In one of his first interviews as President, George Bush last week said the drive to eliminate drug abuse would succeed 鈥渙nly if our education is successful.鈥�
The Administration鈥檚 efforts, he said, will focus on urging 鈥渁ll elements in our society to participate in the fight on drugs.鈥�
But even as Mr. Bush was speaking to reporters, criticism was building on Capitol Hill over his apparent decision not to make his new 鈥渄rug czar,鈥� former Secretary of Education William J. Bennett, a formal member of the Cabinet. Lawmakers argued that the decision sends the wrong message about the importance of the war on drugs.
In fact, the sentiments expressed by the President last week seemed to dovetail withlnews
those of his new anti-drug chief, who seemed to dovetail with those of Mr. Bennett, who was well known for his use of the Education Department post as a bully pulpit for proclamations on the same themes.
鈥淭he answer to the problem of drugs lies more on solving the demand side of the equation than it does on the supply side--than it does on interdiction or sealing the borders or something of that nature,鈥� Mr. Bush said in a Jan. 25 interview with reporters from The New York Times and The Houston Post.
鈥淎nd so it is going to have to be a major educational effort, and the private sector and the schools are all going to have to be involved in this,鈥� he said.
No Invitation
Earlier in the week, Mr. Bennett discovered he was not to be a full-fledged Cabinet member again when he was not invited to Mr. Bush鈥檚 first Cabinet meeting.
The 1988 law creating the post of director of national drug policy specifies that it is to be a 鈥淐abinet-level鈥� position, meaning that the appointee will be paid the same as a Cabinet member and must be confirmed by the Senate. But the President can decide whether to make him a full member of the Cabinet who attends all its meetings.
A White House spokesman said that Mr. Bush simply wanted to limit the number of Cabinet members, and that Mr. Bennett would be invited to meetings 鈥渁s necessary.鈥�
鈥淭his is not a serious issue,鈥� said John Walters, a Bennett aide who oversaw anti-drug efforts for him at the Education Department and is now working in the fledgling office of drug-control policy.
Mr. Walters said the decision would not change Mr. Bennett鈥檚 au8thority or responsibilities.
鈥淭here鈥檚 no doubt about President Bush鈥檚 serious dedication to solving the drug problem and there鈥檚 no doubt about President Bush鈥檚 complete commitment to William Bennett as the man in charge of this issue for the President,鈥� he said.
鈥楢 Big Mistake鈥�
But a number of lawmakers disagreed last week.
鈥淭he President is making a big mistake,鈥� Senator Alan J. Dixon, Democrat of Illinois, said in introducing legislation that would require Cabinet membership for the drug czar.
鈥淏y not making the drug czar a Cabinet position, the President is undercutting his inaugural commitment to turn the tide in the war on drugs,鈥� Mr. Dixon said. 鈥淔or William Bennett to be most effective, he needs to be included in all Cabinet meetings and all Cabinet decisions.鈥�
At a Jan. 25 news conference, a lawmaker who has sharply criticized Mr. Bennett in the past also joined the ranks of his supporters.
Representative Charles B. Rangel, the New York Democrat who chairs the House Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse and Control, told reporters that the Congress intended the drug czar to be a fully participating Cabinet member and would not settle for less.
鈥淚 spoke with Mr. Bennett, who said he felt it was an oversight, and we are certainly hopeful that given the nature of the reactions from all over the Congress President Bush will simply include him next time,鈥� Mr. Rangel said.
Mr. Rangel said he would like to avoid a clash over the issue, but added that Mr. Bush could be heading for 鈥渁 serious confrontation with Congress鈥� if he does not rethink his decision.
In the past, Mr. Rangel has criticized Mr. Bennett for encouraging school administrators to expel drug-abusing students and for proposing inadequate budgets for the Education Department鈥檚 anti-drug programs.
The purpose of the news conference was to announce introduction of a supplemental appropriations bill that would increase 1989 spending on anti-drug efforts from $1 billion to $2.7 billion. That increase would include a $12-million hike for Education Department programs, giving them the largest appropriation allowed by law.
The bill was introduced as S 26 by Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Democrat of New York, and was to be introduced in the House by Mr. Rangel on Friday.
