Coordination of Federal Efforts to Control Illicit Drug Traffic

Congressional research reportNov 23, 1983

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

COORDINATION OF F E D E R A L E F F O R T S TO CONTROL ILLICIT DRUG TRAFFIC

ISSUE BRIEF NUMBER IB83168

AUTHOR:

Harry Hogan

Government Division

THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE

MAJOR ISSUES SYSTEM

DATE ORIGINATED

DATE UPDATED

CRS- 1

ISSUE DEFINITION

H o w best to coordinate the Federal government's multi-agency

efforts t o

c u r b illicit traffic i n dangerous drugs has o n c e again become a n i s s u e of

major interest to t h e Congress.

Critics of t h e current Administration's

anti-drug program contend that i t l a c k s a n overall strategy a n d . t h a t i t

suffers from t h e a b s e n c e of a central mechanism

f o r t h e formulation of

general policy a s well a s for the broad direction of operations.

A number o f

bills pending i n t h e 9 8 t h Congress a r e designed to remedy t h e perceived

deficiency, through t h e establishment of a n agency with

explicit authority

over the development a n d implementation of a l l Federal g o v e r n m e n t efforts to

control drug traffic.

Frequently described i n t h e press a s "drug c z a r "

proposals, these measures a r e opposed by t h e Reagan Administration

on the

grounds t h a t such a n agency i s unnecessary and would

be potentially

disruptive.

BACKGROUND AND POLICY ANALYSIS

11.

111.

IV.

Immediate Background

Historical Perspective

Alternatives to a D r u g Czar

Summary Discussion

I. Immediate Background

On Jan. 1 4 , 1 9 8 3 , ?resident Reagan exercised a pocket veto o n a n o m n i b u s

crime c o n t r o l bill passed during the closing hours of t h e 9 7 t h Congress.

His

principal objection to t h e measure w a s that i t contained a provision f o r a

so-called "8rUg czar" office, to be known a s the " O f f i c e of t h e Director o f

National a n d International Drug Operations and Policy."

The agency, the

director a n d deputy director of which were to be subject to S e n a t e a p p r o v a l ,

would have been authorized to --(A) d e v e l o p , review, i m p l e m e n t , and enforce U.S.

Government policy with respect to illegal

clrugs;

(B) direct and coordinate a l l U.S. G o v e r n m e n t

efforts to halt the f l o w i n t o , and sale and

use of i l l e g a l drugs within the U.S.;

entities concerned with drug control t h e

budgetary priorities and allocations of

those entities with respect to illegal

d r u g s ; and

(D) coordinate the collection and dissemination

of information necessary to implement U.S.

,!,<t?. r e g - e r t tc i l l $ c s l p - , ' y C . .

.- - - -4 -

---

- 7 ,

In connection with t h e drug czar p r o v i s i o n , the P r e s i d e n t ' s memorandum

disapprovai stated:

CRS- 2

IB83168

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - 1 1 / 2

T h e creation of another layer of bureaucracy

within the Executive Branch would produce friction,

disrupt effective law enforcement, and could threaten

the integrity of criminal investigations and

prosecutions -- the very opposite of w h a t i t s

proponents apparently intend.

He contended m o r e o v e r , that "although [ t h e provision's] a i m

with w h i c h

i s to promote coordination, this c a n be and i s being

am in full agreement

achieved through existing administrative structures."

T h e President's assertion that coordination i s being achieved under t h e

present system i s challenged i n a report recently i s s u e d by the G e n e r a l

Accounting Office.

(Federal D r u g Interdiction Efforts Need

Strong C e n t r a l

Oversight; GGD-83-52; J u n e 1 3 , 1983).

F o c u s i n g on drug i n t e r d i c t i o n , t h e G A O

found t h a t , although the l e v e l of cooperation among t h e principal a g e n c i e s

concerned has been increasing, the

fragmentation

authority

and

responsibility "has a certain amount of inefficiency a n d interagency c o n f l i c t

built in."

I n particular, t h e G A O points o u t , "congressional o v e r s i g h t a n d

executive branch resource allocation decisions relative to drug i n t e r d i c t i o n

a r e difficult under these circumstances." Accordingly, t h e agency recommended

that the President ---

-- direct the development of a m o r e definitive

Federal drug strategy that stipulates the

roles of t h e various agencies with drug

enforcement responsibilities and

-- make a clear delegation of responsibility

to o n e individual to oversee F e d e r a l drug

enforcement programs.

Historical Perspective

F o r close to 1 0 0 years the Federal government has been involved i n e f f o r t s

to c u r b the non-therapeutic u s e of dangerous drugs.

Beginning i n 1 8 8 7 , with

enactment of a l a w that f o r b a d e the importation of o p i u m i n t o t h e United

S t a t e s by subjects of the Emperor of C h i n a , a long s e r i e s o f s t a t u t e s hascreated a major F e d e r a l r o l e i n the regulation of drug c o m m e r c e and

in the

enforcemeiit cf restricticns designed to prevent the a b a s e of Crugs.

As a matter of course, the responsibility for administering and enforcing

Federal drug control laws h a s been divided.

S i n c e many

of t h e most

restricted drugs enter t h e country illegally from a b r o a d , the a g e n c i e s

charged with policing the national borders -- the Customs S e r v i c e , t h e C o a s t

Regulation

G u a r d , and the Border P a t r o l -- have a n i m p o r t a n t part t o - play.

of ~ h edomestic drug industry i s the province of bot9 the Drug E n f o r c e m e n i

Administration (DEA) and the Food and Drug A d m i n i s t r a ~ i o n ,whiie in a d d i t i o n

the DEA has authority for t h e investigation 0-f violations invoiving d a n g e r o u s

C!rugs and for iiaison with

foreign law enforcement o f f i c i a l s in matters

- -_

"; 7 t?

~ ? ~ T c T ? ~ .c '? ~c, : ?

- - .. - . . - .

- n n C - n l

Other a g e n c l e s wlth drug control responslbllitles are: t h e Federal Bureau

of Invest;gat~oii (FBI!; t h e Esreau c f Internaticnal Narcotics Xatterz ~n t h e

S t a t e Department; the FeSeral Av:ac:sr~

Agency; he Incernal Revenue

Service;

-: ~ c c & r c " 2 - 5 St&=:st:-s i C , * ; E z j ;

zrle ^"--c

cf ;:s=~=e

.:-ss:s-a:-.=o,

tr-e h ~ e r = y

- _ i _ i L

CRS- 3

IB83168

UPDATE-11/23/83

for International Development; the Bureau of Alcohol, T o b a c c o a n d Firearms;

and the D e p a r t m e n t of Agriculture.

Additionally, there i s t h e necessary

participation of the Criminal Division of the Justice D e p a r t m e n t a n d of U.S.

Attorneys.

Especially during t h e past 1 5 y e a r s , t h e level of t h e F e d e r a l commitment

Spending f o r "law

t o Control of drug a b u s e has increased substantially.

i n FY

1 9 6 9 to

enforcement" related to this purpose r o s e from $37 million

approximately $1.05 billion in FY83.

T h e same years s a w the i n i t i a t i o n , o r

significant i n c r e a s e , of Federal programs to reduce t h e demand f o r drugs -through t r e a t m e n t , education and primary prevention.

Given t h e number of agencies chat have i n some way become involved i n drug

Control during recent y e a r s , and t h e inevitable conflicts generated in

consequence, i t would b e surprising if Calls for coordination had

n o t been

sounded previously.

I n d e e d , along with a number of other a p p r o a c h e s , the

structure

'loverlord" system itself has already been tried

established, i n 1 9 7 1 , by former P r e s i d e n t Richard Nixon.

In declaring a "War o n D r u g A b u s e v President Nixon w a s r e s p o n s i b l e for a

number of i n i t i a t i v e s to alleviate t h e problem that w a s a t t h e t i m e causing

such a high d e g r e e of public concern. Among them was t h e creation of t h e

S p e c i a l Action Office f o r Drug Abuse Prevention

(SAODAP)', h e a d e d by a

director which t h e press a t that time labelled " t h e drug czar." P l a c e d i n t h e

Executive O f f i c e of t h e P r e s i d e n t , t h e a g e n c y was authorized to supervise and

b e responsible for a l l Federal drug a b u s e programs

involving prevention,

education, t r e a t m e n t , training and research.

In initial discussions a t t h e W h i t e H o u s e , the Nixon drug c z a r plan had

envisioned t h e inclusion of l a w enforcement functions. within the s c o p e of t h e

-- by

office's concerns.

However, reportedly i t was argued with persuasion

t h e J u s t i c e Department and the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous D r u g s -t h a t a director w h o would have t h e necessary

stature in both

the law

enforcement a n d the treatment-prevention communities could n o t be found.

w a s further a r g u e d , a l s o with effect, that of these t w o general a r e a s t h e

treatment-prevention s i d e was a t t h a t time i n greater need

o f central

direction.

In 1 9 7 2 , t h e year following P r e s i d e n t i a l establishment of t h e n e w a g e n c y ,

Congress provided a statutory base, f o r a 3-year period, through t h e D r u g

Abuse Office and Treatment Act.

T w o k e y congressional f i n d i n g s noted in the

Ieqislaticn w e r e a s folloks:

T h e effectiveness of efforts by S t a t e and local

governments and by the Federal G o v e r n m e n t to

c o n t r o l a n d treat drug a b u s e i n t h e United States

h a s been hampered by a lack of coordination a m o n g

;he S t a t e s , bet wee^ Sraces and l o c a l i t i e s , a n d

throughout the Federal establlsnment.

Contrcl of drug a S u s e requires t h e development of

-. -- - -- .- r n-h -g.y. c ; ~ r n :

I h - l - t p y m

Tf3er~'

strategy that encompasses both effective l a w

enforcement against illegal drug traffic and

s rekabilitate victirr.~

.effeztive health ~ r ~ g r a r nto

of drug abuse.

IB83168

CRS- 4

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - 1 1 / 2

Although finding substantial s u p p o r t for t h e addition of l a w enforceme-nt

efforts t o the coordinative jurisdiction of S A O D A P , a f a c t reflected i n t h e

above f i n d i n g s , Congress acceded t o the Administration v i e w t h a t the o f f i c e

should have n o effective power o v e r drug l a w enforcement agencies.

The

exclusion of such authority continued, during the years of

the a g e n c y ' s

operation, to draw criticism.

D e s p i t e the existence of S A O D A P , conflicts and the lack o f . a unified

2 y e a r s after

the

objective continued

i n evidence, and i n 1 9 7 3

coordinating agency had been created -- the National C o m m i s s i o n on Marihuana

and D r u g Abuse could still find that i n S A O D A P ' s designated

sphere o f

operation "the fragmentation of authority threatens to d e f e a t i t s attempt to

organize federal a n d s t a t e activities into a n integrated r e s p o n s e , u n d e r

Clear and understandable policy guidelines."

T h e National Commission on Marihuana and D r u g Abuse, established by a n a c t

been given t h e

of Congress and partially appointed by President Nixon, had

o n e o n the c o u n t r y ' s

task of

conducting t w o comprehensive s t u d i e s

marihuana problem a n d what to d o a b o u t it a n d t h e second o n t h e problem

drug a b u s e i n general a n d the appropriate n a t i o n a l response.

I n its detailed

report o n t h e general drug problem, the Commission described t h e development,

during t h e preceding f i v e years, o f a

"drug a b u s e i n d u s t r i a l complex" -marked by duplication of effort, uncertainty of direction ' a n d a lack of

interagency coordination.''

Above a l l , the Commission noted t h e emergence o f

a large Federal drug bureaucracy, "displaying the common propensity

bureaucratic infrastructures to turn short-term

programs i n t o never-ending

projects."

D e s p i t e the f a c t t h a t coordination and a unified policy w e r e still e l u d i n g

the government when t h e ~ a t i o n a lCommission w r o t e i t s r e p o r t , t h e panel g a v e

SAODAP c r e d i t for m a k i n g progress i n that direction.

However, the commission

reCCmmended a far m o r e radical approach to t h e coordination problem than a n y

proposed before or since: the creation of a s i n g l e agency with responsibility

fCr a l l primarily drug-related f u n c t i o n s , both f o r t h e f o r m u l a t i o n of policy

T h e recommendation envisioned t h a t t h e

and f o r a c t u a l day-to-day operations.

agency director would have sub-cabinet rank but would n e v e r t h e l e s s r e p o r t

directly t o the President.

Although supporting t h e concept of a s i n g l e drug control agency -- w i t h

the suggestion that i t b e called t h e Controlled Substances Administration

the National Commission acknowledged two alternatives:

(1) that the system in effect a t t h e t i m e might be

continued " i n the hope that SAODAP will more

effectively utilize i t s statutory authority

t o bring s o m e order o u t of a d m i n i s t r a t i v e

chaos" o r

(2)

that SAODAP could be retained but given

specifically detailed program a u t h o r i t y a s

well a s t h e budgetary control i t already haC.

authorization

for SAODAF

explred

1975.

The

Ford

T h e 3-year

Admlnlstratlon took t h e posltlon t h a t the a g e n c y ' s duratlon

should n o t be

extended.

T h e emergency s ~ t u a t i o c that had

called

fcr tb.e extraoralnary

therefore tke

measure no lonaer e x l s t e d , the Adrnlnlstratlcn rnalntalned, a n 5

c l ~ s - y , e s s sf +~-g=t-ng ~ f c e ~ -T C ~

J - ..

; - -- .. - c

-,-A

C f f C r Z 5 S t 2 - 1 5 L E Iff:

- - LC -- -\ - F

- -I

CRS- 5

to t h e National Institute o n D r u g Abuse, which had been 'established by t h e

same statute a s SAODAP.

General policy concerning a l l drug matters w e r e to

be developed by several Cabinet committees a s well a s by t h e Strategy Council

o n D r u g Abuse, a l s o created by the SAODAP law.

In spite of t h e Ford policy, SAODAP never entirely f a d e d away.

In 1 9 7 6 ,

Congress amended the SAODAP statute to establish a successor agency -- t h e

O f f i c e of Drug Abuse Policy (ODAP)

o n a scaled-down b a s i s , t h e n e w office

being smaller in s i z e than SAODAP and lacking i t s powerful tool of budget

review.

P r e s i d e n t F o r d , w h o was defeated i n 1 9 7 6 i n his bid

f o r re-election,

declined to implement the ODAP amendment.

In March 1 9 7 7 , F o r d ' s successor -P r e s i d e n t Jimmy Carter

filled the vacant ODAP Director position with

Dr.

P e t e r Bourne. Dr. Bourne was confirmed by

the S e n a t e i n l a t e May a n d

installed in o f f i c e i n June. A month l a t e r , President Carter submitted a plan

for t h e reorganization of the Executive Office of t h e P r e s i d e n t , which

T h e plan

(Reorganization

included a provision f o r the a olition of ODAP.

P l a n No. 1 , 1977) w a s n o t disa proved by

Congress, and ODAP w e n t o u t of

e x i s t e n c e in early 1978.

In a l l the successor agency

to SAODAP w a s i n

operation for l i t t l e more than a half-year.

After ODAP's d e m i s e , however, Dr. Bourne became a presidential a s s i s t a n t

for international health and drug a b u s e a n d , a s s u c h , o v e r s a w t h e operations

of a drug policy unit within t h e Domestic Policy Staff.

After Dr.

Bourne's

r e s i g n a t i o n , in mid-1978, t h e unit was supervised by

t h e former Deputy

Director of 0DAP;Lee

Dogoloff.

T h e Reagan Administration

h a s continued

roughly t h e same a r r a n g e m e n t , and i n J u n e 1 9 8 2 the P r e s i d e n t issued a n

E x e c u t i v e order (No. 12368) officially designating t h e unit the " D r u g A b u s e

P o l i c y 0 f f i c e W , . a n d naming a director (Dr. Carlton Turner) to be

"primarily

r e s p o n s i b l e for a s s i s t i n g the President i n formulating policy .for, a n d i n

coordinating and overseeing, international a s well a s d o m e s t i c drug a b u s e

f u n c t i o n s by all Executive agencies."

Alternatives to a D r u g Czar

If w e a c c e p t t h e proposition t h a t t h e v a r i o u s F e d e r a l drug l a w enforcement

e f f o r t s , o r the d r u g a b u s e prevention and treatment e f f o r t s , .suffer from a

lack of coordinated policies and g o a l s , i s a super-agency

-- i.e., a druq

czar - - the only sclution? Certainly, otl-,er ways of approaching thls problem

have been conceived and tried during the past ten years.

F i r s t , the same legislation that established S A O D A P a l s o created a

Strategy Council, comprised of the department and agency heads w h o had

the

g r e a t e s t interest i n the drug problem, t h e SAODAP d i r e c t o r , a n d other

o f f i c i a l s "as t h e President may

deein appropriate."

T h e mandate o f t h e

C o u n c i l i s to d e v e l o p a

" c o m p r e h e n s i v e , coordinated long-term F e d e r a l

strategy for all drug abuse prevention

functions a n d a l l d r u g traffic

prevention f u n c t i o n s w of any agency of the Federal Government.' T h e strategy

i s to be reviewed and revised a t least o n c e a year.

It i s intended to cover

h ~ t hh r h ~ ey 2 ; i t ~ c

~?;ec5iy7es z r d c > e r a t i c ? z l

~ a t t e r s ;

Certainly

the c 2 s o

could be made that i n the policy-making a r e a , the Strategy Council could

perform much of t h e function of a drug czar.

T h e question i s , a f t e r a

strategy has Seen framed and p r o m u l g a t e d , who will

f o l l o w up?

T h o s e who

s u p p o r t rhe super-agency idea maintain that continual monitoring i s required

,. see ::;a= z s z r a z e g y i s impleRencsC.

(1:cz~':

altkough

the legislatlex

CRS- 6

IE83168

UPDATE-11/23/83

requiring t h e establishment of the Council has never been r e p e a l e d , t h e o n e

Strategy prepared by the Reagan Administration,

for

1982,

involved

participation by government agencies o n l y , without t h e members of t h e public

specified by amendments enacted i n 1976).

The second alternative -- i n t h e law enforcement f i e l d -- i s e m b o d i e d , a t

least partially, by

the D r u g Enforcement Administration

(DEA) itself.

Established by Reorganization P l a n No. 2 of 1 9 7 3 , t h e agency was intended by

President Nixon to be t h e f i n a l answer t o those w h o were c h a r g i n g t h a t

enforcement w a s i n disarray due to inter-agency

rivalries a n d lack of

cooperation.

Absorbing the manpower of t h r e e separate o r g a n i z a t i o n s , a l o n g

with a l l C u s t o m s personnel who specialized i n drug l a w enforcement, D E A w a s

-- by embracing t h e majority of enforcement people within o n e

meant

the

"unified

command"

organizational

structure -- to provide a

"counteroffensive" against d r u g abuse.

D e s p i t e thls m o v e , which did n o t

involve t h e narcotics control efforts of t h e State D e p a r t m e n t o r t h e C o a s t

Guard, t h e rivalry problems have c o n t i n u e d , according

to many observers.

Cited most frequently a s the biggest t r o u b l e a r e a i s t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between

DEA and Customs.

A l s o , until t h e recent shift within the J u s t i c e D e p a r t m e n t

(Jan. 2 1 , 1982) that g a v e the FBI concurrent jurisdiction with D E A o v e r drug

l a w enforcement, the former agency was i n a c t i v e in the f i e l d , t h u s providing

i t s a g e n t s with little incentive to share intelligence o r o t h e r w i s e cooperate

with their D E A brethren.

T h e third coordinating mechanism that .has been

tried -- by P r e s i d e n t s

The Ford

Nixon, F o r d , a n d Reagan -- i s t h e inter-agency committee.

Administration argued against the extension of SAODA? o n t h e g r o u n d s t h a t t h e

agency had achieved i t s purpose a s a n emergency measure and that t h e t i m e had

c o m e to return t o normal institutional s t r u c t u r e a n d procedure.

In a n s w e r t o

the contention that a continued White House-level a g e n c y w a s necessary

give t h e anti-drug effort t h e needed

" c l o u t , " Administration

defenders

poicted o u t t h a t if this l i n e were followed with r e s p e c t to every i m p o r t a n t

Federal u n d e r t a k i n g , there would be an overwhelming number of W h i t e H o u s e

agencies.

F u r t h e r m o r e , it w a s held that a more effective and a p p r o p r i a t e way

to a c h i e v e coordination was t h e o n e recommended by a special task f o r c e of

the P r e s i d e n t ' s Domestic Council in the f a l l of 1 9 7 5 a n d

subsequently taken

by P r e s i d e n t Ford: creation of a Cabinet C o m m i t t e e o n D r u g Abuse P r e v e n t i o n

T h e members of t h e latter

and a Cabinet C o m m i t t e e o n D r u g L a w Enforcement.

were the Attorney General a n d the Secretaries of t h e Treasury a n d of

T r a n s p o r t a t i o n , with t h e D E A Administrator a c t i n g a s Executive Director.

The

t w o committees were modeled

on the C a b i n e t C o m m i t t e e for International

,,,=its C a n t r o l , created by fsrmer

P r e s i d e n t N i p.,,.,

nwhich

the D o n e s t i c

1;aY-n

Council g r o u p evaluated a s having been " q u i t e successful."

Growing o u t of t h e two cabinet committees created by P r e s i d e n t F o r d was

the so-called "Principals Group," comprised of the c h i e f s of t h e operating

a g e n c i e s having the greatest responsibility f o r drug a b u s e control.

The

g r o u p was a t o n e time given high marks f o r resolving confl-icts a n d promoting

(An expanded version

c o o p e r a t i o n , especially among the enforcement agencies.

of the P r i n c i p a l s G r o u p i s still f u n c t i o n i n g , under

~ n e designation

"White

A separste e n t i t y , t h e

House Oversight Working G r o u p I t tmeeting o n c e a month.

law enforcemenk

"Working G r o u p on Dru@ Supply Reduction" i s concern,e",ith

nr-,,

F i n a l l y , :he Reagan Administratior. has established i t s own versions of the

the

cabinet cornnittee:

t h e Cabinet Ccuncil o n Legal P o l i c y , chaired by

Attorney G e n e r a l , and - - in connection with

tPe P r e s i d e n t ' s n e w anti-eruq

-r=.c:.

- - - - L . k 1 r i 3 125;: f ; r = E 1;;- L > 3 = 1 T > - e - - 2 "p:r.cf=

"m,F=tef

c.:

Zrq2'iZEz

z y ; ~ ~

-7.

CRS- 7

a l s o chaired by t h e Attorney General.

IV. Summary Discussion

T h e argument over t h e drug czar proposals reflects a disagreement over t h e

Value and appropriateness of various k i n d s of government mechanisms.

Neither

side denies t h e need for coordination, both

in policy-making

and i n

operations, although there i s disagreement over t h e degree t o which i t h a s

been achieved by t h e Reagan Administration under t h e present system.

Essentially, t h e opponents of t h e czar concept see i t as' h o s t i l e to t h e

cabinet system of

government.

That

system

allots

authority

and

responsibility

various

departments

along

reasonably

coherent

jurisdictional l i n e s , they a r g u e , a n d when a r e a s of responsibility overlap

a s frequently happens

the a p p r o p r i a t e mechanism for a c h i e v i n g coordination

A special " o v e r l o r d w a g e n c y of a n y k i n d

i s o n e o f a n inter-cabinet nature.

depreciates t h e s y s t e m , opponents say.

On t h e other s i d e , proponents have

been

dissatisfied

with

the

inter-cabinet and inter-agency structures tried i n the past.

W h i l e many

them may a g r e e that t h e czar solution d o e s v i o l a t e the l o g i c ' o f t h e c a b i n e t

system, they make the case that t h e drug problem

i s special -- that t h e

dimensions of t h e threat and t h e necessary complexity of t h e government's

response demand a departure from "business a s usual."

T h e y hold that only a n

entity with direct a c c e s s to the P r e s i d e n t -- and o n e w i t h ' budget r e v i e w

authority a s w e l l a s t h e power to influence a c t u a l agency o p e r a t i o n s -- c a n

SUCCeSSfUlly overcome the inherent impediments t o c o o r d i n a t i o n of e f f o r t

a m o n g F e d e r a l agencies.

To what extent d o e s past experience offer guidance for judging

positions?

the

above

Although a p p r a i s a l s made both by Members of Congress and e x e c u t i v e branch

officials a r e a v a i l a b l e , it i s difficult to f o r m a clear i d e a o f the r e s u l t s

of the various a p p r o a c h e s taken.

I n o n e of t h e f e w outsider assessments

examined t h e agency f r o m

S A O D A P , a political scientist -- writing i n 1981

t h e a s p e c t of t h e l i g h t i t shed o n styles of P r e s i d e n t i a l management.

While

noting certain early successes, G. Larry Mays pointed to a n e v e n t u a l f a i l u r e

in meeting original expectations (The Special Action Office f o r Drug A b u s e

International

Prevention: Drug Coctrol During the Kixon Administratiori.

T h e reason he cited was a n

J o u r n a l o f Public Administration, v. 3 , 1981).

apparent l o s s of confidence in the agency's d i r e c t o r , Dr.

J e r o m e J a f f e , by

influential presidential aides and t h u s , p r e s u m a b l y , a l s o by t h e President.

Crediting P r e s i d e n t Nixon wlth a genulne i n t e r e s t i n the d r u g problem,

Mays noted that Dr. J a f f e r s contact man in the Nlxon Whit-e H o u s e was E g i l

("BuB") K r o g h , a trusted h ~ g n - l e v e l a l d e who could guarafltee t h a t the S A O C A P

dlrector wouid have ready access to he P r e s ~ d e n t . E o w e v e r , Mays

stated,

"after J a f f e e waivered on the matter of replacrng ~ r .[ ~ e r t r a m ]Brown of t h e

National Institute of Mental H e a l t h , Krogh w a s n o longer his c o n t a c t and h e

T . -" C .

- +F- ~ + z l l m -

7.1-

A-h

n C

* h e

V -.

II...

---

? = ~ P C

= n

the

1 7 h l t ~

3ouse."

T h l s , Nays concluded, marked "an end to Jaffe's e f f e c t i v e contact

wlth the President and consequently a loss of

influence."

Under

the n e x t

C l r e c t ~ r ,2 o S e r t D u P o r t , the agency was moved physically out of the Executive

O f f ~ C eof = h e Presldent ( E O P ) and located ln R o c k v l l l e , M a r y l a n d , and h-as

"cq=r--7

.- 2

- r

ItS

ITFbZt

2 .

E.le

CRS- 8

process of P r e s i d e n t i a l decision-making.

Professional employees of t h e a g e n c i e s directly responsible for dealing

with t h e drug problem offer varying informal evaluations of SAODAP.

While

many appear to welcome any move that highlights t h e d r u g problem

and that

projects t h e i m a g e o f a higher level of p r i o r i t y , others express t h e d o u b t

t h a t a n y f o r m a l e n t i t y , such a s SAODAP or t h e proposed drug czar o f f i c e , c a n

accomplish what i s intended. According to t h e l a t t e r , t o t h e e x t e n t that

all

the

there indeed r e m a i n coordination difficulties -- a f t e r

what i s needed i s not a n e w

consolidating moves of t h e past 1 0 years

overlord office but rather (1) a definite. and

sustained interest i n the

problem o n the part of the President and (2) one high-level P r e s i d e n t i a l a i d e

whc h a s access to t h e P r e s i d e n t , to monitor the o p e r a t i n g ' a g e n c i e s a n d to

bring important conflicts to the President's attention.

One

veteran

enforcement official has commented p r i v a t e i y , "We've already had a d r u g c z a r ,

t h e only kind t h a t w o r k s , and that was Bud KrOgh." (See above.)

U l t i m a t e l y , in trying to answer t h e question " D o we need a drug czar?",

t h e Congress i s f a c e d with a

series of additional q u e s t i O n ~ , of both a

theoretical and a pragmatic nature. Is t h e general principle sound? D o e s the

c o n c e p t of a super-agency, which would coordinate and direct a g r o u p o f

operating a g e n c i e s having some common f u n c t i o n , d o violence t o . t h e l o g i c of

Executive Branch departmental structure? Is that structure sacrosanct, o r

d o e s t h e growth of t h e White House Staff a n d the EOP i n d i c a t e that i n many

r e s p e c t s it h a s already been found wanting? T o solve a coordination problem

in a n y a r e a , i s t h e r e a better and more a p p r o p r i a t e a l t e r n a t i v e to Creation

of a

super-agency, such a s the c a b i n e t - c o m m i t t e e o r

other

similar

inter-agency mechanism? Alternatively, have such arrangements been

fruitful

i n the past? Assuming that there a r e indeed exceptional problems t h a t warrant

creation of a super-agency, i s drug a b u s e o n e of them?

Are the present

organizations and arrangements -- the Reagan Administration's Cabinet C o u n c i l

on L e g a l P o l i c y , t h e Organized Crime D r u g Enforcement Task F o r c e P r o g r a m , the

border interdiction task f o r c e program

under t h e direction of t h e Vice

P r e s i d e n t , the D r u g Abuse Policy Office i n t h e E O P , a n d t h e general lead

taken by the Attorney General i n the drug enforcement field -- working

not?

Have they been given enough time to demonstrate their potential?

Can

a n y office such a s o n e of those now proposed be successful if the P r e s i d e n t

i n office i s not i n sympathy with the idea? On t h e other h a n d , i s i t n o t t h e

responsibility of Congress t o c r e a t e effective government institutions t h a t

w i l l survive the preferences and style of a particular administration?

LEGISLATION

H.R.

3326 (Shaw)

Establishes t h e lCOffice o f t h e Dlrector of Natlonal a n d International D r u g

O p e r a t i o n s and P o l i c y " to ensure (1) t h e development of a natlonal pollcy

b;;tn r e s ~ e c cz o illegal d r k g s , ( ) = h e d ~ r e c t l o n and

coordlriac~on of a -_ -F e d e r a l agencres lnvolved rn the effort to lmpiemenr. such a p o l l c y , a n d

(31

t h a t a single hlgh-level o f f r c l a l , "accountable to t h e Congress a n d

the

American people," will be chargee wzth the responsi5lllty of coordlnatlng the

. - - - -- ?- -- a-c-*-.r n h f I _ I m I C _ e c C L T ~ C - -- --- - - - - ,

-' " T ? - " C , 3 T S Y 1 ^ " - -.- respect to the l l l e g a l arug problem.

S p e c l f l e s that there shall be both

Dlrector and a D e p u t y Dlrector -- the Dlrector to be appointed by

the

Presiier: from a m o n g the Vlce ?resslCer.t a n 2 the hea2s o f . the e x e c ~ t ~ v f

C e p a r t ~ e n t o of t h e U . S . and the Deputy 32rector also to be appolzted

:fie

-'',.V,E s r n z = e . ?rocis-:_

r,zcf

3r€cSeE7.:

"LC

F-z";'

'5i-ICe a 2 = zzssezt ,- ~ 7 5 - , 3 ,

---

- 7 7 ,

' ? a C h l \ ' - C C

4-t-

CRS- 9

IB83168

UPDATE-11/23/83

Specifically for the participation of t h e Office i n the development

budgetary priorities and allocations of t h e operative agencies.

H.R.

4 0 2 8 (Hughes, S a w y e r , Smith of Fla., a n 8 Gilman)

Reestablishes a n Office of Drug Abuse Policy

(ODAP). i n the Executive

Office of t h e President. Amends the D r u g Abuse P r e v e n t i o n , T r e a t m e n t , a n d

Rehabilitation Act to r e v i s e the authority (still contained i n t h e statute)

of ODAP, to provide for a Deputy Director for D r u g A b u s e Prevention and a

Deputy D i r e c t o r for D r u g Enforcement.

Sets forth authorities for the

Director of t h e o f f i c e , which

include . t h e establishment of policy and

priorities for a l l Federal drug abuse functions and t h e coordination and

oversight of such functions.

Stipulates that the Vice-president may

appoidted Director. Among specific powers provided i s r e v i e w of a l l a n n u a l

budgets of departments a n d a g e n c i e s engaged i n d r u g a b u s e functions.

Authorizes appropriations of $500,000 for F Y 8 4 f o r carrying o u t t h e act.

Requires t h e Director t o submit a written report t o C o n g r e s s annually o n t h e

activities conducted under the statute.

H.R. 3 6 6 4 introduced July 2 6 , 1 9 8 3 ;

referred jointly to t h e Committees o n t h e Judiciary and o n Energy a n d

Commerce. H.R. 4 0 2 8 , a clean bill i n l i e u . o f H.R. 3 6 6 4 , introduced Sept.

29;

referred to t h e Committees o n Judiciary a n d on Energy and Commerce.

Ordered

to be reported (amended) by the Judiciary Committee a n d referred to C o m m i t t e e

o n Energy a n d Commerce, Oct. 4.

S. 1 7 8 7 (Biden et al.)

National Narcotids A c t of 1983. Creates a n "Office of th'e Director of

and International Drug Operations and P o l i c y " , t o b e headed by a

Director a n d a Deputy D i r e c t o r who a r e appointed by

t h e P r e s i d e n t , by a n d

with the c o n s e n t of the Senate. Provides that the D i r e c t o r i s a u t h o r i z e d t o

(1) d e v e l o p , review, i m p l e m e n t , and enforce U.S.

G o v e r n m e n t policy

with

respect to illegal drugs; (2) direct and coordinate a l l U.S. ' G o v e r n m e n t

efforts to h a l t the f l o w i n t o , and sale and use of i l l e g a l d r u g s within

the

U.S.; (3) d e v e l o p , in c o n c e r t with

the appropriate governmental e n t i t i e s ,

budgetary priorities a n d allocations relating to c o n t r o l of illegal d r u g s ;

a n d (4) c o o r d i n a t e the collection and dissemination o f information necessary

to implement government policy with r e s p e c t to i l l e g a l drugs.

Authorizes

appropriations of $ 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 for F Y 8 4 for carrying o u t t h e act.

Introduced

Aug. 4 , 1 9 8 3 ; referred to Judiciary.

R e p o r t e d , without a m e n d m e n t , Aug.

Written r e p o r t filed Oct. 2 5 (S.Rept; 98-278).

(Contents of bill a d d e d b y

floor a m e n d m e n t on Oct. 26, 1 9 8 3 , to H.R. 3 9 5 9 , a supplemental appropriation

b i l l that passed z!-~eS e n a t e 3ct. 27, 19E3.

A ~ ~ e c S m e n CroppeB

;n conference.)

pia+ ,,anal

;

HEARINGS

U.S.

Congress.

House.

Committee o n Interstate a n d

F o r e i g n Commerce.

Subcommittee o n Health and t h e

Environment.

Comprehensive Alcohol Abuse a r ~ d

k i c o h o l i s m P r e v e n t i o n , Treatment and R e h a b i i i L a ~ i o n

Act and the D r u g A b u s e Office a n d Treatment Act

authorizations. H e a r i n g , 9 6 t h C o n g r e s s , 1 s t s e s s i o n ,

. . Y.Q. ?C?7.

- , ‘ 0 ~ 0 . l ! ; ~ < $ i ".." - - -" . .

'T.C.

Govt. Print. Off., 1979. 254 p.

?-I

Washirrgton, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1975.

214 p.

----- Drug a b u s e office and treatment amendments of

1978. Hearing, 95th Congress, 2d session, on H.R. 11660.

Apr. 1 0 , 1978. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off.,

1978. 220 p.

----- Subcommittee on Public Health and Environment.

Special Action Office for Drug Abuse Prevention.

Hearings, 9 2 d Congress, 1 s t sesssion, on H.R. 9 2 6 4 ,

and H.R. 9059. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print.

Off., 1971. 4 v.

U.S.

Congress.

House.

Com'mittee on the Judiciary.

Subcommittee on Crime.

Merger of the F B I and the

DEA. Joint hearing before the Subcommittee on

Civil and Constitutional Rights and the Subcommittee

97th Congress, 2d session.

on Crime

Mar. 29, 1982. Washington, G.P.O., 1983. 84 p.

...,

U.S.

Congress. House.

Select Committee on Narcotics

Abuse and Control. DEA/FBI reorganization.

Hearing, 9 7 t h Congress, 2d session. Mar. 3 0 , 1962.

Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1982.

3 8 p.

----Federal d r a g l a w enforcement coordination.

. .

H e a r i n g , 97th Congress, 2C session.' Kar. 23, 1982.

Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1982.

8 7 p.

3.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Government

Operations.

Drug abuse prevention and control.

Joint hearings before the Subcommittee on Executive

Reorganization and Government Research and the

Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations-..,

9 2 d Congress, 1st session, on S. 1 9 4 5 and S. 2097.

Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1971.

6 0 0 p.

U.S.

Congress. Senate.

Committee on Government Operations.

Subcommittee o n Reorganization, Research, and

International Organizations. - Reorganization P l a n

No. 2 of 1973. Hearings, 93d Congress, 1st session.

Washington, U.S. Govt. Frict. 3ff., 1973-:974.

7 v.

U.S.

Congress.

Senate.

Committee on Human Resources.

Drug a b u s e office, prevention, and treatment

amendments of 1978.

Hearing, 95th Congress, 2d s e s s i o n ,

on S. 2916. Apr. 1 9 , 1978. Washington, U.S. Govt.

Frlnt. Of:.,

264 p.

m-?.

U.S.

Congress. Senate. Committee on Labor and Public

Welfare.

Drug aSuse prevention and treatment

L ? " : ! 9 F L- :

.. , 1-75.

U P Z ~ ~ - ? C 0; 4 t ~C F ~ C ~ P C CL ,C ?

s ~ l ~ + i c r .

Mar. 24-25, 1975. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print.

Off., 1975.

3 4 2 p.

m m

Federal narcotics enforcement; interim report.

Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1976. 1 9 1 p.

(94th congress, 2d session. senate. ~ e p o r tno. 94-1039)

U.S.

Congress.

Senate.

Committee on Human Resources.

Drug Abuse [office] and Treatment Act -- 1972;

report together with minority views to accompany

S. 525. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1979.

73 p.

(96th Congress, 1 s t session.

Senate.

Report no. 96-104)

U.S.

Congress.

Senate.

Committee on. Labor and P u b l i c

Welfare.

Drug Abuse Office and Treatment Act

amendments of 1 9 7 5 ; report to accompany S. 1608.

Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1975. 5 1 p.

(94th Congress, 1st session. Senate. Report no. 94-218)

----- D r u g Abuse Office, Control and Treatment Act of

1 9 7 1 ; report to accompany S. 2097.

Washington,

U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1971. 29 p.

U.S.

Congress.

Senate.

Committee on the Judiciary.

National Narcotics Act of 1983.

Report .... on S. 1787.

Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1983. 6 3 p.

(98th Congress, 1st session. Senate.

Report no. 98-278)

U.S.

President 1965-1969 (Johnson).

Reorganization P l a n

No. 1 of 1 9 6 8 -- creating a n e w Bureau o f ' ~ ~ a r c o t i c s

and Dangerous Drugs. Message from the President of

the United States. Feb. 7 , 1968.

(90th Congress,

2d session. House Doc. 249).

E.S.

President, 1969-1974 (Nixon).

Reorganization Plan

No. 2 of 1 9 7 3 , establishing a Drug Enforcement

Administration.

Message from the President of t h e

United States. Mar. 2 3 , 1973.

(93rd Congress,

1 s t session.

House Doc. 93-69).

U.S.

President, 1977-1981 (Carter).

Reorganization P l a n

No. 1 of 1 9 7 7 , to reorganize the Executive Office

of t h e President.

Washington, U.S. Govt. Print.

Off., 1977.

(95th Congress, 1st session. H o u s e

Coc. 185).

CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS

11/15/83

-- T h e drug czar" and drug commission provisions

of the Senate-passed supplemental appropria.tions

biil were dropped by t h e Eouse-Senace conferecce

committee.

10/26/83

-- T h e Senate added the contents of S. 17B7, a

so-called

c z a r " - 2 1 1 , tc 5 . F . ? ? ? a ,

c - ~ n - l o - n n ~ = l

- - - - - - approprlatlons bill that was subsequently passed by

the Senate on Oct. 27. Also added was a proposal to

create a "Commlsslon on Drug 1nterdlct:cc

and

Enforcement.

09/15/83

-- T h e House Subcommittee o n Crime approved a clean

a bill to amend T i t l e I1 of the D r u g Abuse O f f i c e

and Treatment Act f o r the purpose of recreating

the Office of Drug Abuse Policy i n t h e Executive

O f f i c e of the President (EoP).

Deputy D i r e c t o r s

both f o r Drug Enforcement and f o r D r u g ~ b u s e

Prevention would be appointed under t h e bill's

provisions.

An amendment accepted i n subcommittee

mark-up would a l l o w the President t o name t h e

Vice President a s Director.

T h e bill was introduced

Sept. 2 9 a s H.R. 4027.

08/04/83

-- An altered version of the Administration o m n i b u s

crime control bill was reported by t h e Senate

Judiciary Committee (S. 1762).

A separate bill

to establish a "drug czar" office w a s a l s o

reported (S. 1787).

03/23/83

-- T h e W h i t e House announced the creation o f a n e w

drug interdiction g r o u p headed by Vice ?resident

Bush.

T h e National Narcotics Border Interdiction

System (NNBIS) was charged with coordinating the

work o f Federal a g e n c i e s that have responsibilities

f o r interdiction of sea-borne, air-borne and

a ~ r ~ s s - b ~ r dimportation

of narcotics and other

d a n g e r o u s drugs -- principally t h e Customs S e r v i c e ,

t h e C o a s t Guard ,"and t h e armed ' s'ervices. .

01/14/83

-- President Reagan withheld his a p p r o v a l of

H.R. 3963 (97th Congress), thus exercising a

pocket veto.

H e w a s especially critical of a

provision establishing a "drug c z a r w o f f i c e to

coordinate Federal drug l a w enforcement.

12/20/82

-- A scaled-down version of t h e Violent C r i m e a n d D r u g

Enforcement Improvement Act (H.R. 3 9 6 3 , 9 7 t h

Congress) was cleared for t h e Presid.ent. It

contained provisions for t h e creation of a so-called

"drug czar" o f f i c e t o coordinate F e d e r a l drug

l a w enforcement.

1C/li/E2

- - T 5 e Presieent a r ~ n o u n c e 8 a r,ajor n e w drive

a g a i n s t illicit drug trafficking.

Subsequently

designated the Organized Crime D r u g Enforcement

(OCDE) task f o r c e program, the i n i t i a t i v e

involved creation of 1 2 regional task f o r c e s

for t h e investigation and prosecution of major

trafficking cases.

It was anticipated to .require the hiring of 1 , 2 0 0 cew i n v e s t i g a t o r s

and prosecutors.

06/24/82

-- Ey Executive Order the President established the

nr..rr

p c l l " T- 7

- - 'he

?fflTE

,.=

- - p ^- '---" -' .

P " 3 : c e

" C C - - c

Deve1opner.t (EOP) f o r the purpose of performing

the dutles specifled under Tltle I 1 of the D r u g

ASuse Cffzce and Treatrent Act.

Accordlnq to the

~ r d e r ,z h e 3:rectcr

of the Cfflce would be

,- ,... . c r ~ l : :r s s g c ~ s ~ r l:,-s-.. z S S 2 E ---..3

- - - -r.e

f,-,--

President i n formulating policy f o r , and in

coordinating a n d overseeing, international a s

w e l l a s domestic drug a b u s e functions by a l l

Executive agencies." Dr. Carlton T u r n e r , t h e

President's senior advisor o n drug abuse p o l i c y ,

w a s appointed Director.

01/29/82

-- T h e President announced creation of the C a b i n e t

C o u n c i l on Legal P o l i c y , to b e chaired by t h e

Attorney General.

T h e C o u n c i l w a s charged w i t h

t h e review of matters pertaining to

interdepartmental aspects of l a w enforcement

p o l i c y , with a n initial emphasis on n a r c o t i c s

enforcement and immigration and refugee policy.

Subsequently, t h e Council formed the Working

G r o u p for D r u g Supply R e d u c t i o n , under t h e

chairmanship of the Associate Attorney General.

01/28/82

-- P r e s i d e n t Reagan announced t h e establishment of

a special task f o r c e to combat illicit drug

traffic in S o u t h Florida.

Composed of o f f i c i a l s

from a number of Federal a g e n c i e s , to work with

S t a t e and l o c a l a u t h o r i t i e s , t h e task f o r c e w a s

placed under t h e direction of Vice President

Bush.

T h e Federal 'Bureau of Investigation w a s - g i v e n

concurrent jurisdiction, with t h e D r u g Enforcement

Administration, over the enforcement of da?gerous

d r u g laws.

Under the n e w a r r a n g e m e n t , t h e D E A i s

required to r e p o r t to the Attorney General through

t h e F B I Director.

01/21/82

A--

07/00/81

-- Dr. Carlton Turner was appointed a s P r e s i d e n t

R e a g a n ' s "senior advisor o n d r u g abuse policy.

03/00/78

-- T h e Office of D r u g Abuse P o l i c y

07/15/77

-- P r e s i d e n t Carter submitted Reorganization

(ODAP) w a s

terminated.

ODAP Director P e t e r Bourne w a s

designated a presidential a s s i s t a n t for

international health and d r u g a b u s e a n d ,

a s s u c h , supervised the operation of a u n i t

of the Dsrnestic Poiicy Staff charge3 with

formulation of policy on matters pertainig to

d r u g abuse.

T h i s arrangement was continued

under his s u c c e s s o r , L e e Dogoloff.

P l a n No. 1 of 1 9 7 7 to Congress.

T h e plan proposed

a reorganizaticn of the Z x e c u t i v e Office of t h e

P r e s i d e n t , o n e a s p e c t of which was abolition

of the Office o f D r u g Abuse Policy.

Strategies would be "revitalized."

04/27/76

-- A presidential "Drug Abuse Message to t h e

Congress" announced the creation of t h e Cabinet

Committee on Drug L a w Enforcement (CCDLE) and

the Cabinet Committee o n D r u g Abuse P r e v e n t i o n ,

Treatment and Rehabilitation (CCDAPTR).

Modeled

o n the Cabinet Committee o n International

Narcotics Control, established by P r e s i d e n t

Nixon (see below), the t w o committees w e r e

charged With t h e development and implementation

of overall Federal strategy and the strengthening

of interagency coordination.

03/19/76

-- Amendments to the Drug A b u s e Office a n d Treatment

Act became law. Among o t h e r t h i n g s , they provided

f o r the establishment of a successor a g e n c y to

S A O D A P , to be known a s t h e Office o'f D r u g Abuse

Policy (ODAP), on a scaled-down basis, t o b e

k n o w n a s t h e Office of D r u g Abuse Policy (ODAP).

S u b s e q u e n t l y , President Ford declined to implement

the legislation and proposed a rescission of

appropriations for t h e proposed agency.

00/00/76

. .

06/30/75

-- T h e House Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse

and Control was established, for the purpose

of studying and reviewing, fr.0m.a unified

perspective, the problem of narcotics a b u s e

and i t s control. T h e initial panel included

members from a l l standing committees with

jurisdiction over significant a s p e c t s of drug

a b u s e control.

-- T h e Special Action Office f o r Drug Abuse

Prevention statutory authorization expired.

The

Ford Administration declined to s u p p o r t extension.

00/00/73

-- T h e Alcohol, D r u g Abuse, and Mental Health

Administration (ADAMHA) w a s established i n t h e

Department of Health, Education, and

Welfare -- comprised of three institutes of equal

status: the National Institute of Menzal HealtF.,

t h e National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and

Alcoholism, and the National Institute o n Drug

Abuse.

T h e n e w agency w a s subsequently authorized

by statute (Title I1 of P.L. 93-282).

00/00/73

- - T h e D r u g Enforcement Administration w a s established

by R e o r g a n i z a t ~ o n Flan Kc. 2 of 1973. T o create

the new Justice Department a g e n c y , t h e Bureau of

Narcotics and Dangerous D r u g s was combiged with'

t h e Office f o r Drug Abuse L a w E n f o r c e m e n t , the

. - c_ -. - 7

- ;--. c-~ y'tif"~:

?12y",-+F?c

- .. - " l L i " C " ." .C. - - , 2- .-. .6- - .-C u s ~ o m sService perscncel principally involved

in drug law enforcement.

'n-

2 - -

those (1) providing statutory backing for t h e

Special Action Office for Drug Abuse P r e v e n t i o n ,

with specific authorities and appropriation

authorizations for three fiscal y e a r s , a t t h e end

of which the agency w a s to be t e r m i n a t e d , , ( 2 )

establishing a Strategy Council, to be appointed

by t h e President, f o r formulation a n d continual

revision of a "comprehensive, coordinated

long-term Federal strategy for a l l drug a b u s e

prevention functions and a l l drug traffic

prevention functions c o n d u c t e d , s p o n s o r e d , o r

supported by any department or a g e n c y of t h e

Federal Government. I'

(3) further expansion of

Federal treatment and prevention g r a n t programs,

including initiation of a program of f o r m u l a

g r a n t s to the S t a t e s , and ( 4 ) establishment of a

National Institute o n D r u g Abuse, within the

National Institute of Mental H e a l t h , to a d m i n i s t e r

a l l programs and authorities of t h e Secretary

of H e a l t h , Education, and Welfare with respect

to d r u g abuse prevention functions.

06/00/71

-- President Richard Nixon appointed Dr. Jerome

J a f f e , a psychiatrist, a s a special consultant

to t h e President for narcotics and dangerous

drugs a n d i n a Message to Congress announced

the establishment of t h e Special Action Office

for D r u g Abuse P r e v e n t i o n , located within t h e

Executive Office of t h e President,, to

coordinate and broadly Cirect all F e d e r a l

drug-abuse programs concerned with prevention,

e d u c a t i o n , treatment, rehabilitation, training

and research.

10/15/68

-- T h e President signed P.L.

00/00/68

-- Under Reorganization P l a n No. 1 of 1 9 6 8 , the

90-574, which contained

amendments to the Community Mental Health C e n t e r s

Act establishing the f i r s t program of Federal

grants specifically f o r funding t h e treatment

of narcotic addiction.

E,,

,Leac of Karcstics (Treasury) and t h e S a r e a c

of D r u g Abuse Control (FDA) were combined i n t o

the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs

i n t h e J u s t i c e Department.

11/00/63

-- T h e President's Advisory Commission o n Narcotic

and D r u g Abuse ("Prettyman C o m m i s s i o n w ) issued

i t s i i n a i repsrt.

A r . 0 ~ 5 recommendations h-as

one that tne Fresident appoint a S p e c i a l

Assistant for Narcotic a n d Drug A b u s e , from t h e

White House s t a f f , to provide continuous a d v i c e

-... 2 - 4

2 " i E - = " " -P -

4 "

3 " , " " h ' " "

.. - -.

. - .. =

attack on drug abuse.

-' - - . - - - r 3 :.e 5

" " f i ' i -

ADDITIONAL R E F E R E N C E SOURCES

B r o w n , Lawrence S., Jr.

Who's o n first? Anatomy of t h e

Federal response to drug abuse.

J o u r n a l of t h e

National Medical Association, v. 7 3 , no. 2 , 1981:

145-159.

Mays, G. Larry.

T h e Special Action Office f o r D r u g Abuse

Prevention:

drug control during the Nixon Administration.

International journal of public administration, v. 3 ,

1981:

355-372.

U.S.

Comptroller General. Federal drug enforcement:

strong guidance needed (Departments o f J u s t i c e

and t'he Treasury).

[ w a s h i n g t o n ] 1975. (GGD-76-32)

9 1 p.

U.S.

Comptroller General.

F e d e r a l drug interdiction

efforts need strong central oversight.

Report

t o the Congress.

Washington, U.S. Govt. Print.

Off., J u n e 1 3 , 1983.

1 3 6 p. (GAO/GGD-83-52).

U.S.

Domestic Council D r u g Abuse Task Force.

White

A report to t h e President.

Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1975.

1 1 6 p.

. p.aper on d r u g abuse.

U.S.

D r u g Abuse Policy Office.

Federal strategy f o r

prevention o f drug a b u s e a n d drug t r a f f i c k i n g ,

1982.

P r e p a r e d for t h e President pursuant to

the D r u g Abuse Office and Treatment Act of

1972. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off.

[ 1 9 8 2 ] 7 5 p.

U.S.

Strategy Council o n D r u g Abuse.

F e d e r a l strategy

for drug a b u s e 'and drug traffic prevention.

Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1 9 7 3 Published irregularly.

.,L . S .

U.S.

h'aticna; Commission cn Karihuana a n 6 D r u g Abuse.

Drug use i n America:

problem in perspective.

Second report. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print.

481 p.

Off., 1973.

Office of D r u g Abuse Policy. Supply control:

drug l a w enforcement; a n intergency review.

~ W a s k i n g t o n j 1977. 6 1 F. plus appenbices.

----- Border management and interdiction:

interagency review.

[ W a s h i n g t o n ] 1977.

5 9 p. plus

? ?- ?- ? ? 5 : ? 9 : .

U.S.

P r e s i d e n t ' s Advisory Commission on Narcotic and

3rug Abcse.

Final report. Washington, U.S. Govt.

Print. O f f . , 1963. 123 p.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.