BUSH BACKERS ASSAIL THE MEDIA

Supporters of George W. Bush launched an assault on the news media
yesterday for its coverage of rumors that the front-runner for the
Republican nomination may have used illegal drugs.

House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) and Rep. John R. Kasich (R-Ohio)
separately criticized journalists for asking Bush if he had used cocaine in
the past. "There's no evidence. All it is is rumors being pushed by his
political opponents," DeLay said on "Fox News Sunday." "I think legitimate
journalists can ask questions if there are charges or if there is evidence
that there is something wrong. But to be fishing, and running around asking
questions and creating this whole aura that there's something sinister in
someone's background, I just don't think it's responsible or legitimate,"
DeLay said.

Kasich, who abandoned his bid for the GOP nomination on July 14 and is
backing Bush, urged a new "code of ethics" for journalists. "Sometimes I
wonder if they're as worried about discovering the truth as they are about
boosting ratings," he said on NBC's "Meet the Press."

"If you take a look at this story, every one of the cable stations just
leads with this story, it becomes sensationalized."

Another Bush supporter, Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge (R), said on Fox: "Good
solid investigative reporters have spent a great deal of time . . . trying
to uncover something. And I think the point is that there is nothing there."

Bush had refused to answer any questions about rumors, unsupported by
evidence, that he had taken drugs as a young man. But last week he faced
renewed pressure after he agreed to respond to a query from the Dallas
Morning News over whether he could meet standard FBI clearance questions
about past drug use, and later indicated he had not taken drugs for at
least the last 25 years.

Yesterday, Gary Bauer and Utah Sen. Orrin G. Hatch, both challenging Bush
for the Republican nomination, repeated calls for the Texas governor to
give full answers about any previous illegal drug use. Their view was
supported by 1984 Democratic vice presidential nominee Geraldine A.
Ferraro, and by New Mexico Gov. Gary E. Johnson (R), who has admitted once
taking marijuana and cocaine.

Bauer told Fox: "I think anything that involves a felony, I don't see how
you're going to be able to get away from it. . . . These are important
questions. It does go to law enforcement. I don't think we can say to our
kids, 'Look, this is important and we're serious about it' and then be sort
of coy when it comes to a question about it."

Hatch, on NBC, said his advice was to "just answer the darned question and
get rid of it." He added: "Most of the American people are forgiving."

Ferraro, on the same program, said it was wrong for the Bush campaign to
"beat up" on the news media for trying to determine if the governor had
once committed a crime. "You have to address this issue because the press
understands this is what people want to know. . . . The voters are entitled
to weigh what he did and make a decision on that."

Johnson, also on NBC, said his credo was: "Anything that can be revealed,
eventually reveal it. . . . There's always time to fix things."

Another challenger for the GOP nomination, former vice president Dan
Quayle, said on ABC's "This Week" that he "sort of liked" Bush's earlier
attempt to resist talking about the drug issue. "But once you start talking
about it, you really are probably obliged to answer most of these questions."

Lincoln Chafee, who is running for the Senate seat being vacated by his
father, John H. Chafee (R-R.I), said during a WJAR-TV interview broadcast
yesterday that he had tried cocaine several times around 1974, when a student.

"I had three choices 96 lie, which was not an option, or evade it and
receive the consequences of that, or be honest. And I chose to be honest,"
said Lincoln Chafee, who is mayor of Warwick, R.I. Washington Post Staff
Writers

If George W. Bush were a candidate for a White House job or a Cabinet post
today, he would have to answer a question that he has been unwilling to
address.

White House employees and senior presidential appointees are required to
answer "yes" or "no" to an employment form question that asks if they have
illegally used marijuana, cocaine, crack cocaine, hashish, narcotics,
amphetamines, depressants, hallucinogens or prescription drugs.

"Your answers must go back to your 18th birthday," the worksheet handed
White House appointees instructs.

Texas Gov. Bush, the front-running Republican presidential candidate, told
reporters last week he has not used any illegal drugs since at least 1974,
when he was 28. He has refused to discuss the issue since, saying voters
could make the decision about his fitness for office.

Some critics think Bush may have a hard time avoiding charges that he has
set up a double standard when it comes to past drug use and government
employment. "Anybody applying for a position in his administration
presumably would have to answer the questions that Bush thinks are improper
to ask," said Eric Sterling, president of the liberal Criminal Justice
Policy Foundation.

But C. Boyden Gray, who was White House counsel when Bush's father, George
Bush, was president, argued that the younger Bush is within his rights not
to answer such questions publicly, because background forms filled out by
government employees are considered confidential.

"I don't think he ought to have to answer publicly questions that aren't
asked publicly of any of his potential appointees or of reporters," Gray said.

Federal agencies treat drug use issues seriously, in part because people
with histories of drug use can be vulnerable to blackmail and other
problems that could endanger government operations, classified documents
and even the security of the president.

But the rush of baby boomers into government jobs has complicated what can
be viewed as acceptable drug use. During congressional hearings in 1993,
for example, it was disclosed that the Secret Service had balked at
granting permanent passes to about a dozen White House staff members
because of concerns about their drug use within the previous five years.

Gray said that during his tenure in the Bush administration, applicants
were disqualified from senior positions if drug use had occurred within the
previous 15 years. That standard was reduced to 10 years because Bush
administration officials found casual drug use so common among those in the
baby boom generation.

The Bush administration did not treat individual cases differently, Gray
said. Drug use was "virtually disqualifying," no matter whom it involved,
he said.

The Clinton White House, which has asked appointees to disclose all drug
use going to back to age 18, does not immediately disqualify someone who
has used drugs. "At the White House, decisions about suitability for
employment are made on the basis of answers to a number of questions, which
would include questions about drug use. But judgments are made on a
case-by-case basis," spokesman Barry Toiv said.

The government essentially classifies would-be hires in three categories:

Non-sensitive positions" that have no access to classified or secret documents.

Public trust," which requires good conduct and character and usually
involves skilled jobs, such as air traffic controllers, loan officers and
prison guards.

National security positions," reserved for senior government jobs,
particularly those that that require security clearances.

The questionnaire for non-sensitive positions asks job applicants if they
have used illegal drugs within the last year. The forms for the two other
categories ask if the job applicant or political appointee has used drugs
in the last seven years.

White House employees and presidential appointees requiring Senate
confirmation, though, are instructed to ignore the seven-year limit and
disclose any drug use or alcohol abuse going back to age 18.

The Clinton White House supplemental instructions add, "List and explain if
you have ever abused any legal/prescription drugs to the point of
dependency. In addition, list any treatment for drug and/or alcohol abuse."

Persons selected for White House jobs undergo review by the White House
security office and undergo interviews by FBI agents, who raise questions
about drug use during their background checks.

Federal agencies have wide leeway in deciding what standards to set for
past drug use and how much time and money to invest in background
investigations.

Not surprisingly, the Drug Enforcement Administration takes a dim view of
past use by prospective agents. DEA requires applicants to list all
previous drug experience, including the names of all drugs used and the
dates of use.

There is a "degree of subjectivity" regarding past marijuana use at the DEA
that allows for "youthful indiscretions," according to agency spokeswoman
Rogene Waite. But use of any drugs beyond marijuana, without a
prescription, is an automatic disqualifier.

A little marijuana use long ago would not derail a job applicant at the
Federal Bureau of Investigation, but anything beyond a casual puff in
college would likely be regarded as serious.

Would-be FBI agents are automatically disqualified if they: used marijuana
within the past three years; used marijuana a total 15 times; used any
other illegal drug in the past 10 years; used any other drug more than five
times; sold any illegal drug for profit; or "used illegal drugs, no matter
how many times or how long ago, while in a law enforcement or prosecutorial
position, or in a position that carries with it a high level of
responsibility or public trust."

The rules are somewhat more flexible at the Central Intelligence Agency,
where officials employ a "whole person criteria." CIA agents 96 and anyone
else granted access to classified materials 96 are governed by a director
of Central Intelligence directive that suggests that any past drug use
could be disqualifying.

But it also says several factors should be taken into account when
assessing an applicant, including if the drug use was "not recent,"
"isolated or aberrational," or whether the user has demonstrated an "intent
not to abuse any drugs in the future" or completed a drug treatment program
and been granted a solid prognosis for staying clean and sober.

While confessing to a particular indiscretion may not hurt job chances at
some agencies, someone caught trying to cover up drug use could be fired
and perhaps even criminally prosecuted.