Congressional Record: August 2, 2001 (Senate)
Page S8695                    


  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I rise to express my deep concern 
about the apparent lack of emphasis by the Department of Defense on the 
counterdrug mission. This has been a year of continual discussion of 
increased DoD funding for various military missions. However, all the 
indications I am hearing point to a decreased DoD interest in this 
mission, as well as decreased funding levels. I believe this would be a 
poor policy decision, and a poor indication of the nation's priorities.
  In May 2001 testimony, before the Senate Caucus on International 
Narcotics Control, on which I served as Chairman, the heads of the Drug 
Enforcement Administration, the U.S. Customs Service, and the U.S. 
Coast Guard all testified that DoD reductions would be detrimental to 
their agencies' counterdrug efforts. The Office of National Drug 
Control Policy summarized that (quote) DoD's command and control system 
provides the communications connectivity and information system 
backbone . . . while the military services detection and monitoring 
assets provide a much need intelligence cueing capability (end quote).
  The Commandant of the Coast Guard testified at length about DoD 
counterdrug support, stating (quote) [w]e would go downhill very 
quickly (end quote) without DoD contributions. The Commandant also 
stated that 43 percent of Coast Guard seizures last year were from U.S. 
Navy vessels, using onboard Coast Guard law enforcement detachments. 
The Coast Guard concluded that (quote) [s]hould there be any radical 
reduction of the assets provided through the Department of Defense . . 
. it would peril the potential for all the other agencies to make their 
contributions as productive . . . mainly because of the synergy that is 
generated by the enormous capability that the 800-pound gorilla brings 
to the table . . . They are very, very good at what they do. They are 
the best in the world . . . and when they share those capabilities . . 
. in terms of intelligence fusion and command and control, we do much 
better than we would ever otherwise have a chance to do (end quote). I 
understand that an internal review of DoD's drug role contemplated 
severe reductions as a working assumption. After years of decline in 
DoD's role in this area, I believe this sends the wrong signal and 
flies in the face of DoD's statutory authority.
  I have consistently supported an integrated national counterdrug 
strategy. If we reduce the DoD role, we risk lessening the 
effectiveness of other agencies as well. We need to make these 
decisions carefully, and with full Congressional involvement. I urge 
the Department of Defense to keep in mind DoD's important role in, and 
necessary contribution to, a serious national drug control strategy.