Secretary on January 9, 1990. The ceiling, therefore, that the Secretary of Defense authorized was 275 and cannot be increased without his approval. It represents the level of direct detail support that he felt was justifiable and realistic.

On the basis of guidance from the Secretary of Defense, the intent of our counterdrug detail program is to provide drug law enforcement agencies with temporary DoD personnel who have military skills or experience which are unique and which are not readily available to the requesting agency in the civilian marketplace. The DoD 275 detail program was never intended to be indefinite. It was recognized that some of the positions may require revalidation and replacement after the initial term, but the majority would not. As we implement our own directed budget and force structure reductions, it is our intention that the number of counterdrug detail authorizations will begin to decrease. Due to the intended temporary nature of their assignments, the personnel currently filling the authorized DLEA detail positions should be assisting in the

training of designated civilian employees to assume the responsibilities and duties of these positions. With the exception of the DoD liaison officers assigned to Federal drug law enforcement headquarters, the DoD counterdrug detailees will generally not be replaced when their current assignments are completed.

As outlined in the Department of Defense Directive 5525.5, dated January 15, 1986, the Secretary of Defense is the approval authority for requests that involved assignment of 50 or more DoD personnel of a period of assignment of more than 30 days.

The Secretary of Defense delegated the authority to the Commanders-in-Chief (CINCs) to approve certain types of counterdrug operational support to U.S. or foreign DLEAS, if support will involve no more than 400 personnel for no longer than 179 days and will occur within the CINCS AOR or, in the cases of CINCNORAD and CINCFOR, the area for which each has been previously designated as responsible for CD operations. TDY support is included under this authority.

DoD further strives to manage its counterdrug funding in a fiscally sound manner by restricting TDY support to those types support that cannot be conducted in a more cost-effective manner. If the required support takes on a long-term status (more than 179 days), DoD policy is that the support must be considered under the restraints of the DoD 275 Detail Program. This requires the support agency to submit a request for the validation of the position(s) for a specified time, generally one to three years.

On February 4, 1992, Secretary Cheney delegated to me the authority to approve overseas travel of DoD detailees to drug law enforcement agencies.

I have asked each DLEA to submit all travel requests for 10 working days prior to departure. When the written request is received, it is staffed with the Joint Staff, the DoD General Counsel, and the Office of International Security Affairs. Once this staffing is completed and approved by me, the requesting DLEA is notified by telephone, followed by written approval. The 10 working day window is the minimum time needed for the DoD staffing and approval process.

Our impression is that there are, and will continue to be sufficient numbers of former retired military personnel available for hire by the various drug law enforcement agencies (DLEAs). The effort to hire retired military personnel would generally be limited or hindered more by budget and funding constraints than by other restrictions. However, because most DLEAS have maximum age limits for certain field or agent-type positions, retired military personnel are generally restricted to managerial-type positions. If additional flexibility is required, it is on the side of the DLEAS.

Question. Is training for LEAs which has been provided under Section 1004 funding adequate to meet their expanding needs?

Is DoD training support interrupted each year until 1004 funding is available?

Answer. Training support provided under the provisions of Section 1004 of the Fiscal Year 1991 National Defense Authorization Act to law enforcement agencies by the Department of Defense is adequate to meet LEAS expanding needs. The Military Departments provide both individual and unit training for law enforce

ment agencies. Most of the training is conducted by Department of Defense schools. Training provided by the Military Police School from Fort McClellan, Alabama, provides a prime example of how DoD has met the expanding needs of LEAS. The Military Police School is providing 63 percent more training to LEAS in FY 1992 than it did in FY 1991.

Prior to Section 1088 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993, the answer is yes, DoD training support was interrupted until funding and/or authority was available. Section 1004 was one-year authority. Under the provisions of Section 1004 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991, the authority expired at midnight on September 30, 1991. Although the continuing resolution for FY 1992 could have continued some funding for certain support to law enforcement agencies, it did not continue the independent authorities specified in Section 1004. Therefore, any training support that was provided under the authority of Section 1004 had to be terminated at midnight on September 30, 1991. Additionally, we did not have statutory authority to provide support under Section 1004 during the pendency of Continuing Resolution Authority (October 1 through December 5, 1991), and until the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993 was signed on December 5, 1991.

COUNTERDRUG R&D PROGRAMS

Question. What happens after DoD prototypes are developed through service counterdrug R&D programs?

Answer. The overall strategy for the development of prototypes through the DoD counterdrug program is to exploit both emergent and existing technologies, rapidly develop prototype systems, and then test and evaluate them in test beds by the field users, both military and other potential drug law enforcement users. Upon successful demonstration of the prototype systems, the technology developments will be transitioned to the Services and/or appropriate law enforcement agencies for follow-on acquisition.

LEA AIRLIFT

Question. Is adequate funded airlift available or uninterrupted through 1004 to meet LEA critical needs?

What are critical LEA airlift requirements?

Answer. Yes. One of the most requested categories of Section 1004 support is transportation to law enforcement agencies. In FY 92, we provided specific funding authority to USCINCTRANS in order to streamline requesting support, and to improve responsiveness. Our emphasis this year, is to support emergent, unanticipated and critical airlift requests that the LEAs were unable to program for rather than support routine requests. For example, the Department of State requested transportation of A-37 aircraft fuselages for Peru. The mission was critical to the President's National Drug Control Strategy. Within three weeks of notification, the fuselages were packaged, crated, and transported to Peru. Another example was a request by the U.S. Marshals Service to transport prisoners arrested in a drug sting operation. The prisoners had to be moved

from the local jail to another holding area in order to avoid release because of overcrowding at the local facility. Transportation was provided the next day after the U.S. Marshals Service made their request.

Critical LEA airlift requirements include movement of personnel, supplies, material and equipment that are crucial to the execution of the President's National Drug Control Strategy. A few examples include controlled deliveries; repair or replacement parts required for equipment that unexpectantly ceased to function or equipment that was damaged in an accident; or transportation of equipment that can only be accomplished by Department of Defense aircraft (e.g. C-5 aircraft).

C31 NETWORK

Question. Per Congressional legislation, what DoD planning has occurred to implement a nationwide C3I network which supports/ integrates Federal, state, and local LEAs with active military and National Guard?

Answer. Since late 1989, the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) has been responsible for implementing the DoDfunded portion of the Drug Enforcement Telecommunications Implementation Plan (DETIP). From its development in early 1988, the DETIP implements the goals of the National Telecommunications Master Plan for Drug Enforcement (NTMPDE) which established a comprehensive strategy and architecture for an effective communications network to integrate the command, control, communications, and technical intelligence assets of the United States. The purpose of the DETIP is to ensure that the NTMPDE is implemented in a coordinated fashion among all Federal DLEAS. Since the inception of DETIP, the Department has funded $140 million in the procurement of equipment for all Federal DLEAs and twenty DLEAs were supported in communications equipment purchases since 1989. The spend-plan for the DETIP was controlled and voted upon by the entire membership of the Office of National Drug Control Policy's (ONDCP) Communications Interoperability Working Group (CIWG). The CIWG membership is comprised of all Federal DLEAS and DoD and its Chairman is a U.S. Coast Guard Captain.

[CLERK'S NOTE.—End of questions submitted for the record.]

THURSDAY, MAY 7, 1992.

ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, DEFENSE

WITNESSES

THOMAS E. BACA, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR ENVIRONMENT

LEWIS D. WALKER, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY, ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH

ELSIE MUNSELL, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE NAVY, ENVIRONMENT AND SAFETY

COL. JIM JENKINS, STAFF DIRECTOR, INSTALLATIONS SERVICES AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY

COL. PETER WALSH, DIRECTOR FOR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, OFFICE OF CIVIL ENGINEERS, USAF

INTRODUCTION

Mr. DICKS. The Committee will come to order. This morning's hearing will address the Defense Environmental Program. The request for fiscal year 1993 is divided into two pieces: $1,513,200,000, which is $118,000,000 less than the fiscal year 1992 estimate for the Defense Environmental Restoration Program; and $1,694,000,000 for the Services' environmental compliance programs, which is an increase of $328,000,000.

Testifying this morning is Mr. Thomas E. Baca, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Environment. Secretary Baca, we welcome you.

Mr. Secretary, I know you share my frustration with the glacial pace of progress in dealing with environmental restoration efforts both on existing bases and on bases slated for closure. The list of impediments to expeditious cleanup is a long one.

As you know, this Committee has had a special investigation done because of our concern about the program and how it is proceeding. Some of the major issues that we see are overlap and duplication between various State and Federal laws and their enforcement agencies have produced a seemingly endless stream of studies, documentation requests and conflicting direction. Changing standards of what constitutes acceptable levels of remediation frequently send us back to the drawing board. Shoddy work by contractors who have an incentive to perpetuate the study phase has produced a situation where of the 6,736 sites which have been closed out, all but 73 of them required no remedial action.

In other words, we spent hundreds of millions of dollars simply to remove from the list sites that never should have been there in the first place.

Potential liability issues petrify contractors and the Federal Government with the result that frequently more time and effort is made trying to avoid anything that could assign legal responsibility

(385)