Now, I believe I can submit in my statement here the historical American Medical Association approach to the drugless healing arts, whereas the historical Food and Drug Administration approach, which started with Dr. Harvey Wiley, had no concern at all with the healing arts.

It was only concerned with the safety of foods and the protection against misbranding, and so forth.

Mr. O'BRIEN. You say the current census report shows a 10-percent. increase in the number of practicing chiropractors in the past decade. Is that in line with the increasing number of people who want the services of chiropractors?

Mr. MILLER. I do not know that, Mr. Congressman. I would have no way of measuring the number of people who want chiropractors' services.

Mr. O'BRIEN. Then you have no way of knowing whether financial assistance from the Federal Government could be kept up with the demand?

Mr. MILLER. Your question is proper because here the only thing that we are concerned about is to make sure there is a provision within the law that when chiropractic or other drugless healing art colleges are "otherwise qualified," and that would include the need

Mr. O'BRIEN. You want it in there in case there is?

Mr. MILLER. That is right. We make no brief here that the need exists. We simply want the admission of the drugless healing arts in the bill.

Mr. O'BRIEN. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Younger.

Mr. YOUNGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Miller, do you consider osteopathy a drugless healing art? Mr. MILLER. Mr. Younger, I do not know. I am not fully acquainted with osteopathy. It was my understanding at one time that they were primarily drugless, and earlier today there was questioning about whether or not there was a merger.

Mr. PRATT. Mr. Chairman, I might answer that based on my information, that during the past year in the State of California the Medical Society of the State of California took into membership all doctors of osteopathy and arranged for them to practice medicine the same as doctors of medicine and took over all of the medical schools of the State of California where osteopathy is taught.

In most States of the Union the practice of osteopathy is equivalent to the practice of medicine.

In most States they practice medicine in addition to their specialized procedure. For example, in the State of Kansas the doctors of osteopathy are on the same level with doctors of medicine.

In the State of Kansas they have a healing arts board. The board consists of six members, two of the medical profession, M.D.'s, two of doctors of osteopathy, two of doctors of chiropractic, and throughout the country this is growing more and more.

The education of chiropractors is much different now than it was 25 years ago.

Osteopaths are not strictly drugless, to answer you precisely. More and more they are becoming medicine and they are being admitted to the medical societies in the States one by one.

Originally, they were different. They didn't believe so much in drugs. They believed in

Mr. YOUNGER. But they are licensed in the States?

Mr. MILLER. They are licensed and they have the equivalent education in most medical schools.

Mr. YOUNGER. Now, in many States, and I am not sure that it applies in all States, chiropractors are licensed.

Is that true?

Mr. MILLER. I understand from hearings held in the Senate that in 46 States chiropractors are licensed and also in Puerto Rico and some of our territories.

Mr. YOUNGER. Are chiropractors in the bill?

Mr. MILLER. No; it is the omission of chiropractors as the major drugless healing art that is conspicuous by its omission.

Mr. YOUNGER. I have in mind where you recommended a broad amendment which would include all drugless healing arts, and there may be many of them that are not licensed in the States.

Do you mean that, that you would take in any type of drugless healing art even though it was not licensed by the various States?

Mr. MILLER. Perhaps it would be proper here to restrict this to licensed or properly duly licensed members of drugless healing pro

fessions.

Mr. YOUNGER. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Kornegay.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Mr. Miller, I would like to call your attention to your statement at the bottom of

page 2:

The American Medical Association has openly solicited the help of the FDA, the Post Office Department, and the Federal Trade Commission to help it dissuade and discourage youngsters from enrolling in chiropractic schools.

I take it the basis for that statement is the statement that you read out of the bluebook.

Now, just what part does the Post Office Department play in dissuasion and discouraging?

Mr. MILLER. Perhaps it would be best to answer that by Dr. Field's own words.

In his closing paragraph here he says:

The Food and Drug Administration, the Post Office Department, the Federal Trade Commission, and the food and drug groups of many States of the Union cannot do the job alone.

It takes a program which seeks to acquaint the public with the problem and swings into action quickly when there is a threat to the community or the Nation at large.

This takes the help of all interested people, consumer groups, educational groups, religious organizations, and most of all, those responsible for the education of American youth.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Now, was that statement aimed at chiropractic schools?

Mr. MILLER. The subject of Mr. Field's talk here was the AMA's fight against the quack.

An then he, in the beginning of the talk, outlines an appeal to the Post Office Department to help get at the quack which he defines as the chiropractor in the middle of his talk, and then at the end of it, solicits the help of these, the Post Office Department, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Justice Department.

I would like to, if I might have permission, Mr. Chairman, submit this letter for the record inasmuch as-it is just a three-page letter from the Congress on quackery.

The CHAIRMAN. Let it be received.

Mr. MILLER. And I think the intent of Dr. Field would be made most clear here and how he appeals to the Post Office Department and the Federal Trade Commission and the Justice Department to help in this conspiracy.

Mr. YOUNGER. Will the gentleman yield for one question there?
Mr. KORNEGAY. Yes, Sir.

Mr. YOUNGER. Was that publication that you have there published by the Government Printing Office?

Mr. MILLER. I have been trying to find that out, Mr. Congressman, and I have not had a yes or a no answer.

The CHAIRMAN. I think we had better receive the letter for the file and then determine whether it should go in the record or not.

Mr. MILLER. It is available from Mr. Janson's office over at Food and Drug, but I also find it is available from the AMA.

I do not know who paid the cost for it. In fact, it would be interesting to find out who paid for these proceedings at the SheratonPark Hotel.

Mr. YOUNGER. If it was a Government-printed document, it would be so stated in the document.

Mr. MILLER. I fail to find any indication, and I have made a direct request of Food and Drug to find out who did finance this and received an evasive reply.

The CHAIRMAN. Anything further, Mr. Kornegay?

Mr. KORNEGAY. Just this statement:

I asked the question in order to find out just what part the Post Office could play in such an arrangement unless it was just a falure or refusal to deliver application blanks or something of that sort in an effort to enroll people.

I have nothing further, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Long?

Mr. LONG. No questions?

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Broyhill?

Mr. BROYHILL. Along that same line, Mr. Miller, on page 3 you said that the report of the AMA or that the AMA has been found guilty of criminal conspiracy to monopolize the practice of the healing

arts.

Do you mean by this that they were actually found guilty in the courts or by their action, as you testified here?

Mr. MILLER. They were actually found guilty, as I understand it, in the courts.

Very little publicity was ever given to this.

I would like, Mr. Chairman, to submit for the record an editorial from the New Orleans Tribune

The CHAIRMAN. Well, now, before the Chair lets all of this information go in the record as factual matter, I think we are going to have some records here to sustain the allegations that have been made the best records for this kind of information, I would say, Mr. Miller.

And I do not believe it would be the proper thing to allow that kind of allocation in the record without a showing of facts.

Mr. MILLER. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, I do not understand the impropriety of submitting this editorial to answer the question. Mr. BROYHILL. I will withdraw my question then.

Mr. MILLER. I see.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, it is in the record that the AMA-is that who you were talking about?

Mr. MILLER. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Had been convicted in the courts, as you stated here.

Mr. MILLER. That is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, the Chair is not going to permit that kind of statement to remain unless you show some proof or records where that happened as a fact.

We are not going to get into that kind of an argument here and have every Congressman and everybody coming in and saying "We deny all of these things" and get into such discussions here.

The Chair cannot permit that.

Mr. MILLER. Perhaps I can answer the question best this way:

In 1941 when group insurance was the question-it was over group insurance in the District of Columbia-and was it Thurman Arnold? Mr. PRATT. He was the counsel.

Mr. MILLER. I think it was Thurman Arnold who was the Attorney General of the United States.

He won a conviction against the AMA for conspiracy to monopolize the healing arts, and it was sustained in an action by the Supreme Court of the United States.

And the editorial in the New Orleans Tribune simply commented upon the fact that they were not surprised, that the AMA had been acting as a monopoly and they had invited this determination by the courts.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, in the first place, Mr. Miller, Mr. Thurman Arnold has never been Attorney General, that I know of.

Mr. MILLER. I might have the wrong name.

Mr. PRATT. He had the right name but not the right title.

The CHAIRMAN. That could make a great deal of difference.

Mr. PRATT. He later became asosciate judge of the U.S. court of appeals and retired.

The CHAIRMAN. He was in charge of the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice. To correct the record, there was or were antitrust proceedings undertaken, but no criminal proceeding, as you referred to a moment ago.

Mr. Long, do you have any questions?

Mr. LONG. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Van Deerlin?

Mr. VAN DEERLIN. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, sir.

Mr. MILLER. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. The next witness is Mr. Philip F. Jehle, Washington representative, National Association of Retail Druggists. Mr. Jehle, we will be glad to hear you at this time.

STATEMENT OF PHILIP F. JEHLE, WASHINGTON REPRESENTATIVE, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF RETAIL DRUGGISTS

Mr. JEHLE. I appear here this morning in behalf of the National Association of Retail Druggists, a small business association having a nationwide membership of 36,000 family pharmacists. As you know, the NARD speaks for its retail pharmacist members on all national legislative matters affecting their competitive and professional

interests.

The NARD is deeply appreciative of this opportunity to testify in support of H.R. 12, which would increase the opportunities for training of professional health personnel. You may be assured that my testimony on this subject will be brief and to the point. I understand the practical problems involved in scheduling the many witnesses who desire to be heard on this very important measure.

In both principle and purpose, the NARD endorses H.R. 12. The Nation's retail pharmacists have no hesitancy in supporting efforts to relieve the serious manpower shortages existing in the health professions. In fact, such an undertaking deserves and, I am sure, enjoys the support of all American citizens interested in the maintenance of our high health care standards.

While generally supporting H.R. 12, however, the NARD wishes to call attention to an obvious shortcoming or, perhaps, oversight evidenced in the scope of the bill. I refer to the failure of the measure to include pharmacy students among those eligible for student loans. Although agreeing that student loans should be available to medical, dental, and public health students, the NARD respectfully urges that H.R. 12 be amended to offer loan benefits to all students in the health professions, including pharmacy, in which an appreciable personnel shortage is found.

Available statistics reveal that the supply of registered pharmacists has not kept pace with a growing America. In 1930, when there were only 88,000 registered pharmacists, the United States enjoyed a ratio of 69 pharmacists for every 100,000 persons in the population. Today, by comparison, there are only 67 pharmacists per 100,000 persons, although we have about 120,000 registered pharmacists in the country. But an even more serious manpower shortage is disclosed, if only the 116,000 pharmacists currently registered and actively engaged in the practice of pharmacy are considered. The ratio then drops to 64 to 100,000. (See table A.)

These statistics become even more meaningful when it is considered that, some 30 years age, almost all registered pharmacists were working in retail drugstores, while currently about 10 percent are employed in such related health areas as pharmaceutical research and development, pharmacy education, ethical drug promotion and distribution, hospital pharmacies, and Federal and State public health agencies, including military dispensaries. In other words, the failure to keep the supply of registered pharmacists in line with population growth since 1930 has been aggravated by the fact that at least 10 percent of today's pharmacists are not available for retail pharmacy work. Small wonder, then, that a vexing shortage of pharmacists for prescription counter duty is found to exist in retail drugstores across the

country.