people in our society: First, ignorance and curiosity; second, a desire to rebel; third, a desire to be socially accepted; and fourth, deeprooted psychological and emotional problems.

The bill as it presently exists will do a great deal to deter students from using drugs out of ignorance and curiosity, a desire to rebel, or a desire for social acceptance. When these students learn how dangerous and pointless drugs are, if they learn in an educational atmosphere which is honest and straightforward, they will be sufficiently impressed.

As Officer Augusta emphasized this morning, this education must be begun in the fourth and fifth grades, before students are exposed to drugs on a wide scale-which they are in junior high school.

But it must be emphasized that the fourth group of potential drug users-those who would use drugs because of significant emotional problems-will not be deterred by education. They know drugs are dangerous, and if they don't know, they usually don't care. They are using drugs because they perhaps feel lonely, alienated, hopeless, and lost. Perhaps they are unable to adjust to the pressures of this massive technological society or the pressures imposed by overdemanding parents.

Whatever their particular psychological or emotional problem, they are prime candidates for drug usage. They will not be deterred from this path by a rational, logical study of the danger of drugs. They can be deterred only by in-depth counseling, whether in group or in private. They are in desperate need of the kind of group therapy and guidance and soul-searching provided by organizations like Dawn.

In Los Angeles, and in all other school districts in this county, the counselors are not capable of providing the kind of in-depth guidance and counseling needed. And were they capable of it, they would surely not have the time. What is needed in high schools across the country is a new kind of counseling, trained in psychology and sensitive to the problems of youth; someone who a young person knows he can talk to when in trouble, someone who can provide a type of program in each school similar to DAWN.

Mr. Kaplan of the board of education mentioned earlier that he had seen many instances where real communication took place between teachers and students-honest communication on a deep emotional level. I have seen it also--but not very often.

Today, it is a hit-or-miss situation as to whether a student with deep troubles can find a teacher or counselor to talk to. Maybe he will find one, but more than likely he won't. In any event, we can't be sure-and that is the problem.

In every school there must be at least one counselor that students can turn to for guidance and advice. This counselor will oftenhand be a last chance to help a student to find himself before he turns to drugs, before he blows his mind on drugs, before he kills himself on drugs.

You speak of prevention as the ultimate goal of your new bill. But if you fail to provide for a nationwide program to train and place personal counselors in public schools, if you fail to insure that students with deep-rooted emotional problems will have someone to turn to instead of drugs, then you will fail to prevent drug usage in that one group of students most likely to turn to drugs.

It might be expensive and impractical to place a counselor or psychologist of demonstrated ability and sensitivity in each and every public school. But it might also be our last, best chance to restore the diminishing health and sanity of today's youth.

And I would just like to conclude by saying that in observing you, Congressman Meeds, and you, Congressmen Bell, Hawkins, and Tunhey and Burton who were also here today, I think it restores a little bit of my faith in the Government to know that there are people who are as deeply concerned with such a topical problem as you are. Thank you, very much.

Mr. MEEDS. Thank you, Larry.

Mr. BELL. Thank you, very

much.

Mr. MEEDS. It looks like we almost saved the best to last.

We appreciate your testimony, and it was very articulate and very good.

Mr. BELL. Very good, Larry.

Mr. MEEDS. With that, the hearings the field hearings in Los Angeles on the Drug Abuse Education Act will come to a close.

I would again like to take the opportunity to express my deep gratitude to my colleague and cochairman, Alphonzo Bell, who has been such a stalwart in this field and who has been so helpful in arranging the hearings here, and who, incidentally, made up the great part of the list of witnesses that you heard today. So, it's no mistake.

Mr. BELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

With such leadership as you have given, I can't lose.

Mr. MEEDS. Thank you very much.

The hearings will be in recess until 9:45 tomorrow morning in Seattle, Wash.

(Whereupon, at 5:15 p.m., the hearing adjourned, subject to the call of the chair.)

DRUG ABUSE

THURSDAY, AUGUST 21, 1969

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SELECT COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

OF THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR,

Seattle, Wash.

The select subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:45 a.m., in the Snoqualmie Room, North Court, Seattle Center, Seattle, Wash., Hon. Lloyd Meeds presiding.

Present: Representatives Meeds, Bell, Hawkins, and Hansen.

Also present: Jack G. Duncan, counsel, and Marty La Vor, minority legislative coordinator.

Mr. MEEDS. The Select Subcommittee on Education of the House Education and Labor Committee will come to order for the further consideration of H.R. 9132 and similar bills.

We are very happy to be in Seattle today.

The hearings on the drug abuse education legislation commenced over a month ago in Washington, D.C. We had four different hearings there. We have had 1 day of field hearings in New York City, and a day of field hearings in Los Angeles yesterday, today in Seattle, and we hope to have one more day of field hearings in the Midwest somewhere. We are attempting by this procedure to bring the committee to the experts in the various parts of the United States.

Drug abuse is a nationally pervading problem, but it has different aspects in the different portions of the United States, so by this method of field hearings we hope to have the answers to the legislation which we are proposing which will fit the national patterns.

Four times each day a new assortment of mail is delivered to a Congressman's office. The letters, postcards, and telegrams present a kaleidoscope of human concerns: "vote for better medicare and social security," "can you transfer my husband from Fort Dix in New Jersey to Fort Lewis," and "please secure funds to complete phase II of the Snohomish River Basin study", and others. We apply our energies and do what we can to solve these very real and important problems. Sometimes, however, we are confronted with situations for which sympathy is more available than a remedy.

One day last winter I opened a letter from a mother in Alderwood Manor, who began, "We have just discovered that our 13-year-old son has been using drugs for almost a year." The letter pleaded for help for parents in south Snohomish County who were attempting to combat drug abuse. She said that, "It is not easily understood by us why our children turn to drugs to solve their problems," and this concerned parent concluded that, "We must get together in our local PTA units and work together with the teachers to find where we can help."

35-525-70-pt. 2- -13

Although I mailed out some materials published by the Federal Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, the feeling of unease and dissatisfaction lingered with me for several days. A month later I introduced the Drug Abuse Education Act of 1969.

We in the Pacific Northwest understand well how change is the central dynamic influence of American society. The sons of sawmill workers are building aircraft for Boeing. The countryside east and north of Seattle is retreating before housing developments, freeways, and traffic jams. We are compelled to admit that our fair Northwest is betroubled with smog, racial tensions, and now drug abuse.

Dangerous drugs are not wholly new; the scope of their use and abuse is. Last April when I cohosted a community conference on drugs in Lynnwood, Mr. Ronald Kuest of the Washington State Board of Pharmacy commented that it's easier now for youngsters to buy marijuana than beer. He added that a policeman in Seattle has a better chance of getting shot by a drug user than in any other west coast city.

We on the Select Education Subcommittee strongly endorse further efforts to strengen law enforcement against drugs and to intensify programs of treatment. Federal and local authorities need extra funds to carry out forceful action against those who traffic in drugs.

The Drug Abuse Education Act of 1969, which has thus far won the sponsorship of 75 Members of the House, focuses upon the American educational system and its role in helping young people understand themselves and the patterns of life they can choose.

Young people are anxious to learn about drugs. True, they are suspicious of authority, but this natural resentment is tempered by a sophisticated respect for evidence, medical, social, and psychological. Education about drugs is a delicate commodity, valuable if handled correctly, worthless, and I might add more worthless, if conducted with pompous sermonizing.

H.R. 9312 can provide young people, schools and parents with the resources to separate fact from fear and fantasy. It is not a cure-all. We welcome your suggestions for changes in the bill. But unless education can bring to bear countervailing power through expertise, then the cultural figures who identify drugs with love, peace, beauty, and truth will continue to occupy the field of opinion.

[From Congressional Record]

CONGRESSMAN LLOYD MEEDS AND 63 COSPONSORS PROPOSE THE DRUG ABUSE EDUCATION ACT OF 1969

Speech of Hon. Lloyd Meeds of Washington in the House of Representatives, Thursday, March 20, 1969.

Mr. MEEDS. Mr. Speaker, I am today introducing major legislation to help parents, students, and community officials learn more about drugs and their abuse.

Joining with me as cosponsors of this bipartisan bill are the following Members of the House of Representatives:

Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Green of Oregon, Mr. Thompson of New Jersey, Mr. Dent, Mr. Pucinski, Mr. Daniels of New Jersey, Mr. Brademas, Mr. O'Hara, Mr. Carey, Mr. Hawkins, Mr. William D. Ford, Mr. Hathaway, Mrs. Mink, Mr. Scheuer, Mr. Burton of California, Mr. Gaydos, Mr. Ayres, Mr. Ashbrooks, Mr. Reid of New York, Mr. Erlenborn, Mr. Eshleman, Mr. Ruth, Mr. Hansen of Idaho. Mr. Pelly, Mrs. Hansen of Washington, Mrs. May, Mr. Foley, Mr. Hicks. Mr. Adams, Mr. Price of Illinois, Mr. Fulton of Tennessee, Mr. King, Mr. St. Onge,