Congressmen Urge Use of Militia in Border Drug War

Warning that President Bush has left the state ill-equipped to wage a war on drugs, a group of California congressmen Wednesday urged Gov. George Deukmejian to order full-time deployment of the National Guard along the Mexican border.

They also pledged to seek federal assistance for the unprecedented effort.

“Until the Bush Administration demonstrates its commitment to provide California with the resources we need . . . Californians will have to fight the drug war on our own,” said the plan’s principal author, Rep. Mel Levine (D-Santa Monica).

Would Join U.S. Agents

The plan would for the first time enlist hundreds of uniformed guardsmen as permanent participants in the anti-drug effort. They would join federal agents in searching suspicious cargo and surveying sensitive border crossings by land and air.

The Guard patrol program would be designed to emulate Operation Border Ranger II, a monthlong crackdown that resulted in hundreds of arrests and a number of major drug busts last spring before being halted when a special federal subsidy ran out.

The new plan’s sponsors, the Los Angeles-area’s six Democratic congressmen, contend that the Bush Administration’s refusal to provide the drug-ridden region with emergency anti-narcotics assistance leaves the state with no choice but to send out the Guard.

To help pay for the effort, Levine and the other congressmen said they will introduce legislation guaranteeing at least $10 million in Defense Department funding for National Guard operations in California this year.

But Levine urged Deukmejian to deploy the Guard even before the funding goes through, saying: “If we want to recapture our state from drug dealers, we must do it ourselves.”

In Sacramento, Deukmejian told reporters that he had not yet seen the Democratic proposal and could not comment on it.

But the second-ranking officer for the Army National Guard, Gen. William J. Jefferds, said the service would object to any plan that requires anti-drug operations to be conducted on a permanent basis.

“Once it’s permanent, you’re compromised in your effort and the traffickers will shift their operations elsewhere,” said Jefferds, the deputy adjutant general. By deploying guardsmen instead on a “surging” basis, the Guard could maintain the element of surprise, he said.

Both the governor and the general made clear, however, that they would favor a stepped-up National Guard role in anti-drug operations within the state. Indeed, the Guard has already asked the Pentagon for $10.5 million in assistance to underwrite proposed operations next year, they said.

That would mark more than a tenfold increase over the $990,000 in assistance dispatched to the state earlier this year as part of a landmark effort to integrate National Guard forces in drug-enforcement efforts across the country.

Nearly all of that money was spent in the Border Ranger II crackdown, in which about 600 troops joined Customs Service and Drug Enforcement Administration agents in inspecting shipments at major entry points and in surveying traffic along suspected smuggling routes.

Federal officials declared the operation “successful on every measure,” noting that it contributed to almost 500 drug-related arrests and the seizure of nearly 1,000 pounds of cocaine and more than 2,000 pounds of marijuana.

That success contrasted sharply with the experience of the original Operation Border Ranger, which was canceled in 1988 after one of its first helicopter patrols crashed, killing five sheriff’s deputies and three guardsmen.

In unveiling his proposal to elevate the anti-drug operation to permanent status, Levine acknowledged its potential danger. But he contended that the “benefits in terms of human lives and physical safety in our communities” would far outweigh “the risks in that area.”

Although a number of California Republicans have been outspoken advocates of an active National Guard role in the drug fight, none were asked to endorse the Democratic proposal. One GOP congressmen, Rep. Duncan L. Hunter of Coronado, said: “I’m glad they finally got on board.”

The proposal appeared designed in large part to renew critical attention on the Bush Administration’s refusal so far to declare Los Angeles a “high-intensity drug-trafficking area,” a designation that would enable the city to qualify for emergency federal assistance.

While the Administration already has given such status to Washington, D.C., it angered many California officials by deciding to wait until February before deciding which other cities would be put in the special category.

In denouncing that decision Wednesday, the Democrats argued that the Mexican border area and Los Angeles have emerged as key points for the import, distribution, manufacturing of illegal drugs.

“Any money sent to California,” said Rep. Julian C. Dixon (D-Los Angeles), “is part of the fight against the national drug problem.”

Other co-sponsors of the legislation are Democratic Reps. Howard L. Berman of Panorama City, Matthew G. Martinez of Monterey Park, Esteban E. Torres of La Puente and Henry A. Waxman of Los Angeles.