SLOW SUBMISSION OF JUSTIFICATION MATERIAL Mr. MURTHA. I remember your initial testimony and I know it is probably one of the most complex issues that we have. As a matter of fact, I am not sure that interdiction is the answer. One thing I know is that you have to stop people using drugs and that takes a lot more than the resources we have in the Defense Department. It is a complicated thing. One of the problems we have had, is it has taken your staff longer to prepare the budget justification material for the Committee over the years. We have asked you to appear earlier in the cycle, but this year and last year, we scheduled it later because it has taken so long for you to get the justification material together. Mr. DUNCAN. My own assessment is that we can do better on that. I commit that we will attempt to do just that. I might, by way of brief explanation, note a couple of things for you, though. This year was a little bit unusual. As you know, the Appropriations Act was signed November 26. The Authorization Act was signed on December 5, and because the law had several programs that had not been requested in the President's budget, we frankly had to reassess some of our 1993 programs in light of those changes. That is not by way of excuse. I think we can do better and will commit to attempt to do that, but this has been an unusual year for us. It is important to recognize that the job of Drug Coordinator of the DOD is not like being Secretary of the Army. As Secretary of the Army, you have certain statutory line authority and your Department to worry about. As the Drug Coordinator, I have to coordinate the work of all of the various military departments, agencies, and not just worry about one little line staff that worries about drugs, I must work with a whole range of agencies, essentially a mini Defense Department, as their work relates to the Counter-drug Program of the Department of Defense. This is one of the areas I think we are improving in. We recognize we need to do more and will continue to do our best. SLOW RELEASE OF FUNDING Mr. MURTHA. A related issue is the slowness that you have had in releasing drug funding to the actual agencies that perform the drug mission. Your job is crucial to this effort. We are going through a budget scrub of unobligated funds looking for potential rescission candidates. It is always difficult to cut back agencies that are in the forefront of a problem like you are. On the other hand, if the money is not obligated, if the money is not being spent quickly enough, there is going to be a substantial rescission. We are looking for $7 billion. in rescissions and we are looking every place we can look. When we find money that doesn't seem to be spent appropriately, and when this Committee makes a decision to put money into certain projects-you know, it is going to work both ways. We have the final say about these things and we think that there have been projects that have not been funded as quickly as they could have. Mr. DUNCAN. I am not aware of that problem at all. Working with the Comptroller, I stay pretty close on that. The only problem in that regard that I am aware of is with respect to some of the funds that we spend for some of the State counter-drug plans. Most of those resources can't be spent until the summer time because so much of the training of the National Guard, for example, takes place during the summer months. That is something that we can predict on a yearly basis and that is not a problem because that is something taken into the planning. Mr. MURTHA. With the Guard and Reserve, we have received complaints about their still not receiving their funding. We think that is a legitimate problem. Mr. DUNCAN. Are we talking about the Pennsylvania situation by chance? I am not aware of a problem in that regard at all. Mr. MURTHA. This is across the board. Mr. DUNCAN. The only problem I am aware of is the Pennsylvania Guard ran into one by Mr. MURTHA. The staff tells me the money wasn't released to the Guard and Reserve so they had to use their own money to go forward with drug interdiction. Mr. DUNCAN. All the States or just one State? Mr. MURTHA. This is Guard and Reserve O&M appropriations. Mr. DUNCAN. I will look into it. It has not been brought to my attention and I am not aware of it. AEROSTAT RADAR SYSTEMS Mr. MURTHA. Last year, the Congress provided authority to transfer $60 million into the Drug Interdiction appropriation to award, implement, and facilitate the procurement of no fewer than four aerostat radar systems. Has this action been accomplished? Mr. DUNCAN. Yes. I forget the exact date, but some time in December we physically transferred the funds over, so the Customs Service then took responsibility for winding up the contracts, but the funds have been in their hands for some time. Mr. MURTHA. What is included in the fiscal year 1993 request to operate these aerostats? Mr. DUNCAN. Let me see. All together, we transferred $60 million and that was specified in the 1992 Appropriations Act and then there is $49.5 million that was transferred in prior years for the procurement of four land-based aerostat radar systems. This is for the Gulf Coast and the Bahamas. Mr. MURTHA. Does that procurement complete the radar surveillance network in the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean? Mr. DUNCAN. What I have done on aerostats, because they are such an operational challenge, I have gone to our professionals in the Department and asked them to give me a clean look on where we are today on aerostats versus where we were some time ago. It is still our best operational assessment that we are on track. We have initiated a staff study and they are giving me a short- and longer-term sensor capability assessment. We expect that to be completed this summer. We need to figure out what we need in the way of sensors and what is the most cost-effective way to do it based on what we know today. One of the things I do from a management standpoint is prod the system and ask people, "This was your opinion two years ago. Is it still the best way to do it?" I think we are on track. DRUG DEMAND REDUCTION Mr. MURTHA. With regard to drug demand reduction, how about the drug use by the servicemen and women? Is it still the same, on a decline, or where is it? Mr. DUNCAN. The number you have heard from me before, between calendar 1980 and 1988, we had like a 82 percent decline in drug abuse. That whole estimate was based on a series of surveys and the survey data is relatively old now. It ended in 1988, so we have a new survey under way. Just looking at the incidence of testing positive results, it continues to go way down. So I am very happy about that. Mr. MURTHA. How about urine tests? Have the tests been reliable? Mr. DUNCAN. They have. We had one incident, as I recall, I think that was the Army, where there was a false analysis or an incorrect analysis. We looked into that, satisfied ourselves that there was no systemic problem, there were unique circumstances, fixed it, and I think it is a very reliable system. We continue to work with the laboratories to make sure it remains so. Mr. MURTHA. Answer for the record how many service personnel are under treatment for drug use and how does it compare with a year ago. Mr. DUNCAN. Drugs and alcohol? Mr. MURTHA. Just drugs, I think, is what we are mainly concerned about. Mr. DUNCAN. I can give you some estimates for drug and alcohol. I don't think I have broken them down just by drugs. We will get that for the record. [The information follows:] The first level of treatment-called intervention-includes not only drug abuse but also alcoholism and other medical and personal problems. That treatment is general training in personal responsibility and provides assistance in how to deal with problems with a focus on substance abuse. Numbers treated for drug problems alone cannot be segregated. Total number receiving treatment is approximately 80,000 (including alcohol and other problems), has been relatively constant, and is expected to remain at about the same level as a percentage of the force. The second level of treatment is actual drug abuse counseling and is provided to a limited number of personnel on an outpatient basis. Estimated number in 1990 is 1300 and in 1991 is 800. Number is expected to decline in 1992. The third level of treatment is inpatient treatment. Estimated number (inpatient and primary diagnosis of drug abuse) in 1990 is 300 and in 1991 is 156. Number is also expected to decline in 1992. Mr. MURTHA. Mr. McDade? SEA-BASED AEROSTATS Mr. McCDADE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let's talk about seabased aerostats. The fiscal year 1992 DOD Appropriations Act transferred the Coast Guard's sea-based aerostat mission to DOD and appropriated $19.4 million to operate these aerostats. A letter, dated March 18, 1992, from the Chairmen of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittees, further directed the Department to operate all five sea-based aerostats in support of U.S. Coast Guard anti-drug operations. What is the Department's current plan for operating the five SBAS? Mr. DUNCAN. Basically, I have asked the Army to serve as the executive agent to take a look at what we call the SASS boats as well as the small boat aerostats, the SBAs. In the context of the letter we received, originally, our plans were what the CINCS requested-that is, a total of five boats. Probably three for the Atlantic and two for the Southern Command. Our plan was to use three SASS boats and two SBAs. That letter said funding with respect to the SASS boat should not proceed. So we understand that. I should bring to the Committee's attention the fact that that SASS boat funding for the third SASS boat, a contract had already been signed last year. One of the things I am looking into is what are the termination costs of that contract. We know there will be certain minimum termination costs that I understand are spelled out in the contract. I don't know what the total termination costs are going to be. I am led to believe it will be at least half a million dollars. It could be more. I propose to come back to you and make recommendations after we have a better feel on termination costs. Mr. McDADE. How soon are you going to know that? Mr. DUNCAN. If it is limited to the cost of the contract, I have a good feel for it already. One question is whether we are obligated to pay costs to reconfigure the boats back the way they were for the oil and gas industry before. I don't know. Mr. McDADE. Is it just limited to the contract Mr. DUNCAN. I haven't been advised. Mr. McDADE. When are you going to know that? Mr. DUNCAN. I am waiting for an opinion. It shouldn't take that long. Mr. McDADE. Tell us when you can notify the Committee because it is in everybody's interest to know if there is something we need to know about. [The information follows:] I will be in a position to provide the Committee with the total costs associated with terminating the third Small Aerostat Surveillance System (SASS) vessel by the end of June. Mr. DUNCAN. I am asking the Army to give me a comprehensive plan to integrate the SBAs with the SASS boats into a comprehensive DOD plan so that we have the most cost-effective system. Mr. McDADE. You don't have a current plan yet? Mr. DUNCAN. Even to the extent we had a plan, I am going back and ask them to review that plan and give me the latest, best judgment. Mr. McDADE. Is the Department trying to integrate the SBAS with any other mission? Mr. DUNCAN. I will answer that question in general-when we spend money on anything, I look for duality of mission. I don't like to spend limited funds only for drug purposes if I can find something else to use them for. At this time, I have asked, and we don't have another need for them, so we are sitting here saying-I guess our position is that needs may develop, but as of now, we don't have any other needs for them. Mr. McDADE. So the answer is you don't have any other purposes? Mr. DUNCAN. Not at this moment. Today the answer is no. Mr. DUNCAN. We may find other purposes for them. From time to time we find there is something we can use a particular system for. As of today, this is the only mission that we see for them. Mr. McDADE. Can the missions of the DOD and the Coast Guard be carried out effectively without using all five SBA assets? Mr. DUNCAN. You are talking about the counter-drug missionsyes. Mr. McDADE. We hear back rumbling from your cooperators i.e., the Coast Guard, that they are not getting all their missions fulfilled under the current plan, that the requirements aren't being met by DOD. Have you talked to the Commandant of the Coast Guard about this? Mr. DUNCAN. Nobody from the Coast Guard said anything to me about this at all. Mr. McDADE. We are getting information saying that there is a rumbling that all Coast Guard requirements, in fact less than half, are being met. Mr. DUNCAN. Nobody has written me a letter to that effect or made a phone call to that effect. If I heard of a problem, I would like to hear about it from our JTF. Mr. McDADE. When you leave the hearing, give the CO of the Coast Guard a call, find out if he feels that way and within a couple of days, let the Committee know. Mr. DUNCAN. We are talking about counter-drug missions? Mr. McDADE. If there are other missions and he is going to enlighten you, maybe you need to communicate a bit. Mr. DUNCAN. If that is the case, we have legal problems. Under the Economy Act, I can't spend DOD funds to perform Coast Guard missions without reimbursement. [The information follows:] The Coast Guard's first expression of concern was made to the Joint Staff just two days prior to this hearing (30 March 1992). I have since talked to the Commandant of the Coast Guard, Admiral J. William Kime, about the matter. He has confirmed that additional detection and monitoring coverage is desired by the Coast Guard in certain chokepoints and off-shore arrival zone areas. On April 3, I personally chaired a meeting of senior representatives of the Coast Guard and the Department of Defense to discuss the development. We discussed the concern that had been expressed at the hearing and in my discussion with the Commandant we considered how that concern might be addressed. Law enforcement agencies such as the Coast Guard are, of course, full participants in the National Counterdrug Planning Process which integrates the detection and monitoring requirements of all participating agencies into a single system. Through a series of national and regional planning conferences, the Department of Defense and participating law enforcement agencies determine where a finite number of detection and monitoring assets will be employed to provide optimal sup |