Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
1515807
label
Drug Abuse (5)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
1515807
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Drug Abuse (5)
citationUrl
collections
James M. Cannon Files (Ford Administration)
James Cannon's Issues Files
subjects
Mexico
U.S. Congress. 1789-
Crime
Legislation
Presidential messages
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
1515807
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1976-12-31
month
12
year
1976
coverageStartDate
day
16
logicalDate
1976-03-16
month
3
year
1976
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
f3eca91789e02166
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 11, folder "Drug Abuse (5)" of the James M.
Cannon Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald Ford donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Some items in this folder were not digitized because it contains copyrighted
materials. Please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library for access to
these materials.
Digitized from Box 11 of the James M. Cannon Files
at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
OMB recommends against
Justice
VA
DOD
all of the above recommend
disapproval.
FORD LIBRARY & GERALD
RECEIVED
JUL 1976
CENTRAL FILES
THE WHITE HOUSE
=ACTION MEMORANDUM
WASHINGTON Jay Cannon LOG NO.:
Date: March 15
Time: 600pm
Rogers C.B. Morton
FOR ACTION:
Jack Marsh
CC (for information):
Jim
die
Robert Hartmann
Ed
NSC/S
Dick Parsons
Steve McConahey'
Max Friedersdorf
Ken Lazarus
FROM THE STAFF SECRETARY
DUE: Date: March 16 1976
Time:
500pm
SUBJECT:
S. 2017 - Amendments to the Drug Abuse
Office and Treatment Act of 1972
FORD if LIBRARY GERALD
ACTION REQUESTED:
X
For Necessary Action
For Your Recommendations
Prepare Agenda and Brief
Druft Reply
X
For Your Comments
Draft Remarks
REMARKS:
Please return to Judy Johnston, Ground Floor West Wing
PLEASE ATTACH THIS COPY TO MATERIAL SUBMITTED.
If you have any questions or if you anticipate a
delay in submitting the required material, please
James M. Cannon
telephone the Staff Secretary immediately.
For the President
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
MAR 15 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
Subject: Enrolled Bill S. 2017 - Amendments to the Drug Abuse
Office and Treatment Act of 1972
Sponsor - Sen. Hathaway (D) Maine and 6 others
Last Day for Action
March 20, 1976 - Saturday
FORD LIBRARY & GERALD
Purpose
To reestablish a special program coordination office for drug
abuse in the Executive Office of the President, extend appro-
priation authorizations for certain programs of the National
Institute on Drug Abuse, and make other changes in the Drug
Abuse Office and Treatment Act of 1972.
Agency Recommendations
Office of Management and Budget
Disapproval (Veto
message attached)
Department of Justice
Disapproval
Veterans Administration
Disapproval
Department of Defense
Disapproval
Department of Labor
No objection
Department of the Treasury
No objection
Central Intelligence Agency
No objection
Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare
Approval
Civil Service Commission
Approval
Department of Agriculture
Defer to HEW
Department of the Interior
Defer to HEW
Department of State
No comment
Advisory Commission on Intergovern-
mental Relations
No comment
2
Discussion
S. 2017 would amend P.L. 92-255, the Drug Abuse Office and
Treatment Act of 1972, to
--- recreate in the Executive Office of the President
a special office for Federal drug abuse policy
development and coordination, the Office for Drug
Abuse Policy; and
-- extend appropriation authorizations for drug abuse
prevention and treatment programs administered by
the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) in HEW
and authorize a new program of pharmacological
research.
The major issue presented is whether the creation of the new
Office warrants disapproval of the bill.
Office of Drug Abuse Policy
S. 2017 would establish in the Executive Office an Office of
Drug Abuse Policy (ODAP) as a replacement for the Special Action
Office for Drug Abuse Prevention (SAODAP), which terminated
June 30, 1975. ODAP would function as a special staff office
to advise the President on drug abuse matters; recommend Federal
policy, program priorities, and objectives; and coordinate and
evaluate all Federal activities dealing with the prevention
and treatment of drug abuse and the enforcement of drug laws.
ODAP would also recommend changes in the organization, manage-
ment, and personnel of Federal agencies responsible for drug
abuse functions. The Director at Level III of the Executive
Schedule and Deputy Director at Level IV would be appointed by
the President with Senate confirmation. The bill would authorize
$700,000 for 1976, $500,000 for the transition quarter and $2
million in both 1977 and 1978 for the expenses of the Office.
These authorities are similar to those formerly vested in
SAODAP. Unlike SAODAP, however, ODAP would have oversight
authority regarding Federal drug abuse law enforcement as well
as programs for prevention and treatment, and its functions
would be limited to policy direction and program coordination.
The new Office would not have specific authority, as did SAODAP,
to make recommendations on budget requests of Federal agencies.
FORD is LIBRARY GERALD
3
HEW Drug Abuse Project and Formula Grants
FORD & LIBRARY GENALD
S. 2017 would:
-- authorize appropriations for NIDA's formula grants
to States for drug abuse prevention for 1976 through
1978 at an annual level of $45 million and $11
million for the transition quarter. This compares
to your budget requests for $35 million in 1976 and
1977 and no funds for the transition quarter.
-- authorize appropriations for NIDA's drug abuse
services project grants and contracts for 1976
through 1978 at an annual level of $160 million and
$40 million for the transition quarter. This compares
to your budget requests of $126 million for 1976,
$146 million for 1977 and $14.6 million for the transi-
tion quarter. (Currently, this program is operating
on a 1976 continuing resolution level which is $17
million below your request of $126 million.)
-- authorize a new categorical program for drug related
pharmacological research in NIDA for 1976 through
1978 at an annual level of $7 million and $1.75 million
for the transition quarter.
The Administration proposed an extension of the authorizations
for NIDA's formula and project grants but it opposed the
pharmacological research program because it would duplicate
existing HEW authorities; an adequate research program is
already being conducted by NIDA and other Federal agencies, and
the 1977 budget includes $34 million for drug abuse research in
NIDA, including $4.1 million for pharmacological research.
Other Provisions
The enrolled bill would also:
-- direct NIDA to coordinate Federal drug abuse preven-
tion activities with State and local programs and
provide them with technical assistance and other
support activities.
-- reestablish the defunct SAODAP National Advisory
Council and repeal similar authority for an existing
HEW advisory body.
4
-- Prohibit discrimination in admissions and treatment
against drug abusers with medical problems by
hospitals receiving Federal funds. The Secretary
FORD 3 LIBRARY GERALD
of HEW would be directed to issue regulations to
effect that policy, and the Veterans Administration
would be directed to prescribe regulations applying
the HEW regulations to VA hospitals, nursing homes,
domiciliaries, and other medical services for drug
abusing veterans.
Administration Position
The Administration over the last two years has consistently
opposed legislation to create a special drug abuse office in
the Executive Office to replace SAODAP. Your 1976 Budget,
which proposed the termination of SAODAP, stated:
"A separate agency for drug abuse prevention in the
Executive Office of the President is no longer
necessary since the major policy and coordination
issues in drug abuse prevention have been resolved."
Because of concerns that the drug abuse problem was again
worsening and the congressional desire to extend the Special
Action Office, last May you directed the Domestic Council to
conduct a review of all Federal drug abuse programs and to
make recommendations for improving the management and coordina-
tion of all Federal drug abuse activities. The resulting White
Paper on Drug Abuse, whose organizational recommendations you
endorsed in December, recommended the following approaches to
coordination of Federal drug abuse policy and programs:
-- creation of a new Cabinet Committee on Drug Abuse
Prevention to be chaired by the Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare;
-- continuation of the Drug Enforcement Administration
in Justice as the lead agency for law enforcement
and regulatory programs;
-- designation of the Assistant to the President for
Domestic Affairs as Chairman of the Strategy Council
on Drug Abuse, which would exercise government-wide
oversight and coordination of drug abuse programs;
-- expansion of the responsibilities of the Strategy
Council on Drug Abuse to provide coordination
between treatment and enforcement programs; and
5
-- continuation, for a transitional period, of a
small Executive Office staff located in OMB to
provide assistance to the White House staff, the
Strategy Council, and OMB.
We understand that the formal announcement of the Strategy
Council and the Cabinet Committee is to be made in your
message on drug abuse now scheduled for early April.
Arguments for Approval
Congressional proponents of the bill contended that the organiza-
tional mechanisms recommended in the White Paper would lack
sufficient influence and necessary public visibility and that
a separate office headed by Presidential appointees is necessary
to assure access on the part of Congress to the officials
responsible for coordinating drug abuse activities. Because
the new Office would have advisory and coordinating functions
and would be limited to a $2 million annual budget, it is
further argued that it would not intrude upon existing drug
abuse management responsibilities. HEW states in its views
letter that, "The differences between the Administration
approach and that taken in the bill seem to be more of form
than of substance, and do not, in our judgment, provide a
sufficient basis for the President to veto the entire bill."
Finally, approval of the bill would be a positive Administration
action in support of the fight against drug abuse and would pro-
vide high visibility for Administration efforts in this area.
Arguments for Disapproval
Establishment of ODAP would perpetuate a direct Executive Office
drug abuse role when limited Executive Office support and
coordination is necessary. Agencies with drug abuse responsi-
bilities (NIDA -- community based drug abuse prevention; DEA --
enforcement; VA --- drug treatment for veterans; DOD -- worldwide
treatment program for servicemen; LEAA -- State and local
criminal justice system programs; and Bureau of Prisons --
treatment of prisoners) already have the management capacity
and necessary authorities to implement drug abuse policies.
With the implementation of the White Paper's recommendations
and the continuing coordinating roles of the Domestic Council
and OMB, a new unit in the Executive Office is unnecessary.
Finally, the creation of ODAP would deny the President flexibility
in organizing his staff resources in the Executive Office and in-
crease pressure to give similar treatment to other specialized
areas.
GERALD R. LIBRARY FORD
6
Recommendation
We recommend your disapproval of S. 2107 because of its
establishment of ODAP. We believe you should oppose in
principle congressional efforts to add by statute special
advocacy offices to the Executive Office of the President
particularly when mechanisms already exist to perform the
proposed functions.
In this connection, we would note that while the House version
of the bill passed by 382 to 11, a motion to eliminate the
proposed Office of Drug Abuse Policy was rejected by a 237 to
167 vote. The conference report was adopted by voice votes
in both Houses.
A draft veto message is attached for your consideration. In
order to show forceful and timely action by the Administration
to assure continuing attention to the problems of drug abuse
at the Executive Office level, and thereby improve the chances
that a veto will be sustained, we recommend that you use this
veto message rather than the scheduled April drug abuse message
to announce your actions in implementing the organizational
recommendations in the White Paper.
Paul N Paul H. O'Neill Ouin
Deputy Director
Enclosures
FORD is LIBRARY GERALD
TO THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
I return herewith, without my approval, S. 2017, a bill
"to amend the Drug Abuse Office and Treatment Act of 1972 and
FORD is LIBRARY GERALD
for other purposes."
S. 2017 would authorize appropriations that are essential
to continue important drug abuse prevention and treatment
programs of the National Institute on Drug Abuse in the Depart-
ment of Health, Education, and Welfare.
I am disapproving S. 2017, however, because it would create
an unneeded, duplicative Federal agency in the Executive Office
of the President. Since I became President, I have been striving
to reduce the size of the White House office and the Executive
Office of the President and, in the process, to strengthen the
sense of responsibility and accountability of the Executive
Departments and agencies. This bill would have us move in the
opposite direction, creating an agency where none is needed,
providing for a function that is already being performed; mandating
that we hire more highly paid personnel, including a director of
the new agency at a salary of $42,000 and a deputy director at
$39,900, accompanied by supporting staff and authorized to spend
$5 million of the taxpayers' money over the next three years.
There should be no doubt of my position on the need to
prevent illegal trafficking in dangerous drugs and to provide
treatment and rehabilitation of the victims of drug abuse. My
Budget for fiscal year 1977 includes a total of $778 million for
a multifaceted attack on this serious national problem. Moreover,
in December 1975, I approved the recommendations of the Domestic
Council Drug Abuse Task Force for improving the coordination of
Federal policies and programs in the drug abuse field. Those
2
recommendations make unnecessary the creation of a specialized
agency in the Executive Office of the President to replace the
Special Action Office for Drug Abuse Prevention, which termi-
nated June 30, 1975.
In accordance with those recommendations, I intend shortly to:
-- create a new Cabinet Committee on Drug Abuse
Prevention to be chaired by the Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare;
---- designate the Assistant to the President for
Domestic Affairs as Chairman of the Strategy
Council on Drug Abuse; and
-- expand the Council's responsibilities to provide
coordination between treatment and enforcement
programs.
Moreover, the Drug Enforcement Administration of the Depart-
ment of Justice will continue as the lead agency for law enforcement
and regulatory programs, and a small Executive Office staff located
in the Office of Management and Budget will continue to provide
assistance to the White House staff and the Strategy Council.
I cannot support the creation of a new agency that would
require an additional $5 million of taxpayers' funds over the
next three years merely to do what is being accomplished under
FORD LIBRARY is GERALD
existing arrangements.
I urge the Congress to act promptly to enact the necessary
authorizations of appropriations to continue the existing programs
for drug abuse prevention and treatment conducted by the National
Institute on Drug Abuse.
GENERAL
LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS
Department of Justice
Washington, D.C. 20530
March 12, 1976
Honorable James T. Lynn
Director, Office of Management
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
and Budget
Washington, D.C. 20503
Dear Mr. Lynn:
In compliance with your request, I have examined a
facsimile of the enrolled bill S. 2017, "To amend the
Drug Abuse Office and Treatment Act of 1972, and for
other-purposes."
S. 2017, would establish in the Executive Office
of the President the Office of Drug Abuse Policy. This
Office would be charged with the responsibility to co-
ordinate the Federal drug abuse effort domestically and
would represent the Federal Government on issues relating
to drug abuse functions in discussions and negotiations
of an international nature.
S. 2017 provides the Director of the Office with the
authority to supervise the Federal drug abuse effort via
establishment and review of policies, objectives, priori-
ties and regulations of Federal drug abuse departments
and agencies and to conduct evaluations of the performance
and results of any such drug abuse functions by such
departments and agencies.
In addition, the bill provides for the encouragement
of research and development of certain drug abuse programs
through contracts and grants; provide technical assistance
to State and local agencies; provide for the admission of
drug abusers to private and public hospitals; to provide
for the submission of an annual report to the President
and Congress on the activities of the Office; provide for
timely notice to the Director relating to the control of
dangerous drugs by the Attorney General and the Secretary
of Health, Education and Welfare prior to initiating any
-2-
action or proceeding under 201 (a) of the Controlled Sub-
stances Act; and an appropriate authorization.
The Department is not aware of any demonstrated need
for the Office of Drug Abuse Policy as would be established
by S. 2017 and accordingly is unable to recommend executive
approval of this measure.
Sincerely,
Wichael W. Walman
Michael M. Uhlmann
Assistant Attorney General
FORD is LIBRARY GERALD
VETERANS ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
ANERICAN REVOLUTION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20420
1776-1978
March 12, 1976
The Honorable
James T. Lynn
Director, Office of
Management and Budget
FORD LIBRARY is DERALD
Washington, D. C. 20503
Dear Mr. Lynn:
This will respond to the request of the Assistant
Director for Legislative Reference for the views of the Vet-
erans Administration on an enrolled enactment of S. 2017,
94th Congress, a bill "To amend the Drug Abuse Office and
Treatment Act of 1972, and for other purposes."
The subject act would provide for ongoing, and
highly visible Federal leadership in the formation and
execution of a comprehensive, coordinated drug abuse policy.
It would establish in the Executive Office of the President
an office to be known as the Office of Drug Abuse Policy.
The Director of the Office would make recommendations to
the President with respect to policies for objectives of,
and establishment of priority for, Federal drug abuse func-
tions. He would review the drug abuse functions of Federal
agencies and evaluate these functions. The act provides
that drug abusers who are suffering from medical conditions
would not be discriminated against. Necessary regulations
pertaining thereto would be promulgated. Technical assis-
tance concerning drug abuse prevention functions would be
provided to State and local agencies. Expanded research
drug programs would be encouraged.
We do not believe the requirements that would be
placed on the Veterans Administration by this act are neces-
sary or desirable. Our mission to provide medical care to
veterans as specified in title 38, United States Code, ade-
quately accommodates the treatment of drug abuse and related
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
research. Initiatives under way, led by the Office of Man-
agement and Budget, are currently addressing the technical
issues involved in increased information sharing between
Federal agencies, a program for evaluation of drug abuse
treatment outcome, and a program for improved collaboration
between the courts, the penal system, and the health care
system. In the face of this recent initiative, the bill
risks adding even another layer of review and supervisory
oversight between the level of clinical services and the
Congress.
We believe the Veterans Administration should
have, as an oversight responsibility, the right to evaluate
its own performance of drug abuse functions. Under S. 2017,
the Director of the Office of Drug Abuse Policy would con-
duct the evaluations of the Veterans Administration's per-
formance of drug abuse functions. This is competitive with
the Veterans Administration's own sizable and still increas-
ing program for quality assurance. At best, the proposal
would duplicate the Veterans Administration's program.
We fully support the policy of nondiscrimination
in providing medical care to drug abusers; however, the
requirement in this act that the Administrator of Veterans
Affairs prescribe regulations for this purpose is unnecessary.
In addition, the requirements: for a full report (1) on regula-
tions prescribed pursuant to section 407 (b) (2) of the act
and (2) explaining the basis for any inconsistency between
such regulations and regulations of the Secretary of Health,
Education, and Welfare are excessive to the need for con-
tinuing liaison with, and input to, the appropriate Congres-
sional Committees, (an activity strongly endorsed by and
practiced by the VA) and are potentially aggravating to nor-
mal peer relations between Health, Education, and Welfare,
and Veterans Administration. We believe the Veterans Admin-
istration should not be placed on the defensive when it
operates within the mandate of its statutory authority.
2.
For the reasons stated, I recommend that the Pres-
ident withhold his approval of S. 2017.
Sincerely,
Odell W.Vangh
Deputy Administrator - in the absence
RICHARD L. ROUDEBUSH
Administrator
FORD LIBRARY j
3.
GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20301
March 11, 1976
Honorable James T. Lynn
Director, Office of Management
FORD i LIBRARY 9ERALD
and Budget
Washington, D.C. 20503
Dear Mr. Lynn:
Reference is made to your request for the views of the Department of
Defense with respect to the enrolled enactment of S. 2017, 94th Congress,
an act "To amend the Drug Abuse Office and Treatment Act of 1972, and
for other purposes."
The bill provides for the establishment of an Office of Drug Abuse
Policy in the Executive Office of the President to perform federal drug
abuse policy and coordination functions previously assigned to the
Special Action Office for Drug Abuse Prevention. The bill also provides
for authority for appropriation of funds to support drug abuse respon-
sibilities of the National Institute on Drug Abuse.
In lieu of the establishment of the Office for Drug Abuse Policy, the
Department of Defense continues to support the recommendations of the
White Paper on Drug Abuse of the Domestic Council Drug Abuse Task Force,
dated 29 September 1975. This report, prepared by a Task Force of
members from federal agencies with drug abuse control responsibilities,
recognized the need for continued and improved coordination of federal
drug abuse prevention activities. It recommended that this be accom-
plished through a new Cabinet Committee on Drug Abuse Prevention,
chaired by the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare. This would
lodge responsibility in appropriate Cabinet heads instead of creating or
continuing a separate, central office in the Executive Office of the
President.
With regard to those sections of the bill which provide for authority
for appropriation of funds for functions of the National Institute on
Drug Abuse, the Department of Defense defers to the views of the Secretary
of Health, Education, and Welfare.
Cost and Budget Data
This bill would not have a direct budgetary impact on the Department of
Defense.
Richard Sincerely, A. a. Wiley nila
THE TREANUSA
THE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE TREASURY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20220
1739
MAR 11 1976
Director, Office of Management and Budget
Executive Office of the President
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
Washington, D.C. 20503
Attention: Assistant Director for Legislative
Reference
Sir:
Reference is made to your request for the views of this Department
on the enrolled enactment of S. 2017, "To amend the Drug Abuse Office
and Treatment Act of 1972, and for other purposes."
The enrolled enactment establishes an Office of Drug Abuse Policy
(Office) in the Executive Office of the President for a three year
period and amends certain provisions of the Drug Abuse Office and
Treatment Act of 1972. The principal and fundamental role of the Office
is to be an advisory one to the President, proposing Federal policies
and priorities for both Federal drug law enforcement and prevention-
treatment functions, and the coordination of those functions at all
Federal levels. Consistent with that role, the Office would review
agency regulations, guidelines, requirements, criteria, and procedures,
and would conduct such evaluations of Federal agency performance in
these areas as is necessary and appropriate. While Treasury questions
the need for the creation of the new Office, it supports other provisions
of the enactment which should strengthen the Government's ability to
deal with any drug abuse problems.
The Department would have no objection to a recommendation that
the enrolled enactment be approved by the President.
Sincerely yours,
General Counsel
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20505
11 March 1976
Mr. James M. Frey
Assistant Director for Legislative Reference
Office of Management and Budget
Washington, D.C. 20503
Dear Mr. Frey:
This is in response to your request for comments on
enrolled bill, S. 2017. Please be advised that this legislation
would not adversely affect this Agency's responsibilities in the
narcotics intelligence area. Therefore, we do not oppose
Presidential approval of this bill.
Sincerely,
Kaun A.Waltin
Vernon A. Walters
Lieutenant General, USA
Deputy Director
FORD LIBRARY & GERALD
AMERICAN REVOLUTION WENTENNAL
1776-1976
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION. AND WELFARE
The Honorable James T. Lynn
Director, Office of Management
MAR 11 1975
and Budget
Washington, D. C. 20503
Dear Mr. Lynn:
This is in response to your request of March 8, 1976,
for a report on S. 2017, an enrolled bill "To amend the
Drug Abuse Office and Treatment Act of 1972, and for other
purposes.
"
In summary, we recommend that the President sign the enrolled
bill, because the bill would extend, at levels very close
to those proposed by the President, important programs in
the area of drug abuse. Although we do not favor the
enrolled bill's establishment of the Office of Drug Abuse
Policy, we do not feel this is sufficient grounds to
recommend that the President not approve the bill, due to
the limited authority and budget the Office would have.
The enrolled bill would--
-- establish the Office of Drug Abuse Policy (ODAP)
within the Executive Office of the President to
make policy recommendations concerning and
coordinate Federal drug abuse functions, with an
appropriation authorization of $700 thousand for
fiscal year 1976, $500 thousand for the transition
quarter (TQ), and $2 million for each of the fiscal
years 1977 and 1978,
-- require Senate confirmation of the Director and
Deputy Director of ODAP,
-- prohibit hospitals receiving Federal funds from
discriminating in admissions or treatment against
persons who are dependent on or abusers of drugs
who do not meet the requirement under the current
discrimination provision of suffering from emergency
medical conditions,
The Honorable James T. Lynn
2
-- extend the drug abuse formula grant authority for
fiscal years 1976 through 1978 at an annual level
of $45 million (and one-fourth that amount for the
TQ) i the Budget request for each of the fiscal years
1976 and 1977, and the current level under the
continuing resolution, is $35 million,
-- extend the drug abuse project grant authority for
fiscal years 1976 through 1978 at an annual level
of $160 million (and one-fourth that amount for the
TQ) ; the Budget request for fiscal year 1976 is
$126 million, for the TQ, $12.1 million, and for
fiscal year 1977, $145 million; the current level
under the continuing resolution is $109 million,
$17 million less than the fiscal year 1976 Budget
request,
- authorize the Director of the National Institute
on Drug Abuse to provide technical assistance to
State and local agencies, and
-- direct the Director to support a specific research
program concerning nonaddictive or less addictive
substitutes for opium, long-lasting nonaddictive
pharmacological substances for treatment of heroin
addiction, and heroin detoxification agents, for
which $7 million annually would be authorized to be
appropriated for fiscal years 1976 through 1978
(and one-fourth that amount for the TQ).
Although the enrolled bill would again statutorily establish an
office concerned with drug abuse in the Executive Office
of the President, the office would have only recommendatory
and coordinating functions, and be limited to a $2 million
annual budget. We feel that such an office mandated by
statute is unnecessary. However, the Administration has
already proposed to provide for appropriate high-level policy
advice, including the creation of a Cabinet Committee on Drug
Abuse Prevention. The differences between the Administration
approach and that taken in the bill seem to be more of form
than of substance, and do not, in our judgment, provide a
The Honorable James T. Lynn
3
sufficient basis for the President to veto the entire bill.
Similarly, the $7 million set-aside for one specific type of
drug abuse research is not desirable, but is not so important
as to suggest a veto.
The bill extends through fiscal year 1978 the drug abuse
formula grant and project grant authorities which are vital
in our efforts to cope with the nationwide problem of misuse
of drugs. The authorization levels proposed are very close
to those proposed by the Administration; the differences
can be worked out through the appropriation process. Spending
for fiscal year 1976 for project grants is restricted by the
continuing resolution to a level $17 million less than that
considered necessary by the Administration simply to continue
existing grants; enactment of the enrolled bill would permit
the appropriation of these additional needed funds.
For these reasons, we recommend that the President approve
the enrolled bill.
Sincerely,
majore bynch
Under
Secretary
FORD LIBRARY is GERALD
UNITED
STATE
UNITED STATES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
EDITION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20415
CHAIRMAN
March 12, 1976
Honorable James T. Lynn
Director
Office of Management and Budget
Washington, D.C. 20503
Attention: Assistant Director for
Legislative Reference
Dear Mr. Lynn:
This is in reply to your request for the Commission's views on
Enrolled S. 2017, "To amend the Drug Abuse Office and Treatment
Act of 1972, and for other purposes."
The bill would establish in the Executive Office of the President
an office to be known as the Office of Drug Abuse Policy, which
would replace the existing Special Action Office for Drug Abuse
Prevention.
Our comments are limited to the personnel provisions. New sec-
tion 202 provides for a Director to be appointed by the President,
by and with the advice and consent of the Senate; section 203
provides for a Deputy Director to be appointed and confirmed in
the same way. Section 209 provides for the Director to be com-
pensated at level III of the Executive Schedule, and the Deputy
to be compensated at level IV of the Executive Schedule. We believe
these levels of compensation are appropriate. We note that there
will be a change from the level II allocation provided for the Di-
rector of the existing Special Action Office for Drug Abuse Prevention.
Under section 205, employees of the Office of Drug Abuse Policy
would be subject to the General Schedule classification and pay
system. This is appropriate. Section 205 also provides that in
addition to the usual number of supergrade positions allowed
under 5 U.S.C. 5108, an additional four nonquota positions are to
be allocated to the Office of Drug Abuse Policy. The Commission
has on numerous occasions objected to legislation which added
supergrade positions to the general pool by earmarking them for
a specific agency rather than approving them for Government-wide
distribution by the Civil Service Commission. It is also
preferable that 5 U.S.C. 5108 be amended when such spaces are
added.
FORD is LIBRARY 93V839
2.
Section 206 provides for the employment of experts and consultants
as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109 at a rate not in excess of the
rate for GS-18. We agree with this. However, we do not agree with
the provision in this section which allows the Director to employ
at any one time up to six experts and consultants without any
limitation on the number of days or periods of service. We see
no reason for the exception to the statutory limitation of 1 year
on the terporary services of experts and consultants.
Cection 207 provides for the acceptance of voluntary and uncorpensated
services. We prefer language spelling out that personnel servine as
volunteers will not be considered Federal employees except for injury
compensation and tort claims.
Although we object to several of the personnel provisions, our
objections are not such as to warrant a veto of this legislation.
We therefore recommend the President sign Enrolled S. 2017.
By direction of the Commission:
Sincerely yours,
ACTINECHAIRMAN
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
OFFICE of THE SECRETARY
WASHINGTON, 0 C. 20260
March I 1, 1976
Honorable James T. Lynn
Director, Office of Management
and Budget
Washington, D.C. 20503
Dear Mr. Lynn:
In reply to the request of your office, the following report is submitted
on the enrolled enactment of S. 2017, "To amend the Drug Abuse Office and
Treatment Act of 1972, and for other purposes.'
Since the Department of Agriculture is only involved in those proposed
activities as described in section 13 of the Act, we will restrict our
comments to that section only and defer to other concerned agencies for
their comments on the remainder.
Section 13 of the Act charges the Director of the Office of Drug Abuse
Policy "to encourage and promote (by grants, contracts, or otherwise)
expanded research programs to create, develop, and test--
"(1) synthetic analgesics, antitussives, and other drugs which are -
"(A) nonaddictive, or
"(B) less addictive than opium or its derivatives, to replace
opium and its derivatives in medical use;
"(2) long-lasting, nonaddictive blocking or antagonistic drugs or
other pharmacological substances for treatment of heroin
addiction; and
"(3) detoxification agents which, when administered, will ease the
physical effects of withdrawal from heroin addiction."
Paragraphs A and B of subsection 1 are, in essence, promoting development of
synthetic codeine or codeine substitutes because in the United States at
least 95% of the opium used in medicine is in the form of codeine and it
is the preferred drug for treatment of intermediate levels of pain
(analgesic) and for cough suppression (antitussive).
Subsections 2 and 3 are directed at drug abuse (heroin) therapy.
llonorable James T. Lynn
2
This section of the Act could have considerable impact on the research
program of this Department aimed at developing Papaver bracteatum as an
alternate source to the opium poppy of raw material for elaboration of
codeine. Papaver bracteatum, unlike the opium poppy, does not produce
the abusable alkaloid morphine from which, by chemical conversion, we
cotain codeine and also heroin. Papaver bracteatum produces only the
alkaloid thebaine which can be chemically converted to codeine but only
with great difficulty, and in low yields, to heroin. Thebaine is toxic
cannot be abused. There are derivatives of thebaine which are
STRATE potent analgesics and theoretically are subject to abuse.
Sevever, they are extremely difficult to make, and, in the opinion of
seus abuse specialists, would not be drugs of choice on the street.
Some of the derivatives of thebaine, naloxone for one, are used as
antagonists to heroin overdoses.
Da the other hand, synthetic codeine may not be an unmixed blessing.
At present the raw materials for codeine are plant derived and are
controlled substances under international treaties and conventions
and national laws. If eventually codeine can be totally synthesized
from inexpensive, easily available starting materials which would not
be controlled substances, then overproduction and diversion is a real
threat. The synthetic psychotropic drugs, such as LSD, amphetamines,
and barbiturates, have, among drugs manufactured in the United States,
the worst record of abuse through diversion into illicit channels.
Synthetic codeine may bring control liabilities which more than offset
Its benefits as compared with sources of natural codeine.
The concerns expressed have come to our attention as a result of our
vegetative work. However, we defer to the National Institute for
Drug Abuse, NIH, in this matter.
Sincerely,
Earl h.Butz
Earl L. Butz
Secretary
FORD LIBRARY :
United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240
MAR 9 - 1976
Dear Mr. Lynn:
This responds to your request for our views on the enrolled bill
S. 2017, "To amend the Drug Abuse Office and Treatment Act of 1972,
and for other purposes. 11
While we would have no objection to approval of the bill by the
President, we defer to the views of the Department of Health,
Education and Welfare and other more directly concerned agencies
as to the advisability of such approval.
S. 2017 makes comprehensive amendments to the Drug Abuse Office and
Treatment Act of 1972, including the establishment of an Office of
Drug Abuse Policy in the Executive Office of the President.
Sincerely yours,
Assistant
Secretary of the Interior
Honorable James T. Lynn
Director, Office of
Management and Budget
Washington, D.C.
GERATO FORD LIBRARY
REVOLUTION
1776-1976
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Washington, D.C. 20520
MAR 10 1976
Honorable James T. Lynn
Director, Office of
Management and Budget
Washington, D.C. 20503
Dear Mr. Lynn:
With reference to Mr. Frey's communication of
March 8, 1976, we have no comment to make on
the enclosed bill request (S.2017).
Sincerely,
Robert Robert Jme McCloskey Closing
Assistant Secretary for
Congressional Relations
FORD LIBRARY is
ADVISORY
COMMISSION ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS
MASSACHUSETTS
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20575
March 9, 1976
James M. Frey
Assistant Director
for Legislative Reference
Office of Management and Budget
Washington, D.C. 20503
Dear Mr. Frey:
This is in response to your Legislative Referral Memorandum of
March 8, 1976, requesting the views of the Advisory Commission on
Intergovernmental Relations on S. 2017, the enroled bill "To amend the
Drug Abuse Office and Treatment Act of 1972, and for other purposes."
The Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations has not
examined the issues involved, and from the standpoint of intergovern-
mental effects the Commission's staff has no opinion concerning the
bill. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this
proposed measure.
Sincerely,
Dovid B. Walfar
David B. Walker
Assistant Director
DBW/lss
80 LIBRARY
LIBRARY
ORD
THE WASHINGTON POST Thursday, March R 18, 1976 A 29
Mexico Rejects 'Scapegoat' Role on Drugs
The Merlice
Simons . mains supplier for U.S. fields in all 10 of its drug. March "hee largely been de destrov. the plantations hv government spent close in
Common FY
DECISION
Drugs
THE WHITE HOUSE
Last Day for Action:
March 20, 1976
WASHINGTON
March 18, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
JIM CANNON
SUBJECT:
Enrolled Bill S. 2017 -- Amendments to the
Drug Abuse Office and Treatment of 1972
This bill would amend the Drug Abuse Office and Treatment
Act of 1972 to:
1. establish in the Executive Office of the President a
special office for Federal drug abuse policy develop-
ment and coordination --- the Office of Drug Abuse
Policy; and
2. extend the appropriation authorizations for drug abuse
prevention and treatment programs administered by the
National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) in the Depart-
ment of Health, Education, and Welfare and authorize a
new program of pharmacological research.
OMB recommends a veto because the bill would mandate in the
Executive Office an Office of Drug Abuse Policy that is both
unnecessary and costly.
Justice, VA and Defense agree with OMB in recommending a veto.
HEW and the Civil Service Commission recommend approval.
SENIOR STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
I agree with OMB that we do not need the proposed Office
of Drug Abuse Policy. The $5 million proposed for ODAP
for fiscal years 1976, 1977, and 1978 could be better spent
on enforcement.
-2-
But a veto, at a time when we are trying to educate
members of Congress on the dimension and seriousness
of the drug problem, would in my judgment be counter-
productive.
DECISION
There are three options:
1. Veto as recommended by OMB (Tab A). This option is
supported by NSC. Sign veto message (Tab C)
2. Sign S. 2017 (Tab D) and issue brief comment (Tab E).
Approve
Disapprove
3. Sign S. 2017 (Tab D) with a statement indicating
your intention not to seek an appropriation for the
office. (Tab F)
This option is supported by Counsel's Office (Lazarus),
Robert T. Hartmann, Jack Marsh, the Domestic Council
and Max Friedersdorf.
Friedersdorf recommends approval because (1) this is
the unanimous recommendation of Congressional leaders
and (2) he does not believe we can sustain a veto.
(Tab B)
Approve
Disapprove
MEMORANDUM
Hold
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 19, 1976
Duy
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Jim Cannon
FROM:
Dick Parsons
A
SUBJECT:
Testimony before Appropriations
Subcommittee
When Jim Lynn testified before Congressman Steed's sub-
committee last Wednesday concerning OMB's budget, most of
the questions he got dealt with Customs' budget. The
thrust of the questions was: How can you cut Customs'
budget and talk about a major effort against illicit drugs
at the same time?
I expect you will receive similar treatment, so I have
attached a background paper for your review. I have also
attached a paper generally describing the President's
1977 drug budget.
Attachments
MEMORANDUM
Hold
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 19, 1976
Duy
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Jim Cannon
FROM:
Dick Parsons
D.
SUBJECT:
Testimony before Appropriations
Subcommittee
When Jim Lynn testified before Congressman Steed's sub-
committee last Wednesday concerning OMB's budget, most of
the questions he got dealt with Customs' budget. The
thrust of the questions was: How can you cut Customs'
budget and talk about a major effort against illicit drugs
at the same time?
I expect you will receive similar treatment, so I have
attached a background paper for your review. I have also
attached a paper generally describing the President's
1977 drug budget.
Attachments
LIBRARY
CHUS
BACKGROUND CONCERNING CUSTOMS' BUDGET
The FY 1977 budget request for the U.S. Customs Service
is $324 million, an increase of $5 million over FY 1976 and
$32 million over FY 1975. Since the increase does not
entirely cover pay and other price increases, the FY 1977
budget reflects a modest reduction in real terms.
U. S. Customs Service
(Excludes reimbursables)
1975
1976
1977
% Change
BA (millions)
292.4
319.1
324.1
1.6%
O (millions)
298.5
337.7
322.5
(45)
Permanent Positions
13,438
13,453
13,131
(2.4)
Work years
13,076
13,255
12,936
(2.4)
The FY 1977 is approximately $10.0 million below that level
which would be needed to maintain current levels. OMB
justifies the cut as follows:
Amount
in Millions
Work Years
Productivity increases
$ 3.8
255
Reduction in:
Equipment
3.7
- -
Premium Pay
1.3
- -
Cargo Security Program
1.0
67
Rounding
.2
- -
Total Reduction
$10.0
322
Any reduction in Customs budget is usually severely
criticized by the House Appropriations Subcommittee. The
criticism usually is couched in terms of reflecting the
Subcommittees' concern that adequate staff be provided for
processing travellers and imports, to open new ports or
expand hours of service, and to interdict drugs. However,
the fact that Customs is one of the Committees' favorite
agencies has at least as much to do with the criticism as
any substantive reasons.
Chairman Steed was absent from this years appropriation
hearing on Customs. However, a number of probing budget
questions to be supplied for the record were asked by Mr.
Addabo who chaired the hearing. Typical questions were:
"Will you be required to fire any personnel now on board?"
"Will you be required to reduce hours of service at
existing ports?"
"Will you be required to close any ports of entry?"
In answering these questions Customs listed all the
possible consequences of the $10 million budget reduction,
For example, Customs stated that:
"We believe it will be necessary to effect some
reductions-in-force."
"We have tentatively identified 25-30 ports-of-entry
where reduced hours of service may be necessary."
" (on closing ports-of-entry) "We will, of course take
every measure to minimize the impact and insure the
smallest number of persons are effected." Customs
analysis
"
indicates that at some 15 to 25 locations,
primarily on the Canadian border and at selected
in-land sites, curtail (ed) service or even the closing
of the port will have minimum impact."
Other than these answers supplied for the record, the
rest of the hearing went very smoothly. OMB's reasons
(Seventy Issues) for the reductions were never made but
neither was a good case made against the reductions. Customs
Commissioner Acree generally supported the President's
budget in testimony stating that Customs would do the best
job possible with the resources available. The Committee
members (present were Messrs. Addabo, Miller, Roybal, Sikes,
Patten, McEwen) were most interested in drug interdiction
and did not seem upset by the Customs budget request (of
course, Chairman Steed was absent).
During the Subcommittee hearings on OMB's and the
Domestic Council's budgets, we and Treasury expect that
Chairman Steed will enumerate all the possible consequences,
as supplied by Customs, of the $10 million reduction.
Specifically the following contentions are anticipated:
any cut in Customs is "penny-wise and pound-foolish"
because Customs collects $16 for every $1 expended.
any cut in Customs will hamper Customs drug interdiction ---
Customs has stated that "instead of an originally
estimated 25% increase in seizures, we can expect a
10% decrease in seizures".
reductions are unrealistic because the number of
travellers and imports are increasing.
OMB's contention about declines in workload from
projected levels (Seventy Issues) is fallacious
becuase Customs was never properly funded in the past.
reductions will delay travellers and importers, force
the closing of ports, and generally decrease service
to the public.
OMB rebuttals are that:
- No significant revenue loss will occur because little
relationship exists between staffing and revenues.
-- Historically Customs staffing has increased by
8% annually from 1969-1975 while revenues in constant
dollars decreased 8.1% annually (import deflator),
(receipts increased 5.1% annually in unadjusted
dollars) i this inverse relationship indicates
little relationship between staffing and revenue;
- Duty rates and value of imports seem to be greater
factorsin producing revenues than staffing levels;
-- The erratic relationship between staffing and
revenues must be borne in mind when dealing with such
claims as a dollar spent in Customs earns $16 in
revenue. The $16 to 1 relationship merely reflects
a division of (1) total revenues received by Customs
(mostly as a result of voluntary actions by law
abiding citizens) by (2) the amount of appropriated
funds spent by Customs. No data is available to
show the revenues achieved solely as a result of
enforcement efforts. Without such data, of course,
it is impossible to judge the potential increase
in revenue from an increase in enforcement activities.
-- The $100 to $125 million revenue loss which Customs
attributes to the $10 million cut (a relationship
of 10-12 to 1) has the same problems as the 16 to
1 relationship. Namely that the estimates rests
heavily upon the judgement of Customs managers
instead of statistical analysis.
- A decline in drug seizures or a decrease in the drug
effort should not be anticipated.
-- Added emphasis by the President, Domestic Council
and Customs managers on the importance of drug
interdiction should increase the drug effort
and its effectiveness with the same or lower
staff. A demonstration of the increase in
seizures that can occur with the same staff
level recently occured during the first six
months of FY1976.
FORD LIBRARY is
Six Months
FY1975
FY1976
% Change
Heroin (1b)
44
226
+414
Number of
Seizures
194
249
+ 28
Cocain (lb)
383
386
- -
Number of
Seizures
448
606
+ 35
Marihuana (lb) 233,583
304,299
+ 30
Number of
Seizures
7,688
6,348
- 17
This rise is probably due to a combination of
factors including emphasis upon drugs by the
Administration. The size of Custom staff was
not a factor because only 15 permanent positions
(less than 2/10 of 1%) were added in Customs
between 1975 and 1976 (work-years were also
relatively stable).
-- Customs efforts should be particularly sensitive
to changes in emphasis because their employees
split their time between various functions (eg.
inspections for revenue, drugs, and other commod-
ities). More emphasis upon drugs should result
in more time spent by these employees upon drug
interdiction.
-- Reductions in the staff assigned to the law en-
forcement function (33 out of a total of 2,411
average positions), specifically the Custom Patrol
Officers who patrol the border, were made only
where Customs productivity gains would permit such
reductions without an adverse effect on drug
enforcement (OMB accepted the reductions recommended
by Customs in this area but made no further staff cuts).
- Staff reductions are primarily related and due to the
recent decline in workload requirements from those
levels previously anticipated.
--- Previous workload estimates assumed continuation
of past increases in the number of travellers and
formal entries which had been averaging 8% over
the past 10 years. Over 1,000 additional average
positions were added to handle this workload in 1975.
--- The anticipated workload was not realized; instead
1975 workload declined from 1974 levels by 6% for
formal import entries and 4% for travellers.
While the number of travellers and import entries
is expected to increase in 1977, they remain below
that previously expected for 1975 and 1976. Staff
can therefore be reduced without affecting normal
service.
-- The "catch-up" theory states that Customs was not
adequately funded in past years in comparison with
workload and needs to "catch up" in funding for
these past deficiencies. If "catch up" was
occuring, than the quality of processing would
increase while the processing rate (number of
travellers or formal entires per average position)
would decrease. A review of processing rates
from 1969-1974 (1975 was excluded because of the
economic downturn) shows that catch up was not
occuring in processing imports (formal entries)
since rates are stable; catch up was occurring
in processing travellers since rates were less
than half of previous levels. The rates proposed
in the 1977 budget reflect these trends, thus
taking account of the "catch up" theory in pro-
cessing travellers:
*
The rate for travellers is 10% below 1974
(1974 was the lowest processing rate
between 1969 and 1974.)
*
The rate for imports is equal to the lowest
rate which occurred between 1969-1974;
-- We believe these rates are reasonable and avoid
the error of using 1975, a year when staff increased
and workload declined, as a base year.
ADADH ДЕРО
FY '77
Drug Abuse: Prevention, Treatment, and Law Enforcement
Drug abuse is a tragic national problem which strikes
at the heart of our national well-being. Counting
narcotic-related crime, addicts' lost productivity,
criminal justice system costs, and treatment and
prevention programs as major items, estimates range
from a conservative $10 billion upwards to $17 billion
a year. In addition, the costs in terms of ruined
lives, broken homes, and divided communities is
incalculable.
Accordingly, the highest priority has been given to
eliminating this threat over the past half decade, with
total Federal expenditures growing from less than $100
million to over three quarters of a billion dollars for
a comprehensive program of prevention and treatment, law
enforcement, and international control. Real progress
was made, but by early 1975, it was clear that conditions
were worsening and that gains of prior years were being
eroded. For example, "street" availability of heroin
measured by price and purity, was increasing. Waiting
lists for treatment existed again, after almost having
disappeared. Drug related deaths and drug related
appearances in hospital emergency rooms were increasing.
Drug related crimes were on the upsurge.
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
Deeply concerned about this evidence of increasing
availability and use of drugs, President Ford directed
a high priority review of the entire Federal effort in
drug law enforcement, treatment and prevention, and inter-
national control. He asked for a frank assessment of
the extent of the problem and for detailed recommendations
for making the Federal program more effective. The President
has endorsed the resulting White Paper on Drug Abuse, and
the numerous Federal agencies and departments involved in
the drug program are moving rapidly to implement its major
recommendations for minimizing the adverse effects and social
costs of drug abuse.
The President's FY 1977 budget requests sufficient funds to
implement all of the white papers' major recommendations.
For example, in line with white paper recommendations,
additional resources are provided for:
the growing problem of amphetamine and barbiturate
abuse. The white paper concludes that chronic,
intensive, and medically unsupervised use of amphetamines
and barbiturates ranks just behind heroin abuse as a
major social problem, affecting several hundred
thousand Americans. To respond, the budget requests
funds for treatment demonstrations for abusers of
these substances, and provides 20 new positions within
the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for
183
Also, the President has taken steps which require congres-
sional approval before they come into force. For example,
he has proposed a mandatory minimum sentence for drug
traffickers. He has urged Congress to ratify the
Convention of Psychotropic Substances, so the United States
can fulfill its obligation to other nations of the world
to see that strong international controls exist for all
drugs. Finally, the President has stated that he will
shortly send to the Congress a comprehensive message on
drug abuse establishing a framework for a broad government
response to this critical problem.
DRUG ABUSE PREVENTION BUDGET
OBLIGATIONS IN $ MILLION
DEMAND REDUCTION
FY 75
FY 76
FY 77
SAODAP
13.0
0.0
0.0
HEW
-
-
-
- ADAMHA (NIDA & NIMH)
219.7
222.0
248.2
- Office of Education
4.0
2.0
0.0
- Social and Rehabilitation Serv
79.0
88.0
94.0
- Office of Human Development
8.8
8.8
9.4
Defense
64.0
61.3
57.8
Veterans Administration
34.8
36.7
38.0
Justice
26.6
26.4
24.3
All Other
8.2
9.9
10.5
458.1
455.1
482.2
SUPPLY REDUCTION
Justice
-
-
-
- Drug Enforcement Administration
139.4
156.4
160.8
- LEAA and other Justice
62.2
43.6
40.9
-
-
Treasury
-
- Customs
39.1
43.2
43.4
- IRS
20.0
20.0
15.0
State
32.0
43.4
34.0
Other
1.9
2.1
2.1
294.6
208.7
296.2
752.7
763.8
778.4
191
strengthened regulatory and compliance activities
aimed at preventing diversion of amphetamines and
barbiturates from licit production;
additional community treatment capacity. Funds are
included for the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)
to fund at least 7000 new community treatment slots
and to recover 1000 lost to inflation, thus provided
Federally-supported community-based capacity to treat
102,000 individuals at one time. In addition, other
managerial actions will ensure greater utilization of
existing community mental health institutions for
drug users, and the treatment capacity of the Bureau
of Prisons, the Veterans Administration, and the
Department of Defense for their specialized clientele will
be maintained;
better targeting of law enforcement effort at high
level traffickers. The Drug Enforcement Administration
will add 82 positions for improved intelligence and
laboratory analysis aimed at supporting the existing
investigation and enforcement effort. In addition,
research will be focused on improving our capability
to monitor drug abuse trends, and on developing tools
and techniques to improve the productivity of investi-
gators and agents;
improve job opportunities for ex-addicts: Additional
funds are provided for a joint HEW/Labor program to
investigate ways to provide employment opportunities
FORD LIBRARY
for persons in aid completing treatment, so that the
distressing situation of returning to the same
conditions which led to drug use can be avoided In
addition, other managerial actions should ensure
improved application of our vocational rehabilitation
services to drug users.
These specific budget increases are relatively modest because
it was the unanimous conclusion of the task force which
prepared the white paper that the most significant progress
could be made in the drug program through (1) more selectivity
and targeting in the use of the current $750 million budget;
(2) better intra- and inter-agency management; and (3) more
effective mobilization, utilization, and coordination of all
the resources available in the Federal Government, State
and local governments, the private community and from
foreign governments engaged in the world-wide effort to
corbat drug trafficking. In line with this concept, the
budget provides for:
189
continued material and technical support for
other nation's involved in the fight against drug
trafficking and for the training of foreign narcotic
agents;
continuation of the DEA Task Force Program which
capitalizes on joint Federal and local efforts,
and continued training and laboratory support
for State and local officers;
a major multi-year program within the National
Institute on Drug Abuse to evaluate the outcome
of various types of treatment.
In addition to these budgetary actions, existing resources
are being retargeted to focus law enforcement efforts on
high level drug traffickers and to ensure that treatment is
available to those individuals suffering most from drug abuse.
Other actions underway should ensure increased interface
between the treatment and criminal justice systems to assure
that apprehended drug users are identified and provided
opportunities for treatment. In the area of inter-agency
coordination, officers of the Drug Enforcement Administration,
the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and the U.S.
Customs Service and their respective cabinet departments
have prepared and signed joint "Memoranda of Understanding"
identifying operating guidelines which should improve
cooperation among them.
In the international area, the President has spoken personally
to Presidents Echeverria of Mexico and Lopez-Michelsen of
Columbia and with Prime Minister Demirel of Turkey in an
effort to strengthen cooperation among all nations involved in
the fight against illicit drug traffic. Attorney General
Levi has recently discussed mutual drug control problems
with the Attorney General of Mexico, and the President has
directed Secretary of State Kissinger to express to the
Mexican government his personal concern that we explore
opportunities for improved control.
The President has also directed the Domestic Council Drug
Abuse Task Force which prepared the white paper to reconvene
and prepare recommendations for improving our ability to
control drug trafficking along the southwest border.
190
A 24
THE Pasty WASHINGTON POST|
riday, March 19 1976
Calif. Aide:
Fill R1 Dugs
Allow Use
Of Heroin
By John Berthelsen
Special to The Washington Post