We can say with the background statistics of the Bureau of Narcotics that we went from about 700,000 addicts down to about 100,000 addicts in 1960. We are back up to 200,000 or 300,000 addicts, somewhere in there. So we have lost about 25 percent of our gain over 40 or 50 years.

Mr. ROGERS. Where do those figures come from?

Mr. KELLY. The Bureau of Narcotics. I don't have the figures with me. The Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs kept pretty accurate statistics. Mr. John Finlater said the other day when he addressed our group that there were 700,000 addicts at the turn of the century.

In 1960, we had a much less addicted rate that we know of. Again, I am saying that and qualifying that-that we know of. In 1970, we had a much higher rate in comparison that we know of, outside of all of the emotional strains.

So between 1960 and 1970, especially from 1965 on, we had a very large push in our therapeutic communities across the Nation. And exactly, Mr. Chairman, what you have brought up has been happening. We have found no emperical evidence has been coming out of that, except self-evaluation, and I kind of doubt self-evaluation in this field. There is a high split-T rate in this.

What Virginia is proposing and will propose to our legislature in January, to our council and Governor and to the crime commission is that we set up standards where therapeutic communities—and we are not saying that they have to change their laundry every 24 hours and this kind of thing. The standards will be that the houses have to be independently evaluated by the State. They have to be licensed by the State. They have to have on-the-spot inspections by the State. That we have to have facts and figures coming out of those houses. Mr. ROGERS. Report to you.

Mr. KELLY. So that we would know what is going on.

Mr. ROGERS. To have records kept?

Mr. KELLY. Absolutely. Medical records, of course.

Mr. ROGERS. What about psychiatrists, psychologists, or anything

like this?

Mr. KELLY. It is our feeling that it is time for the professional man to move into this field.

Mr. ROGERS. Would you require consultative services of psychiatrists or psychologists with those who are running the therapeutic community?

Mr. KELLY. At this point-again we are still working up the standards our department of mental health and hospitals is, of course, the psychological arm of our State government, and I think there will be a heavy reliance on the psychological services and counselor services within these houses.

In our methadone program in Richmond, we have had about 500 people go through. We have about 200 active parties. They have to go through heavy psychological services, heavy counseling services, heavy vocational and rehabilitation in Job Corps, and all of this, instead of bringing them to the point of a new drug. We don't like maintenance in Virginia, and we try to keep them off.

66-841-72-pt. 2- -30

Mr. ROGERS. I think it would be helpful to us to know what standards you are suggesting in methadone and the therapeutic communities.

Now, do you have to have testing in the therapeutic community? Mr. KELLY. Absolutely. Again, the urinalysis will be utilized. Again, the counselors will be utilized in questioning techniques. All of this will be used as a testing arm to find out whether or not it is working. We don't have cures, Mr. Chairman. That is what I am trying to say. Nobody does at this point.

But the only way we are going to find them is to sift through the evidence of what we are doing.

Mr. ROGERS. What about inpatient treatment where you take them for detoxification, put them in a fairly secured area, so that the drugs are not coming in while they are going through it. Is this a necessary part?

Mr. KELLY. I think for some folks it would be. There are some addicts who need quick detoxification, and then a modality of some sort has to be picked out for them after they have been psychologically screened. This is again where I feel the therapeutic community has failed, because they throw them all in the same mold, and you can't do that. Different people need different areas of treatment.

Yes, I would agree with that. We need screening committees, and we need professionals on those screening committees, and we are working toward that.

I will offer you as soon as we get these standards written up, I will get them to the committee.

Mr. ROGERS. How soon do you think that might be?

Mr. KELLY. By late October by the latest, because we have to get ready by January.

Mr. ROGERS. You don't have any current thinking on that?

Mr. KELLY. I will send you the drafts before that.

Mr. ROGERS. I think that would be helpful, even though they are not firm. We would accept them with that understanding, that it is simply a draft that has not been firmed up.

Mr. KELLY. All right, sir.

Mr. ROGERS. Now, does your agency have any direct tie-in with law enforcement?

The

Mr. KELLY. The head of the State police sits on our agency. director of the State police sits on it, and we are working with the local law-enforcement agencies, through LEAA, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, to better educate them. In fact, in November we are running a 2-week regional school for 80 hours, and a second one, to educate police officers on drug abuse investigation. Mr. ROGERS. Are you using any of your community mental health centers in your program at all?

Mr. KELLY. Yes, very much.

Mr. ROGERS. Are they giving inpatient as well as counseling and outpatient?

Mr. KELLY. Under State law we have a system called chapter 10 funds. I think many States have the same system. They probably use different names for it, but there are funds made available by the State,

and the mental health and hospital department has just authorized about 2 months ago the use of these funds for drug programs.

The one that pops right into my mind is in Portsmouth. Portsmouth started a complete program on chapter 10 funds. They are a therapeutic type. It is not a full inpatient. It is more of an outpatient. But they have store fronts and hotlines and all of this type of service to the community through this area.

But the thrust in Virginia is through the mental health and rehabilitation.

Mr. ROGERS. What is your estimated addict population?

Mr. KELLY. 6,000 to 9,000.

Mr. ROGERS. Statewide?

Mr. KELLY. That is the figure we are working with.

Mr. ROGERS. There is no way to know?

Mr. KELLY. No.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Kyros?

Mr. KYROS. No questions.

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you very much, Mr. Kelly. Your testimony has been so helpful. We are grateful for your being here, and if you will let us have the additional information, I am sure the committee will benefit by it.

Mr. KELLY. We will keep open our communications with the committee.

Mr. ROGERS. The commitee stands adjourned until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.

(Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m., the subcommittee adjourned to reconvene at 10 a.m., Thursday, July 29, 1971.)

SPECIAL ACTION OFFICE FOR DRUG ABUSE

PREVENTION

THURSDAY, JULY 29, 1971

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT, COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to notice, in room 2322, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Paul G. Rogers (Chairman) presiding.

Mr. ROGERS. The subcommittee will come to order.

We are continuing hearings on the proposed legislation to handle the drug abuse problem in this Nation. It is the President's proposal, as well as other proposals presented by Members of Congress.

We are pleased this morning to have one of our distinguished colleagues with us, a man who has been most interested in the problem and presenting ideas of things that should and could be done, the Honorable Henry Reuss, a Member of Congress from the State of Wisconsin. We are honored to have you with us, and I know the committee will benefit from your testimony.

STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY S. REUSS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN

Mr. REUSS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have a rather lengthy statement which I would like, with the chairman's permission, to submit for the record, and then summarize.

Mr. ROGERS. Without objection, your statement will be made a part of the record following your summation.

Mr. REUSS. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I applaud the diligence with which the committee is exploring what is one of the Nation's major problems. My suggestion on the bill, H.R. 9264, this morning boils down to the idea that the enforcement aspects of drug control could be enhanced by enlisting the support of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

The subcommittee has had abundant testimony before it, and I think it is unnecessary that I restate the seriousness of the problem.

Mr. Ingersoll has testified that there are at least 300,000 heroin addicts in the country. He has also testified in response to some questioning by you, Mr. Chairman, that as much as every other crime committed in this country is related to drug addiction, and that the criminal needs to commit the crime to support his habit.

FBI Director Hoover has suggested similar dimensions to the problem.