Reagan, House Democrats in Race : Political Stampede Is On to Be First in Drug War

Just last month, when California Rep. Duncan L. Hunter (R-Coronado) inquired into the fate of his anti-narcotics bill, which had been languishing for almost two years in a House Judiciary subcommittee, he was told that “maybe we could get to it sometime next year,” he recalled Friday.

But now the legislation, which would impose mandatory 20-year sentences on those convicted of producing or importing illegal drugs, is on a legislative and political fast track. It is expected to be approved Monday by the subcommittee and included in a huge anti-drug package that House Speaker Thomas P. (Tip) O’Neill Jr. (D-Mass.) has demanded to come to a House vote Sept. 12.

Hunter’s bill is part of what has become a political stampede in recent weeks. Growing public concern over illegal narcotics has led to a race between President Reagan and House Democrats to be the first to stake political and philosophical claims on the issue.

Reagan announced early this week that he planned to launch an attack that would amount to “Pearl Harbor on drug traffickers.” Meanwhile, 11 House committees are feverishly working to turn out the anti-drug package--in part, by dusting off anti-narcotics bills that have piled up for years.

On next week’s agenda: Senior White House staffers will begin undergoing voluntary drug tests Monday as Democratic and Republican House leaders lunch with officials of major networks, urging them to use their powerful medium to fight drugs. And the White House will announce intensified scrutiny of U.S. borders, where much drug trafficking takes place, and 30 athletes will spend two hours filming public service announcements at the FBI.

The dizzying speed of the anti-drug effort concerns some critics, who worry that it may yield an ill-conceived and ineffective program.

“It’s a terrible way to make law. Most of these proposals will be ones they never had hearings on,” said Allan Adler, legislative counsel of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Of particular concern to the ACLU are proposals for widespread random drug testing and mandatory death sentences for narcotics traffickers. “In this rush to be tough with drugs,” Adler said, “civil liberties may be trampled.”

Found Widely Available

Nonetheless, polls show a recent surge in public demand that something be done about narcotics, particularly after the cocaine-related deaths of athletes Len Bias and Don Rogers and disclosures of the widespread availability of new and dangerous drugs, such as the highly potent form of cocaine known as “crack.”

The political appeal of the anti-drug drive is obvious. “Somebody decided somewhere along the line that this is an election year and we need every issue we can get,” said one Republican House aide who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

But leaders of the efforts in Congress and the White House say the stakes in their struggle are far higher than temporary gains at the polls.

“There is a tremendous, tremendous fear across the country. . . . Drugs can destroy what we’ve built up as a country,” said Rep. Tony Coelho (D-Merced), a member of the House leadership.

Rather than uniting in the effort, however, the House Democrats and the White House are aiming as many shots at each other as they are at drug pushers.

‘No Muss, No Fuss’

House Democrats are moving at “breakneck speed,” one Administration official said, because “they found an issue--no muss, no fuss--one they can just throw money at.”

Meanwhile, Coelho branded Reagan’s White House drug tests, meant to serve as an example, as “a farce. He’s playing with the issue. This is too deadly for playing games.”

Other Democrats said the White House effort rings hollow, considering that it has repeatedly tried to cut the budgets of the agencies that enforce anti-drug laws.

Although Coelho and other Democratic leaders say they hope to win support from both parties in the House, Republicans there are torn in deciding which anti-drug team to join. They agree that the Democratic plan may ultimately prove too expensive but say Reagan’s proposals thus far appear too vague.

“The President’s recent speech, while showing his attention to the issue, did not provide any legislative proposals,” a House GOP aide said.

Pentagon Role Questioned

Adding to the confusion are reports of conflicts within the Administration on such issues as whether to devote Pentagon manpower and equipment to the campaign and how far to let the effort extend into U.S. dealings with other nations.

Where individual members of the Republican-led Senate have introduced specific bills, the chamber’s leadership has not launched a wide anti-drug drive. “People over here are trying to proceed more slowly (rather than) doing something just to say we’ve done it,” one Senate Republican aide said.

Neither the House nor the President has produced a final plan. But many expect the House package to cost several billion dollars and the Administration’s program to be in the hundreds of millions.

In part, the wide gap in cost estimates reflects the different approaches that the House Democrats and the White House hope to take.

The House plan is likely to ask much more government spending on educating potential drug users. House leaders acknowledge that this is more expensive than prosecuting those who already abuse narcotics, but they contend that it will have a greater impact in the long run.

Times staff writers Eleanor Clift and Ronald J. Ostrow contributed to this story.