Mr. HUTT. We certainly do.

Mr. Dowdy. We want to cure them and 30 days is not sufficient. Shouldn't there be a longer time? That's the point I'm driving at. Mr. HUTT. Well, by the end of 30 days, at least from the viewpoint of the experts who testified to the D.C. and U.S. Crime Commissions, these people will have sobered up and have become sufficiently compos mentus to accept a voluntary treatment program and go on into the in-patient and into the out-patient residential facility program where they may stay as long as is necessary to take care of them.

I think it comes down to a question of whether you wish to have voluntary or involuntary treatment. Certainly it is the recommendation of the Crime Commission, and I understand of our District of Columbia Department of Public Health, that it be done on a voluntary rather than an involuntary basis.

Mr. Dowdy. I think if we put the 30 days you are going to have a 30-day-revolving door.

Mr. HUTT. That certainly is not the intent.

Mr. Dowdy. I know it is not the intent but that would be the effect, I believe.

Mr. HUTT. Well, Mr. Chairman, the experts with whom I have conferred have-are of the opposite persuasion. They believe that a voluntary treatment program would be highly successful and that an involuntary program is neither necessary nor appropriate.

Mr. DowDY. Well this would be compulsory. But to take care of the situation we are talking about, will it be advisable to provide in this bill for some sort of parole or furlough, or work release program to keep some sort of a deterrent, as a persuasion not to take their first drink.

Mr. HUTT. There will be a persuasion and a deterrent. These people will have available to them facilities that have not been made available to alcoholics in our country, in any community in the past. This will be a tremendous persuasion and I think a very persuasive deterrent to preclude future drinking. It won't solve the problem 100 percent because nothing ever will.

But the only other alternative would be to place them under a Court order which would raise many of the same problems that are now raised by the criminal handling of alcoholics, and which specifically was recommended against by the two Crime Commissions.

Mr. Dowdy. They made several recommendations I don't agree with. Mr. HUTT. Mr. Chairman, I might note, although there was a great deal of dispute and controversy in matters like wiretapping and crime confessions, in those two crime commissions, there was no dispute, there was unanimity of opinion on the drunkenness and alcoholism provisions of those two Crime Commissions. There was no dissent. Mr. DowDY. Probably the members of the Commissions never had any experience with alcoholism. Can you tell us, under the setup here in this bill, how many people would be taken care of in a year's time? Mr. HUTT. I would prefer to have you ask that question of Dr. Murray Grant who will be testifying next.

Mr. DowDY. I understood the testimony to be that there are probably 27,000 persons involved in drunkenness arrests in the District of Columbia, in 1965 and over 44,000 in 1966. I am just wondering how many of them could be treated under this bill.

Mr. HUTT. I can give you this figure which may be helpful. The Easter decision was handed down on March 31 of 1966. As of March 9 of 1967 our local courts had adjudicated 4308-or 4082-I forget which—individual people to be derelict, chronic alcoholics.

Mr. Downy. And turned them loose.

Mr. HUTT. Well, no. They have sent those for which treatment is available to the treatment facilities. The difficulty is that there are so few treatment facilities available that they could not find the adequate and appropriate treatment for them.

Mr. Downy. Do you know how many of those 4000 were treated? Mr. HUTT. Perhaps Dr. Grant could give you that figure. I know the percentage actually treated and the percentage for whom adequate treatment was available is zero. We do not today in the District of Columbia have any residential facilities in the community for these people. We have not one half-way house of the type described by Mr. Donahue. Without a half-way house none of these people can be adequately treated.

Mr. DownY. You may not be able to answer the next question I have, whether or not any phase of the program under this bill would qualify anyone for medicare or medicaid benefits.

Mr. HUTT. I have no knowledge of that. I would be happy to look into it and submit information on that for the record.

Mr. Dowdy. Or whether any assistance might be had from or through Health, Education and Welfare.

I think that would be a related question.

Mr. HUTT. I would be happy to look into that, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DOWDY. Have you, yourself, any estimate of the cost of the Bill?
Mr. HUTT. I do not, sir.

I would again leave that to Dr. Grant who has the people who can cost out the bill. I simply do not have those figures.

Mr. Downy. That's always a question that is asked on the House floor when we get there.

Mr. HUTT. Certainly, it should be. It will not be inexpensive. The one factor that I would keep in mind in that respect is the testimony by Colonel Dowd. It is not just a question of the cost of this Bill but also of the money saved by the increased efficiency of the police.

Mr. Downy. I was interested in Colonel Dowd's statement of the cost of, I believe he said, $300,000 a year, to take care-comparing that with the estimate in the District of Columbia of $15 million initial outlay and $4 million annual outlay thereafter.

Mr. HUTT. Today we don't have the actual facilities which must be built. I believe that the $15 million would be used to actually construct the facilities needed.

Mr. DownY. That may be true, but $4 million as compared to $300,000 per year for operating is quite a contrast.

Mr. HUTT. I have no opinion on that.

Mr. DownY. Mr. Hagan.

Mr. HAGAN. Gentlemen, I may say, I don't think anyone can have any definite opinion or comment or conclusion as far as that question is concerned until there has been a trial and error period, because nobody knows, it is all new. I just want to say at this time that I think Mr. Hutt has already demonstrated why he was called in to

assist in the preparation of this proposed legislation. Also he is the type of person who is willing to give and take. He has been of considerable help. This is not the time and place to give credit to anybody-I couldn't afford to leave out Gus Hewlett in the back and Mr. Gold in the back-because we have come a far way in this legislation, in the past dozen years or so, but particularly in the last 2 or 3 years. Mr. Dowdy. My questions, of course, are to try to find out just exactly what we are driving at.

Mr. HAGAN. I was going to comment that is why I am so proud you are chairman of this committee because these are good things the Chairman has brought out. But I can assure you these proposals and others will be followed through before final legislation is brought before the House. That is why we have this kind of hearing. We welcome the ideas and suggestions of everybody. So I think this has been a very good discussion, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate the questions that you brought out, and I want to thank Mr. Hutt for being here, and for the wondeful work he has already done in this field. Mr. DOWDY. Mr. Steiger.

Mr. STEIGER. Just one question, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Hutt, there is in the fiscal '68 D.C. budget requests for $1,384,600 for three specific programs for the care of alcoholics. Do you know if this conforms with this bill.

Mr. HUTT. It is my understanding that it does. The most important new facility which would be included in that request is funds for a hospital which is a half-way house type of facility to be located on the grounds of D. C. General Hospital. This would provide Detoxification facilities.

Mr. STEIGER. There is only $320,000 requested for the plans and specifications for facilities on the grounds of D.C. General. But currently there is treatment of chronic alcoholics at Occuquan, Virginia.

Mr. HUTT. Yes, this is an in-patient facility which presently exists at the former woman's reformatory at Occuquan, Virginia which was completely refurbished and all the vestiges of the penal institution has been removed. It is now a very fine in-patient treatment facility. Mr. STEIGER. There is an item of $982,000 for fiscal year '68 for that institution.

Mr. HUTT. Yes..

Dr. Grant will have the

Mr. STEIGER. There must be some construction there. Mr. HUTT. I'm not familiar with that. information on that. I would refer to him.

Mr. STEIGER. That's all I have.

Mr. DowDY. Mr. Adams.

Mr. ADAMS. Thank you very much. I first want to say I appreciate your coming. I am glad we have counsel here from the Easter case. As far as Title VIII is concerned, I have some problem with your statement, Mr. Hutt. If you will refer to it, you have listed the positions between Title VIII of H.R. 7327, and H.R. 6143, and I might state this: first I favor your approach, the alcoholic treatment approach, and I am very hopeful that we will be able to take Mr. Hagan's bill and move it into this overall approach on the criminal problem. But you have reached several conclusions that I don't agree with as being the fact in this bill and where they lie is in the line for arrest

between the chronic alcoholic-we want to move out of the courts. I think we are in complete agreement with that.

Mr. HUTT. Yes.

Mr. ADAMS. What we call the mean public drunk. This is the fellow who is on the corner, he is drinking out of the bottle, and you know as a police officer-and I'm going to surpise you, I am going to take the point of view, the problem of the police officer on the street.

Mr. HUTT. Yes.

Mr. ADAMS. That's the reason for the provisions being more limited in Title VIII of H.R. 7327 in maintaining certain of the arrest procedures. This is not to apply arrest procedure to the chronic alcoholic or the incapacitated drunk, but the man who is creating a public disturbance. Your first conclusion is on that, you say that Title VIIII'll read it to you specifically here. This is in the position statement, the fourth thing down. It doesn't have a number on it.

It says, "Title VIII fails to change the present law that it is a crime to drink in public. H.R. 6143 takes the preferable approach under which a person who is drinking and creates a disturbance in public commits a crime only if he refuses to stop his drinking and disturbance when requested."

Now, as I read Mr. Hagan's Bill, on page 3 and 4, Title II Sec. 201 (a) that it is still a crime to drink in public, or to be intoxicated endangering the safety of other person, under (b). And (d) provides that those are both criminal.

In other words you have a $100 fine or 90 days, and the only section that applies that you shall not have an arrest but be asked not to drink anymore-if a person is drinking in a street, alley, park, or parking and cause a public disturbance.

Mr. HUTT. Perhaps I could comment upon that, sir.

Mr. ADAMS. Yes.

Mr. HUTT. Under (a) on page 3, that is Section 201 amending Title 25, Sec. 128, (a), the initial clause, states that "No person shall in the District of Columbia drink any alcoholic beverage in any vehicle in

or "

Mr. ADAMS. And "upon any street, alley, park, or parking; or in or upon any premises where food, non-alcoholic beverages, or-" so on. In other words, it is a broad prohibition against public drinking.

Mr. HUTT. That is in any vehicle. There used to be a section that was deleted by-which would be deleted by this provision which states simply, "No person shall in the District of Columbia drink any alcoholic beverage in or upon any street." That has been deleted by this bill, so it makes it clear it is no longer a crime to drink in public. Now, I would like to perhaps explain why this bill takes that position.

Mr. ADAMS. All right, now let's just assume that. Let's assume that position. Here is a problem that I have with it. You also state here in 5 that, "Title VIII would permit the police to arrest inebriates under other minor misdemeanor statutes, such as vagrancy, loitering, and disorderly conduct."

I agree with that. It does provide that and deliberately so. You "H.R. 6143 follows the D.C. Crime Commission recommendation that inebriates be handled only under the new disorderly intoxication statute."

Mr. HUTT. Yes.

Mr. ADAMS. As I interpret D.C. Crime Commission report, what they are referring to is what we have called the chronic alcoholic, the fellow who drinks he may not even be a chronic alcoholic but he gets so drunk he is lying on the curb, or he is in a corner, or he is obviously out. But with the remainder of the people who are drinking in public and causing varying degrees of disturbance, if you removed the power of the police to arrest for other misdemeanors, disorderly conduct, and a series of other things that they may want or feel they can arrest for, then you are going to place the officer in a position of coming upon the person who had a few drinks out of the bottle on the corner to becoming a mean drunk and state to him that he no longer can arrest for a series of misdemeanors.

Now do you think that we should advocate that?

Mr. HUTT. He would still be entitled, under this Bill, to arrest those individuals for disorderly intoxication. He would not have any power taken away from him to arrest.

Mr. ADAMS. He has to ask him first to discontinue his drinking in public. Suppose he says, "Okay. Here's the bottle, I don't need it anymore." And he is still a mean drunk. He is not incapacitated, but he is a mean drunk.

Mr. HUTT. Well, he would perhaps without knowing all the facts he might be intoxicated and endangering the safety of another person, if he is a mean drunk.

Mr. ADAMS. He is about to but he hasn't yet.

Here we are with a typical street situation. We are not talking about the chronic alcoholic. What I'm trying to get at, Mr. Chairman is, we have a lot of problems here, and I have been on both sides in terms of what officers can do on the street. I am in complete agreement with moving the alcoholic out of the courts. I think the Easter case is a landmark decision and I am in complete agreement with Mr. Hagen's proposals here and I hope we'll pass them. That will place them in treatment centers, that will provide a whole new series.

But you got a basic disorderly conduct and criminal problems that lies between the chronic alcoholic and the completely sober person. It is a street crime problem day after day.

Mr. HUTT. I think the problem here then is one of making clear the intention of this bill. This bill is not intended to take away from the policeman the power to arrest the type of individual you are talking about.

Mr. ADAMS. But this is what bothers me. Your position statement in paragraphs 4 and in 5 indicates that he would be doing that. In other words you combine these two and it in effect says there is no power to arrest until he has created a disturbance in public, and if he refuses to stop his drinking and his disturbance and so on

Mr. HUTT. As you described it to me it would still be at the minimum, creating a disturbance. In any event I think this could be clarified and I would certainly agree with you on that. The intent of this was to avoid the following problem. Since the Easter Decision the police in the District of Columbia have begun to utilize these minor vagrancy, loitering, drinking in public statutes in lieu of the public intoxication statute in an attempt to circumvent the Easter decision and pick up