Dr. BRILL. Yes, sir.

Mr. CARTER. I think we ought to correct this legislation. It is in error. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. JARMAN. Mr. Preyer.

Mr. PREYER. No questions, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. JARMAN. Thank you. Mr. Hastings?

Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Just briefly, I am sorry, Dr. Brill, I did not hear all your testimony. I will endeavor not to try to question you on the part I did not hear. I am a little bit concerned about your position on no knock.

I would like to ask you in relation to the State of New York where both you and I come from.

You are aware New York has had the no knock provision since 1964; has any doctor or any physician run into any serious trouble by having been bothered by the issuance of no knock warrants by the authorities in New York?

Dr. BRILL. As you know, sir, in New York the supervision of physicians with respect to drugs of dependence is through the Department of Health. I think this contributes very materially to the fact that we have not had any serious problem.

To answer your question directly I do not know of any such instance. Mr. HASTINGS. I don't either. That is why I am a little disturbed. Mr. CARTER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HASTINGS. Certainly so.

Mr. CARTER. I do know of occasions when narcotics agents have invaded physician's offices and on very little, or no provocation actually at all, no basic proof. They behaved very tyranically, in an overbearing manner.

There are cases of this. It has been done to good honest physicians. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HASTINGS. I am trying to determine what in fact the effect of the no knock provision in the Federal statute would be. In order to arrive at that I used the basis of no knock in a State I am familiar with and of course New York is one.

My information is that in New York in the last 1,800 investigations of drug abuse violations that there have only been 14 no knock warrants issued and only 12 of those have been serviced.

And I am a little concerned over the concern that has been expressed that no knock will be overused and in principle violated. In fact it has not been abused in New York State where no knock has been in existence since 1964.

Dr. BRILL. The no knock provision refers to narcotics only in New York. I think that this is right. If I don't misunderstand this legislation this extends the provision to the kinds of drugs that are so widely used that these inspections could be more widely extended by far.

Mr. HASTINGS. Again I think the precautionary provisions of the statute in that a hearing has to be conducted before a Federal magistrate and before a no knock warrant will be issued is designed, of course, for full protection.

If we say that we do not have confidence in our courts and in our magistrates then, of course, it is a different story. I don't think we are in a position to say that, however.

Dr. BRILL. We fully recognize the protection that is built into the law on this issue and we are not attempting to enter the larger issue of no knock but only the question of the confidentiality of the patientphysician relationship and the shadow that this might cast on this confidentiality.

This is a specific application of the provisions which we're talking about, not the general principle.

Mr. HASTINGS. I understand your concern, Doctor. Again I only point out that in New York, I checked this very thoroughly, there has not been one case in 1,800 investigations where a physician's office or a patient's records have in fact been affected by the no knock provisions in the State of New York, in 1,800 such investigations.

Dr. BRILL. This speaks well for the New York organization and perhaps for the New York medical profession that this has gone so well. Mr. HASTINGS. Touché, Doctor, no more questions, Mr. Chairman. Mr. JARMAN. Are there further questions?

If not, Dr. Brill, and Mr. Peterson, we appreciate very much your giving us the benefit of your testimony this morning.

Dr. BRILL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. JARMAN. Our next witness is Dr. James Goddard, vice president for Health Sciences, Electronic Data Processing Technology, Inc., former Commissioner of Food and Drug.

Dr. Goddard, we welcome you back to the committee. We know well we will profit by the testimony you will give here today in this committee.

STATEMENT OF DR. JAMES L. GODDARD, ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC HEALTH ASSOCIATION

Dr. GODDARD. Thank you.

Mr. JARMAN. You may proceed as you see fit, Dr. Goddard.

Dr. GODDARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. I am James L. Goddard, a physician and former Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration. It is my privilege to appear before you on behalf of the American Public Health Association to speak on the issue of drug abuse control. My remarks reflect the thinking of the association's expert Program Area Committee on Drugs, a committee which has given careful consideration to proposed drug legislation presented to the Congress in this session.

If I may, Mr. Chairman, I would like to recall the fact that Congress has already taken responsible action in the area of drug abuse control. A little over a year ago Public Law 90-639 was enacted and signed by the President. Enactment was achieved only after a great deal of thought and discussion. Hearings involving this country's most responsible and most concerned professionals-in public service and private practice were conducted in the House and in the Senate as well. Even those of us who did not agree with the ultimate fashioning of the law, did recognize that the Congress would not tolerate law enforcement as the Government's sole weapon against drug abuse.

It was clearly the intent of Congress that the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare maintains not only interest but influence in the shaping and implementation of the legislation through continuing evaluations consultation with outside authorities, and the transmittal

of conclusions and recommendations to the Department of Justice to this committee and to the Congress. The Congress recognized the expertise, experience, and responsibility of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare in the field of public health and drug evaluation and directed the Department of Justice to consult with and act in conjunction with the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare before designating a drug as a depressant or stimulant drug.

Congress was also fully aware of the magnitude of the drug abuse problem and the possibility of a dangerous national adventure in law enforcement. It recognized that the increased penalties proposed in the legislation were needed to prosecute the criminal traffickers in dangerous drugs to a friend or acquaintance, and testimony before Congress reflects concern among educators and social scientists that the indiscriminate enforcement of excessively severe drug laws increases disrespect for the law on the part of young people and tends to alienate them from society.

Mr. Chairman, drug abuse remains a serious national health problem, despite nearly 3 years of intensified efforts by physicians, educators, and law enforcement officers at every level of government. Drug abuse did not burst upon us in 1965. It had been developing for some years. Drug abuse is not going to be stamped out in quick time either. It is a complex problem which as Congress has already recognized, demands the combined and balanced efforts of science, law, and public education. These efforts will be carried on for many years, reaching millions of American citizens. The American Public Health Association, therefore, views with deep concern the legislation recently approved by the Senate. As expressed in S. 3246, undue emphasis is placed on law enforcement as the major weapon.

The provisions for enforcement raise grave questions of threats to civil liberties; *** The additional authorities in research and education, as well as law enforcement, are all assigned to the Attorney General.

The American Public Health Association believes it would be completely inappropriate to give a law enforcement agency authority for determining what is and what is not a habit forming drug. We believe it equally unwise to authorize research activities by the Department of Justice, that could better be carried out by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Surely the Federal Government's health agency should continue and expand efforts in this area of scientific competence. For these reasons who strongly favor H.R. 11701 over the Senate approved S. 3246.

On behalf of the over 25,000 members of the American Public Health Association, I wish to thank the committee for this opportunity to present the views of our association on this important health problem.

I will be happy, Mr. Chairman, to answer any questions you or the committee members may have at this time. Thank you.

Mr. JARMAN. Thank you, Dr. Goddard.

Are there questions?

Mr. Rogers?

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Dr. Goddard, it is good to see you back before the committee.
Dr. GODDARD. Thank you.

Mr. ROGERS. And as distinguished looking now as you were before. I think you are even more distinguished looking.

Dr. GODDARD. In a different way, Mr. Rogers.

Mr. ROGERS. Your testimony is helpful. You are speaking on behalf of the American Public Health Association as I understand it which has a membership of some 25,000 and I believe all of the State health doctors and officer members of this association, of all of our States.

Dr. GODDARD. Yes, sir. I would say the State health officers themselves are all members. I can't say with certainty that every employee physician is.

But the majority of them are.

Mr. ROGERS. Yes, but from every State

Dr. GODDARD. Yes, from every State and the territories.

Mr. ROGERS (continuing). It is my understanding you were not permitted to testify on the Senate side on this bill. Is that true?

Dr. GODDARD. May I for the record say, Mr. Rogers, that permitted is too strong a word? We did direct a letter to the Honorable Thomas J. Dodd, requesting of him the opportunity to present testimony in relation to S. 2637 and asked to be advised when hearings were to be held or scheduled on behalf of the American Public Health Association.

I will be happy to submit that letter of request for the record if I may. Also the response, which I won't read in its entirety, merely said that the time for witnesses was quite limited and thus they have limited the witness list to the Federal agencies involved, State officials where drug abuse is most prevalent, to various industry groups that would be affected by the legislation and those representing the national health and behavioral sciences organizations.

However, we were not to be invited..

Mr. ROGERS. I don't know of any group that is more concerned with the public health than this organization. I am surprised to learn that you were not permitted to give oral testimony.

I understand you had to present a written statement?

Dr. GODDARD. We did, sir.

Mr. ROGERS. Also, I understand that some of the scientists were not allowed to testify publicly but only by written statements? Dr. GODDARD. That is my understanding.

Mr. ROGERS. It increases my concern about the Senate bill. Now should drugs be classified specifically in the law or should we have administrative determination of that?

Dr. GODDARD. I generally favor administrative determination to permit flexibility. We do have the emergence of new drugs on an annual basis, not fast enough to satisfy some but nonetheless they do continue to develop.

I think it is a difficult job to expect Congress to enact legislation that is that highly specific. Therefore I would favor the authority plus the safeguards to make sure the authority is not abused.

Mr. ROGERS. It is my understanding from some scientists that I have heard from that they are now concerned about the present classification in the Senate bill of drugs.

Do you share that concern?

Dr. GODDARD. I share it because of the inconsistencies that seem to exist.

Dr. Brill pointed out several inconsistencies and I certainly share his concern about those.

Mr. ROGERS. I think if you could let the committee have your specific concerns in writing for the record it would be helpful.

Dr. GODDARD. Yes, sir.

(The information requested was not available to the committee at the time of printing.)

Mr. ROGERS. As a former Director of Food and Drug you were very much concerned about investigational new drug procedures where someone wants to investigate a new drug.

Now if a new drug had any of the substances listed in the proposed Senate bill it would appear to me under the language that not only do they have to have Food and Drug approval to proceed and to be checked but they have to go to the Attorney General and be registered and if he does not register them, even though Food and Drug may have approved them for investigational purposes, he in effect could say there shall be no research on this drug.

Is that right?

Dr. GODDARD. This is correct and this is a major concern of mine. We had 30 years of almost no research on marihuana. I think that this is a good example of an enforcement agency lacking the foresight to carry out research.

The Department of Justice does not in general have competence in the medical and scientific field. I felt that the Bureau of Dangerous Drugs should be transferred to them when I was Commissioner. I felt that the Bureau of Narcotics properly belonged there.

To get things moving, we agreed to a total transfer of functions and activities but with the concept that the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare would be involved in the research on drugs, that the FDA would have some voice in this matter.

I am thus very much concerned, as are my colleagues, that the present bill would vest all the authority seemingly in the Attorney General. I think it would thwart research. But there is a more serious problem than that. If we look at the budget for the next fiscal year which Mr. Ingersoll has submitted through the Attorney General, we find again that the major emphasis is indeed on enforcement.

I am not saying that enforcement is improper but I note with concern that the research budget is a million dollars of which $300,000, if I recall correctly, Mr. Rogers, from the line of questioning that developed before this committee, was for investigation into the abuse of drugs on the street, hardly research when we are faced with a crisis. in the United States with respect to drug abuse.

I am chairman of the Inter-Agency Council for Drug Abuse in Atlanta, with 152 member organizations. We are faced with a true crisis in the absence of treatment facilities for young people who want to give up the drug habit.

We can't get the funds. Well, where are the funds in the Department of Justice bill for this kind of activity? I estimate we could start with $20 million per annum and provide matching moneys to the cities of this Nation that need treatment facilities for young people who are abusing drugs and want now to stop the abuse of drugs of these substances.