Democrats Unite to Raise More Funds for Drug War

Senate Democrats, determined to use the power of the purse to reshape President Bush’s week-old drug plan, united Wednesday behind their own alternative that would raise spending by $2.2 billion more than Bush requested and cut all other discretionary federal spending by 0.5% to pay for it.

But Senate Democratic leaders offered to negotiate a compromise program with Senate Republicans and Administration officials rather than force a showdown.

Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kan.) made no immediate reply, but Republican sources indicated that he would agree to try to work out a deal with the Democrats, who outnumber Republicans in the Senate, 55 to 45. Republicans planned to caucus Thursday to consider a response.

May Lack Votes

If no compromise can be reached, Majority Leader George J. Mitchell (D-Me.) said, Democrats would offer their plan, which was prepared by Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) as an amendment to an appropriations bill. But he acknowledged that it would not pass over determined Republican opposition because it takes 60 votes--five more than the Democrats control--to break a filibuster.

The White House, which had denounced the Democratic plan Tuesday as “price-tag politics,” said Wednesday that it would give “reluctant support” to another approach advanced by Sen. Ernest F. Hollings (D-S.C.). His measure would raise anti-drug spending by $1.8 billion and pay for it with a cut of 0.25% in most other federal programs.

“If we really wanted to get on with the job, . . . my bet is: That’s it, that’s the solution,” White House Budget Director Richard G. Darman told a House Appropriations subcommittee.

‘Absolutely Unacceptable’

But he condemned Byrd’s approach as “absolutely unacceptable” and said that a third proposal to finance Bush’s funding request by across-the-board cuts in other programs would cut too deeply into Pentagon programs.

In other testimony, William J. Bennett, director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, resisted Democratic pressure for more spending on anti-drug programs than Bush had asked but acknowledged that disputes over funding are inevitable. “I think it’s important not to make the war on drugs hostage to political differences,” Bennett said.

Any bargaining over the shape of the drug package would face an implied deadline of Oct. 1, the first day of fiscal year 1990.

Using blunt language, Mitchell said that members of his party regard the President’s plan as “wholly inadequate” to win a war against drugs. He said that Democratic senators are united in support of Byrd’s plan.

Would Redirect Funds

Mitchell, speaking to reporters after Democrats had a 90-minute caucus on drugs, also said that Bush’s strategy must be redirected to put more funds into education and treatment and less into law enforcement.

Emerging from the session, Sen. John B. Breaux (D-La.) said that he strongly supports Byrd’s approach, adding: “If we can’t cut one-half of 1% from every department, we’re not serious about winning the war on drugs.”

Byrd was named chairman of an eight-member negotiating team for the Democrats, which included Hollings as well as Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware.

Meanwhile, the House Democratic Study Group issued a report charging that Bush’s plan would shortchange 23 states by reducing their federal funds by more than the amount his drug plan would provide to them.

Cuts in Four Programs

Under the President’s proposal, a total of $751 million in budget cuts would offset his proposed increase of $716 million in new anti-drug spending, the group said. Four programs--juvenile justice assistance, programs for newly legal immigrants, economic development grants and public housing subsidies--would account for $604 million, or 80%, of the reductions.

The Democratic group, an informal group of liberal and moderate Democrats, said that California would lose almost four times as much in federal aid as it would gain under expanded anti-drug programs. Forty-three states would lose half of their new drug fund allocations because of offsetting cuts in other federal programs, the study concluded.

Staff writer Douglas Jehl contributed to this report.