Remarks by President Bush in Signing Drug-Free Communities Act Reauthorization Bill

Transcript of Remarks by President Bush in Signing Drug-Free Communities Act Reauthorization Bill

WASHINGTON, Dec. 14 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Following is a transcript of remarks by President Bush in signing Drug-Free Communities Act Reauthorization Bill:

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all very much. It's an honor to be here. Let me first say, we're winning.

(Applause.) We've got a new war, and I want you to know your government is doing everything we can to defeat those who hate freedom. We will defeat them abroad, thanks to a fabulous military. (Applause.) We are patient, we're relentless because our cause is just and it is noble. Plus we're doing everything we can at home to prevent the enemy from hitting us again.

There's another war at home, too, and that's to win the war against the scourge of drugs. (Applause.)

I'm so glad -- it's an honor to be introduced by America's new Director of National Drug Policy Council. John Walters brings a passionate concern and a strong background to the fight against drugs. In the late 1980s, he was one of the architects of the federal government's most successful antidrug policies. And he'll lead our administration's effort with determination and intelligence, with resolve and moral clarity. I am proud to have John as a member of my Cabinet. (Applause.)

And I'm honored to speak to the Community Antidrug Coalitions of America. I want to thank you all for being here. You're a part of America's armies of compassion, examples of service and citizenship. You restore hope to lives, and safety to neighborhoods. All Americans admire your dedication. And the bill that I will soon sign will strengthen your work. (Applause.)

We share an important commitment. For the sake of our children and for the good of our nation, we will reduce drug use in America. I want to thank General Art Dean for being the CEO of this important group of soldiers in the armies of compassion. (Applause.) I want to thank the three members of the United States Congress who stand up here with me today, leaders in this important effort. Not only leaders in Washington, but as you'll soon hear, leaders in the communities in which they live. Thank you so much for being here. (Applause.)

Drug use threatens everything, everything that is best about our country. It breaks the bonds between parents and children. It turns productive citizens into addicts. It transforms schools into places of violence and chaos. It makes playgrounds into crime scenes. It supports gangs here at home. And abroad, it's so important for Americans to know that the traffic in drugs finances the work of terror, sustaining terrorists -- (applause) -- that terrorists use drug profits to fund their cells to commit acts of murder.

And above all, we must reduce drug use for one great moral reason: Over time, drugs rob men, women, and children of their dignity, and of their character. Illegal drugs are the enemies of ambition and hope. And when we fight against drugs, we fight for the souls of our fellow Americans. (Applause.)

In this struggle, we know what works. We must aggressively and unabashedly teach our children the dangers of drugs. We must aggressively treat addiction wherever we find it. And we must aggressively enforce the laws against drugs at our borders and in our communities. (Applause.)

America cannot pick and choose between these goals. All are necessary if any are to be effective. And my administration will pursue these goals with energy and focus and strong commitment. It's important for the future of this country that we do so.

This comprehensive approach has been tried before, and it has worked. From the mid '80s, to the early '90s, drug use amongst high school seniors was reduced each and every year. Progress was steady, and over time, dramatic. Yet recently, we've lost ground in this important battle.

According to the most recent data, the percentage of 12th graders using an illicit drug in the previous month rose from less than 15 percent in 1992 to about 25 percent in the year 2000. Over the same period, the percentage of 10th graders using an illicit drug in the previous month rose from 11 percent to more than 22 percent. Marijuana use amongst 8th graders rose, while their perceptions of the dangers of marijuana use fell. There was a similar decrease in the perception of risk involved with LSD and powder and crack cocaine.

Behind these numbers are countless personal tragedies. And my administration will not be indifferent to them. We must return the fight against drugs to the center of our national agenda. (Applause.)

And as we win this fight, America will be a more hopeful place. And as we battle against a major, significant problem in America, and show progress, this country's promise will be more available to more of our citizens.

It's a national imperative that we win. And I understand that you all are amongst the most important allies we have to achieve this goal. You've got a track record of success. You sponsor drug education programs, and youth summits, and parent training courses. You support drug intervention programs, and foster great counseling services.

You're helping to build a culture of responsibility, one that respects the law, one that teaches our children right from wrong, and one that strengthens our commitments to our fellow citizens.

In Troy, Michigan, the Troy Community Coalition for the Prevention of Drug and Alcohol Abuse is building leadership skills to help teens to say no to drugs and alcohol. As a result, alcohol use among high schoolers has declined in dramatic fashion.

I want to thank Sandy Levin, the Congressman from the great state of Michigan, who is on the stage with us, for helping lead that effort. And I want to thank the good people from Troy, Michigan, for standing up and doing what's right for your community. (Applause.) I'm particularly proud that the coalition's leader, Mary Ann Solberg, has agreed to join John Walters as the Deputy Director of the National Drug Control Policy. (Applause.) Now that you have your uniform on, go get them. (Laughter.)

Also on the stage with us is Congressman Rob Portman, who is the President of the Coalition for a Drug-Free Greater Cincinnati, a winner of CADCA's Outstanding Coalition Award. I understand his program well because I saw it first hand in Cincinnati. I want to thank Rob for his leadership.

I appreciate this coalition's practical approach, by providing tips to parents on how to deal with drug use, provide financial incentives to businesses that have drug-free workplace programs. And the most aggressive antidrug media campaign is in Cincinnati

-- for a market its size. The result is that for the first time in a decade, teen drug use in greater Cincinnati is beginning to level off. They're making great progress in that important city. It goes to show what happens when our nation invigorates the grass roots to deal with a problem that we must solve, early, before it is too late. (Applause.)

And also on this stage is the fine United States Senator from the state of Iowa, Chuck Grassley. He's worked with the people of Iowa to begin what they call the Face it Together Coalition, the first ever statewide antidrug coalition led by a United States senator. The coalition has a comprehensive workplace drug education program. It works with coalitions around the state for best practices, for community based antidrug efforts. It conducts workshops to train faith-based leaders on effective drug prevention strategies.

Senator Grassley, I appreciate you taking the lead. (Applause.) It's a hard job being a senator, but it's easy to forget the community responsibilities when you get elected to such a high office as senator. And yet this Senator never forgot where he came from. This Senator asked a question, what can I do -- just like you asked that question -- what can I do, to improve the lives of the citizens of a state he so dearly loves? And he chose to fight, stand side by side with the good citizens of Iowa to fight drug use. And Mr. Senator, thank you for your leadership. (Applause.)

I'm so happy to be able to sign an important piece of legislation in your presence. The bill I sign today increases the total amount of funds authorized for programs like the ones we just described from more than $50 million a year in the current fiscal year to nearly $100 million by the year 2007. (Applause.) It allows coalitions to reapply for grants even after five years, as long -- (applause). Make sure you meet your matching fund requirement. (Laughter and applause.)

It instructs Director Walters to focus the greatest resources on areas of the greatest needs, by giving priority to coalitions that serve economically-disadvantaged neighborhoods. The reauthorization bill creates a new class of grants that will help established coalitions assist new ones, assist new folks on how to battle this scourge called drug use. (Applause.)

And the bill creates a National Community Antidrug Coalition Institute to provide education and training and technical assistance to coalitions all throughout our country. (Applause.)

There are other steps we must take. Many of you are working with faith-based institutions, because you've seen the power of faith to transform lives. Last month, the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, led by Joe Califano, released a report on substance abuse, religion and spirituality. The report found that ''religion and spirituality can play a powerful role in the prevention and treatment of substance abuse, and on the maintenance of sobriety.''

My armies of compassion legislation will provide support to faith-based institutions working to prevent and treat drug abuse. The House passed this legislation. I urge the Senate to do so. This nation must not fear faith-based programs, we must welcome them. (Applause.) We must welcome anybody who is willing to join in this important goal and in this important cause.

We've got a responsibility here in Washington to lead the fight against drug abuse. But we understand here that one of the best ways to do so is to support the people in the neighborhoods, on the streets, the community coalitions which are truly the front line in our battle to save people's lives.

You've devoted your lives to the well-being of others, and for this I'm incredibly grateful. On behalf of all Americans, thank you for your compassion; thank you for your concern; thank you for your love for your country and your fellow human being.

And now it is my honor to invite Director Walters and General Dean, along with the sponsors of this important piece of legislation to join me as I sign this bill. May God bless you all, and may God bless America. (Applause.)

"For the sake of our children and for the good of our nation, we will reduce drug use in America."

.. #5

Asa Hutchinson May Become Bush's Attorney General - February 27, 2000

Let's Move On

SECRET FROM WHOM?

No Person Is Above The Law - Sorry, Just Kidding

"My Friend Mexican President Vicente Fox"

The Crimes of Mena

Barry Seal, Air Contra, and Mena Airport - Ambrose Evans-Pritchard

BOY CLINTON - Prologue

Celerino Castillo, the DEA Man Who Worked Too Well

CIA admits drug trafficking, cover-up

CIA Linked To Seal's Assassination - George Bush's Personal Phone Number Found in Seal's Trunk

Volume II - The Contra Story - CONNECTIONS BETWEEN CIA AND THE CONTRAS IN COCAINE TRAFFICKING TO THE UNITED STATES

FBI Documents #147 #149 #150

When Uncle Sam was a drugs runner

DEA Shielded Tainted Informant Agency Paid Source for 16 Years Despite Arrests, Perjury

"What is one to make of the riveting assertion, made by a convicted Colombian drug kingpin at Manuel Noriega’s Florida drug trial, that the Medellín cartel gave $10 million to the Nicaraguan contras? Carlos Leader is a key prosecution witness; the U.S. government cannot lightly assail his credibility. Another cartel figure, Ramón Milián Rodríguez, also testified under oath that the Medellín cartel had given millions to the Contras."
The Washington Post - Editorial - 1991

From Here:
"A startling indication of Bush's role in these developments was the testimony given to a U.S. Senate hearing in 1987, where Medellín Cartel money-launderer Ramón Milián Rodríguez revealed that he had given $10 million in cocaine profits to Félix Rodríguez, a long-term CIA agent who ran the drugs-for-guns exchange for George Bush. Milián told investigative journalist Martha Honey that Rodríguez had offered that, "in exchange for money for the Contra cause, he would use his influence in high places to get the [cocaine] cartel U.S. `good will.'. . . Frankly, one of the selling points was that he could talk directly to Bush. . . . The issue of good will wasn't something that was going to go through 27 bureaucratic hands. It was something that was directly between him and Bush."

Milián met with Rodríguez on Jan. 18, 1985. Four days later, Rodríguez met with Vice President Bush in the Executive Office Building.

The promised "good will" was not long in coming. Indicative is the role played by a former senior official of the Reagan-Bush Department of Justice, Michael Abbell. In November 1984, Medellín Cartel boss Jorge Ochoa and Cali Cartel boss Gilberto Rodríguez Orejuela were sitting in a Madrid jail on drug charges, facing extradition--and probable life sentences--in the United States. Abbell, who had been the acting director and deputy director of the International Affairs section of the DOJ's Criminal Division from 1979 through 1984, abruptly quit that post, and travelled to Spain to testify against the extradition of Ochoa and Rodríguez to the United States, claiming that his old employer, the U.S. Department of Justice, had filed faulty papers against his new clients, the drug lords. Thanks to Abbell, Ochoa and Rodríguez were sent to Colombia, where they were eventually set free."

THE ORAL DEPOSITION OF WILLIAM C. DUNCAN
"9 Q. And it has been alleged that the Central Intelligence

10 Agency had some role in that operation. Is that the same

11 operation that you investigated?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. And when you submitted the witnesses, the names of the

14 prospective witnesses to the U. S. Attorney in Arkansas, are you

15 referring to Mr. -- what was the name of the U. S. Attorney?

16 A. Asa Hutchinson.

...15 A. They were very frustrated, also. Mr. Whitmore, in fact,

16 made several trips to Fort Smith, Arkansas to complain to the

17 U. S. Attorney's Office.

18 Q. Did he relate to you the conversation he had had with the

19 U. S. Attorney?

20 A. On several occasions, and also related to me that the U.S.

21 Attorney wrote him a letter telling him not to come to his

22 office anymore complaining, that that was unprofessional

23 behavior.

24 Q. What was the conclusion of Mr. Whitmore concerning your

25 investigation and the manner in which it was handled by the U. S.

1 Attorney in Arkansas?

2 A. That there was a coverup.

3 Q. Are you saying -- do you agree with his-with Mr.

4 Whitmore's conclusion?

5 A. Absolutely.

6 Q. Are you stating now under oath that you believe that the

7 investigation in and around the Mena Airport of money laundering

8 was covered up by the U. S. Attorney in Arkansas?

9 A. It was covered up,"

BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC.
(501) 372-5115
[END OF PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT]

THE ORAL DEPOSITION OF RUSSELL FRANKLIN WELCH - Re: Asa Hutchinson

"10 I remember when he came in as U. S. Attorney, everybody was
11 really relieved in western Arkansas because we had had some
12 uneventful prosecutions prior to that apparently. And he did a
13 good job. He had a lot of prosecutions. Well liked.
14 My first uncomfortable experience was at the first grand
15 jury session concerning money laundering where two witnesses,
16 Jim Nugent and Kathy Corrigan, testified, and I was up there
17 just for moral support more than anything else, and to see what
18 was going on . And after they came out of the -- out of their
19 session with the grand jury, each individually expressed concern
20 to Bill Duncan that they were disappointed, that they hadn't
21 been asked the proper questions. They didn't like what happened
22 to them in the grand jury room. And that concerned me a little
23 at the time. But Bill Duncan, I remember him telling them not
24 to worry, that Asa Hutchinson knows what he's doing, and that
25 there's a reason for what -- the way he's handling this. And Page 21

1 they tentatively accepted that. That was my first concern. But
2 based on what Bill told them, I felt a little better about the
3 situation. And I don't know what happened at the grand jury,
4 when they said they didn't feel like they were asked the
5 questions that they had been led to believe were the pertinent
6 ones for their testimony.
7Shortly after that -- I believe that's the last session I
8 can remember that Asa Hutchinson held with the grand jury
9 concerning this investigation. Shortly after that, I learned
10 that he was quitting his position and was going to run for some
11 political office, and that Mike Fitzhugh would be taking over."

Mena: The Oral Deposition of Richard J. Brenneke

A selective passion for truth

By Mara Leveritt
Feb. 12, 1999

Last week I suggested that, rather than probing ad nauseum the president's lies about his extra-marital alliance(s), Washington could do us a favor by turning its investigative lights onto a question with some genuine national significance, to wit:

Precisely what was the relationship between various branches of the government, particularly the CIA, and this country's super-cocaine kingpins, such as Arkansas's own Barry Seal, during the 1980s?

The column did not exactly provoke a stampede to pick up the gauntlet. As I had outlined, there are powerful, bipartisan reasons why the questions about Seal have languished.

Republicans don't want to touch them for fear of where the answers might lead. The trail already points to the offices of former presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush.

Likewise, Democrats are not keen on kicking up a lot of dirt about Barry Seal, a major cocaine smuggler who, for reasons that remain a mystery, was allowed to base his multi-million-dollar operation in Arkansas, under the very eye of the Arkansas State Police, for four years while Bill Clinton was governor.

What did happen after that column appeared was that a reader called to remind me of the role played in the Seal saga by our own Republican Congressman Asa Hutchinson, the House manager who has been lately so aggressive in his prosecution of Clinton in the Senate.

Having listened to Hutchinson expound repeatedly on his desire only to get at "the truth" of the Clinton-Lewinsky affair, I am struck (as was my caller) by how remarkably unaggressive he was -- in fact, how surprisingly hands-off he was -- back in the 1980s when, as the U.S. attorney for western Arkansas, Hutchinson had the chance to prosecute Seal, the smuggler.

We now know that during the time that Seal headquartered his operation at Mena he was being watched by U.S. Customs officials, as well as by agents for the DEA, the FBI, and the IRS. Former IRS agent William Duncan has testified that Hutchinson, who was among the first to know of Seal's arrival in Arkansas, called a meeting in early 1983, at which Duncan was assigned to investigate Seal's suspected money laundering. Duncan did, and he tried to have members of Seal's gang indicted.

But when the IRS investigator asked Hutchinson to subpoena 20 witnesses who were prepared to testify about the alleged drug-trafficking at Mena, Hutchinson balked. Only three of the 20 were called, and of those, two later complained that they had not been allowed to present their evidence to the federal grand jury. The grand jury never indicted Seal or anyone else involved with him at Mena.

In 1991, five years after Seal was murdered, Duncan testified about his experience. "Are you stating now under oath that you believe that the investigation in and around the Mena airport of money laundering was covered up by the U.S. Attorney in Arkansas," he was asked. "It was covered up," he said.

Since then, I have spoken with Paul Whitmore, a former Chief of Criminal Investigation for the IRS, who was Duncan's superior. He oversaw the Seal investigation and concurs with Duncan's assessment that presentation of Duncan's evidence was blocked by Hutchinson's office.

At the time, and to this day, however, Hutchinson has cast himself as an anti-drug crusader. In light of that, I wrote to him after his election to Congress. I explained that I have had a Freedom of Information request pertaining to Barry Seal before the FBI for several years -- a request that the FBI has acknowledged should have been filled a long time ago. In light of that, I asked Hutchinson if he would intercede on my behalf to get the records released.

I was curious as to how hard Hutchinson would work to bring to light public records about a politically sensitive investigation in which he had played a significant part. As it turned out, he was not helpful at all. He replied that he had contacted the FBI concerning my request and that when he heard back from the agency he would "be back in touch" with me. That was more than a year ago. He has not been "back in touch."

By contrast, Rep. Vic Snyder, to whom I placed the same request, has been diligent in his support of my appeal. It seems to matter to Snyder that the Justice Department can flaunt a federal law, delaying by years, if it wants, the release of public information. The agency still hasn't budged on the Seal records, but Snyder's push for their release distinguishes him in this otherwise dark affair.

As for Hutchinson… I hope that some day he is held to account, as he would hold Clinton to account, for certain events of the past -- events that even this self-proclaimed seeker of truth might prefer would never come to light.

Somebody has to help make sure Drugs Enter America.

It is natural for man to indulge in the illusions of hope.
We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth,
and listen to the song of that siren
till she transforms us into beasts.
Is this the part of wise men,
engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty?
Are we disposed to be the number of those
who, having eyes, see not,
and having ears, hear not,
the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation?
For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost,
I am willing to know the whole truth;
to know the worst, and to provide for it.

Patrick Henry

"We're going to have to give up some of our liberties"
Frank Keating - September 11, 2001 - CNN Radio

"Compassionate Corruption For The Children"

"The government of the United States was an active participant in one of the largest dope operations in the world.."
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT JUSTICE JIM JOHNSON

"We’re going to go after all crime, and we’re going to make sure people get punished for the crime."
George W. Bush - Presidential Debate at Wake Forest University - Oct 11, 2000

Asa Hutchinson shuts down the most important drug-trafficking case in the history of the Republic, involving both parties, and so, George picks him as head of the DEA. I know, ASA feels terrible about this now, so to redeem himself, he's going to bust as many people as he can for God, country and the American way. LOL!

"Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been, and ever will of civil society. It ever has been, and ever will be pursued, until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit."
James Madison, Federalist Paper No.51

I agree. The problem I have is the rhetoric I see on FR way too much, IMHO. The rhetoric is basically that marijuana and other drugs are benign and cause harm to no one and that Thomas Jefferson mandated that everyone has a right to light up a dube anywhere they want.

Yes, you're correct, but it's more of the extreme libertarians that hold this view. There very few substances that you can injest that are absolutely benign, and everything can hurt you in one way or another. And TJ would never advocate a society where everyone could get blitzed, whenever they wanted and wherever they wanted. Local ordinances are necessary to prevent disorderly behavior; anyone who argues with that is a whack-job.

Another problem I have is that many on the pro-drug(Libertarian) side bring out articles from European sources saying that the answer is basically giving out heroin or other drugs on the taxpayer dime.

This is the most important aspect of the entire arguement, and cannot be stressed enough. A society simply CANNOT subsidize "bad behavior" or lawless behavior, and expect to survive for very long. At best, they're dooming themselves to stagnation, which is really bad anyway. That society will eventually "Darwin" itself. Decriminalization coupled with taxpayer subsidized dope would be an absolute disaster, and ruin the country. For far too many years, we've subsidized bad behavior, and bad choices; playing on the compassion of the American people to convince them that "something needs to be done" by the government. Something needs to be done all right, but not by the government (especially Federal). This is the job for churches, community programs, and volunteers to accomplish. By not having a "right" to subsidized addiction, a potential addict is faced with ambition-generating fear of totally falling into the gutter. It's a good fear to have, and it also will promote more community involvement and civility amongst citizens. Neighbors are there for people when they have problems; not the government. You might need help someday...you'd better be at least civil to your neighbors and somewhat involved in your community for "insurance" purposes. Too many people nowadays don't even know some of their neighbors names (I'm one of them)

And human nature has shown that if you build a "safety net", a certain percentage of people will always jump right into it and settle down for the long haul.

Places where drug legalisation is going full throttle are socialist(Holland, Britain) and when I point this out, I am knee jerkingly called a fascist, statist, or Jack Booted thug.

Obviously, for a very long time here, there has been no "gray area" in the discussion on this topic. Either you're a statist, or a hedonist. I've been guilty of this train of thought, and it accomplishes nothing. This whole issue is complex, but we've elected the (supposedly) best and brightest people to resolve issues like these, and we pay them big bucks to do so. But the people always ultimately get the government they deserve, and our "drug policy" has been riding on cruise control for far too long. Bad people (drug lords) are getting fatter and happier all the time, and our resources are wearing thin and not being focused on military and terrorist threats like they should be. We are the most innovative, creative, and productive society in history; we could lick this problem if we seriously attacked the issue correctly.

I look at the issue in this way: What is the most effective way of dealing with the societal problems of addiction? Drugs will never go away, and demand for them will never go away. Euphoria (through booze, gambling, roller coaster rides, etc.) is an industry, and since we are humans, we love our entertainment and feeling intoxicated. It's part of our nature. We're not Vulcans.

Education, addiction treatment, and responsibilty are the only real answer. It will be painful in the short term, but it will work. What we're doing now does not work, will not work, and will amplify the problems of drug abuse. Like it already has.

That's what I think...

And thank you for your reasoned reply.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.