type model, you see an even more remarkable dropout. It may be as much as 70 percent in the first 6 months.

So that one can't talk about dropout without talking about selectivity and who you are letting into the system and what does the system demand, what rewards are provided, and what kinds of controls are provided.

We could talk about average figures, but they would be meaningless. Mr. Roy. But they are high, aren't they, varying from 15 to 70 percent?

Dr. JAFFE. The remarkable thing we see about our dropout rates is that somebody may drop out of a therapeutic community and in our system, since he can reenter, at the end of the year 50 to 60 percent of all people entering are still somewhere in the system trying to find out what is best for them.

Mr. Roy. Upon identification of the addict, should treatment be compulsory?

Dr. JAFFE. It depends on how you identify him, it also depends on what the consequences of the results of compulsory treatment are. Mr. Roy. The methods of detention are two. They are apprehended by law enforcement groups, or they ask for treatment themselves?

Dr. JAFFE. Yes. One of the problems of making something compulsory, when people step up and ask for treatment, is that if you keep people in a system and they feel imprisoned in it, it becomes counterproductive.

Mr. Roy. I am going to interrupt you. I have a pretty good idea of what the problems are of making it compulsory, but I also have an idea that if it is not compulsory many drop out and return to the streets. Many addicts are pushers, and they are going to be in the supply end, which you are going to go into as an area of treatment. You can't give me a "Yes" or "No" answer on that, is that what you are going to tell me?

Dr. JAFFE. I can tell you that what counts is how many people you have in treatment at the end of a particular period. If you make it compulsory, you may have to go out and find people who don't want treatment, and the net number you have in treatment as law-abiding citizens is lower, because you have made it compulsory, simply because they won't identify themselves.

Mr. Roy. I realize this problem.

Dr. JAFFE. We will have to figure out the best way to get the most people into treatment and keep them there. If it turns out compulsory programs have advantages for some groups, we will consider it. Right now, my experience indicates that if people get the idea that as soon as they identify themselves it is going to end their freedom, you are going to have to find them. Now they come and ask for help, because they know if it doesn't help they can get out.

Mr. Roy. You don't know whether in the long run we are going to have to make this compulsory or not.

Dr. JAFFE. Then we should continually re-evaluate those who drop out and don't want treatment at all.

Mr. Roy. Would you personally recommend the legalization of marihuana?

Dr. JAFFE. No.

Mr. Roy. Have you made previous statements on this?

Dr. JAFFE. Yes.

Mr. Roy. Have they always been consistent?

Dr. JAFFE. They have always said that this is not the appropriate time to add an intoxicant to the general array of intoxicants in society. Mr. Roy. A policeman from one of the major metropolitan areas told me, "Frankly, we are still spending all our time on marihuana rather than heroin."

Dr. JAFFE. I have made statements similar to those I made here with respect to deployment of treatment resources, that I think it is incumbent that all people have resources at their disposal, and set priorities, and see which problems are creating the greatest problem for society.

If a law enforcement group under those circumstances decides to devote their resources to the less dangerous situation, this, I think, speaks to their judgment.

We see different problems as exacting different tolls and as representing different levels of danger and concern. Our problem will be to set priorities to handle them in sequence.

I can certainly say that I would expect that any public agency would approach the situation the same way.

Mr. Roy. Do you think it really speaks to these law enforcement agencies judgments, or perhaps to the difficulty of enforcing the laws? In other words, marihuana dealers and users are pretty easily picked up, and the heroin people have a great deal more money.

Dr. JAFFE. Your statement was how much time they spent. My statement is that they should set priorities, and one would hope.

Mr. Roy. Why wasn't the Department of Defense included in the areas you were to coordinate? The Department of Defense is notably missing in this bill, I think.

Dr. JAFFE. My understanding of the bill is that policy and coordination for the Department of Defense has not been excluded; that we expect their treatment network will, in fact, be coordinated with the VA and the civilian side of it.

Mr. Roy. You anticipate, but there is no power for you to do anything about it in this office, is there?

Dr. JAFFE. I will report directly to the President, if the agency is developed, and if I am confirmed by the Senate. The President is Commander in Chief of all the Armed Forces, and I anticipate that this will give me sufficient coordinating authority to have the Department of Defense work in close concert and harmony and articulate their efforts with the VA and other drug treatment programs.

Mr. Roy. I am a little lost, why you go to the Department of Defense Secretary, when you go to the HEW and other departments primarily?

I see your plan, and we hope this works, too.

Dr. JAFFE. Did you want to add something?

Mr. WEBER. I think Dr. Jaffe covered the relevant points. I think Defense is concerned with essentially a self-contained military system of medical treatment. The other institutions that have been identified have a wide range of relations in the civilian sector.

Dr. Jaffe, the head of the new agency, will have general overall policy coordination power in this area. The problems of extricating funding and other more closely honed instruments in this case are

difficult, and I think it is justified by the fact that you do have these in separate but coordinated medical treatment systems.

Mr. Roy. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.

Mr. SYMINGTON. Thank you.

On that point, Dr. Jaffe, the Department of Defense has huge resources. You are permitted to reach into the budget of all the agencies named and yet they are limited.

Wouldn't it have been wise to include the Defense Department in the bill just so that there is no mistaking that you could reach into their budget, $50 billion or so, particularly since the ratio of addicts. in the armed services is considerably higher than in the general populace we hope.

Dr. JAFFE. You hope the ratio is higher?

Mr. SYMINGTON. Since it is extremely high, we would hope the general ratio were lower.

We know it is very high. Since we know that, wouldn't you wish to coordinate the activities there as well?

Dr. JAFFE. I don't feel I will have difficulty in coordinating the activities. I have met with the people in the Pentagon. I do think they are responsive to the need to develop a system that coordinates with civilian agencies.

If you are saying wouldn't it be nice for this office to be able to control that budget, too, I am not really certain that I can answer it. I think that Mr. Weber can respond to this.

Mr. WEBER. I just might reference, Congressman, section 5(a), which gives the director the authority to provide overall planning and policy, and he shall also establish objectives and priorities for all Federal drug abuse training, education, rehabilitation, research, et cetera. So the director's authority in there as it impacts on the budget process and the management of the executive branch is clear.

Mr. SYMINGTON. Wouldn't you like us to amend the bill to include the Defense Department? You know how sticky people get sometimes when they are not mentioned. Would that be a good idea to add it so that there is no question?

Mr. WEBER. No, sir.

Dr. JAFFE. No, I don't think it is a good idea to add it at this time. Mr. SATTERFIELD. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. Roy. Yes.

Mr. SATTERFIELD. On that point, it is my understanding that last week the Director of the VA informed a body at the other end of the Capitol that the Defense Department was coming up with legislation on this point. I wonder if that is the reason it wasn't included in this

bill.

Mr. WEBER. I think the legislation he was referring to would provide for the extension of service for those who the military medical authorities viewed as being addictive, or addicted at that stage.

Mr. SATTERFIELD. He also indicated that it would involve the VA. Mr. WEBER. I am not clear. The only military bill that the administration has introduced is the one I made reference to, Congressman. Mr. SYMINGTON. Dr. Jaffe referred to in answer to my question on the VA, and would he extend his authority over the VA so they would treat the bad conduct discharges as well as others, you said you have a bill in for that purpose.

In view of Dr. Jaffe's reply to the earlier question to the effect that there is a bill in now to extend VA drug treatment coverage to dischargees, veterans who have been discharged under other than honorable conditions, my question is, why do you need a bill for that? If you have the power to deal with all these agencies administratively, and now you are telling us that you may be required to go to each of them and ask for more legislation-is that what you mean?

Dr. JAFFE. Particularly in the case of the VA, as I understand it, there is a statutory limitation which precludes their treating members of the Armed Forces who have had bad conduct discharges, and so it is necessary that we put in specific language amending that to permit them to treat those people with other than honorable discharges.

Mr. Roy. One last question. Do you favor criminal sanctions for possession of heroin?

Dr. JAFFE. Oh, yes.

Mr. Roy. Does this interfere with treatment in any way, criminal sanctions for possession only?

Dr. JAFFE. Occasionally, but I am not sure that the alternative, so that you could possess with impunity, wouldn't make the problem such that treatment wouldn't have a chance.

Mr. Roy. Thank you.

Mr. ROGERS. I may have to ask you to put in the record some information because of the time element, but pursuing this a moment, I would like to know specifically: Will you have policy determination over the Department of Defense with regard to its treatment programs of rehabilitation, training, for drug abuse programs?

Dr. JAFFE. As I read the bill, this is unequivocally given.

Mr. ROGERS. You will?

Dr. JAFFE. Yes.

Mr. ROGERS, Because we are concerned right now, there is a problem on amnesty. I understood that the Defense Department had said they would grant amnesty, but the Marine Corps said they wouldn't.

Now, if the Secretary of Defense has trouble coordinating, do you think you might as well?

Dr. JAFFE. Frankly, I don't think my powers will be any greater than those of the Secretary of Defense. We can make policy, and what you are asking is, frankly, what do you do in the case of defiance. Mr. ROGERS. Yes.

Dr. JAFFE. Frankly, I don't know. I have only been in Washington altogether, you know, a few days. The law is clear.

Mr. ROGERS. I am not sure that it is clear in Defense. But you are saying that your interpretation is as it is, and, therefore, you have no objection if we make it clear in writing in the legislation, the intent that you read into it?

Dr. JAFFE. If you really think it is not sufficiently clear.

Mr. ROGERS. Yes. I understand. We want to make everything as clear

as we can.

Mr. SCHMITZ. Would the chairman yield?

Mr. ROGERS. Would the gentleman withhold until I finish, and then I will allow him to continue.

Now, also, I am concerned about the business of the budget. I see you have authority to ask for budgets of the separate functions of the various agencies.

Dr. JAFFE. That is correct.

Mr. ROGERS. They won't ask, or what

Dr. JAFFE. As I understand it, the various agencies in the future will present their budgets for drug abuse to their office. This office will then work with them on allocating and establishing what the needs are. This will then be passed on to OMB, the President, and then the President's budget will be submitted to appropriate Appropriations Committees.

Mr. WEBER. The budget submission, Mr. Chairman, will be made on behalf of the Special Office to the Congress.

Mr. ROGERS. All of the agency programs?

Mr. WEBER. For all of the programs cited in section 5(c).
Mr. ROGERS. Including the Department of Defense?

Mr. WEBER. No, sir.

Mr. ROGERS. It would not include those?

Mr. WEBER. Yes.

Mr. ROGERS. The solution to getting somebody to do something you want them to do is either take their money or give it to them, don't you think? I have found that generally true.

Dr. JAFFE. The feeling is that the Department of Defense is special, and the President is Commander in Chief, and I report directly to him, and that it would be unnecessary in that particular case to have such direct control over the budget when one has such direct control over precisely what they do.

Mr. ROGERS. I understand that, but what I am saying is that you want to have this control over all of the nine agencies, but you don't want it over Defense. Why? If it is the same type of program.

Dr. JAFFE. One has the impression that the military is more directly responsive to orders than certain aspects of others.

Mr. ROGERS. I am not sure one can necessarily draw that conclusion.
Dr. JAFFE. Perhaps someone wiser to government than I am-
Mr. ROGERS. You think you have that authority?

Mr. WEBER. We think with respect to the military medical system, it is related to a broader set of institutions which have different missions.

Mr. ROGERS. We are speaking only of drug control.

Mr. WEBER. I understand that, sir; but take, for example, the activities going on in Vietnam that Dr. Jaffe can speak to. Those are related to problems of logistics, administration, the general movement and sustaining of morale of the troops, and that makes for quite a different administrative problem. We think we can control that by establishing policies.

Mr. ROGERS. Well, you want to control the fiscal policies of the other agencies. Maybe you don't need that.

Mr. WEBER. We think we need that.

Mr. ROGERS. You think you need that, but you don't think you need it in the military.

As I understood, you were going to have the agencies submit to you what they thought was necessary. I assume you do that with Defense. Is there any reason why you feel they do everything right and put them off to the side?

Mr. SCHMITZ. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. ROGERS. As soon as I finish questioning, I will.