Mr. Howard, Mr. Pryor of Arkansas, Mr. Boland, Mr. Wyatt, Mr. Addabbo, Mr. Corman, Mr. Charles H. Wilson, Mr. Rees, Mr. Kyros, Mr. Brock, Mr. Halpern, Mr. Rosenthal, Mr. Burton of Utah, Mr. Pollock.

Mr. Waldie, Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Thompson of Georgia, Mr. Mikva, Mr. Symington, Mr. Brown of California, Mr. Edwards of California, Mr. Riegle, Mr. Bingham, Mr. Córdova, Mr. Don H. Clausen, Mr. Gude, Mr. Podell, Mr. Matsunaga, Mr. McClure, and Mr. Fisher.

DRUG ABUSE: A HUNDRED FLOWERS OF OPINION

Mr. Speaker, we humans react strangely to the unknown. Often we fear and attack it blindly. Sometimes we worship it irrationally.

American attitudes toward drugs reflect much of this myth and mystery. For those of us in the "over 30" group, drugs are drugs, period. We easily conjure up images of dope addicts, pushers, criminals, psychopaths, and the Mafia. But for many young people, drugs are a source of growing fascination. Certain drugs, they claim, are not only 'safe' but desirable. This attitude is fostered partially by culture figures who identify drugs with love, truth, beauty, and peace. While adults have been going to work, paying taxes, and mowing their lawns, and entirely new subculture had developed around drugs.

Too often, I have found, both sides of the generation gap are reluctant to let facts interfere with opinions when it comes to discussing the effects of these drugs.

In 1962 the White House Conference on Narcotics and Drug Abuse stated that:

"The general public has not been informed of most of the important facts related to drug abuse and, therefore, has many misconceptions which are frightening and destructive. This situation is due to many causes, among which are the failure of the schools to recognize the problem and provide instruction of equal quantity and quality as that provided for other health hazards."

Misconceptions can interfere with sensible talks between parents and their children. A father may tell his son that marihuana is bad, and the youngster may ask how and why it is different from the alcohol or tobacco used by the parent.

How many parents can talk with their youngsters about "cannabis psychosis," the medical term describing the mental effects of marihuana smoking? How many young people know the relationship between LSD and birth defects? How does a police officer handle a person suspected of drugtaking?

LSD, marihuana, "speed", hashish, peyote, STP, DMT, these are just a few of the bewildering drugs circulating among more and more youngsters. They are generally classified into four categories: opiates, depressants, stimulants, and hallucinogens.

DRUG ABUSE: THE LAW AND BEYOND

The Congress has approved several laws punishing those who sell, manufacture, and possess narcotics. The most familiar ones are the Harrison Act of 1914, the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937, and the 1965 and 1968 statutes punishing sale and possession of barbiturates, amphetamines, LSD, and similar compounds. Federal law is very tough, even for possession. The penalty for possessing marihuana is two to ten years imprisonment on the first offense.

Federal laws banning the importation of dangerous drugs have been on the books since 1909. Our government officials have been very active in this area, as the statistics show. In 1963, for example, they seized 6,432 pounds of marihuana at the borders of the United States. In 1966 they confiscated 23,060 pounds of it. And the figures have been rising since then. In the United States itself, dozens and dozens of illegal laboratories have been raided.

Most of the states have enacted their own drug laws, nearly all of which are very stringent. In Washington State the penalty for the first offense of possessing narcotics is five to ten years in the state penitentiary, plus a fine of $10,000. If you offer a marihuana cigarette to another person in Georgia, and that person accepts it, the state requires a mandatory death penalty for the second offense.

Our local police are working harder than ever to combat the drug traffic. As of October of 1968, for example, more than 25.000 persons in California had been arrested ofr selling marihuana.

All of us are anxious to crack down on what former President Johnson termed

"the sale of slavery to the young". Justice must be dealt firmly and swiftly to those who manufacture and sell harmful drugs.

But despite the stringent laws and the vigilance by the government, we must admit that drug usage is continuing to increase.

In early 1968 a Gallup poll taken at 426 college campuses revealed that 6 per cent of the students had used marihuana on one or more occasions and that 1 per cent had used LSD.

Dr. Stanley Yolles, Director of the National Institute of Mental Health, testified last year that 20 per cent of the college youths poled in the NIMH surveys admitted experience with marihuana. Dr. Yolles cautioned that these surveys were made in areas of reported high use and added that there is a definite geographical pattern in drugtaking. States such as California and Florida have abnormally high incidence of drug abuse.

It would be incorrect to assume that the laws have failed. Rather, we must assume that they need to be supplemented by widespread and comprehensive educational programs.

DRUG EDUCATION: WHERE WE STAND

Throughout the past several years there has been a proliferation of literature and films discussing drugs and their abuse. Some of these teaching materials are excellent, such as the FDA's film 'The Mind Benders', 'Drugs and the Nervous System', by Churchill Films, and Drug Abuse: Escape to Nowhere', a book published by the National Education Association. Unfortunately, there have also been many publications containing factual inaccuracies, distortions, and ineffective sermonizing.

Responsible and constructive drug education has been hampered by at least three factors: first, lack of effective teacher training; second, uncertainty about and unavailability of the "right" teaching materials; and, third, community resistance to drug education, a reflection of fear and controversy I discussed earlier.

Expensive books, films, and pamphlets are of little use to an educator who is uncomfortable with the subject. Lacking sound preparation, many teachers will naturally avoid the delicate and controversial matter of drugs and their abuse. Yet the role of the educator is underlined again and again by the unfortunate atomization of the American family structure, and by the lack of parental expertise on drugs. et us discuss briefly what the teacher must seek in effective drug education.

First, he must be prepared to correct misconceptions, distortions, and fallacies about the drugs.

Second, the teacher must know what is appropriate to say at a specifie age and grade level.

Third, the educator must be competent in deploying the right curriculum in developing a sensible unit outline, in using audiovisual techniques, in calling upon other community resources, and in devising class projects.

Fourth, the teacher should be able to detect possible student drug use through sound working knowledege of symptoms.

Fifth, the educator must stress the medical, sociological, and psychological aspects of drug taking. To do this he must also be aware of community customs and mores.

At a time when all of us are concerned about the spiraling cost of education, it is natural that school districts should concentrate on the basics. Funds for drug education would probably be regarded as one of those "extras" that principals and superintendents must explain at meetings of concerned or irate taxpayers.

But as the specter of drug abuse begins to haunt “nice” kids living in "model" neighborhoods, many parents are demanding that something be done.

Panic is no substitute for factual data. Preaching and sermonizing to young people is notoriously ineffective, expectally in this age of intellectual sophistication.

Dr. Randolph Edwards, professor of health, physical education, and recreation at Temple University in Philadelphia, observed last year that:

"A vital ingredient to effective drug-abuse education is the establishment of authoritative teachable curriculum for all grade levels. There is voluminous material available (medical and law enforcement in particular) but it must be made useful and practical to the trained and knowledgeable teacher. They

desperately need a structure for information and teaching, particularly for this new subject of narcotics and dangerous drugs."

Let me stress again that we must have authoritative curriculums which have been validated by experts. Young people want to learn more about drugs, but they want the facts, not the assumptions or the myths. And, the educators themselves must be prepared to answer delicate questions from students and be prepared to respond constructively to probes from the uncertain community.

To bridge the generation gap separating parents and youngsters and their attitudes toward drugs, many communities are conducting "drug alert" and similar programs. But many are not. Lack of funds and continuing uncertainty result in inaction. And parents and students succumb to further polarization in their beliefs.

"What can I do? How can I help?" These are sentiments expressed in letters I have received from concerned parents in the Seattle suburbs. Today we are presenting legislation intended to help the schools and the communities educate persons about drugs.

THE DRUG ABUSE EDUCATION ACT OF 1969

Shortly after the Ninety-first Congress convened in January I began working with experts from the Department of Justice, Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, and from the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education and the National Institute of Mental Health. Spokesmen for private groups also participated.

All of us shared a common goal: to fashion a well-coordinated program in which funds and assistance would be available for effective and meaningful drug education.

The legislation introduced today establishes an Advisory Committee on Drug Abuse Education. The twenty-one members of the Committee, seven of whom will be nominated by the Attorney General, will review the administration of the act, will make recommendations concerning priorities and improvements in the act and will evaluate programs and projects funded under the act.

The Commissioner of Education will approve applications for funds only after each application has been submitted for review and comment to the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs and to the National Institute of Mental Health. Likewise, the Commissioner may not approve an application unless he notifies the state educational agency and gives it time to submit comments or recommendations on the proposal.

The authorizations are as follows: $3,000,000 for fiscal year 1970; $7,000,000 for fiscal year 1971; $10,000,000 for fiscal year 1972; and $12,000,000 for fiscal years 1973 and 1974.

Funds administered under the act may be used to:

First, help educators, law enforcement officials, counselors, and community officials attend short-term or summer institutes on drug education;

Second, provide assistance and funds to school districts or local communities who wish to sponsor drug abuse seminars for parents and others in the community; Third, make grants available to colleges, universities, and private groups to develop teaching materials about drugs;

Fourth, establish a program for evaluating existing drug abuse curriculums and educational projects;

Fifth, help local school districts set up demonstration projects in drug education; and

Sixth, allow the Commissioner of Education, upon request by the local and state educational agencies, to distribute curriculums and evaluation of curriculums. The American educational system must throw light upon the intensifying and terrifying aspects of drug abuse in our country. For communities alarmed by increased drugtaking, there must be more cooperation and less combustion. Educators and public officials must pursue the subject openly, frankly, and practically. New drug education programs in the schools and hard-hitting seminars for parents and other adults will furnish no overnight respite to the drug problem. But our schools and communities cannot afford to stand by idly and allow young people to experiment blindly with their own self-destruction. Yes, the lure of the unknown and the forbidden will remain fascinating. But knowledge tempered by restraint may serve to avoid many future tragedies which transform the sparkle of youth into a hideous nightmare.

I am very happy to introduce and ask for comments at the outset of the hearing of my colleagues.

First, Alphonzo Bell from Los Angeles.

Mr. BELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This morning the Select Subcommittee on Education of the House Committee on Education and Labor is holding hearings in Seattle to take testimony from expert witnesses on matters relating to the Drug Abuse Act of 1969.

I would like to start off by commending Congressman Meeds, who is the true instigator of this legislation. I would like to commend him for his great leadership in pushing this type of legislation which, I think is so needed.

The purpose of this bill, of which I also am a cosponsor, is to encourage the development of new and improved curricula in the problems of drug abuse, to demonstrate the use of curricula in education programs and to evaluate their effectiveness, to disseminate curricular materials for use in educational programs throughout the Nation, to provide training programs for teachers, counselors, and law enforce ment personnel, and to offer community education programs for parents and others on the drug abuse problem.

The critical increase in the use of narcotics in the United States is well known to the public and does not need to be restated today. Our concern is the increase of drug use among juveniles and the changing patterns of that use and the question of whether our educational system might deal with this problem more effectively.

To show this is a nationwide problem, in the city of Los Angeles, juvenile narcotic arrests have increased from 1,300 in 1964 to more than 8,800 projected for 1969. The number of arrests will have doubled since 1967.

Of special interest and deserving of most serious concern are the statistics covering arrests in the city of Los Angeles of teenage and younger offenders. For example, 5-years ago 35 12-year-olds were arrested on narcotics charges in Los Angeles, a hundred and eighty-six arrests of 12-year-olds were made for narcotics violations last year, and 265 arrests will be made by the end of 1969. This is according to the latest available statistics.

Again, this illustrates the seriousness of the national problem on narcotics that we must all join together in trying to attack. There are three ways in my mind in which it can be attacked. One is through the preventive method; two, is apprehension; and three, is rehabilitation.

We are spending millions of dollars on apprehension and rehabilitation. Millions more must be spent. But the area of prevention is the area which this bill attacks. Get youngsters before they become addicts and try to straighten them out ahead of time through an educational system. This is the purpose of Mr. Meeds' legislation.

Yesterday morning a young engineer from Los Angeles, a freshman in college with a very brilliant future, got high on LSD, came over to the freeway, one of the major freeway networks, and jumped off into the line of traffic. This is an example of what this can lead to. I think it is of great importance that we attack it and attack it all out. I think this Meeds bill is going to do the job.

Thank you.

Mr. MEEDS. Thank you, Mr. Bell.

Mr. Hawkins.

Mr. HAWKINS. I would like to say at this time, Mr. Chairman, that I would like to commend you, not only on taking the leadership in this introduction of this bill on which we are co-authors, but on your insistence that we take testimony in the field. I had thought that by traveling out to Los Angeles, up to Seattle, and covering the other cities, that we would largely be wasting our time. After the hearings that we have had-and I am quite sure that today will be no exceptionI have been convinced that this has been one of the most valuable investigations that I have ever been on. I want to commend you for insisting that we come on these on this trip, including Seattle. Mr. MEEDS. Thank you, Mr. Hawkins.

Mr. Hansen.

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Let me, first of all, acknowledge the-and I am very happy to say— the very effective and constructive leadership that our chairman of this meeting, Congressman Meeds, has given to the effort to develop effective legislation to deal with the drug abuse problem.

I would also like to express appreciation for the attendance here of those who have offered their assistance and their expertise in the development of this legislation.

I might point out that the wide sponsorship of the legislation before the subcommittee here this morning is very strongly bipartisan in its

character.

I would also point out that the President recently, I think, focused on the problem that has commanded our attention increasingly by submitting to the Congress a message with recommendations for attack on the drug abuse problem on all fronts, including stricter law enforcement, rehabilitation, assistance to the States, and, perhaps as important as any other, education.

I would say this legislation before us today with any modifications that may result from the hearings conducted thus far is the most effective vehicle to achieve the objective of education. We have to attack the problem, really, at both ends. As long as there is somebody who is willing to buy narcotics, then there is going to be somebody who is willing to run the risks of producing it, distributing it. So we have to, in this effort, try to eliminate the demand as one of the most effective answers to the problem.

Again, I appreciate the opportunity to be here, and the attendance of the witnesses who offer their assistance.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MEEDS. Thank you, gentlemen. And I am sure I express the opinion of the Pacific Northwest when I welcome all of you to Seattle and the fair land that we have here.

We have an excellent list of witnesses today. We purposely attempted to get a cross section of opinion with regard to this bill from the educational aspect, from the law enforcement aspect, and from the rehabilitation aspect. We have 10 witnesses who will appear today, and therefore we are going to be a little pressed for time. With you gentlemen's consent, I will invoke the 5-minute rule. The 5-minute rule pertains to us, I might say, to the witnesses we will question. Each will have 5 minutes for questioning.