of community agencies and groups in a cooperative effort to deal with local drug abuse problems will be supported. 20 college-based pilot projects-initiated, deBigned, and directed by students-have been funded, 11 drug education projects alling for heavy community involvement have been initiated by local school listricts using OE funds.

Justice/BNDD.—$3.1 (1972 Budget)/$4.5 (1972 Proposed).

BNDD's efforts in this area include a public inquiry program which responds o requests for information on the problem of drug abuse, drugs being used, and arious aspects of the drug problems as related to preventive enforcement and the roblem of illegal drug use in the community. Major training efforts are conlucted for professionals in the enforcement field and related areas to orient them to the need and the advantages of preventing drug abuse as opposed to conentrating only upon the enforcement aspects of the drug problem.

The President indicated that the additional $1.4 million requested would be used by BNDD to train foreign narcotics enforcement officers. Justice/LEAA.-$2.6 (1972 Budget)/$2.6 (1972 Proposed).

The major focus of LEAA's educational programs has been directed at the Naion's youth through the development and implementation of preventive educaion programs in all grades of the public school system. A second major focus is een in programs developed for presentation to parents, civic groups, church Organizations, and other interested citizen groups. Training efforts are aimed at nforcement groups and emphasize the close liaison between local and State gencies and BNDD.

USDA.-$0.5 (1972 Budget)/$0.5 (1973 Proposed).

The Department of Agriculture has been involved in drug abuse education fforts through its 4-H educational programs. These programs are underway In at least a dozen states. Other informational efforts are directed toward farmrs and aimed at the identification and eradication of marihuana. Research and Other Support.-$22.7 (1972 Budget)/$42.4 (1972 Proposed). HEW/NIMH.-$19.2 (1972 Budget)/$31.2 (1972 Proposed).

NIMH research efforts are directed at a variety of projects, including evaluaion and development of treatment approaches, the development of health care tatistics, studies related to the causes and control of drug abuse, and research elated to specific types of drugs, such as opiates, LSD, amphetamines, barbituates, and marihuana.

Justice/BNDD.-$1.5 (1972 Budget)/$1.5 (1972 Proposed).

BNDD has a limited research program. It has been involved for several years in he development of a methodology to determine abuse liability and abuse potenal of stimulant, depressant and hallucinogenic drugs. The methodology reearches are: (1) behavioral; (2) physiological; and (3) biochemical.

State.-$2.0 (1972 Budget)/$2.6 (1972 Proposed).

These funds are pledged to a U.N. Special Fund aimed at planning and executig a concerted U.N. effort against the world drug problem.

USDA.-No funds in 1972 budget/$2.1 (1972 Proposed).

*** The $2.1 million in funds would be used for the research and development of herbicides which can be used to destroy growths of narcotics-producing plants without adverse ecological effects.

Special Action Office.-No funds in 1972 budget/$3.0 (1972 Proposed).

*** These funds would be available to the Special Action Office for Drug Abuse Prevention for the costs of staffing, space, and other expenses for the establishment of the new Office and for its operations to direct the President's program.

Community Planning (NIMH).-No funds in 1972 budget/$2.0 (1972 Proposed). *** These funds would be used to make several small planning grants to communities for the purpose of developing local "unbrella" agencies to deal with local drug abuse problems.

Mr. ROGERS. Dr. Carter, you wanted me to yield?

Mr. CARTER. For just a little.

I might address my remarks to Czar Jaffe. He really doesn't look uch like a czar.

But, actually, Dr. Jaffe, your expertise has been in coordination. dministration, and direction of drug programs, is that correct? Your xpertise is in treatment of patients and will be in that field?

Dr. JAFFE. Yes, sir.

Mr. CARTER. Really, you don't want, and you really don't have, trainaig in drug abuse control as the BNDD has, is that correct?

66-841-72-pt 1-15

Dr. JAFFE. That is correct, sir.

Mr. CARTER. It is a separate field, and you don't want that. B think that really you will do a very fine job. I think it is quite ne sary for you to coordinate and manage these programs as it says will do.

Furthermore, I feel that begins in the Office of the Commande Chief, that the Defense Department will well heed what you hav say, your ideas as to treatment of their people.

However, in Vietnam, for instance, you are really not as convers with the problems over there as the military happens to be. Is correct?

Dr. JAFFE. For the present, that is true, sir.

Mr. CARTER. And until such knowledge is developed, would leave that up to the men in the field with some direction from perhaps; is that true?

Dr. JAFFE. The President has requested that as soon as these hy ings are over that I go to Vietnam to directly and personnally spect what is happening, and so I will be going there as soon as s of this preliminary testimony is over.

Mr. CARTER. Have you a feeling they will listen to you?
Dr. JAFFE. I think they will listen now, sir.

The issue is that I am not sure I can be as persuasive and as fo ful until I really see personally exactly what the situation is, Mr. CARTER. Yes, sir.

I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding.

Mr. ROGERS. I hope the gentleman is not suggesting that the m tary is presently capable of doing a sufficient job? Do you think t are doing a sufficient job?

Dr. JAFFE. I think they are doing what they can do.

Mr. ROGERS. Well, now, everybody says we have got to do so thing. The President said it. That is why he started the progr They haven't been doing anything, basically.

You have just now started a detoxification program over th They haven't even had that. You know the funding, the figures gave me, what the funding for the Department of Defense-I none in 1972 or 1971. I see $48 million as an estimate for 1972. Dr. JAFFE. That is correct.

Mr. ROGERS. But no funding before in this program. So I woul leave it to the field in the military to do very much yet. Wouldn't agree?

Dr. JAFFE. It is my impression they were trying to absorb the tr ment cut of their allocated budget without specifically earmark special funds.

Mr. ROGERS. You know what kind of treatment is over there, d you, Doctor?

Dr. JAFFE. There is much improvement needed, sir, without o tion.

Mr. ROGERS. That is one of the largest understatements of the and I agree with it.

Dr. JAFFE. We intend to accelerate what is available until we say honestly it is the best we can provide.

Mr. ROGERS. I beg your pardon?

Dr. JAFFE. We intend to accelerate the programs until it is as g as anything we have.

Mr. ROGERS. I understand. That is what the legislation is abou Mr. Symington?

Mr. SYMINGTON. How can you do that with the Defense Department if you don't have the same kind of control over its budget as you have over other departments?

Dr. JAFFE. Surprisingly enough, in my visits with the Pentagon, we laid out what should happen, and it was done.

Mr. SYMINGTON. I am surprised.

Dr. JAFFE. I was pleasantly surprised, myself.

Mr. SYMINGTON. You are going to Vietnam, and if you find out things that are needed to be done that are not being done, would you then ask for this authority to cover Defense?

Dr. JAFFE. Well, you are asking specifically what I will do. First of all, what I don't know is what the military situation is, and that is what I am going to go over to learn about, not how to become an expert.

Mr. SYMINGTON. You made one statement earlier, Dr. Jaffe, that one reason you felt Defense wasn't included in the bill is that the President is Commander in Chief and they are used to taking orders. That is something you said; I believe the record will show it. Dr. JAFFE. Yes, sir.

Mr. SYMINGTON. The implication is that these other agencies of Government are not used to taking orders. The further implication is that you are the order giver.

Putting all these things together, I ask you again, wouldn't it be wise to give you the authority to deal directly with the Defense Department, handling their budget, so that we can bring home a higher percentage of nonaddicted veterans which will make your job in dealing with these other agencies that are apparently feistier easier?

Dr. JAFFE. I think we have a section in the bill that was designed to handle the question you are raising.

Mr. WEBER. I might note, Congressman, if you will turn to page 6, and it is section 5(a) (2) and section 5(d), which specifies that the President may, subsequent to the passage of this bill, identify other drug abuse prevention programs in the Government and provide for the transfer of the same authorities with respect to the other agencies, following essentially the reorganization plan procedures.

So that if it is identified in Defense that they aren't cutting the mustard in the sense that Dr. Jaffe indicated and that we all want, the President can provide for that transfer and that will become effective in 30 days unless negative legislation were enacted.

Mr. SYMINGTON. Well, I did see that provision. What strikes me as odd is that the Defense Department is the one agency omitted. I can think of some of the others that have been doing a pretty good job, but it seems to me that Defense has not. In fact, it is their inability to cope with it which has brought this thing to a head, created some of this Presidential initiative. That is what surprises me about your bill.

Mr. ROGERS. We have a call to the floor, and if it is convenient with the members, I think we will recess now until 2 o'clock, if you could be available, Dr. Jaffe.

Mr. CARTER. One short thing.

Mr. ROGERS. Certainly.

Mr. CARTER. Someone mentioned something about it, about the answer being simple. Of course there is no simple answer, and really we should, and the military should hang its head in shame that we have 300,000 veterans in South Vietnam who are addicts, and, again

we can't accept the fact that 90 percent of these will remain addicts, or may remain addicts as long as they live.

I think that we should hang our heads in shame if we can't effect a better cure rate out of the 90 percent and have 270,000 men remain as addicts.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ROGERS. The committee will stand adjourned until 2 o'clock. (Whereupon, at 12:25 p.m., the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 2 p.m., the same day.)

AFTER RECESS

(The subcommittee reconvened at 2 p.m., Hon. Paul G. Rogers, Chairman, presiding.)

Mr. ROGERS. The subcommittee will come to order, please, continuing hearings on the proposal for control of drug abuse in the Nation. Mr. Satterfield, I think, has additional questions at this time. Mr. SATTERFIELD. Dr. Jaffe, I would like to go back to the line of questioning we dealt with earlier this morning.

I listened with interest to the answers given to Mr. Rogers and Mr. Symington, as to why you feel that hospital control of the Department of Defense should not be subject to H.R. 9264. It seems to me that every answer I heard then would apply equally to the Veterans' hospital system, and I would like to know why indeed the VA is excluded from that line of reasoning, whereas the Defense Department isn't in terms of their hospitals.

Dr. JAFFE. Well, first of all, they are all included with respect to policy.

Mr. SATTERFIELD. How is that?

Dr. JAFFE. They are all included with respect to policy and evaluation.

I believe the judgment was made with respect to the Defense Department because the Defense Department has more than a mere medical mission or health mission. It does have a combat and defense mission, and a much more direct control over them was originally thought perhaps to create some problems in terms of chain of command.

We did feel that because the President is Commander in Chief, this would provide sufficient authority to have their programs work well and be responsive to the policymaking authority of the special office.

Furthermore, we do have within the bill a clause which could be utilized by the President to move the Defense Department into even the budgetary orbit of the special office and if the cooperation we have received so far is not maintained, if the Defense Department is unable to bring its operations into general concordance and opera tion with all of the other elements, I would have no hesitancy in asking the President to exercise that option and bring the Department of Defense under the same structure as all of the other organizations.

Mr. SATTERFIELD. Let's go to the Veterans' Administration and in order to get a feeling of what you feel this particular office will do, I would like to ask several questions of how it would work with the VA. For example, who do you conceive will make a determination of the need for drug treatment in the VA facilities and in VA hosals-your office? The VA director, or the Director of the individual ospitals?

Dr. JAFFE. I expect that I will consult with them, but I will make the determination as to whether a particular VA facility should be providing services and to what extent because I will have information on what other civilian facilities are in the area, with what capacity and variety of programs.

I will also have input as to the other kinds of military facilities are in the immediate vicinity and given that kind of input from all of the agencies I may be in a better position. Of course, after consulting with them, as to what the needs are for services.

Mr. SATTERFIELD. But you would make the final decision.

Now, who would make a determination as to what staff these facilities would have in drug treatment programs?

Dr. JAFFE. I think the final issues of staff, the precise details of operations are going to be left to the agencies themselves, within the broad framework of policy, the policy being that no agency should be in a position to have programs either whose costs or whose output deviates very significantly from agencies in the area providing treatment to comparable patients.

Mr. SATTERFIELD. Who will have administrative control over the staff of a drug facility in a VA hospital?

Dr. JAFFE. The VA hospital.

Mr. SATTERFIELD. The hospital director. Who would then determine the salaries? How would their salaries be determined?

tor.

Dr. JAFFE. That would, again, be determined by the hospital direc

Mr. SATTERFIELD. But you would still have control over that in terms of holding the purse strings; would you not?

Dr. JAFFE. If after review of the effectiveness of the program, the kinds of people served, we felt that perhaps their costs were not high enough, that they weren't providing the kinds of services, we would be able to recommend, that they increase their staffing, that they ask for more money. By the same token, we would recommend that if their costs were several times higher than those of civilian agencies and nearby vicinity doing the same kinds of work with equal output, we might then recommend that they consider modeling themselves more closely to other agencies.

Mr. WEBER. I might note, Mr. Satterfield, that it isn't the intention. to give the director the authority to waive personnel system provisions, for example, those applicable to those who would be civil service or covered by wage board provisions or other ranges of regulations which govern compensation in the Federal service.

I think Dr. Jaffe is commenting to his responsibility to try and insure cost effectiveness in the VA as it relates to other rehabilitation and treatment facilities.

Mr. SATTERFIELD. That may be, but the point I am getting at is when you have these staffs to treat drug addicts, somebody has got to fund their salaries. Is that money going to be included in a VA budget, or is that part of the budget that this office will prepare which are transferable from VA to you? How are you going to distinguish them? Dr. JAFFE. Our understanding is they will submit the budget to the operation, and that will be included in the budget we come to the Appropriations Committee with.

Mr. SATTERFIELD. We admit this is the way it might work, but, by the same token, these treatment facilities are under your control, policy, direction, management, and funding.