(2) Facilitate the evaluation, dissemination, and interstate exchange of drug abuse information and program activities among the State program administrators; (3) Assist the Federal and State governments and their legislative bodies in the design, development, and implementation of coordinated, cooperative Federal-State programs; (4) Encourage the Federal Government to engage with the States in the comprehensive planning and utilization of Government resources, at all levels; (5) Identify common interests and differences among the States in the nature of their drug problems, and to assist in the design of programs tailored to local characteristics; and (6) Identify problems and issues which require study and research as well as to conduct evaluation activities upon the request of State drug abuse coordinators.

Thus, the association has very specific interest in this legislation, positions which have been identified to the Congress in previous testimony and private discussions, positions we now summarize.

The creation of the Special Action Office was endorsed by individual association members shortly after the announcement in June by President Nixon and is supported formally by the association.

There are specifics in the bills relating to the Special Action Office which do not affect the States directly and which will not receive comment. Our remarks will be confined to those sections which relate to the States, their operations, and their desired and mandated roles in the national strategy.

The powers, responsibilities, obligations, and opportunities granted the States in both bills are impressive, considerate of our needs and abilities, and potentially productive. The States are grateful to the administration and to the Congress for the concerns evidenced in their deliberations and in their product. However, while we are agreed upon and supportive of principle policy points and major objectives in those sections affecting the States, there are strategic disagreements, technical differences, and areas where we believe additional emphasis is essential.

In the best of all possible worlds, the Federal Government would inaugurate a national program, coordinated at the Federal level by the Sepcial Action Office, coordinated in operation through the States. This national program would insure an adequate and consistent level of Federal funds, without statutory or unfeasible matching requirements; would apportion funds through a system which provides each State with basic management, operating, planning, research and evaluation funds but which also provides major grants through formulas based on drug population and special need. This national program would require local funding through a State agency responsible for a Statewide plan; would require coordination of all local programs through the responsible State agency; and would require conformance with the State master plan as a condition of funding. This national program would not impose financial penalties for States with established programs in operation.

We assure the administration and the Congress that the States and this association want and intend to play a vital role in the national program. We believe the Federal program can succeed only if we cooperatively utilize the most of our collective resources.

Thus, the association endorses the concept in these bills of planning-administrative-research-operating grants to the States; the creation of the Special Fund for the Special Action Office; the concept of special emphasis and project grants to the States and localities; the creation of a national strategy council, with membership from the States; the requirements for single State authorities and the concomitant requirements that each State develop and submit a master plan; and, the requirements that all federally funded programs within a State be coordinated through this single State agency.

We would prefer the additional provision that local programs be funded through the designated State agency.

A principal objective of this association is to assist individual States in the establishment of State drug abuse agencies and in the development and implementation of State drug abuse agencies and plans.

Our view is that the Federal legislation should require each State to designate a single State authority, permitting as the Senate Committee report interpreted, a number of health or education related agencies to join together to form the "agency" required, as well as permitting single State authorities such as New York's Narcotic Commission. Each State should be required to develop a master

plan and to coordinate all programs within that State. These should not be optional provisions.

We support the House provision which requires the States to license (or accredit) each program. We also support the provision which requires drug abuse programing to be made part of the State's master plan submitted under Chapter 314D of the Public Health Act.

The association strongly endorses the provisions for technical assistance to State and local agencies, especially that language which requires the Director to coordinate or assure coordination of Federal drug abuse programs and activities with such programs of State and local governments.

We note the definition of "drug abuse prevention activities" employed by the House. If the House language relative to technical assistance is to be incorporated into the final bill, it is imperative that the House definition be also incorporated, as drug abuse prevention functions have a vertical meaning in the field.

The responsibilities of the States and their coordinating roles are given further emphasis and declaration in each bill's section on the State grants and plans. Both bills provide for the designation of a single State agency but the Senate assists the States and helps insure the effectiveness of the national strategy by requiring that each State must give satisfactory evidence that the single State agency will have the authority to implement the plan.

Both bills provide for the "coordination of existing and planned treatment and rehabilitation programs and activities, particularly in urban centers." The Senate goes the needed step of requiring compliance with the plan and cooperation with other programs and activities as a condition for financial support.

The association deems this latter step absolutely essential and would urge that the previous section be amended to include prevention and education activities. The coordinating role of the States is given further enforcement in the Senate bill in section 512, which says that the Secretary shall require coordination of all applications.... and that each application within a State shall be submitted to the designated State agency.

A somewhat similar thrust is provided in section 256 of Public Law 91-513, the grant mechanism in the House, but this thrust is limited. The existing requirements in Public Law 91-513 do not really speak to the issue of coordination nor is the matter of State review, consistency with State plans, and so forth, really covered in this existing authority.

S. 2097 requires that all applications from within a State shall be reviewed by the designated State agency. The State agency has 30 days to submit its review in writing, such review to declare whether the application is in conformance with the State plan. The Senate report says that nothing in the bill shall permit a State to prevent a proposed application from reaching the Federal Government.

There is a question on the No. 2097 provision that the Federal Government shall require the coordination of all applications within a State. Given other sections on coordination and the subsequent language relative to filing of all applications with the designated State agency for review, we would interpret this to mean that the State agency be responsible for such coordination, of applications as well as programs, as the bill implies overall. We would prefer that this intent be as explicit as possible in the enabling clauses.

We would hope that the Senate developed language is not the limit of our coordinating powers and responsibilities. As noted. NIMH is now required by Public Law 91-518 to have a State agency review, if an appropriate agency exists. We are often asked to review proposals after Federal representatives have given a verbal approval which we would find politically difficult to refute.

Moreover, nothing in the Senate bill requires the Federal Government to inform the State agency of its decision. This is essential, particularly in cases when a Federal agency overrules the State agency, which used its review decision on its own federally-approved master plan. We ask to be consulted if there is a difference of opinion, not to pre-empt Federal options, but to insure the closest possible coordination.

The question of power occurs throughout both bills. The Senate is to be congratulated for the thoroughness of its examination of this question in its report, its reasoning and rationale, especially with respect to the powers of the Congress and of the Office of Management and Budgets.

The Senate and the House are agreed to extend the jurisdiction of the Special Action Office and to limit certain powers sought by the administration. While we

1

challenge none of these actions, because they are outside of our jurisdiction and major field of interest, we caution you not to let the concern for the abuse of power lead you to negate at the outset the potential of the Special Action Office. We are fortunate to have Dr. Jaffe as Director, a man whose integrity and competence have earned him worldwide acclaim.

Do not be afraid to exercise power. Nothing short of sweeping changes in the Federal Establishment affords you even the promise of national success.

The Senate bill would establish a National Institute on Drug Abuse within the National Institute of Mental Health. I and many others have long argued that the Congress and the administration should create a new national institute within the National Institutes of Health, having equal rank with NIMH, and have recommended that this institute incorporate and embrace the offices and functions of many existing Federal agencies.

President Nixon has said that the present multiagency structure is ineffective. The Hughes committee report said there is no real coordination of drug programs within HEW, a principal raison d'etre for the Special Action Office. Yet, the Senate bill incorporates only a few HEW functions within this proposed institute and, according to the report, does not change the administrative structure of HEW.

The testimony is conclusive that NIMH has failed to produce a major national effort, devise a major national strategy, or respond to the needs of the most severely impacted areas. NIMH's effectiveness within its own limited frame of reference has been subjected to intensive questioning and doubt. There are those who argue that this alleged lack of response is due to limited funding and authority, or to administrative deficiencies, and other causes; including the multiplicity of programs under separate jurisdictions.

NIMH does have competent professionals in top-level positions. The open question is whether existing procedures permit the full utilization of their abilities. With all due respect to the Senate, it is difficult to see how the arrangements proposed improve the situation. To the contrary, those experienced at other levels of Government forecast an extensive period during which major energies would be expended on developing and implementing this new institute, rather than on the drug mission envisioned by the legislation.

Moreover, the proposed institute would involve only a few of the various Federal agency functions when the need is to embrace the whole of the Federal drug abuse establishment.

As ardent supporters of the institute concept, members of the association have maintained since June that the planning, experience, and analysis necessary to create a fully operative institute are the natural products of the coordinating work to be done by the Special Action Office.

The institute is the natural conclusion of SAODAP efforts, not its base or beginning product.

Finally, the institute proposal as written risks, in our opinion, the danger of producing two competing forces, the institute and the Special Action Office, with the institute to make some of the evaluative judgments planned for the SAO, to make program reviews that are the destined province of the SAO, etc. Both bills give the Director new powers of reorganization. The Senate and House should lay the framework for a national institute through emphasis upon the ultimate mission of SAO and through elaboration of the reorganization powers, but we do not believe the Institute should be created concurrently. The Senate would create the National Strategy Council and a National Advisory Council on Drug Abuse, the latter to advise the Secretary of HEW regarding the work of the Institute. An immediate question is whether it is logical to give one member of the National Strategy Council (the Secretary of HEW) his own national advisory board, when the work of the NIMH Institute as proposed encompasses only a portion of the broader national effort.

In a previous position statement to the House, we recommended that all interests would perhaps be best served by merging the functions of the Strategy and Advisory Councils.

H.R. 12089 would establish a National Advisory Council for Drug Abuse Prevention, which does combine both councils, and is further enhanced in our opinion by providing for the inclusion of state representatives among the Council members.

We support the concept of the State grants and the special emphasis and project grants but we respectfully submit that the proposed language should

be amended, as we recommended to the House Subcommittee on Public Health and the Environment, prior to its reporting of H.R. 12089. (We hope that this restatement of position will be reflected in the joint conference committee report.)

S. 2097 provides for formula grants to the States, with each State to receive a minimum grant of $200,000. The Senate bill says the grants can be used for planning, establishing, maintaining, coordinating, and evaluating projects: a breadth which we believe is essential. The Senate bill limits administrative expenditures to 10 percent of the allotment.

The association proposed to the House that the bill provide at minimum flat grants of $250,000 (if the higher authorization had no chance of passage), with administrative expenses limited to 50 percent of allotment. We also asked that the Senate provisions permitting the broadest usage of these funds in developing and implementing the State plan be retained.

H.R. 12089 appears designed to grant each State $250,000, as suggested by the authorization, but the bill does not set a minimum grant per State. Instead. the bill incorporates the Senate formula, which was designed to be operative within a larger grant structure which included minimums of $200,000.

The House bill says the grants shall be used for planning projects and evaluating drug abuse prevention functions, whereas the Senate bill also permits the grants to be used for coordinating activities and program operations. The House bill is silent with respect to administrative costs and to usage of the grants in developing the basic plan.

The sense of the Congress is extremely important in all legislation, but never more so than in this bill.

The Senate and the House subcommittee are agreed the States shall have the coordinating role, operating according to master plans developed by the States: They are further agreed the Congress should appropriate special funds to assure this close coordination and to further the implementation of local programing.

We believe the final bill should provide for minimum flat grants of at least $250,000 for each State, that administrative purposes should be an approved expenditure, that the States should be able to utilize these funds in development of the basic master plan as well as specific program plans, that section 503.5 of the Senate bill, requiring local program compliance with the plan as a condition of financial support, be included; and, that the broader uses and authorities in the Senate bill be retained.

We support the total authorization for the formula grants sought by the Senate. At minimum, we request the Congress to make the flat grants available. We stress minimum because nothing in our statement of support suggests that any State can function fully at this level. Other grant programs are a necessity. The Senate and the House take quite different approaches toward providing a system of major special emphasis grants, different in concept, different in funding authority.

H.R. 12089 increases the authorization for section 256(e) of Public Law 91-513, thus expanding the scope of the program of special projects for narcotic addicts and drug dependent persons initiated last year but woefully underfunded.

Section 256 is an attractive mechanism on several counts. It is an available, tested mechanism, with guidelines and procedures established. Section 256 also had a broad statement of purpose, permitting a wide variety of programs.

S. 2097 permits: (1) training seminars, technical assistance, et cetera ; that will permit development of programs for employees in the public and private sector; (2) vocational rehabilitation counseling, education, and other services for persons in treatment, as well as encouragement of public and private employers to recruit and train persons who have undergone treatment; (3) the establishment. operation, and evaluation of model and experimental drug abuse programs and rehabilitation programs in criminal justice systems; (4) community groups, et cetera, to study the causes of drug abuse in particular areas; (5) research on antagonists, detoxification agents, et cetera, and, (6) the establishment, operation, and evaluation of model and experimental drug abuse programs.

While this language in section 511 of S. 2097 expands and improves upon the authorities in Public Law 91-513, the langauge can be interpreted as prohibiting special grants for the establishment, operation, and evaluation of the more

traditional kinds of drug abuse programs. Indeed, the committee report refers to programs of special importance.

This raises the question as to the Federal interpretation of model or experimental programs, or, programs of special importance. Given strict interpretations of such language as it has been used in this field. Section 511 could be viewed as being extremely restrictive. Is it the intent of the Senate that the more traditional programs be funded only through the existing authorizations? Again, while the motives of the Senate are well-placed, and constructive, we believe Special Action Office and the agencies should be given wider latitude. The Senate does not provide a formula nor criteria for the disburement of these special emphasis grants. The House suggests, however, in its resort to Public Law 91-513, that some criteria are essential.

Subsection (d) of section 256 of Public Law 91-513 says, "The Secretary shall make grants under this section for projects within the States in accordance with criteria determined by him, designed to provide priority for grant applications in States, and in areas within States, having the higher percentages of population who are narcotic addicts or drug dependent persons."

Despite several requests, we have never received a copy of the criteria or regulations required by this legislative order. In that regard, the qeustion pertains: Shouldn't the Director make these determinations of criteria, or is this inherent in his general policymaking powers? The Congress should insist upon the publication of this criteria.

Again, given the coordinating role designed for the States, we believe the argument is reinforced for State representation on the national strategy council. Section 256 of Public Law 91-513 contains specific matching requirements whereas S. 2097 is silent on this issue. However, section 207 of the Senate bill authorizes the Director, to the extent he deems it appropriate, to require grant or contract recipients to contribute money, facilities, or services for carrying out the program and activity in question.

Significantly, Public Law 91-513 (sec. 256) did not contain a maintenance of effort clause while such clauses are included in both Senate and House bills for the formula grants, State grants, and special emphasis grants.

A bill serving the purposes of maximum flexibility could contain language like that in section 207 of S. 2097, permitting the Director to require State and local contributions according to their ability to do so. Such a bill, like Public Law 91-513, would contain no provision for maintenance of effort.

Again, we are trying to draw upon the best and what we believe are the most favorable and feasible sections of existing law and the proposed bills: The absence of statutory matching requirements as in S. 2097, the absence of maintenance of effort as in Public Law 91-513, the criteria incorporated into H.R. 12089.

I will plead a special New York State bias on maintenance of effort, a cause in which I have not asked the association to join. Other States, however, may share this special concern.

Interpreted strictly, the maintenance-of-effort provisions in both bills could prevent New York State from benefitting from the national program.

New York State has for years lead the Nation and the Federal Government in its response to this problem, having a current year appropriation of $161 million for drug abuse programs, exclusive of law enforcement.

The prospect is that, due to fiscal emergencies, this appropriation level must be reduced, perhaps in this fiscal year, or certainly in the next. Yet, New York State is certainly capable, as other States may be, of matching any amount of Federal funds if Washington recognizes ongoing effort. On the other hand, New York and many other States would be in an impossible position if the requirement is for new programs using new cash resources.

The bills say Federal funds must be used to supplement and increase "to the extent feasible and practical" the level of State, local, and other non-Federal funds that would "in the absence of such Federal funds" be made available.

The prospect is that, with or without Federal funds, our budget will be reduced, and, thus, because of our extensive programing, so will the budgets of every treatment and rehabilitation agency in New York State.

Does the language emphasized in italics offer opportunity for exceptions? If it does, we would prefer, if maintenance of effort language is to be included, that such exceptions be incorporated into the bill, or set forth in the conference report as the sense of the Congress