Admiral GRACEY. Who would you ask? Well, we can tell you. If you want to know- Mr. RANGEL. What role does the U.S. Navy play as relates to drug interdiction? Admiral GRACEY. They provide intelligence for us, and assistance for us in cases where we have made a seizure and need someone to take the vessel back so that we can stay on patrol. They carry our boarding teams. One of their guided missile cruisers on an aircraft carrier was involved in a seizure. That is about as big a vessel as you can get involved in the program. And they provide very excellent intelligence. They make aerial flights to provide intelligence, and so they really very much involved. Mr. RANGEL. You don't see any expanded role for the Navy to improve your mission? Admiral GRACEY. I know that there is interest in that, and whether it can be coordinated with their ongoing role or not, I don't know, Mr. Chairman. Mr. RANGEL. Now, the Chief of Staff has indicated that with all these new ships that are coming on board or in the pipeline, that that really doesn't increase your fleet any. That for each new ship that comes on, you retire a ship, that we are dealing with replacement rather than new capacity; is that true? Admiral GRACEY. Well, the ships that we are building now, yes, sir, that is right. That is not true of the surface effect ships that came in last year. They were additional of the two, and we have another one coming this summer. That is additional. The eight patrol boats we are talking about buying now, that is additional. But these medium endurance cutters that we are talking about were intended as replacements for some old ships, much smaller, much less capable ships. Mr. RANGEL. But if we didn't have a drug problem, it would be your professional opinion that we would need these just for your mission anyway, right? Admiral GRACEY. Oh, yes, sir; yes, sir, no doubt about it. These were not built for the drug situation. They were built to replace these medium endurance cutters that we have had to do our jobs. We did keep, incidentally, three additional tugboats that we got from the Navy, were only designed as a stopgap until-while we licked our wounds after the Cuban exodus situation. And we still have them, we are still operating them, we spent a lot of money to fix them up, and some of which we had to reprogram out of our own resources. Mr. RANGEL. You haven't seen any Communist Cubans bringing that stuff into the United States? Admiral GRACEY. I didn't say that. Mr. RANGEL. By ship. Admiral GRACEY. We haven't seized one yet. Mr. RANGEL. We are depending on you to keep these Communists off-especially in Florida, you know. You haven't detected any of these drug pushers down there? Admiral GRACEY. No, to look at our statistics, I see that in 1981, we arrested 51 Cubans, and 1981 and 1982, and 18 so far this year. But that is not ships. I don't see any ships of Cuban registry listed. Mr. RANGEL. Well, Mr. Shaw, we are going to have to get together and check out some of this information that has been coming to us from the White House. It may be slipping through here. We want to make certain that we have a barrier to that, because if we are going to be overthrown by those Cubans, we want to make certain we got our strongest forces out there. Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman? Does Cuba cooperate with us on vessels that wander into their waters? Do they return them to you or indicate to you that Admiral GRACEY. Sometimes yes, and sometimes no. Mr. GILMAN. Wasn't there a time when Cuba did cooperate with the Coast Guard and let you know when they had sighted a suspected Admiral STABILE. They certainly did for the 3 years that I was down there. I have been only gone from there 1 year. And certainly, on search and rescue, we did have cooperation both ways. We helped their people, and they helped ours. Mr. GILMAN. Does that exist today? Admiral STABILE. As far as I know. I don't know of any change. Now, there has been no cooperation with regard to drug enforcement or law enforcement in general. They do their own and we do our own. Admiral GRACEY. Search and rescue we are talking about. Mr. SHAW. I would like to just follow up on your line of questioning. You mentioned there were 50-some Cuban nationals last year, and 18 so far this year, I believe. What type of vessels were they on? Admiral GRACEY. I don't have that information. Mr. SHAW. Could it be that they were on vessels that just weren't flagged? Admiral GRACEY. That is possible. Mr. SHAW. I mean how would we know whether the vessel was coming out of Cuba or not? I would doubt Admiral GRACEY. What I meant to say, if I didn't, was that the vessel references I am talking are those which are flying the flag of Cuba. We don't have any-I have in none of my statistics here that indicates that we seized any who were flying the Cuban flag. Now, there are, in each of these, each year, we get about 20 stateless vessels, and who knows where they come from? Mr. SHAW. Has the Coast Guard done any specific investigation as to Cuban narcotics? Admiral GRACEY. The Coast Guard? Mr. SHAW. Yes, sir. Admiral GRACEY. Not that I am aware of, no. Mr. SHAW. Do you necessarily have any occasion to look at any files of any other investigative agencies that might have reports to that effect? Admiral GRACEY. My intelligence people may, yes, sir. Mr. SHAW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. RANGEL. Let me thank you, Admiral. I think we are off on the right foot. Again, you have been very cooperative. We want to continue that cooperation, and we do hope that you don't wait for formal hearings, if you think that this committee can be of any assistance to you and your mission. 30-598 0-84--11 Admiral GRACEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, we appreciate your interest and patience with our mumbling answers. Mr. RANGEL. Sometimes the mumbling answers have a ring of more sincerity than those that are manufactured. Thank you. The committee stands adjourned. Our next hearing will be June 8, at which time the witness will be Customs, U.S. Customs. [Whereupon, at 4:00 p.m., the select committee recessed, to reconvene Wednesday, June 8, 1983.]. [Responses to questions posed to the Coast Guard during the hearing follow:] Enclosed are responses to the questions you posed following my testimony before the House Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse and Control on May 24th. Enclosure (1) responds to the specific questions of the committee. I have taken the liberty of placing the questions raised in the body of your letter into a standard question and answer style format and have submitted them as enclosure (2). Questions 21 through 24 of enclosure (1) and questions 6 and 8 of enclosure (2) require further internal review and will be forwarded under separate cover. I hope these answers will be of help to you and your committee. Sincerely, J. S. GRACEY , U. S. Coast Guard Commandent Encl: (1) Q&A's enclosed with letter (2) Q&A's included in text of letter The enclosed will complete the responses to questions posed following my testimony before the Select Committee. The increase in airdrop activity to contact boats or motherships has been of growing concern to us. During the past year, several decisions have been made regarding sensor enhancements that would allow Coast Guard resources to make possible contributions in air interdiction and become more effective in the maritime interdiction effort. Within the next two years these enhancements will give the Coast Guard a still limited, but improved, capability to conduct air surveillance, detection, and some tracking potential. Additional consideration is being given to ship mounted, as well as shore mounted, tethered aerostats (balloons). Although originally conceived for radar surface search purposes, the addition of an air search capability may also be possible. The delay in these responses was due to changing concepts and an attempt to provide your committee the most complete, current and meaningful responses possible. I was pleased to appear before your committee and provide some detail on our efforts to combat this very real national problem. Sincerely, J. S. GRACEY Encl: (1) Q&A's re: Air Interdiction (6) |