unitex@rubbs.fidonet.org (unitex) (09/19/89)
However, if you provide those names for us we'd be happy to
check it out.
Q: Obviously they're good secret spies!
Q: Are you then confirming that you are not singing from the
same song sheet? (Laughter)
A: We sing by the same song sheet automatically. We don't need
covert operations in which to carry that out.
That's all my announcements. I'd be happy to take your
questions.
Q: Can you give us any information about when the Secretary will
be willing to talk about the DoD and what kind of plans it has
as far as vis-a- vis the President's drug strategy?
A: Yes. The Secretary will come down and stand at this very
spot here in the Pentagon briefing room at 11:00 o'clock on
Monday and discuss the Department's plans for implementing the
President's national drug strategy.
Q: I sounded like a plant.
A: You did sound like a plant, but I would like to reassure
everyone that you are not.
Q: Can you tell us anything about the report that he has given
the commanders two weeks to come up with programs on drugs?
A: He will be happy to answer all those questions for you. At
this point, as I speak these words shortly after noon, I don't
believe he has signed anything yet. So I don't believe he's
given our commanders anything yet. Whether that's part of what
he is going to do, I'll let him discuss that with you on Monday.
Q: Can you say the status -- has he got a preliminary report
that he's working on?
A: That's the sort of thing he'll talk to you about on Monday.
Q: Is he going to stress a more cooperative attitude with
(inaudible)?
A: Sure. That's part of the President's strategy that he
announced last week or whenever he announced it.
Q: I'm not talking about his feeling. I'm talking about
impressing on military leaders...
A: He is the Commander-in-Chief and that will carry all the way
down through. One of the things the President's drug strategy
says is that the Department of Defense will be the lead agency
in terms of providing better coordination among various law
enforcement entities--federal, state, and local; better command,
control and communications coordination; better intelligence
sharing. That's part of what the President gave us as a
mission. So yes, we'll obviously have a greater role in that,
and that will be very important for the Department.
Q: Isn't that the same mission you were given like a year ago
the Department of Defense? That's nothing really new, is it?
A: I think the way the Secretary would describe the
Department's involvement now in drug efforts is to be more
forward leaning. That's the words he used publicly. That would
apply to things that we have been doing and things that we're
going to do.
Q: In general terms, Pete, do you plan to add more AWACS, more
boats, that kind of thing? More physical.
A: That's precisely the sort of thing the Secretary will
describe in detail for you on Monday. So I'll let you wait and
ask him that. He'll explain that for you.
Q: The Secretary has been on the Hill recently. Has he in any
way attempted to put down some of the griping that's come from
Capitol Hill about the Department of Defense's attitude towards
this? Or another way to put it, he been briefing people on the
Hill about what he intends to do?
A: No, I'm unaware of any specific sessions the Secretary has
had on the Hill for the precise purpose of briefing Members on
our drug strategy. It's clear that both Members of Congress and
the President want the Department to be more involved. So does
the Secretary of Defense. I think everybody's pretty well
together on that. There is, obviously, some difference in terms
of how this is going to be paid for. We would prefer, under the
President's proposal, to pay for this within the existing budget
limitations by doing some shifting around inside our defense
budget. Congress has some other ideas.
I don't believe the Secretary has taken this position, nor has
the President, for the sole purpose of mollifying Congressional
critics. This is something the Secretary himself feels strongly
about, as well as the President
Q: What about the Byrd Amendment? Would that have had any
effect on what he's been trying to work out?
A: Our position on the Byrd Amendment is that we think it is
unnecessary that it's misguided, that it's going to be a $1.7
billion hit on the Departmen We have a plan for meeting the
President's national drug strategy within existing budget. The
Hollings Amendment is an improvement over the Byrd amendment.
The Byrd Amendment is a .575 percent across the board reduction.
The Hollings amendment is a .225 across the board reduction. It
would be a $668 million hit on the Department, across the board
cut. While the Hollings Amendment is better than the Byrd
Amendment, we would be happiest if the President's budget would
prevail.
Q: The White House said they were willing to negotiate now,
however, and talks are going to get underway very soon. Are you
nervous that indeed you're going to have to take a hit after
all?
A: There may well have to be some negotiating that goes on.
Our preference would be to do this under the President's plan,
do it within existing Defense Department budgets by moving
things around. We think we can meet the needs of the strategy
well within those budgets, that neither amendment is necessary.
But if there is some negotiating to be done, obviousl the
* Origin: UNITEX --> Toward a United Species (1:107/501)
---
Patt Haring | United Nations | FAX: 212-787-1726
patth@sci.ccny.cuny.edu | Information | BBS: 201-795-0733
patth@ccnysci.BITNET | Transfer Exchange | (3/12/24/9600 Baud)
-=- Every child smiles in the same language. -=-