civilian law enforcement officials any information collected during the normal course of military operations that may be relevant to a violation of any Federal or State law." The limitations contained within the phrase "the normal course of military operations" may restrict the capability of the Coast Guard to request specifically targeted surveillance information. The Coast Guard recognizes that the proposed words, a clarification of the Posse Comitatus Act, are not words of limitation but merely clarification. But the statute that is being clarified is one of criminal limitation, and is, as such, cautiously applied by those in the field. Mr. Chairman, you have asked for the Coast Guard's evaluation as to the advisability of proposed section 375 of title 10. Since this provision is currently under active review by the administration, I can state no position at this time. This concludes my testimony this afternoon. I would be pleased to answer any questions you might have. Mr. HUGHES. Thank you, Admiral. Mr. Corcoran, your statement is in the record. We would appreciate it if you would summarize your statement. Mr. CORCORAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the subcommittee of the Judiciary to express our views of section 908 of the defense authorization bill, H.R. 3519. As we have said on other occasions, we are in favor of increasing cooperation between the Department of Defense and the Customs Service. The Department of Defense is currently providing assistance to the Customs Service in a number of vital areas, through the loan of equipment, use of military facilities, and exchange of information. The majority of this cooperation is in drug interdiction efforts. This cooperation has and continues to be very helpful in our efforts to stem the flow of drugs and other contraband entering the United States. New regulations such as those proposed in H.R. 3519 could substantially improve cooperation between our agencies. We would like to pursue additional loans of new aircraft due to their potential for increasing interdictions of drug traffickers. There have also been some instances where we have not approached Defense for assistance simply because we felt that posse comitatus would prohibit the interagency involvement. The proposed changes would aid in overcoming this obstacle. Since 1974, the Customs Service and the Department of Defense have participated in the military customs inspection program. Customs furnishes advisers in the overseas commands who provide operational assistance and advice to the military. Since 1975, we have been receiving strategic intelligence information and publications on a recurring basis from the Defense Intelligence Agency. We have also established direct intelligence liaison contact with the individual military intelligence and investigative components. While this effort has been very helpful, intelligence matters must always be conducted within the constraints of posse comitatus. Again, we want to emphasize that the Department of Defense has been very helpful in assisting the Customs Service when resources and regulations have permitted. We believe that the proposed regulations will lead to improved cooperation and will enable the Federal Government to devote more resources to attack the evergrowing drug problem that confronts this Nation. Mr. HUGHES. Thank you, Mr. Corcoran. Admiral, I wonder if you can share with me, perhaps, under what circumstances would the authority contained in section 375 be of assistance to you in your operations? Admiral THOMPSON. I don't believe we would need to avail ourselves of those services based on our experience in the past. The search, seizure, and arrest portion. Mr. HUGHES. In those situations where the Navy, for instance, has made equipment available to the Coast Guard, such as the Cuban flotilla situation, were Coast Guard personnel onboard? Admiral THOMPSON. Yes; we had Coast Guard personnel onboard to do the actual boarding. Mr. HUGHES. When the Coast Guard personnel boarded, did military accompany them? Admiral THOMPSON. No, sir. Just Coast Guard personnel. Mr. HUGHES. Are you aware of any circumstances where it was necessary to utilize personnel that were available from the military in a law enforcement operation? Admiral THOMPSON. No, sir, we are not aware. I am not aware that we tried it, that we have had to. Mr. HUGHES. Can you think of any circumstances where section 375 would be necessary? Admiral THOMPSON. There is a remote possibility in an at-sea situation. I really cannot describe a situation off the top of my head. Mr. HUGHES. There is some question as to whether or not the loan of equipment and the sharing of information should be direct through some Federal agency or whether the military should have the authority to share that information directly with State and local law enforcement agencies. Do you have a position as to whether there should be some Federal nexus? Admiral THOMPSON. We repeatedly share our intelligence with other Federal law enforcement agencies and local law enforcement agencies, sir. Mr. HUGHES. I am referring to the sharing of military information, intelligence information or equipment directly with local and State law enforcement agencies as opposed to having some Federal nexus, that is sharing it with the drug enforcement administration and if they want to then in turn share it with local law enforcement agencies, they have the privilege of doing so. Do you believe that there should be a Federal nexus to the sharing of any Federal equipment or intelligence information? Admiral THOMPSON. I think we may be reasonably neutral on that. What we would be concerned about is the possible compromise of any military systems if they are not operated or protected correctly. Mr. HUGHES. There is also some questions as to whether any modification or codification of posse comitatus should be limited to drug related matters, or should be broadened to include any law enforcement activity. Do you have a view on that? Admiral THOMPSON. I think we would support the broadening of it, given time to analyze what that would portend. Mr. HUGHES. You were present when I read some language that I had prepared relative to section 375 that would enable the military to make available personnel to operate or assist law enforcement. agencies in operating equipment necessary in a joint operation. Do you have any comments on that approach? Admiral THOMPSON. I would comment that my personal opinion, based on less than 2 weeks in my present job as chief of operation, would be supportive. Mr. HUGHES. Thank you. Mr. Sawyer. Mr. SAWYER. Have you just been in the Coast Guard since 1966? Admiral THOMPSON. No, sir, I came in in 1948. Mr. SAWYER. I was going to say it sounded like such a meteoric rise. Admiral THOMPSON. No such luck. It has been a long rocky road. Mr. SAWYER. With the exception of section 375, you are generally supportive of this legislation. Would that be a fair statement? Admiral THOMPSON. Yes. Mr. SAWYER. Thank you. That's all I have, Mr. Chairman. Mr. HUGHES. Just one further question. In your statement, Admiral, you indicate that there were instances where requests were made for assistance and posse comitatus was used as reason for the military not to render such assistance. Can you give us some specifics? Admiral THOMPSON. Without going into the specific nature of the incident, I think perhaps you saw here earlier a split view between the Navy, for example, vis-a-vis the Air Force and Army in that regard, and I think Justice has indicated to us on some occasions where it would not be appropriate to request assistance from military sources other than the Navy. Mr. HUGHES. How about you, Mr. Corcoran? Can you cite any instances where posse comitatus was used as a reason not to share equipment or intelligence information? Mr. CORCORAN. Yes, sir, the specific problem we have is, as we have stated, we have a great deal of support and cooperation by the Defense Department and various military agencies. Our specific problem is on identifying, detecting, and tracking smuggling aircraft and vessels, particularly. They will quite often allow us to have our patrol officers in the aircraft or on the vessels where our patrol officer would notify our people that they see a suspect vessel or aircraft. The present interpretation by many commanders of the posse comitatus does not allow them to directly communicate with us. In other words, if their aircraft or vessel sees a boat moving, they may report the fact that they see the suspect vessel. They would not track it for us and they would not directly communicate with one of our aircraft or one of our vessels. Our problem has not been in the physical apprehension or arrest and seizures. We have never, to my knowledge, needed that kind of assistance. What we have needed is the type of assistance where they could detect for us and track and even identify because we quite often wouldn't know what type of vessel or specific aircraft we are looking for and communicate directly with our vessels, land forces or aircraft. They presently cannot, in most instances, do that. Mr. HUGHES. You believe that the language within the authorization bill 3519 will solve that? Mr. CORCORAN. Yes, sir. Another example is radar. If they spot on radar, we put our people, NORAD, and some of the other low radar locations where our officers would call our aircraft or land or sea based aircraft vehicles. Only at that time can they pass on information. If the military spots on the radar, they cannot directly call us and report that spot, that sighting. Mr. HUGHES. Do you think the language or some similar language to that which is in the bill will at least affirmatively indicate to the military that, where it does not compromise their mission or detract from military preparedness, they have to make that information available or render that assistance? Will that in itself assist you? Mr. CORCORAN. Yes, greatly so. Mr. HUGHES. All right. Thank you very much. We appreciate your testimony. You did have us baffled, Admiral, about that 1966 graduation from the Coast Guard Academy. My colleague here and I were saying you certainly are a young looking admiral who obviously started very young. Admiral THOMPSON. I hope I clarified at least that much this afternoon. Mr. HUGHES. And more. Thank you. We appreciate your testimony. [Whereupon, at 3:30 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] APPENDIX Hon. WILLIAM J. HUGHES, ASSISTANT Secretary of Defense, Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime, House Judiciary Committee, Cannon House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Enclosed, for your information, is a copy of DOD Directive 5525.5 "DOD Cooperation with Civilian Law Enforcement Officials". This Directive sets forth the basic policy guidelines required by Public Law 97-86 governing the Defense Department's implementation of its authority to lend assistance to civilian law enforcement officials. The Directive, along with interim guidance for its implementation, is being forwarded immediately to all DOD Component heads with instructions that it be promulgated widely among subordinate commands. I am confident that this Directive, together with the implementing instructions to follow, will go far towards facilitating the types of cooperative efforts envisioned by the Congress in their consideration of the governing legislation. We welcome your comments on the Directive as currently written and will be prepared to make appropriate revisions as our experience working under its provisions so warrants. Sincerely, JAMES N. JULIANA, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DIRECTIVE-5525.5 Subject: DoD Cooperation with Civilian Law Enforcement Officials A. Purpose This Directive establishes uniform DoD policies and procedures to be followed with respect to support provided to federal, state, and local civilian law enforcement efforts. B. Applicability and scope This Directive applies to the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Military Departments, the Organization of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Unified and Specified Commands, and the Defense Agencies (hereafter referred to as "DoD Components"). The term, "Military Service," as used herein, refers to the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps. C. Definitions 1. Civilian agency.—A government agency (other than the Department of Defense) in the following jurisdictions: (a) The United States. (b) A State (or political subdivision thereof). (c) A territory or possession of the United States. 2. Civilian law enforcement official.—An officer or employee of a civilian agency with responsiblity for enforcement of the laws within the jurisdiction of the agency. 3. DoD intelligence component.-An organization listed in subsection C.4. of DoD Directive 5240.1 (reference (a)). D. Policy It is the policy of the Department of Defense to cooperate with civilian law enforcement officials to the maximum extent practicable. Under enclosures 2 through 5 to this Directive, the implementation of this policy is consistent with the needs of national security and military preparedness, the historic tradition of limiting direct |