Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
323154659
label
Drug Strategy [OA 4423] [2]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
323154659
contentType
document
title
Drug Strategy [OA 4423] [2]
citationUrl
identifierLocal
13879-013
collections
Records of the White House Office of Speechwriting (George H. W. Bush Administration)
Mary Kate Grant Subject Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
323154659
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
e7b3adb52ed5b133
ocrText
Originally Processed With FOIA(s):
FOIA Number:
S
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the George Bush Presidential
Library Staff.
Record Group/Collection:
George H.W. Bush Presidential Records
Collection/Office of Origin:
Speechwriting, White House Office of
Series:
Grant, Mary Kate, Files
Subseries:
Subject File, 1988-1991
OA/ID Number:
13879
Folder ID Number:
13879-013
Folder Title:
Drug Strategy [2]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
G
19
2
7
4
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
January 25, 1990
PRESS BRIEFING
BY
DIRECTOR FOR NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY WILLIAM BENNETT
The Briefing Room
2:16 P.M. EST
DIRECTOR BENNETT: Good afternoon. I am joined by my
deputies: Stanley Morris, Deputy Director for Supply; Herbert
Kleber, Deputy Director for Demand; and Judge Reginald Walton; Deputy
Director for State and Local Affairs; John Walters, my Chief of
Staff; and my Director of Budget, Bruce Carnes. This is the National
Drug Control Strategy II.
Let me be brief in my opening comments so we can welcome
your questions.
First, I'd like to say this: I am more optimistic about
our prospects for this war on drugs than I was when I first took this
job. This is not Mission Impossible. People said this job was not
doable, this mission not possible, or the object not attainable. All
of that is wrong. The object is attainable. This war is winnable.
The scourge, in fact, I believe, is beginning to end. It isn't over,
yet, by any means. There's a long way to go, but the momentum has
clearly shifted.
Overall use is going down in America. Public attitudes
continue to harden against drug use. Arrests are up. Seizures are
up. And traffickers are on defense more and more. We are starting
to get ahold of this beast. The progress is being made in many of
place worst afflicted by drugs, in neighborhoods and communities all
over this country. Overseas, the Medellin Cartel declared war on the
government of Colombia last August. Now we hear of they are suing
for peace. We're seeing record amounts of traffickers and dealers
assets being seized and given to the good guys.
As you know, in the last year, the Department of Defense
has significantly stepped up its efforts against drugs and we're
delighted. International cooperation against traffickers and illegal
money laundering has increased. And, again, all across America more
and more Americans are saying they will no longer tolerate the use of
illegal drugs in their schools, their work places and their
neighborhoods. If we keep it up we're going to there. We can and
will make things better. But in the meantime, no wavering, no
compromise, and by all means, no surrender.
Just a few highlights of Strategy II. It builds on, it
particularizes and it deepens the principles set out in Strategy I.
Those principles are: user accountability, treatment assistance, a
strong emphasis on prevention, tough law enforcement, international
initiatives, and research and intelligence efforts.
For Fiscal Year 1991, it's clear that the President is
serious about this issue. Let's take a look at money. The
administration is seeking $10.6 billion in drug-related budget
authority; $10.6 billion in BA, budget authority. A $4.3 billion
increase since President Bush took office 12 months ago and a $1.1
billion increase over Fiscal Year '90. Actual spending, that is
budget outlays for fiscal '91, will increase by $2.8 billion over
fiscal 1990. Details on the budget recommendations will be made
MORE
- 2 -
available on January 29th. And the detailed description of the plan,
of course, is in here.
But just a few quick things in the areas of criminal
justice, we'll see a dramatic increase in the number of DEA
activities;, DEA agents and support personnel. And we will see an
increase in our effort to attack domestic marijuana. An increase in
the Department of Justice grants to state and local law enforcement.
A 228-percent increase to state and local law enforcement since
President Bush took office. Substantial funds, $403 million went for
drug-related activities within the federal court system, including
clerks, administrators, court officers and the like.
In the area of treatment, we will add almost 16,000 slots
to the block grant. With the increase that we propose in treatment,
we believe as many as 1.7 million people could be served from funds
provided by all treatment sources -- all payment sources -- 1.7
million people. As Dr. Kleber has written before he took this job,
as a professor at Yale and since he has been at this job, we estimate
the number of people in need of treatment -- who could benefit from
treatment to be something like two million, so we are fast
approaching that number.
Given the problems of trying to train people and get them
up to professional standards to work effectively in treatment, we
think this is tremendous progress. Special grants for programs to
improve outreach efforts for pregnant addicts and for cocaine babies.
Developing some ideas for -- innovative ideas for drug treatment,
such as the treatment campus idea, and doing more research and
treatment.
Very quickly, in education and community action, we will
increase grants in the drug-free schools area. Emergency grants to
urban and rural education agencies; community incentive grants -- a
50 percent increase to $150 million for public housing drug
elimination programs. We will develop model legislation for the
states on drug-free workplaces. In the area of interdiction, we
will, again, enhance the role of the Department of Defense.
We will focus a great deal on the southwest border where
we see increasing amounts of traffic. And we will improve our
efforts in money laundering and the like. More money for research
and a major new addition, the creation of National Drug Intelligence
Center to consolidate and coordinate all the law enforcement
information; to find out something more about the nature of the
criminal drug trafficking organizations, so we can pursue our goal of
dismantling those organizations.
Finally, two last things. The administration has
designated the following areas of the country as high-intensity drug
trafficking areas: they are New York, Miami, Houston, Los Angeles and
the Southwest order. This means concentrated federal law enforcement
assistance, hundreds of addition DEA and FBI agents, more border
patrol and custom inspectors. And because of overall increases, we
will see additional funds for treatment and prevention to those areas
as well as to the rest of the United States.
And
finally,
the
administration will be sending to the
Congress aproposal to apply the death penalty to three additional
categories of drug-related offenders -- major drug kingpins; second,
drug kingpins who attempt to kill in order to obstruct justice that
is interfering with the judicial process; and third, federal drug
felons whose offenses result in death.
To sum up Strategy II, it, again, we believe deepens and
particularizes and implements a great deal of what we talked about by
way of principle in Strategy I. It builds on what works. And if the
Congress adopts it -- in those areas where we need Congress to adopt
it -- we believe that we will continue to show progress. Things will
get better if we stay at it. And from our side, we certainly plan to
stay at it. Thank you very much.
MORE
- 3 -
Q
Do you think the Drug Czar ought to be a Cabinet
level agency?
DIRECTOR BENNETT: I don't care. It doesn't matter.
It's the least of my worries. We get our calls returned. I get to
spend as much time with the President as anybody in this
administration; spend a lot of time. And, in fact, the first time I
was asked about this question I said, you know, when I call my
colleagues in the Cabinet they return my calls. And I have to tell
you, when I call the President, he returns my calls, and that's even
more important. So we're not suffering from any lack of attention.
We get a lot of, it and we're getting the support. We could not do
things that we regard as critical to do without the President's deep
support and involvement. I can't order the Secretary of Defense to
get more significantly involved. I can urge it and give the
arguments for it; but in the end, he'll listen to the
Commander-in-Chief. And he has.
Q
Given the connection between guns, violence and
drugs, why don't you make a more aggressive proposal about gun
control in your strategy?
DIRECTOR BENNETT: Well, I think that the proposals that
are on the books now to increase the sentences for people who use
weapons, guns in the commission of drug crimes is a very positive
thing. And second, additional proposals that we will make to add to
that -- that is, to make some of the sentences longer and to broaden
the applicability so that people who are committing drug felonies and
using guns will now suffer additional penalties, will do much longer
time under mandatory sentencing. That's the way to get at it, in my
view.
Q
You mentioned that you're trying here to build on
what works. Could you give us some specific areas where you're
seeking more funds precisely because what the funds are to go for
have proved over these past months to work?
DIRECTOR BENNETT: Sure. We can start with law
enforcement. The whole designation of the high intensity
drug-trafficking areas and what we plan to do with that designation
and federal funds will be to build on what works. And what works is,
we are seeing successful federal efforts being made by U.S. attorneys
and FBI and DEA and other federal personnel in making the cases
against major drug dealers in this country, such as you had here in
Washington with the Rayful Edmonds case, and you've had in many other
places around the country where federal resources from U.S. attorneys
and the law enforcement people go after the organization, build a
case, and are able to get a conviction and disrupt the organization.
That works; we need more of it.
Lots of people have told me that since the passage of the
acts in 1988, we're really beginning to see a change in the
disposition of the drug criminals out there. Many people are now
being arrested, getting convicted, and doing very serious time. And
that's progress which we want to build on.
Stan, do I have that right?
MR. MORRIS: Cross-designation is another.
DIRECTOR BENNETT: Go ahead.
MR. MORRIS: We've also -- organized crime drug
enforcement task forces collapse all of the investigative powers of
the federal government -- IRS, ATF, DEA and the like -- and the
President has just gotten agreement from the Secretary of the
Treasury and the Attorney General to add 1,000 new investigators in
the drug area who are currently Customs inspectors, but we've
broadened their power, so we have new tools available without extra
-resources.
MORE
- 4 -
DIRECTOR BENNETT: In the treatment area -- would you
like to speak a second about the treatment area? What works for
prevention Dr. Kleber.
DR. KLEBER: In the prevention area, one of the things
that's been very successful over the last six months has been the
initiative by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation -- Fighting Back.
They're going to give over $26 million to approximately eight to 12
communities who have organized enough -- and we know that prevention
needs to work at the community level. Over 300 communities applied
for that; only 12 are going to get funding. We are going to be
putting significant millions of dollars into the Office of Substance
Abuse Prevention to fund many more of those communities so that they
can organize at the local level.
DIRECTOR BENNETT: Let me just add -- the sort of thing
that many of you saw earlier this week in Kansas City -- that kind of
effort of that group -- community group that works. That's
clearly having a positive effect. That's the sort of thing we ought
to get behind and support.
A last one I'd mention would be the education area.
We're beginning to see. some very encouraging reports based on the
research of some education programs that seem to work. Like the DARE
program, where you bring police officers into the schools and they
talk to the little kids about these efforts. So all of those things
we think are things that work.
Q
On the issue of money-laundering, a number of
representatives of banking associations think that too much pressure
is being put on them to be accountable for putting restraints on
money-laundering, especially in international wire transfers. What's
your response to that? Do you have a --
DIRECTOR BENNETT: No. I would say that we do need
accountability there. As we said last time, we might subtitle the
strategy, "Everybody Must Do Something." And the money goes to the
banks, and that means the bankers have to be paying more attention.
And we know that money is the lifeblood of these organizations, and
as long as they are able to launder money easily, that's going to
create a great obstacle for us. So no, we don't think that we're
placing an undue burden. We want to work with the community,
obviously, to do it in a way that doesn't distort or frustrate their
usual way of doing business. But they've got to play. They have got
to play. And indeed, I think the FINCEN operation, or the financial
crimes effort thing is going to show some progress.
2
Speaking of money, given the billions of dollars in
profit in the drug business, what makes you think that applying the
death penalty to drug kingpins is going to be any deterrent to these
people?
DIRECTOR BENNETT: Well, we'll sure deter the guy who
gets it. I mean, there isn't any question about that.
Q
But if it's ever carried out, number one --
DIRECTOR BENNETT: If it's ever carried out, and we would
certainly have intention to carry it out.
Q
But as people have pointed out, death is one of the
business factors that these people deal with every day. I mean, why
would the death penalty deter somebody, especially these people
making the kind of profits that they do? Why do you think that would
deter them?
DIRECTOR BENNETT: Well, this notion that it is just an
idle thing to many of them, I think it's probably true. But I think
as people get closer to the recognition that they actually may die
because of their actions, it may become less an idle thought about a
MORE
- 5 -
cost of doing business and more something to discourage them.
I have to tell you, I think some of the people in
Colombia who noticed and read the report of Mr. Rodriguez Gacha may
have had additional thoughts about mortality since that occurred.
I think that these efforts, these additions suggest
several things and they mean several things. As the President said
in Kansas city, that this is what is deserved, given the nature of
the offense, that this is a matter of justice. Whether it deters
anyone or not, it is a matter of justice and what is deserved.
And second, we think that if the cases are brought -- and
remember, we did not ask for the death penalty as a matter of course;
the Attorney General would have to approve, I think, in every case,
requesting the death penalty. And if this did occur, I think it
would send a very clear message about our seriousness about it.
Look, a year ago, two years ago, three years ago, people
were saying, this government, this administration isn't really
serious about the drug problem. What people are saying now about
this and about some other things is, gee, maybe we're too serious
about the drug problem. I'll take the criticism that way,
particularly when I think we can defend what it is we're doing on the
basis of logic and public policy. There are lots of ways in which
you indicate and which I think you speak for the American people and
say, we're sick and tired, we're not going to take it anymore, we're
really going to go to work on this issue.
Q
Your first high intensity drug area -- the area you
designated for special attention was the District of Columbia. And
despite the Rayful Edmond trial that you mentioned, the level of
violence in the city has not decreased, the price of cocaine has not
risen, and its availability has apparently not been curtailed. What
specific examples can you cite of the success of your approach in the
first area that you designated?
DIRECTOR BENNETT: Well, look, technically, we did not
designate the District of Columbia a high intensity drug trafficking
area. Many people thought we did, but we did not. What we did was
say we thought the situation in Washington, D.C. was desperate and
that somebody ought to do something. And in addition to others, we
thought we ought to do something. We didn't do it because we thought
it was going to be an easy win. We didn't know whether it was going
to be a win at all. We said we have to do it because the city was
bleeding, and in some places, bleeding to death. And we felt we had
to something. I am pleased at what we've done. We have delivered on
what we have promised. But you can't do this by yourself. The
federal goverment can't do it.
Q
Can you give some examples --
DIRECTOR BENNETT: I'm getting to it. We threw the rope
to the city drowning, and we found a lot of knots got tied, but there
wasn't enough pulling to get up. We'd still like to work with the
District of Columbia; we'd still like more steps to be taken to get
out of this problem. We have not had the kind of civic resolve in
local government here that we think is appropriate to the
circumstances.
There are some encouraging signs despite these absences.
There is a dramatic decrease in the people who are arrested testing
positive for drugs, which is regarded by people in the field as a
very important fact which may be a predictor of overall drug use.
But you're right -- the problem still remains serious -- deadly
serious. There are still a lot of problems. I will say again I
think it's going to get better. It will get better faster if we get
more action from the local government.
Q
What is the single most important achievement in
your first phase?
MORE
- 6 -
DIRECTOR BENNETT: I don't know. I think the thing that
we're -- I think the victories here are America's victories. I think
that it is probably the hardening of public attitudes about drug use
that is the most encouraging thing.
If we had to talk about the last year of things we have
done, I think you would say the achievement of a coherent strategy
with the support the clear public support of the President of the
United States that it works. We're working together. Again,
people said we couldn't do it. We couldn't get people to work in
concert. Couldn't get the Defense Department to work with the other
agencies. That's working. It's going. That may sound too
bureaucratic to bring tears to one's eyes, but you get to sense that
the enterprise is now together and we're moving in one direction. I
think that's very encouraging. But there are encouraging signs
everywhere. Again, I think that last year, a year ago, people were
talking about the cartel as if they were invincible and as if the
kingpins would never be caught. I think that situation has changed
Q The President said that he was going to increase the
budget without touching the deficit or raising taxes.
DIRECTOR BENNETT: Right.
Q
Have you had to cut other programs in order to get
your program increased -- education, health, the Justice Department?
DIRECTOR BENNETT: No. No.
Q
None at all, anywhere?
DIRECTOR BENNETT: But that's not my job. I mean, my job
is to come forward --
Q
When I said you I meant the greater you.
DIRECTOR BENNETT: Oh, I don't know. You'd have to talk
to Brother Darman about that.
Q
You must know.
DIRECTOR BENNETT: I don't know. (Laughter.) No, I am
-- you don't understand. I am not cosmpolitan. I am not a man for
all seasons. I am obsessive. I am tunnel-visioned. I have one
thing to worry about now.
Q
Can you ask your budget person if other programs in
education --
DIRECTOR BENNETT: He knows. He's not supposed to know.
He's supposed to be as tunnel-visioned as I am. Right?
MR. CARNES: Yes.
DIRECTOR BENNETT: But go ahead.
Q Right.
DIRECTOR BENNETT: But since you're more cosmopolitan,
speak freely.
MR. CARNES: To be quite frank with you, I don't exactly
know what every agency's budget is. I think that -- this is the
truth --I think there are going to be pluses and minuses in agencies
all over government. What we did was recommend a drug budget. It
had to be OMB's job to figure out how to pay for that.
Q
On the high intensity areas, did you come under what
we might call political pressure to designate certain areas over
other areas -- New York over Detroit or something like that?
MORE
- 7 -
DIRECTOR BENNETT: We had tons of phone calls and letters
and from the Hill and elsewhere to designate --
Q
To follow up on that --
DIRECTOR BENNETT: -- but we didn't yield to it.
Q
Okay. Do you have a formula --
DIRECTOR BENNETT: I don't. Didn't do it at Education;
don't do it here.
Q
Okay. Now, to follow up, how did you decide, for
example, to include Nassau County and not Westchester County, to get
real parochial here, in the New York area?
MR. MORRIS: Those are suggested areas that appeared to
us on the tentative look at the problem to constitute the counties
that were in fact most involved in the drug trafficking issues that
the law underlying this requires. But those are simply suggestive.
Where we are at present is, we did not go through any consultation
with the state and local law enforcement. We simply took a look at
the national data and picked these areas. The next step is to
basically concentrate more closely; talk with Lee Brown, talk with
the others involved in this area -- he's the new PC in New York --
and that's what we will be doing.
Q
Okay. And political interest didn't play anything.
MR. MORRIS: Absolutely none.
Q
What difference does a few million dollars make?
DIRECTOR BENNETT: Well, I mean, it will make a
difference. Remember, you've got to count a lot of different things
here. This is not -- when you talk about $50 million, this is not
the total of what an area or what the five areas get from the federal
government in terms of fighting drugs. This is an additional $50
million on top of something like $1.4 billion, Bruce, in '91 which
these areas will get in all categories for fighting drugs. But with
$50 million, you can buy a couple of hundred or more -- Stan, you may
want to come in with the exact numbers here, or estimates -- federal
prosecutors, federal investigators, to do the job which we intend to
do with this designation, which is go after the major trafficking
organization.
What was the number you gave me this morning -- $250
million?
MR. MORRIS: Yes. We're adding a quarter of a billion
dollars in these areas strictly for law enforcement. We are
increasing this year by 25 percent the number of prosecutors,
investigators and interdiction personnel in these areas, and that's
out of both '90 appropriated and '91 presidential requests. So this
is a very significant increase to deal with what the law requires,
which is the drug-trafficking centers in America. I can't give you
the number, but we are now far beyond -- I think I can say this
confidently -- tell me if I can't -- far beyond in terms of the
commission of federal resources. The involvement of federal agents
and prosecutors in pursuing this -- way beyond anything we saw with
the French Connection or the Pizza Connection or any of those earlier
operations; this is a much, much bigger thing. Remember what you're
doing is going after the trafficking organizations. We now have an
army really a small -- medium-sized army of federal investigators
and prosecutors going after the cartel. And that's going to bear
some good results.
Q
Mr. Bennett, was Mayor Barry one of the knots in
that rope that you threw the District? You talked about lack of
cooperation somewhat. Are you referring to the Mayor as well?
MORE
- 8 -
DIRECTOR BENNETT: I don't have any comment on the Mayor.
Obviously, I don't want to say anything about that; none of us
should. But look I don't think it's any secret that the District of
Columbia has had some problems in getting things off the ground in
regard to this problem. We want to work with the District -- I like
Sterling Tucker a lot. I think he's a serious guy, the drug czar of
DC. But we have this agreement. We did everything we said we were
going to do. If you take a look at the money that goes to the
District of Columbia, more goes to the District of Columbia per
capita than any other city in the country. I think by a factor of
twice as much as the next city. More should be going on, and I hope
more will go on. I'm confident that things will improve.
But I'll tell you -- you go in -- I've been to 35 cities
now since March, and you go into a community and one of the things
you see is that the community needs to act for itself if things are
going to get better. And you go into a lot of places, and most
places you talk to a group of people, you got the mayor sitting
there, and you got the police chief, and you got somebody from the
schools, and law enforcement, and a couple of feds there, and people
from the treatment world, and the prevention world and they give you
their plan. And in most cases what you get is: you know the drug
problem is serious; we're doing something about it; we got a plan;
here's how it works; we could sure use some more federal funds; we
could sure use some advice on this or that, but we're going after it
here in Tulsa, or we're going after it here in Dallas, or we're going
after it here in Seattle -- all real-life examples, by the way, of
people who are really going after it.
And then when your money goes in you can see it's going
into something that's moving. They got a plan. Then you go into
some other communities and people say, "we don't know what to do; we
don't have the foggiest idea. Come in here and save us." Or,
"there's no way we can get this bureaucracy to work."
Federal funds can help a lot and additional federal funds
such as we're proposing can help, but nothing can replace that local
effort. People have to get their act together on the ground or we're
not going to get there.
Q Does the fact that the Mayor is under indictment
though hurt your effort to fight the drug war?
DIRECTOR BENNETT: Again, I don't want to comment on
that. I don't want to comment on it specifically.
Q
-- have to do with the perception of the Mayor of
the Nation's Capital. Is that damaging to your efforts?
DIRECTOR BENNETT: People have said -- I would just refer
you to reports where people have said this event, given the attention
and publicity it received, might be one of these watershed kind of
events which changes people's attitudes and makes people really
realize they have to do something.
As the President said a little earlier today, just a few
minutes ago, he was sad for the children. And I think those reports,
whatever happens now in court, are sad and sad for the children. We
don't need for our children to be disillusioned in this effort.
Q
What's your analysis of Biden's program, which among
other things calls for spending more money than this?
DIRECTOR BENNETT: Well, the fact that Senator Biden
would come forward with a program calling for more money was no
surprise to us. As I said this morning, I don't know what the Senate
Appropriations Committee position is on this, but I guess I said this
morning, "It's ten o'clock, Senate Appropriations Committee, do you
know where Joe Biden is and do you know what he's saying?" He's
calling for an additional $5 billion. In terms of the large areas,
MORE
- 9 -
we agree.
You know, we are all disciples of the National Drug
Control Strategy now. Including Joe Biden. He may say he is not,
but he is. The broad outlines are there. Now, this was from the
mountain top and a lot of this is what most people who have studied
this problem would agree to. But we all agree we need to do better
in law enforcement, more efforts there, and interdiction offshore,
and prevention, and treatment and so on. And we all agree on that.
And Biden says some very nice things about us in his report; thinks
we've made progress. And that's good. The main areas are areas of
agreement.
We say 380 additional DEA agents; Biden says 500. Big
deal. I mean this is not a fundamental matter of principle. Biden
says that we focus on the casual user and we shouldn't. That I
disagree with for two reasons; one, the casual user is important.
Every time in the last 15 years people have talked about an effort
against drugs, the casual users have been forgotten. And if you talk
to people in the field they will tell you this is the person who is
driving the whole enterprise.
But we don't put a whole lot of resources in the federal
government trying to bring the casual user around to good sense and
better behavior. This is essentially a job for local government, and
we think that's appropriate. But if you neglect the casual user and
just focus on the addict you're missing the point. Addicts come from
casual users. Most people do not wake up in the morning and say, I
want to become a burned-out drug addict. They just want to fiddle
around with it and then they become addicts. So if you don't focus
on the user you are not focusing on the point of entry.
But that -- you know -- and I'm sure Biden would say he
takes the casual user serious, just a matter of emphasis. So I think
there are large areas of agreement. Now comes what I call budget
ball. We threw the ball out they say, no, that's good enough. Three
billion more. And now we'll have this somewhat heated, somewhat
muted debate for the next three months.
We'll see. Look, I mean this is very serious money we're
talking about. This is a -- our proposal is a 69-percent increase
since George Bush took office.
Q
Zero --
DIRECTOR BENNETT: It was five -- six-three, to
nine-five, to ten-six.
Q
How much more did you want?
DIRECTOR BENNETT: Everything. I asked for everything.
(Laughter.) I said, Darman, how much do you have? I want it all.
Q Were those your exact words? (Laughter.)
Q of the five high-intensity drug-trafficking areas --
how will that $50 million be divided between them? And secondly,
when do you hope to see it having some impact on these areas?
MR. MORRIS: Again, let me clarify in the high-intensity
drug-trafficking areas. There's two parts of the program. First is
the allocation of federal resources into these areas. That's $250
million -- nearly 2,000 agents and prosecutors in these areas. We've
figured out where to put those resources. The other money -- the $25
million that's available, the $50 million, the 100 percent increase
the President's requesting -- that, we are going to be working with
the state and locals to figure out what gaps are left, given the
level of commitment we've made and the activities that they made.
Those consultations will begin immediately
Q
Mr. Bennett, a few months ago you characterized the
MORE
- 10 -
District of Columbia as a city out of control. As a city out of
control. You said it was being poorly served by its government. Has
anything changed in that time? Without prejudging the case, could
the arrest and charging of the Mayor be an advance in the war on
drugs? There's been a lot of criticism in this country about not
going after politicians and other folks who use drugs.
DIRECTOR BENNETT: Right. We'll see. I think anybody
who is here -- well, even anybody who isn't -- any American has to
weep a little bit for this and for this city and for the fact that
it's the murder capital of the country. And it's a very sad
situation. And we've got to get to work to make it better. But you
just can't do that from the outside. It has to be done inside.
Regeneration comes from within. And I think there are an awful lot
of people in this town who want to make it better and who may take
recent events as the occasion to really turn that anger and that
frustration into something positive.
Judge Walton, would you like to comment on that?
JUDGE WALTON: Yes. I've been working very closely with
Sterling Tucker, and I think one positive thing that has happened is
the fact that he's been put in charge of this effort. As a result of
that, he has assembled a number of community leaders who are working
together very closely, and I understand they expect to present a plan
to him of attack in March or April. And once that is put forward, I
think that will be a good move towards healing the Nation's Capital's
problems.
Q
Mr. Bennett, by announcing the death sentence for
drug lords, are we presenting danger to the President as he's
planning to go to Colombia?
DIRECTOR BENNETT: Oh, no. You mean -- oh, no. They
already know we mean business. I think word about Gacha has gotten
out and about other things; I don't think there's any question about
it. But if anybody has any doubts about George Bush's seriousness
about the drug issue, they ought to reflect about his interest and
willingness and determination to go to this meeting in Cartagena.
Q
What about my question of interdiction, Mr. Bennett?
Q
-- extradition treaties --
DIRECTOR BENNETT: No. I mean you'd have to adjust to
those. In those circumstances where the extradition treaty is based
on an agreement not to apply the death penalty, you wouldn't.
Q
But doesn't it bother you as a matter of equity that
the major kingpins in Colombia, if they were extradited, couldn't get
more than 30 years in prison while you want to put to death kids on
the streets of Washington and other cities who you catch dealing
drugs?
DIRECTOR BENNETT: Well, I think -- again, it would be a
matter of discretion, and we wouldn't ask for it in every case where
it would be possible to ask for it. You'd only ask for it in those
severe cases.
As a matter of equity, it would bother me a little bit.
But this is part of the international agreement. And it is much
better to have the extradition agreement even with a hard 30 years as
the maximum than not to have it at all. But maybe the situation and
the extradition agreements may change. And as you no doubt observed,
the fate of all the kingpins -- the fate of other kingpins in
Colombia may not be that of a 30-year sentence. It may resemble what
happened to Mr. Gacha. Mr. Barco is serious, and as I understand,
the pursuit by the police and the military in Colombia, the orders
are to take them anyway they can.
Q
Your remarks at the beginning of this briefing were
MORE
- 11 -
remarkably upbeat. You talked about the scourge beginning to end,
and the war that's winnable.
DIRECTOR BENNETT: Yes, it is.
Q
You've rattled off a long list of successes. For a
program that's been in effect -- what -- for four months, you've
barely had time to get agents trained and into the field.
DIRECTOR BENNETT: I know.
Q
My question would be, is it turning out that the
problem is less serious than you thought it was in the beginning?
DIRECTOR BENNETT: No, I think the problem is as serious
as we thought. But it's not just a matter of the federal program or
the federal strategy. Things that are at work are things that are at
work because of the American people. They decided to stop using
drugs and decided to put pressure on neighbors, friends, children,
spouses and employees. They have cut drug use down.
Now, the serious effort on the part of the federal
government should be able to help those efforts of the American
people. But I think things are different now than they were a year
ago for a lot of reasons. And some of them I mentioned. We now do
have a plan and a strategy. We've made some progress in this country
without a plan and a strategy. Now, with a plan and a strategy, a 69
percent increase in resources, the Department of Defense seriously
involved, some of the cartel on the run, much greater international
agreement, a hardening of the public's attitude -- did you see the
survey of the college students the other day? Moving to the left,
they said, on everything except drugs? You talk to somebody about
David Musto, professor at Yale, who I think is America's most
distinguished scholar, historian of this issue, and he'll tell you
these are all very, very positive signs.
There's still a long way to go, and there's still some
reluctance in some quarters to do what needs to be done. I mean, I
wish every school principal, I wish every employer, I wish everybody
who sets policy in the public would step up to it the way some have;
we'd just end it all that much sooner. But you go around to these
communities, and you see people like Al Brooks in Kansas City and
other people around the country, and what people in those communities
are learning is that they can fight back and have some success, and
they can prevail. They can win. They can regain some streets,
regain the neighborhood. And we're not out of the woods yet, but I
think the scourge is beginning to end. I think we do have momentum.
We've still got this ridiculous distraction of the legalization
debate, but happily it's still not having much of an impact on the
American people. The legalization debate, is, there's Godzilla;
let's just give him a license and a collar and a big bowl and then
invite him into the house and maybe he'll behave himself.
It's an argument that doesn't make any sense, Read James
Q. Wilson's brilliant refutation of it in this month's Commentary
Magazine. But on the other hand, we're now seeing -- we got a rope,
and we got a stick, and we got a cage that we're building for
Godzilla and, lo and behold, people in neighborhoods and in South
America and other places have started to poke at Godzilla. And you
know what, we didn't get all fire and teeth; we saw him backing off a
little bit. And that's very encouraging. We've got a long way to
go, we're not there yet, but we've got the momentum. I got to go.
THE PRESS: Thank you.
END
2:44 P.M. EST
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
(George Bush Library)
Document No.
Subject/Title of Document
Date
Restriction
Class.
and Type
01. Fax
David Tell to Peggy Dooley, Re: Drug Material in the
11/16/89
P-5
"Accomplishments" Package. (2 pp.)
Collection:
Record Group:
Bush Presidential Records
Office:
Speechwriting, White House Office of
Series:
Grant, Mary Kate
Open on Expiration of PRA
(Docurnent Follows)
Subseries:
Subject File
WHORM Cat.:
By SN (NLGD) on 4/5/2005
File Location:
Drug Strategy 9/89 - 1/90
Date Closed:
12/20/2004
OA/ID Number:
04423
FOIA/SYS Case #:
Appeal Case #:
Re-review Case #:
2005-0482-S
Appeal Disposition:
P-2/P-5 Review Case #:
Disposition Date:
AR Case #:
MR Case #:
AR Disposition:
MR Disposition:
AR Disposition Date:
MR Disposition Date:
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P-1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA]
(b)(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P-2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]
(b)(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an
P-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]
agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
(b)(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]
(b)(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P-5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA]
(b)(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]
(b)(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of
(b)(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
gift.
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
(b)(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
P.RM. Removed as a personal record misfile.
SENT BY:Xerox Telecopier 7021 11-16-89 ; 7:18PM
2024566218;# 1
OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
Washington, D.C. 20500
November 16, 1989
FAX TRANSMISSION TO:
Peggy Dooley
FROM:
Office of Research, a WHO
David Tell
Deputy Chief of staff, ONDCP
SUBJECT:
Drug Material in the
"Accomplishments" Package
PAGES:
Five (4), including this
I attach a copy of the three-page fact sheet issued by
Fitzwater's office on September 5 as a summary accompaniment to the
President's speech -- and to his National Drug Control Strategy.
This fact sheet still makes the best short guide to existing
Administration drug policies and proposals, and I would suggest
that you steal from it quite heavily as you formulate the drug
section of your "accomplishments" package.
The draft you sent me has a number of misplaced emphases, and
some significant parts of it (especially the budget numbers) are
now obsolete. As a quick and dirty, I caution you especially about
the following:
1) The President does not, in fact, believe that a "four-pronged
approach is key." He highlighted those four prongs in his
television address, but those were highlights only; they were not
the whole enchilada. The Drug strategy in fact lays out major new
priorities in five principal areas: the criminal justice system;
drug treatment; education, community action, and the workplace;
international initiatives; and interdiction efforts. It also
outlines an agenda for supporting activities in two areas:
research and intelligence.
2) It'll probably cause you unnecessary trouble if you discuss
"zero tolerance" in this document. Technically speaking, "zero
tolerance" describes a Coast Guard policy about seizures of
people's yachts and whatnot. It's difficult to say that zero
tolerance is "the policy of this Administration" as a whole. And
since CG's zero tolerance guidelines have been revised more than
once since originally promulgated in the last Administration, it's
not the strongest plank on which to stand President Bush's entire
SENT BY:Xerox Telecopier 7021 11-16-89 ; 7:18PM
2024566218:# 2
-2-
drug strategy. ZT isn't mentioned -- not even once -- in the
entire National Drug Control Strategy.
3) I'm not sure how old the material on which you guys are basing
your budget discussion is. "Over $6 billion" as a figure for the
President's 9/5 drug request is accurate, sort of. But the actual
figure was $7.9 billion. "Nearly $1.1 billion for education and
prevention" isn't quite right, either; the actual outlay figure was
$1.001 billion, and the BA figure was $1.176 billion. That wasn't
a 16% plus-up over FY89; it was 25% (BA) and 47% (outlays).
All the other categories' numbers are weird, too; I'm not sure
where you're getting them. But it doesn't really matter anyhow,
since the final bills the President will sign are going to reflect
some additional Congressionally derived budget increases.
Depending on when your accomplishments package is going to be
released, I'd suggest you leave the numbers blank until we know
for sure what the final legislation is going to look like. Then
you can plug some general numbers into your paper, and the
President can justly claim credit for instituting and formulating
the entire, new Federal effort.
4) Better not to conflate interdiction and enforcement all the
time. At least budgetarily, we're backing off the old
interdiction-heavy Reagan strategies just a bit, and we're getting
a lot of praise for it. Also, I wouldn't brag that 70 percent of
the President's budget is going toward "supply." That's the
biggest reason Congress was able to attach several hundred million
extra "demand" dollars onto our package in the first place. The
President's supply-demand ratio is the right and proper one, but
it's been a difficult and complicated argument to make in public,
and you shouldn't bother trying to make it again here.
5) It's kind of funny to mention Operation Snowcap after the
phrase "inspection, interdiction, intelligence efforts and crop
eradication programs." That covers a lot of ground. Operation
snowcap is just a single operation; there are lots of others.
6) I don't think the District of Columbia emergency assistance
plan merits separate mention. That, too, is Just a single
operation. And it might be best to give the President some
distance on this one, in any case.
7) You should make separate mention of the President's television
address to the nation -- his only such speech, and a major
demonstration of Presidential commitment. You should also make
separate (and primary) mention of the President's submission of the
first National Drug Control Strategy, and its overwhelming popular
and Congressional support.
call me if you'd like to discuss any of this.
SENT BY:Xerox Telecopier 7021 11-16-89 ; 7:19PM :
2024566218:# 3
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
Embargoed For Release Until 9:00 P.M. EDT
September 5, 1989
FACT SHEET
NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY
The National Drug Control Strategy describes a coordinated and
comprehensive plan of attack involving all basic anti-drug
initiatives and agencies. The Strategy recommends the largest
dollar increase in the history of the drug war -- nearly $2.2
billion, 39 percent above the Fiscal 1989 level. Throughout, the
Strategy emphasizes the principle of user accountability -- in
law enforcement efforts focused on individual users; in decisions
regarding sentencing and parole; in school, college, and
university policies regarding the use of drugs by students and
employees; in the workplace; and in treatment.
The Strategy also calls for increased efforts in cocaine source
countries and a more active international campaign by the United
States to engage other nations in the fight against drugs.
Interdiction efforts will be better targeted on key individuals
in the drug organizations and on high-value shipments.
Another major priority is increasing the capacity of the drug
treatment system and making it more accountable for results.
Significant emphasis is also given to providing increased support
for prevention and education efforts aimed at helping young
people and others resist and reject drugs.
The Strategy embodies the following elements:
Expand the criminal justice system
o
Provide funds for larger police forces, and increased
numbers of jails, prosecutors, and courts.
o
Develop alternatives for incarceration such as boot
camps to free up jail and prison space.
Require drug testing of prisoners, parolees, and
arrestees.
SENT BY:Xerox Telecopier 7021 11-16-89 ; 7:20PM :
2024566218:# 4
Page 2
Hold users, whether casual or heavy users, accountable for their
actions
Undertake a vigorous program to eradicate domestically-grown
marijuana
Mobilize communities in the war on drugs
Emphasize community-level prevention of drug use before
it starts.
Require schools and colleges to implement firm drug-
free policies in order to receive Federal funds.
Clean up and secure public housing.
Expand drug-free workplace policies
Promote drug-free workplace policies in the private
Recommend sector. and implement arug fill workplace policies w/on Fed gov't
testing for job applicants and employers in
safety and sensitive positions.
Aggressively implement Executive Order 12564 to assure
drug-free workplace plans and policies within the
Federal government.
Expand treatment and target services to improve the number of
individuals served and the effectiveness of treatment
o
Hold Federally-funded treatment programs accountable
for their effectiveness by establishing performance
criteria.
Require drug testing in treatment programs receiving
Federal funds.
Explore expanded use of "civil commitment" whereby
addicts are sent by the courts to residential treatment
facilities.
o
Improve drug treatment services for pregnant women.
Place heavier emphasis on targeted international efforts closer
to production and trafficking sources
Elevate the drug issue as & foreign policy priority.
Dismantle drug trafficking organizations.
Reduce trafficking profits by focusing increased
efforts on money laundering.
SENT BY:Xerox Telecopier 7021 :11-16-89 : 7:20PM ;
2024566218:# 5
Page 3
Take a fresh approach to interdiction
Create interagency and interdisciplinary teams to
analyze and target smuggling modes, methods, and
routes.
o
Target key individuals and high-value shipments.
Enhance border interdiction systems, operations, and
activities.
Improve the quality of research, information, and technological
capabilities available for drug control efforts
Establish a Federal Drug Control Research and
Development Committee.
O
Develop a more current and flexible information base.
Improve coordination of Federal anti-drug policy and intelligence
support
o
Establish interagency working groups chaired by the
Office of National Drug Control Policy to coordinate
supply and demand reduction efforts.
Establish an interagency working group chaired by the
Office of National Drug Control Policy to develop plans
for an intelligence center to unite U.S. drug-related
analytical capabilities, and to improve intelligence
capabilities.
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
(George Bush Library)
Document No.
Subject/Title of Document
Date
Restriction
Class.
and Type
02. Report
Prepared for the Cabinet by Office of National Drug Control
09/05/89
P-5
Policy and OMB [Office of Management and Budget], Re:
Briefing Papers: Selected Questions and Answers on The
President's Natinoal Drug Control Strategy. (18 pp.)
Collection:
Record Group:
Bush Presidential Records
Office:
Speechwriting, White House Office of
Series:
Grant, Mary Kate
Subseries:
Subject File
Open on Expiration of PRA
WHORM Cat.:
(Document Follows)
File Location:
Drug Strategy 9/89 - 1/90
By 8N (NLGB) on 4/5/2005
Date Closed:
12/20/2004
OA/ID Number:
04423
FOIA/SYS Case #:
Appeal Case #:
Re-review Case #:
2005-0482-S
Appeal Disposition:
P-2/P-5 Review Case #:
Disposition Date:
AR Case #:
)
MR Case #:
AR Disposition:
MR Disposition:
AR Disposition Date:
MR Disposition Date:
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P-1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA]
(b)(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P-2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRAJ
(b)(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an
P-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]
agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
(b)(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]
(b)(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P-5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA]
(b)(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]
(b)(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of
(b)(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
gift.
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
(b)(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
PRM. Removed as a personal record misfile.
CLOSE HOLD
BRIEFING PAPERS
Selected Questions and Answers on
The President's National Drug Control Strategy
September 5, 1989
Note: This material was prepared for the Cabinet by the Office
of National Drug Control Policy and OMB. This document is not
for public circulation. For additional information, contact John
Walters (673-2520) or Bruce Carnes (673-2628) at ONDCP.
DEMAND vs. SUPPLY
QUESTION:
How have you divided your budget between "supply" vs. "demand"
programs?
ANSWER:
O
The "simple" answer to your question is about 73 percent for
supply reduction, and about 27 percent for demand reduction.
But let me comment on the question and elaborate on the
answer.
often, law enforcement resources are viewed entirely as
supply reduction in nature and only those resources that are
directly spent on education or treatment activities are
considered demand reduction.
A supply/demand distinction that looks only at the bottom
line of the budget overlooks a very important residual
impact of supply side programs. Many law enforcement
activities have a profound impact on demand reduction, and
are so intended. When a juvenile is arrested and punished
for illegal drug use it sends a message to his friends and
schoolmates that will deter them from drug use. When users
are held accountable for their actions many people will be
persuaded never to try drugs in the first place or to stop.
Thus, while 73 percent of the budget's "bottom line" is for
supply reduction programs, a large portion of this funding
will have an impact on and is aimed at reducing demand.
0
Further, supply reduction activities are inherently
expensive (cars, aircraft, and prisons are all very costly),
whereas many demand reduction activities rely less on
capital outlays and more on community involvement and
individual commitment (e.g., getting schools to treat drug
abuse seriously doesn't require a budget line item).
O
Lastly, many of the supply reduction activities can only be
done by the Federal government ( international activities and
interdiction operations, for example), whereas most of the
demand reduction efforts can and should be shared in by
State and local governments, our schools, churches, and
communities.
Prepared by F. Kalder
BALANCE BETWEEN SUPPLY AND DEMAND RESOURCES
QUESTION:
How did you reach the conclusion that this was the appropriate
balance between supply and demand?
ANSWER:
I started by asking the question, "What would make people
stop using drugs?" The conclusion I reached, after months
of looking at the problem and talking with hundreds of
experts, was two-fold: reduce the easy access to drugs and
increase people's motivation to stay away from drugs.
To reduce the availability of drugs, we have proposed an
ambitious international initiative and other enhancements to
the Federal law enforcement program.
To increase people's motivation to become or stay drug-
free, we are proposing increases for traditional prevention
and treatment activities and increases for State and local
law enforcement grants, Federal prison construction and
prosecutions to increase the likelihood that drug users will
be held accountable for their drug use, and thereby be
deterred from further drug use.
Prepared by F. Kalder
LAW ENFORCEMENT AND DRUG DEMAND
QUESTION
We could solve the drug problem if people just stopped buying
drugs. Why spend large sums on police and interdiction when we
could just stop the problem through prevention and treatment
programs?
ANSWER
We need to deal with both the supply and demand side of the
equation. It is harder for users to stop while drugs are
easily available. We must attempt to reduce the supply
because fewer people will be able to use drugs when drugs
are less available.
Good law enforcement deters demand. For the so-called
casual user, creating a real cost of present drug use is a
true deterrent to future demand. And for the addicted user,
who may resort to a life of crime to support his habit, the
certainty of punishment may finally lead to an acceptance of
personal responsibility and a motivation to enter treatment.
In addition, law abiding citizens are entitled to live
without fear of drug-related violence. When drug dealers
move into a neighborhood, it is incumbent on local
government to provide necessary levels of police protection.
Reducing drug availability makes it easier to prevent drug
use from ever starting. By making it harder to obtain
drugs, we increase the effectiveness of prevention programs.
TOBACCO AND ALCOHOL
QUESTION
The Strategy doesn't emphasize or even talk about the most
dangerous drugs in America, alcohol and tobacco. At the same
time, cocaine and crack are special targets for the Strategy.
Why?
ANSWER
Many Surgeons General have emphasized the dangers of alcohol
and tobacco, and the use of both is falling. However, we
must remember that alcohol and tobacco are not controlled
substances.
The greatest current dangers are cocaine and crack. These
are especially addictive and increasingly popular drugs.
For example, the period between first use and addiction for
cocaine is extraordinarily short, and there are few simple
strategies for treatment; there are fewer for crack although
there is hope. At the same time, emergency room visits and
deaths from cocaine and crack have risen very steeply.
As a result, cocaine and crack are special targets for the
Strategy if we are to win the war on drugs.
USER ACCOUNTABILITY PROVISIONS
QUESTION
Your Strategy heavily emphasizes the notion of "user
accountability." Is this primarily a criminal justice priority?
ANSWER
No. In addition to the criminal justice aspects, there are "user
accountability" provisions throughout the entire Strategy.
Criminal Justice
Stiffer penalties for drug dealers and violent offenders.
Military-style boot camps for young, non-violent, first-time
offenders.
Denial of Federal benefits for convicted offenders.
Drug-testing probationers and parolees, and re-
incarcerating those with "dirty" urines.
Sanctions for casual users:
-- Fines.
-- Forfeitures of cars or other property.
-- Publication of names in local newspapers.
-- Suspension of driver's license.
-- Notification of employer.
-- Overnight or weekend detention.
-- Eviction from public housing.
Sanctions for young people:
-- Postponement of eligibility for driver's license.
-- Weekends of community service.
Drug Treatment
Random urinalysis of users in treatment.
Sanctions for those who test positive:
-- Denial of methadone.
-- Transfer to a more structured program.
-- Loss of job.
-- Loss of weekend passes.
-- Loss of visiting privileges.
Education and Workplace
Sanctions for students:
-- Suspension from school.
-- Notification of parents.
-- Mandatory drug abuse counseling.
Workplace:
-- Drug testing.
-- Employee assistance programs.
-- Referral to treatment programs.
-- Suspension or termination of employment.
TREATMENT ON DEMAND
QUESTION
Do you favor treatment on demand?
ANSWER
More treatment slots should be available, and the Strategy
recommends substantial increases in Federal aid for
treatment. However, I believe that those who can afford to
pay for treatment should be required to pay.
In addition, "treatment on demand" puts the addict
completely in the driver's seat, with all decisions about
when to start and when to stop completely up to him. Such
programs often result in "revolving door" treatment where
addicts don't go to treatment to end addiction but to reduce
their habit to more manageable proportions. That is not
adequate treatment.
NUMBER TO BE HELPED BY DRUG TREATMENT
QUESTION
Why do you think that only 2 million of the 4 million people with
serious drug problems could be helped by treatment?
ANSWER
The 4 million estimate is based on the number of serious
drug users in 1988 who used drugs more than 200 times in a
year.
The estimate of 2 million out of 4 million is based on prior
professional judgments by clinicians who work with drug
addicts, and the Strategy calls for additional research so
we learn know more exactly what treatment works best for
which people.
Clinicians believe that about one quarter of drug users will
stop when sanctions are increased and one quarter of addicts
are not likely to benefit from treatment.
TREATMENT WAITING LISTS
QUESTION
Why are there waiting lists at some treatment facilities while
others have room for patients? How will your Strategy reduce
waiting lists?
ANSWER
Treatment facilities today may not be located in the
neighborhoods where need is greatest. They may not offer
the type of treatment needed in the particular community.
Appropriate coordination in the treatment system is overdue.
That is why the Strategy calls for greater coordination
among local treatment facilities so that treatment resources
and availability match community needs.
The Strategy recommends changes in both the quantity and
quality of drug treatment. We call for increases in Federal
support to treatment in order to expand the number of
treatment slots and the range of treatment methods
available. The Strategy calls for about $700 million in
1990 Federal support for treatment. If State and local
funding and third-party payment continue in their present
pattern, the number of treatment slots will more than double
compared to 1987, the latest year for which we have data.
In addition, the Strategy calls for improved coordination at
the State and local level so that treatment availability
matches community need.
Further, the Strategy recommends changes in Federal funding
to hold treatment programs accountable for their
effectiveness. We support more treatment slots that work.
TREATMENT SLOTS
QUESTION
How many treatment slots are there, and how many people need
treatment? How many slots will there be if your funding proposal
is accepted? How many of these slots will be provided by the
Federal government?
ANSWER
How Federal funds work:
-- The Federal government does not fund treatment slots,
except for those in VA and Department of Defense
hospitals. Direct Federal support for drug treatment
in States and localities flows primarily through block
grant and other program support to State governments.
The States then channel these Federal funds, together
with funds of their own, to localities or directly to
treatment facilities, to use for the programs and
patients they deem appropriate.
-- At the treatment facility level funds are pooled. How
much Federal money will be used for a given patient in
a given treatment slot depends on the cost of treatment
at the particular facility, the type of treatment, the
type of patient, and whether the patient has insurance
coverage, Medicaid coverage, or pays a fee for
treatment. [NOTE: This is like Chapter 1 of
Elementary and Secondary Education]. Thus, Federal
support helps to pay for treatment across the whole
range of slots in the entire treatment system.
Number of Slots:
-- The National Institute on Drug Abuse reported that in
October 1987 there were 338,365 treatment slots and
263,510 drug clients, at a total cost of approximately
$1.3 billion. Federal support for treatment was almost
$300 million.
We recommend Federal funding for treatment in 1990 of about
$700 million, more than doubling Federal funding for
treatment in inflation-adjusted dollars compared to 1987.
If the previous pattern of State and local funding,
insurance, other third-party coverage holds, this new
funding level would more than double the treatment capacity,
compared to 1987, to about 700,000 treatment slots.
COST OF TREATING COCAINE USER
QUESTION
What is the range of costs, and what is the average cost, of
treating a cocaine user?
ANSWER
Our current cost information on the national treatment
system (the NDATUS survey from NIDA) does not separate
treatment costs for cocaine from costs of other drug
treatment.
There is information on the average cost of treatment slots
from facilities that provide only a single type of
treatment. In 1987, these costs ranged from approximately
$2,000 per year for outpatient slots to $28,000 per year for
inpatient slots.
The average annual cost per filled slot was approximately
$5,000 in 1987.
The average cocaine user in treatment is likely to have
outpatient treatment. NIDA indicates that those slots cost
approximately $2,000 per year; however, that figure may be
low.
FUNDING INCREASES FOR PREVENTION AND EDUCATION
QUESTION:
You are requesting an additional $233 million for prevention and
education in 1990. What will these funds be used for?
ANSWER:
Almost one-half of these funds will be used by
HHS/ADAMHA for drug prevention grants and for research.
The remaining funds will be used by other agencies
including ED for the Drug Free Schools and Communities
program, HUD for the Public Housing Drug Elimination
program, and OJP for the Drug Control and System
Improvement program.
prepared by DW Kade, 8/25
DRUG TESTING - WORKPLACE
QUESTION
What should happen to employees who test positive in the
workplace for drug use?
ANSWER
People who test positive for drugs should be offered
assistance, but also face sanctions. Assistance may take
the form of a formalized employee assistance program (EAPs)
or it may constitute referral to available community
resources.
Employers should take appropriate personnel action against
employees who refuse voluntary treatment or who are repeat
offenders. Appropriate action could include immediate
suspension or termination or mandatory completion of a drug
treatment program.
EAPs can benefit both employers and employees. In the
private sector, over 31 percent of all American workers are
currently employed by companies with EAPs. These plans
deter drug use, keep the workplace safe, and help employees
who have problems by referring them to treatment,
counseling, and rehabilitation.
The EAP is an important component of the Federal drug-free
workplace plans, required by Executive Order 12564. Our
strategy recommends that each Federal agency fully implement
these plans by April 5, 1990.
WAR ON DRUGS - THE ROLE OF INTELLIGENCE
QUESTION
What is the overall role of intelligence in the war on drugs and
have we been effective in using our existing intelligence
resources in the war?
ANSWER
No war can be fought -- much less won -- without good
intelligence. As we wage our war on drugs, we must
have the best available information about our
adversaries and the field of battle itself. The role
of intelligence is to give us the infor: tion we need
about our enemy -- so we can better understand how he
thinks, what he can and can't do, and how he might
respond to our attack.
To consistently attack drug traffickers where it will
do the most good, we must know much more about them
than we do now. We must know how their infrastructure
is organized and where the most vulnerable points of
that structure are found. This could include where
they base their operations, how they provide for
security and intelligence gathering, who they control,
who controls them, how they move and launder their
profits, who their enemies are, and where their
strengths and weaknesses lie.
Past efforts have not been as successful as they could
have been. Change is needed. This does not mean
simply spending more money - it means using all our
resources in coordinated and imaginative ways. We must
expand and improve our intelligence network and better
use our vast intelligence resources to stay one step
ahead of the cartels and trafficking organizations - we
must be quicker and smarter than they are. They are
our enemies, and we need to make it clear to them that
they are in a war they cannot win against a foe that
will not quit.
FUNDING -- INTERNATIONAL
QUESTION:
You are requesting $448.5 million for international activities in
FY 1990. What will these funds be used for?
ANSWER:
The FY 1990 $448.5 million proposed for international
counter-narcotics activities represents an increase of
$198.5 million, or 79% over the level for FY 1989.
These funds will support the activities of DOD, DEA, the
Department of State's Bureau of International Narcotics
Matters (INM), AID, INTERPOL, USIA, the FBI, and the U.S.
Marshals Service. It will also provide other types of
foreign assistance to cooperating drug producing countries,
Funding highlights are:
--
$136.8 million in FY 1990 DOD funds will support a
comprehensive multi-year counter-narcotics effort in
the three principal cocaine producing countries.
--
For DEA $118.3 million in FY 1990 funds will permit the
expansion of foreign drug suppression/enforcement
programs in source countries as well as support the
international initiative.
--
$115 million intended for State's INM will allow for
enhanced enforcement and eradication, especially in the
cocaine-producing countries of South America.
-- With $4.8 million in FY 1990 funds, AID will support
narcotics control objectives through targeted
development assistance, and narcotics awareness and
administration of justice programs.
-- INTERPOL will use $1.1 million of FY 1990 funds to
facilitate drug-related international law enforcement
cooperation by providing enhancements for
telecommunications improvements that will significantly
increase the speed and accuracy with which cases and
investigative material is processed.
--
For USIA, $1 million in FY 1990 funds will support
drug-related diplomacy programs in their overseas
missions and Voice of America broadcasts.
--
$0.5 million for the FBI will facilitate the targeting
of major international drug trafficking organizations
and international money laundering investigations.
ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR THE INTERDICTION PROGRAM
QUESTION
Why doesn't the Strategy recommend additional funds for
interdiction?
ANSWER:
For many years, Federal drug control resources were
concentrated on drug law enforcement, primarily for
interdiction and investigations. The strategy seeks to
provide a balance to the drug control program by now
concentrating more resources on the demand side, for
prevention and education, on going to the source countries,
and on street-level law enforcement.
Interdiction received the lion's share of the increase in
resources in recent years for drug law enforcement, a full
64 percent of the $1.2 billion increase in drug law
enforcement resources between 1986 and 1989.
Evidence suggests interdiction alone will not win the war on
drugs. The supply of illegal drugs entering the country
continues to grow and drug prices continue to drop despite
increased seizures by law enforcement agencies. This
suggests that our interdiction successes are having only a
limited impact on the drug traffickers.
Moreover, recent experience demonstrates that smugglers
adapt to efforts to prevent them from exporting drugs to our
country. Responding to a vigorous air interdiction effort,
the drug threat has shifted from the air to the land borders
and containerized cargo. For this reason, we are
Patrol. recommending increases for the Customs Service and Border
We do not believe that increased investments in interdiction
are warranted at this time. Past investments in detection
and monitoring assets are only now coming on line and we
should evaluate their efficacy before investing in other
systems. The Strategy supports the operation of these
assets to full advantage so as to not leave our borders
unprotected.
Prepared by: John Carnevale
FUNDING FOR THE AEROSTAT NETWORK
QUESTION
Why didn't you recommend funding to complete the aerostat network
already so close to completion?
ANSWER:
The Strategy supports completion of the fixed and mobile
detection network along our Southern border.
By our accounting, not much more remains to be done. The
National Drug Policy Board called for a total of 16
aerostats along the Southern border. Twelve of these are
already fully funded. The relocation of one more should be
completed in FY 1990. The three remaining aerostats (two in
the Gulf and one in the Caribbean) may be funded in FY 1990
using funds appropriated to DOD for detection and
monitoring.
BACKGROUND: According to the National Drug Policy Board's Air
Interdiction Strategy, sixteen aerostats are planned for the
Southern border. Six aerostats are along the Southwest border,
five are planned for the Gulf, and five for the Caribbean. This
strategy is almost fully implemented.
The six on the Southwest border are fully funded and all
will be operational by the end of calendar year 1989.
Two aerostats are funded in the Gulf and will be operational
by the end of calendar year 1990. A third is being
relocated (from Patrick AFB to Venice, FL) and may also be
operational during 1990. The status of the remaining two is
uncertain but could be funded by DoD with 1990 funds.
Two of the five Caribbean aerostats are operational, a third
will be operational this December, and a fourth in February.
The status of the fifth is uncertain.
DOD has lead agency responsibility for detection and monitoring.
It is developing a project plan for 1990, which will likely
determine the outcome of the remaining unfunded aerostats.
Prepared by: John Carnevale
DoD INTERDICTION BUDGET
QUESTION
The Strategy recommends a total of $568 million for DoD in 1990.
What will these funds be used for?
ANSWER
of the total $568 million planned for DoD in 1990, $313
million will be used to continue DoD's interdiction efforts,
$137 million will be used for international efforts, and
$118 million will be used for prevention and treatment.
The resources planned for interdiction are for intelligence
upgrades, for moving an aerostat from Cape Canaveral to
Venice, Florida, for national guard operations, and for
other anti-drug initiatives.
The $137 million proposed will provide military assistance
to certain governments in cocaine-producing countries.
TALKING POINTS: PRESIDENTIAL BRIEFING
METRO REPORTERS FROM REGIONAL PRESS
ON NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY
The strength of the Administration's National Drug Control
Strategy lies in three aspects:
Comprehensive Strategy: This is the first such national
strategy to end the evil of drug use and drug trafficking, a
fully integrated approach that is an assault on every front.
Our plan addresses all the elements necessary to an
effective strategy: school and drug prevention programs, our
treatment system, our laws and criminal justice system, and
our foreign policy.
Coordinated Approach: Jurisdictional and "turf" problems
have slowed past anti-drug efforts. Therefore, we have
emphasized the need for a coordinated national effort. This
means federal, state and local levels must work together.
At the federal level, with the leadership of the Director of
National Drug Control Policy, William Bennett, strong inter-
agency cooperation has already resulted.
Bipartisan Consensus: Americans agree that the gravest
domestic threat facing the country today is drugs. I am
looking to the leadership in Congress for bipartisan support
in the implementation of this strategy, and am looking to
the grass-roots support of America's communities in the
fight against drugs.
2
The evidence suggests that the drug problem is a grave threat:
Good and Bad News: The National Institute of Drug Abuse's
recently released national survey of drug use (the first
since 1985) indicates that number of Americans using any
illegal drug on a "current" basis has dropped 37 percent.
That means that almost nine million Americans have given up
"casual" drug use. However, among the more than eight
million people who used cocaine at all in the past year,
almost one million of them used it once a week or more. So
while overall cocaine use is down, habitual cocaine use has
almost doubled.
Elements of the plan of special interest to regional press:
I.
Criminal Justice:
Increase Federal funding to States and localities for
street-level law enforcement.
Provide Federal funding to States for planning, developing,
and implementing alternative sentencing programs for non-
violent drug offenders, including house arrest and boot
camps.
Tighten bail, probation, parole and sentencing practices;
require drug testing of prisoners, parolees and arrestees;
encourage States to prosecute vigorously all misdemeanor
drug offenses.
Expand programs to eradicate the domestic marijuana crop.
3
Provide funding through the Department of Housing and Urban
Development to help restore order in hard-hit public housing
projects by kicking dealers out for good.
Strongly encourage States to adopt policies revoking the
drivers licenses of those convicted of a drug offense.
II. Treatment:
Increase Federal spending by 53 percent, to $321 million, on
drug treatment programs that work.
Expand the availability of drug treatment by increasing
treatment capacity and the range of treatment methods
available.
Improve the efficacy of drug treatment by encouraging
treatment facilities to coordinate among themselves so that
resources match community needs and drug users are referred
to the most appropriate treatment.
Expand outreach and treatment efforts for pregnant women and
newborn babies, a special population of drug users.
III. Education and Prevention:
Education and prevention programs in schools and communities
will be increased by $233 million.
We are calling on every school, college, university, and
workplace to adopt tough, fair anti-drug policies.
I will be addressing American schoolchildren in a special
televised address, to discuss the war on drugs.
4
Budget Recommendations:
The Administration is proposing a $2 billion increase in drug
funding, from $5.6 billion in 1989 to $7.6 billion in 1990. Key
funding priorities for fiscal year 1990:
O
Increase assistance to State and local law enforcement ($200
million over FY 1989).
Build more Federal prisons, expand Federal and State courts
and correctional systems, and add more prosecutors ($790
million over FY 1989).
Expand resources for treatment and prevention programs ($565
million over FY 1989).
Initiate a major anti-drug campaign in the source countries.
Establish order in the nation's public housing projects.
Step up efforts against money laundering operations.
Provide sufficent resources to operate and maintain our
border interdiction system at its present level.
High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas:
The 1988 Anti-Drug Abuse Act authorizes the Director of the
Office of National Drug Control Policy to designate "high
intensity drug trafficking areas" for targeted Federal
assistance. Designations will be made in a subsequent strategy,
after consulting with the AG and governors.
###
FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY
September 5, 1989
TALKING POINTS
NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY
On September 5, President Bush announced the
Administration's National Drug Control Strategy.
Comprehensive strategy: This is the first such national
strategy to end the evil of drug use and drug trafficking, a
fully integrated approach that is an assault on every front.
The President's strategy addresses all the elements
necessary to an effective strategy: school and drug
prevention programs, our treatment system, our laws and
criminal justice system, and our foreign policy.
Coordinated Approach: Jurisdictional and "turf" problems
have slowed past anti-drug efforts. Therefore, President
Bush has emphasized the need for a coordinated national
effort. This means federal, state and local levels must
work together. At the federal level, with the leadership of
the Director of National Drug Control Policy, William
Bennett, strong interagency cooperation has already
resulted.
Bipartisan Consensus: Americans agree that the gravest
domestic threat facing the country today is drugs. The
President is looking to the leadership in Congress for
bipartisan support in the implementation of his strategy,
and is looking to the grass-roots support of America's
communities in the fight against drugs.
Call to Action: President Bush is issuing an urgent call to
action to all Americans to support this national strategy.
He challenges every citizen to make a personal commitment to
help in the fight against drug abuse.
The evidence suggests that the drug problem is a grave threat:
Good and Bad News: The National Institute on Drug Abuse's
recently released national survey of drug use (the first
since 1985) indicates that number of Americans using any
illegal drug on a "current" basis has dropped 37 percent.
That means that almost nine million Americans have given up
"casual" drug use. Among the more than eight million people
who used cocaine at all in the past year, almost one million
of them used it once a week or more. so while overall
cocaine use is down, habitual cocaine use has almost
doubled.
2
Crime: Fear of drugs and attendant crime are at an all-time
high. Rates of drug-related homicide continue to rise --
sometimes alarmingly -- in cities around the country.
Health: The number of drug-related emergency hospital
admissions increased by 121 percent between 1985 and 1988,
and hundreds of thousands of babies are born each year to
mothers who use drugs.
The Economy: A U.S. Chamber of Commerce estimate puts annual
gross drug sales at $100 billion -- more than our total
gross agricultural income, and more than double the profits
enjoyed by the Fortune 500 companies combined.
Overseas: In many foreign nations, the drug trade and the
violence and corruption that go with it are causing serious
social, economic, and political disruption. Trafficking
threatens stability and democratic institutions.
The National Drug Control Strategy:
Enforcement: The Administration's enforcement strategy is
based upon this principle: If you sell drugs, you will be
caught; when caught you will be prosecuted; and if
convicted, you will do time.
-- The criminal justice system will be enlarged across the
board, at the local, state and federal levels.
-- The Administration is requesting a $1.4 billion
increase in drug-related federal spending on law
enforcement, including a 133 percent increase -- or
$200 million -- in federal assistance to state and
local law enforcement.
--
President Bush is seeking $50 million through the
Department of Housing and Urban Development to restore
order in hard-hit public housing projects by kicking
dealers out for good.
International Interdiction: The international drug trade
poses a serious threat to the welfare, economy and national
security of the United States.
-- $1.5 billion dollars will be requested for interdiction
efforts, especially for continued support of our Coast
Guard and Customs agents to stop drugs at our borders.
-- $260 million in military and law enforcement assistance
for next year will be sought for Colombia, Bolivia and
Peru, the first part of a five-year, $2 billion program
to fight drug producers, traffickers and smugglers.
The
3
affected
anderward
President Bush is seeking a drug summit with Western
Hemisphere nations, to coordinate an Inter-American
offer
strategy against the cartels, and will negotiate
international agreements to track drug money and punish
money laundering.
Treatment: Experts believe that there are two million
American drug users who can be helped by well-designed,
existing programs, yet only 40 percent of them are actually
getting the help they need.
-- A 53 percent increase, of $321 million, will be sought
in Federal spending on drug treatment programs that
work.
-- The federal government will work with states to better
coordinate the drug treatment system, and will
encourage employers to establish Employee Assistance
Programs that cover drug use.
-- Research will be expanded in the search for improved
methods to break cocaine and crack addiction, and
treatment efforts will be targeted on expectant mothers
and crack babies.
Education and Prevention: We must stop drug abuse before it
starts. The President is proposing:
-- Education and prevention programs in schools and
communities will be increased by $233 million.
-- The President called on every school, college,
university, and workplace to adopt tough, fair anti-
drug policies.
-- President Bush will be addressing American
schoolchildren in a special televised address, to
discuss the war on drugs.
###
FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY
September 5, 1989
TALKING POINTS
NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY
On September 5, President Bush announced the
Administration's National Drug Control strategy.
Comprehensive Strategy: This is the first such national
strategy to end the evil of drug use and drug trafficking, a
fully integrated approach that is an assault on every front.
The President's strategy addresses all the elements
necessary to an effective strategy: school and drug
prevention programs, our treatment system, our laws and
criminal justice system, and our foreign policy.
Coordinated Approach: Jurisdictional and "turf" problems
have slowed past anti-drug efforts. Therefore, President
Bush has emphasized the need for a coordinated national
effort. This means federal, state and local levels must
work together. At the federal level, with the leadership of
the Director of National Drug Control Policy, William
Bennett, strong interagency cooperation has already
resulted.
Bipartisan Consensus: Americans agree that the gravest
domestic threat facing the country today is drugs. The
President is looking to the leadership in Congress for
bipartisan support in the implementation of his strategy,
and is looking to the grass-roots support of America's
communities in the fight against drugs.
Call to Action: President Bush is issuing an urgent call to
action to all Americans to support this national strategy.
He challenges every citizen to make a personal commitment to
help in the fight against drug abuse.
The evidence suggests that the drug problem is a grave threat:
Good and Bad News: The National Institute on Drug Abuse's
recently released national survey of drug use (the first
since 1985) indicates that number of Americans using any
illegal drug on a "current" basis has dropped 37 percent.
That means that almost nine million Americans have given up
"casual" drug use. Among the more than eight million people
who used cocaine at all in the past year, almost one million
of them used it once a week or more. So while overall
cocaine use is down, habitual cocaine use has almost
doubled.
2
Crime: Fear of drugs and attendant crime are at an all-time
high. Rates of drug-related homicide continue to rise --
sometimes alarmingly -- in cities around the country.
Health: The number of drug-related emergency hospital
admissions increased by 121 percent between 1985 and 1988,
and hundreds of thousands of babies are born each year to
mothers who use drugs.
The Economy: A U.S. Chamber of Commerce estimate puts annual
gross drug sales at $100 billion -- more than our total
gross agricultural income, and more than double the profits
enjoyed by the Fortune 500 companies combined.
Overseas: In many foreign nations, the drug trade and the
violence and corruption that go with it are causing serious
social, economic, and political disruption. Trafficking
threatens stability and democratic institutions.
The National Drug Control strategy:
Enforcement: The Administration's enforcement strategy is
based upon this principle: If you sell drugs, you will be
caught; when caught you will be prosecuted; and if
convicted, you will do time.
-- The criminal justice system will be enlarged across the
board, at the local, state and federal levels.
-- The Administration is requesting a $1.4 billion
increase in drug-related federal spending on law
enforcement, including a 133 percent increase -- or
$200 million -- in federal assistance to state and
local law enforcement.
-- President Bush is seeking $50 million through the
Department of Housing and Urban Development to restore
order in hard-hit public housing projects by kicking
dealers out for good.
International Interdiction: The international drug trade
poses a serious threat to the welfare, economy and national
security of the United States.
-- $1.5 billion dollars will be requested for interdiction
efforts, especially for continued support of our Coast
Guard and Customs agents to stop drugs at our borders.
-- $260 million in military and law enforcement assistance
for next year will be sought for Colombia, Bolivia and
Peru, the first part of a five-year, $2 billion program
to fight drug producers, traffickers and smugglers.
3
--
President Bush is seeking a drug summit with affected
Western Hemisphere nations, to coordinate an Inter-
American strategy against the cartels.
-- The President will also negotiate international
agreements to track drug money and punish money
laundering.
Treatment: Experts believe that there are two million
American drug users who can be helped by well-designed,
existing programs, yet only 40 percent of them are actually
getting the help they need.
--
A 53 percent increase, of $321 million, will be sought
in Federal spending on drug treatment programs that
work.
-- The federal government will work with states to better
coordinate the drug treatment system, and will
encourage employers to establish Employee Assistance
Programs that cover drug use.
-- Research will be expanded in the search for improved
methods to break cocaine and crack addiction, and
treatment efforts will be targeted on expectant mothers
and crack babies.
Education and Prevention: We must stop drug abuse before it
starts.
-- Education and prevention programs in schools and
communities will be increased by $233 million.
--
The President called on every school, college,
university, and workplace to adopt tough, fair anti-
drug policies.
-- President Bush will be addressing American
schoolchildren in a special televised address, to
discuss the war on drugs.
# # #