7684

 

DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR AND
HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WEL-
FARE, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATION BILL, 1962

Mr. FOGARTY. Mr. Speaker, I move
that the House resolve itself into the
Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union for the consideration

of the bill CELR. 7035) making appro--

priations for the Departments of Labor,

‘and Health, Education, and Welfare,
and related agencies, for the fiscal year
. ending June 30, 1962, and for other pur-
poses; and pending that motion, Mr.
Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
general debate on the bill be limited to
2 hours, the time to be equally divided
arid controlled by the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Larrp] and myself.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request. of the gentleman from
Rhode Island?

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, reserving
the right to object to the unanimous
consent request, is the gentleman saying
that there is so little interest in the
House cf Represenatives in the spend-
ing. of nearly $4.5 billion of the tax~-
payers’ money that general debate can
be disposed of in 2 hours?

Mr. FOGARTY. Well, we did it last
year without any trouble, and we thought
all questions were answered last year
and 2 years ago, I am sure the gentle-
‘man knows that about half of the. total
of the bill is grants to States for public
assistance, and there is nothing that you
or I can do about it in this bill. :

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, I regret to
observe that this abbreviated procedure

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

is apparently becoming par for the
course in the House of Representatives.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Rhode
Island?

There was no objection.

The SPEAKER. The question is on
the motion offered by the gentleman
from Rhode Island.

The motion was agreed to.

Accordingly the House resolved itself
into the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the consid-
eration of the bill H.R. 7035, with Mr.
Price in the chair.

The Clerk read the title of the bill.

By unanimous consent, the first read-
ing of the bill was dispensed with.

Mr. FOGARTY. Mr. Chairman, I
yield myself 15 minutes.

PROGRAM FOR THE BALANCE OF THE WEEK

Mr. HALLECK. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?

Mr. FOGARTY. I yield to the gentle-
man from Indiana. ,

Mr. HALLECE. Ido this for the pur-
pose of ‘inquiring of the majority leader
as to the program for the balance of the
week.

Mr. McCORMACE. The program for
the balance of the week is the pending
bill, and after the disposition of this bill
there is H.R. 3279, increasing travel al-
lowance for Federal employees.

Mr. HALLECK. And that will con-
clude the work for this week?

Mr. McCORMACK. That is all I have
now. .

Mr. HALLECK. I thank the gentle.
man, ‘

Mr. McCORMACK. I know of noth-
ing else at the present time.

Mr. FOGARTY. Mr. Chairman, I am
pleased to be able to bring to you today
another unanimous report, from our
Committee on Appropriations, for the
Departments of Labor, and Health, Edu-
cation, and Welfare, and related agen-
cies. This is the 15th year that I have
had the opportunity of working on this
bill and the llth year as chairman. For
11 years now we have had a unanimous
report coming out of our committee. I
started on this subcommittee back in
the days that many of you will remem-
ber, with Frank Keefe of Wisconsin, who
did such a splendid job in the fields of
labor, health, and education in 1947 and
1948. We have tried to continue this
progress.

First, Mr. Chairman, I would like to
thank the members of our committee:
on this side, the gentleman from Indi-
ana (Mr, Denton], and the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Marswat.i, for the
long hours they put in on the hearings,
meeting all day and many nights until
6 o'clock in the evening. I want to
thank them for the help that they have
given me, and also thank my colleague,
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr,
Lartrpi, the rankine Republican mem-
ber, who has been of such great help,
and who knows as much about this bill
as Ido. The new member of the com-
mittee, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
MicueEL], has done a remarkable job and
has given us much assistance during this,
his first year. Of course, I could not

May 17

stop there without saying a word for
our clerk, Mr. Moyer. We think we have
the best clerk of any Committee on Ap-
propriations in the House.

This is a unanimous report from the
committee. That means compromise.
There are some areas in which I think
we ought to be doing more and there are
members of the committee who think
that we ought be doing less. ‘This bill is
the result of 7 or 8 weeks of hearings
ahd compromise on both sides. So we
come to you with a unanimous report.

There are three or four items in the
bill this year that I think are unusually
important. One has to do with training
programs. :

For the last several years the Com-
mittee has encouraged, especially the De-
partment of Labor, to institute a really
effective program for the training of men
and women for skilled industrial jobs.
This is especially important in areas
where automation, migration of industry,
and other economic factors have raised
unemployment to high levels. .

While such a program is needed to re-
lieve unemployment, the relief of unem-
ployment is far from being the only fac-
ter involved. We have the situation
today where large numbers are unem-
ployed and at the same time there is a
large unfilled demand for people skilled
in certain industrial activities. Anyone
who doubts that situation exists has only
to look at the many columns of help-
wanted ads in the Sunday edition of any
metropolitan newspaper. Thus we have
a, perhaps equally important, problem
of meeting an existing demand for much
needed, skilled people, .

This year the committee has. decided
to quit just talking about this problem
and has included funds in the bill to
start really doing something about it.
Funds are included in the Secretary of
Labor’s Office to supervise and coordi-
nate the program in the Department of
Labor. Funds are included in the Bu-
reau of Labor Statistics to make a study
of the problems resulting from automa-

-tion. The committee has approved the

small increase requested for the promo-~
tion of industrial training programs in
the Bureau of Apprenticeship and Train-
ing and, in addition, has recommended
an increase of $500,000 over the budget
to enable this Bureau to staff up to the
level necessary to do a really effective
job. The committee has increased: by
$1 million the appropriation request for
area vocational educational programs
under the Defense Education Act and
will expect that these programs be en-
couraged to follow the lines that will
result in maximum contribution toward
the solution of this problem. Finally the
committee has recommended an in-
crease, over the budget request, for the
cooperative research program in the
Office of Education, and will expect that
a part. of this increase be used to estab-
lish at least one demonstration project
in the field of training, and of retrain-
ing persons displaced from their jobs
in industry.

In the hearings with the Department
of Health, Hducation, and Welfare, con-
siderable time was spent on the ques~
1961

tion of hospital costs.. We were told
that hospital costs have gone up 300 per~
cent in the last 20 years; and all through
the hearings, if you have time to. read
them, you will find that we have been
insisting that more attention be spent
on training physical therapists and
others that can help.in expanding the
.home-care programs and permit people
to get out of the hospital sooner than
they otherwise would be able. We have
also added a special appropriation for a
new program of research in hospital
facilities. There is $10 million in the
bill for this new program. :

We had evidence given to us by doc-
tors from the Mayo Clinic and the
Methodist Hospital in Rochester who
have been working on a project now for
6 years, studying the value of a new
design for hospitals. In the last 40 or
50 years there has been little change in
the design of hospitals. As a result of
their study, they came to our committee
and told us, after this 6-year study of
the problem, that they were able to bring
down the cost of nursing care in the
intensive ward area from $54 a day to $14
a day. This is one of the most sig-
nificant findings that was presented to
our committee this year. That is why
we included the $10 million as a new
itern.

I shall try to go down the table in
the report; and if Members: have the
committee report in front of them, they
will be able to follow the explanation
of the changes made by the. committee
from the suggestions of the Budget.

In the Department of Labor we cut
the appropriation for the Secretary by
$184,000; $150,000 of the cut was to
cover the cost of the Labor-Management
Committee set up by the President. We
thought this should be financed all in
one place, rather than split between the
Departments of Commerce and Labor.
We cut out $27,000 for two positions in
Civil Defense and another $7,000 item
for a new position in the personnel office.

In the Bureau of Labor-Management
Reports we made a reduction of $500,000
from the request because the workload
did not come up to what.they expected.

In the Bureau of International Labor
Affairs they asked for an increase of
some $130,000, and we gave them half
the increase asked for.

In the Office of the Solicitor
proved the budget estimate.

For the Bureau of Labor Standards we
approved the budget estimate.

In the Bureau of Veterans’ Re-em-
ployment Rights we gave them the
amount they asked for.

For the Bureau of Apprenticeship and
Training, because of automation and
other factors we have included $647,000
more than they have this year. The rec-
ommended increase includes approval
of the requested. increase of $147,000
aimed primarily at strengthening the
Bureau’s support of the Department’s
manpower program by providing staff
and promotional materials to expand
and improve training in industry. The
Committee has added another $500,000
to initiate a really effective program of
training. The. Committee will expect

we ap-

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

that special emphasis be given to those
areas of high unemployment due to ine
creased automation, migration of indus-
try, and cther factors: and to those areas
where’ serious shortages of properly
trained personnel exist.

In the Bureau of Employment Secu-
rity we made a small cut of $158,000
from the amount requested for salaries
and expenses.

We cut the Employees’ Compensation
Fund $1,500,000, because they gave us
a new estimate that indicated this
amount will not be needed.

We gave the Bureau of Labor Statis-
tics just what was asked for. We also
gave the. Women’s Bureau the budget
estimate, $668,000, and we gave the Wage
and Hour Division what was asked for.

FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION

Now as to the Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare, we gave the
Food and Drug Administration what
they asked for. I think we should have
given them more, but it was a compro-
mise and-I am supporting this amount.

Mr. Chairman, few agencies of the
Federal Government fulfill a more re-
sponsible and necessary rele than the
Food.and Drug Administration. And
few areas subject to Federal action are
experiencing. more dynamic changes
than those over which the Food and
Drug Administration has responsibility.
In a very literal sense, this agency has
the direct and personal welfare of every

‘man, woman, and child in the United

States under its protection. Every Amer-
ican relies upon the Food and Drug Ad-
ministration each day for a supply. of
safe and pure foods, drugs, and cosmet-
ics. And in times such as these when
technology provides us with a myriad
of new food preparations, complex drugs
undreamed of even 5 or 10 years ago,
and almost unimaginable varieties of
cosmetic products, these responsibilities
of the Food and Drug Administration
become all the more vital to the every-
day health and well-being of the Ameri-
can people. Tt might be worth while to
pause very briefly and mention a few
FDA responsibilities which have become
more difficult to fulfill as a result of
changing times.
PESTICIDES

One such responsibility is to pro-
tect all consumers of foods—especially
consumers of. fresh produce—from ex-~
cessive residues of toxic pesticides and
other agricultural chemicals
might still be on these foods after they
enter the interstate market. It is in-
teresting to note that, whereas prior to
1940 there were fewer than half a dozen
chemicals available as pesticides, there
are today over 200 such chemicals used
in over 45,000 chemical preparations.
These in turn are used to the tune of
600 million pounds by 2 million farmers
on every crop grown. in this country.
Some of these pesticides, I might add,
are so toxic that a drop undiluted fall-
ing. on the skin of a human being can
cause death. The way these chemical
agents are used, therefore, becomes ex-
tremely important. Unless they are
applied to crops in accordance with pre-
scribed directions for use, residues of

which’

7685

these poisonous chemicals can. remain
on the crops and find their way to the
consumer’s dinner table.

Since it is impossible to survey. how
every farmer uses each of these pesti-
cides during the crop cycle, it becomes
imperative that, at the very least, we
sample these crops once they are in
interstate commerce to make sure that
they do not contain~ residues which
would be harmful to consumers. This
sampling job, Mr: Chairman, is a re-
sponsibility of the Food and Drug Ad-
ministration.

it is of great concern to me—and I
am sure to all American consumers—
that with the resources now available,

FDA can sample only one-fifth of 1 per~

cent of the estimated 2,506,000 inter-
state shipments of food crops which have
been treated with these agricultural
chemicals. In terms of numbers, this
amounts to the collection of approxi-
mately. 5,000 sarmples a year, out of the
estimated 2,500,000 shipments. During
the hearings before my subcommittee,
testimony was provided to show that in
order to determine the extent of the
problem, let alone to provide minimum
protection, FDA should sample at least
1 percent or 25,000 samples of the annual
shipments of food crops treated with ag-
ricultural chemicals This certainly
seems reasonable. The appropriations
which. we would provide. the Food and
Drug Administration for fiscal year 1962
would permit that agency, by 1963, to
collect 13,000 samples, equivalent to a
sampling of one-half of 1 percent of the
annual interstate shipments of such food
crops. This is progress in the right
direction.
BRUGS

Another responsibility of the Food and
Drug Administration which has been
given an entirely new look as. a. result
of technological changes, as well as a
result of new techniques of distribution
and marketing, is the responsibility to
protect all Americans from unsafe, im-
potent, and mislabeled drugs. It is in-
teresting to note that in fiscal year 1960
the Food and Drug Administration re-
ceived 480 new drug applications. In
effect, therefore, we can say that a new
drug is developed in this Nation on the
average of more than one every day.
In addition to this, the Food and Drug
Administration in fiscal year 1960 re-
ceived 2,059 so-called supplements of
new drugs. These supplements are
changes in new drugs which had been
previously approved by the Food and
Drug Administration,

Not only are new drugs being devel-
oped and changed in greater numbers,
but they are for the most part more com-
plex than before. Some have timing
agents which permit they to dissolve and
to react over a period of time. Some are

. so potent that they must be administered

only by specialists with extreme caution.
Some are very prone to habit forming.
Others can develop serious reactions with
certain individuals. Yet it is. the re-
sponsibility of FDA to clear for safety.
each of these drugs and their supple-
ments. before they can be marketed.
Then FDA must make sure that they are
7686

being. marketed under. the approved
labeling, that they contain the approved
ingredients, and that they are sold under
the approved means of distribution.
This is a tremendous task.

It is also the responsibility of the Food
and Drug Administration to make certain
that promotional literature for new drugs
and their supplements submitted to phy-
sicians by the drug industry contain ac-
curate and honest descriptions of the
drugs, how they are to be used, and what
they can affect. When one considers
that the general practitioner in this Na-
tion receives an average of 4,700 such
pieces of literature annually and that the
Food and Drug Administration sericusly
reviews only 2 percent—100—of these,
we can begin to visualize clearly the scope
of the FDA responsibility.

Likewise, when we realize that there
are over 56,000 retail drugstores which
must be inspected to guard against il-
legal sale of prescription drugs and of
counterfeit drugs—a problem of grow-
ing dimensions—-we can again better un-

' derstand what the Food and Drug Ad-
ministration faces. When we realize
that there are over 12,000 manufac-
turers of drugs which have to be sur-
veyed to ascertain whether or not FDA-
approved drugs are being manufactured
in accordance with proper safety con-
trols, we get an even better picture of
the responsibilities which are the Food
and Drug Administration’s in this area.

Recent findings of the Kefauver com-
mittee, as well as a recent study of FDA
drug operations made by a special com-
mittee headed by Dr. Detley W. Bronk,
President of the National Academy of
Sciences, have indicated, in the former
case, the phenomenal changes which
have occurred in the development,
manufacture and distribution of drugs,
and, in the latter case, the inadequate
resources available to the Food and
Drug Administration to cope adequately
with these changes and to provide the
type of consumer protection which this
Nation deserves. The appropriation for
fiscal year 1962 would contribute sub~
stantially to the strengthening of FDA
drug activities across the board.

OTHER PROBLEMS

These two problems are but two of a
host of problems confronting the Food
and Drug Administration as a result of
relatively recent changes in the technol~
ogy of foods, drugs, and cosmetics. As
significant as these two problems are,
others are no less significant. If time
permitted, I would like to discuss a few
of these at length. It suffice, however,
merely to list some of them.

First. Food additives: There are over
3,000 chemicals used today in the manu-
facture, processing and packaging of
foods. FDA must evaluate and preseribe

tolerances for the safe use of each of

these in every food product. It must
then enforce such tolerances.
Second. Color. additives: There are

an estimated 465 manufacturers, pack-
ers and mixers of color additives and an
estimated 18,000 firms using such addi-
tives. Each color additive must be tested
for safety and used under specific toler-
ances established by the Food and Drug

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

Administration. -FDA must also certify
many of them on a batch-by-batch basis.

Third. Hazardous substances: Under
an act passed by the Congress last year,
FDA must evaluate household. products
which contain hazardous substances and
must prescribe proper cautionary label-
ing for each such product. There are
an estimated 300,000 trade items used in
and around the household containing
dangerous substances.

Fourth. Frozen foods: This means of
processing and distributing foods has
grown phenomenally. Prior to World
War IT frozen foods output in this coun-
try was about 268 million pounds a year.
Today the output is well over 5 billion
pounds annually. Since these products
do. not receive a final heating during
manufacture, and since they are con-
sumed in the home often without suffi-
cient heat to destroy micro-organisms,
it becomes imperative that they ke pro-
duced in the plant under the most sani-
tary conditions and that they are not
subject to any mishandling in com-
merce. FDA inspections must assure
that this is the case.

Fourth. Cosmetics: This is an industry
which has made great strides in the past
decade or so. Retail sales of cosmetics
approach an annual figure of $2 billion.
There are approximately 2,000 manu-
facturers and distributors in the United
States, The big. problem here, is that
cosmetics now on the market and being
developed be subjected to adequate tests
to determine their safety for individual
users. Each year the Food and Drug
Administration encounters products
which have not received that type of
testing and which are causing harm to
users. The job of sampling the thou-
sands of cosmetic products on the mar-
ket and those which are constantly being
added is a task of huge dimensions for
the Food and Drug Administration.

Thus, citing only a handful of prob-
lems, we gét some concept of the im-
portance of the Food and Drug Admin-
istration’s activities to the health and
welfare of each and every American and
of the complexity of these problems in
changing times such as these.

The fiscal year 1962 appropriations
would be another in a series of steps
taken. by the Congress within recent
years to bolster the Food and Drug Ad-
ministration and provide it with the re-
sources which experience and private
studies, such as the Citizens Advisory
Committee of 1955, have shown ‘to be
needed in order that this agency might
fulfill adequate its responsibilities to the
American people.

Over a period of years, my Subcom-
mittee has heard testimony which over-
wheimingly shows that FDA is not
equipped with the manpower and other
resources to do its job with the thor-
oughness necessary to provide maximum
protection. FDA can inspect each of the
estimated 100,000 establishments under
its jurisdiction on the average of about
once every 4 years. Problems such as
those I have mentioned are not receiving
the attention they must get. Only with-
in the past 5 years has FDA been able
to start replacing its obsolete scientific

May 17

equipment. Half of its inventory‘is still
obsolete. Only since fiscal year 1958—
over half a century since passage of the
food and drug law-—~have funds been
provided for renovation of the district
office laboratories. Although the Con-
gress. has permitted FDA to make con-
siderable strides in these recent years,
the job is far from done... We must
continue this progress until the Ameri-
can consumer has the protection to
which he is entitled in these changing
times. Should this fiscal year 1962 ap-
propriation be provided FDA, it would
represent an investment of about 13
cents for each American citizen. I can
think of no investment bearing greater
returns.

Next in order cf consideration are the
programs administered by the U.S. Of-
fice of Education. These programs are
essential to our national progress and,
indeed, to our very survival. The Con-
gress has repeatedly affirmed its deep
concern for education beginning. with
the first Morrill Act of 1862 to establish
the great land-grant college institutions
and more recently by the provisions of
the National Defense Education Act.

VOCATIONAL EDUCATION

One of the most successful of these
programs is in vocational education. It
helps to fill our needs for skilled man-
power. It provides a weapon against un-
employment. It cuts down school drop-
outs. It. increases the efficiency of the
Nation and provides wider occupational
choices for the individual. Under this
program, special training is provided for
high school students and adults who
need retraining or additional training

_ for new jobs.

The sum of $33,672,000 included in the
bill for 1962 provides for continuation
of the program at the 1961 level of op-
eration and includes $4 million to con-
tinue the practical nurse training pro-
gram extended by the Congress earlier
this year.

LAND-GRANT COLLEGES

The 68 ‘land-grant colleges and uni-
versities participate in a permanent
appropriation of $2,550,000 a year and
also share in an annual appropriation
through the Bankhead-Jones Act—1935
and 1952. Last year the Congress in-
creased the annual authorization from
$2,501,500 to $11,950,000.

The bill provides $8,194,000, which is
an increase of $5,692,500 over the 1961
appropriation and represents the first of
two steps to reach the new maximum
authorized by the Congress last year.
Uniform grants to each State will in-
crease from $20,000 to $90,000, and
Puerto Rico will be included. Variable
grants to-each State based on population
will increase from $1,501,500 to $3,-
604,000.

For many years the land-grant .col-
leges have underwritten the Nation’s
progress in agriculture and the mechanic
arts.. About one-fifth of the total enroll-
ment in higher education in the United
States is accommodated by the land-
grant colleges and universities.

GRANTS TO LIBRARY SERVICES

Last year the Library Services Act was
extended through 1966—Public Law 86—
1961

279—-thus continuing a program that
has brought new or improved: public
library services to over 35 million rural
residents. Federal funds are limited to
not more than 66 percent nor less than
33 percent of the total costs. The act
opens the world to every isolated com-
munity. Over 250 new bookmobiles are
on the roads as a result of this program.
program. Over 1% million rural chil-
dren and adults who were formerly
without any library services at all are
participating. It liberates the home-~
bound and helps to provide education to
thousands of rural communities.

The act continues to authorize $7,5090,-
000 a year to promote further develop-
ment. This amount is requested for
fiscal year 1962 to provide for the con-
tinuation of grants at the maximum
authorized level. .

No Federal program supplementing
the education of our rural population
has gained wider acceptance nor has
been received with greater enthusiasm.

AID TO FEDERALLY AFFECTED AREAS

The appropriation bill before the
House today carries funds for the per-
manent provisions of the acts aiding
schools in federally impacted areas.
The sum of $85,700,000 appears in the
bill as “Payments to school districts”
and another item of $24,850,000 appears
as “Assistance for school construction.”
The $85 million item is the amount nec-
essary to pay entitlements to federally
impacted school districts authorized by
Public Law 874 and the $24 million item
is the amount necessary for construc-
tion of school facilities as authorized by
Public Law 815.. I want to comment on
the apropriation for these two programs
because some members may have won-
dered at the amount for the 1962 fiscal
year compared to the much larger
amounts appropriated for these pro-
grams for the current fiscal year, total-
ing $280 million for both programs.

In 1958 this Congress amended these
two Federal impact laws by making per-
manent the provisions insofar as they
apply to. children who liye on Federal
property with a parent employed’ on
Federal property.
the provisions authorizing payments to
all other categories of Federal impact
until June 30, 1961. Thus the appro-
priation of $85 million for Public Law
874 and $24 million for Public Law 815
includes only funds for payments for
the children living on Federal bases.
There is nothing in this appropriation
for those districts educating children
who live in a taxable home with a' par-
ent employed on Federal property. |

The administration has recommended
permanent legislation to the current
session of Congress for payments to
school districts for children who live in
a taxable home with a parent employed
on Federal property. At the same time,
the proposed legislation provides that
the rate of payment be cut in half from
the present 50 percent of the local con-
tribution rate to 25 percent of that rate.

I call this matter to your attention to
explain why the appropriations we are
voting on today for these two programs
total only $110,550,000, as compared with
the $280 million appropriated for the

dividuals.

Congress extended -

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -—- HOUSE

current fiseal year. Also, I want to alert
you to the fact that a supplemental ap-
propriation will be required for these two
programs whether Congress supports the
administration’s recommended cuts in

payments or extends these two laws >

without the recommended reductions.

If Public Law. 874 was extended in its
present form, the estimated require-
ments for 1962 would be $250 million.
Under the extension. recommended by
the administration, the requirements
would be $158 million. If Public Law 815
was extended in its present form, the
requirements. would be about $62. mil-
lion. Under the amendments proposed
by the administration, the estimated
cost would be about $45 million.

I am pleased to note that the Com-
mittee on Education and Labor has
shown its good judgment in recommend-
ing against the proposed severe cuts and
for continuation of the present program.
I personally do not believe that this
program should be curtailed in view of
the continuing burdens placed upon com-
munities by the tax-exempt status of
Federal property.

In my home. State of Rhode Island,
21 federally impacted schoo! districts re-
ceived approximately $1,117,000 for 7,851
children. whose parents were living in
taxable homes in the 1960 fiseal year.
Had the proposed amendments been in
effect in 1960, these 21 federally im-
pacted school districts would have re-
ceived only $558,000 for these same chil-
dren. This is a very substantial cut for
these districts to absorb at a time when
the number of children brought into
these. communities by activities of the
Federal Government is increasing each
year.

DEFENSE EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES

The National Defense Education Act
provides greatly needed assistance in
States and their subdivisions, to com-
munities, to school districts, and to in-
Every State and practically
every community, large or small, bene-
fits from this act.

The bill includes $216,857,000 which
represents an increase of $23,377,000
over the amount provided for fiscal year
1961. :

STUDENT LOANS (TITLE FI) ($58,430,000

AMENDED TO $75,145,000)

‘The student loan program allows
needy students to borrow money for a
college education. This year 145,000
students in 1,407 colleges will be aided
in continuing their education. This pro-
gram has met with universal acceptance
and is one of the finest actions taken by
this Government to encourage our peo~-
ple to invest in themselves through
education.

SCIENCE, MATHEMATICS, AND MODERN FOREIGN
LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION (EITLE TIT) ($57,-
750,000)

Title IIT of the NDEA is aimed at im-
proving instruction in science, mathe-
matics and modern foreign languages.
It aids the schools in the acquisition of
equipment and minor remodeling of
laboratories and supports advances in
foreign language instruction. Loans to
nonprofit private schools. are. also avail-
able under terms of the act.

7687

The schools have been deplorably weak
in these important fields of. instruction
which are so definitely allied with the
national defense. Under the impetus of
NDEA there has been a fivefold increase
in approved projects to strengthen in-
struction. Student enrollment has in--
creased significantly. Teacher compe-
tency has been reinforced and State
supervisory services are increasingly ef-
fective. I will insert in the Recorp at
this point a statement of comments sub-
Ynitted by various local superintendents
throughout the country showing the
value of equipment acquired with the
aid of NDEA funds.

Title IIT of the NDEA has brought
about a dynamic change in thousands
of schools. Instruction in science and
mathematics has been upgraded and up-
dated. Rural schools have been put on
@ par with their urban counterparts.
New curriculum materials have been de-
veloped, new equipment has been pur-
chased, laboratories have been modern-
ized, new resource centers have been
established and higher standards have
been set. In thousands of schools, yes-
terday’s obsolete scientific equipment
has been replaced by the modern equip-.
ment used in industry and commerce; in
hundreds of school laboratories, the age
of electronics can now be taught and
understood. —

NATIONAL DEFENSE FELLOWSHIPS
($21,762,000)

The budget estimate for fiscal year
1962 represents an increase of $1,012,000
over the amount provided in 1961.

The graduate fellowship program has
expanded and strengthened graduate fa-
cilities in our colleges and universities.
Over 680 graduate programs have been
established or expanded in 149 graduate
‘schools. ‘Three-year fellowships have
been awarded to 4,000 students for
graduate study through 1961. The com-
mittee has reduced the budget request
for this item by $1 million which will
curtail the program expansion in 1962
but will not reduce any existing pro-
grams.

GUIDANCE, COUNSELING, AND TESTING (TITLE V) ¢
(A) GRANTS TO STATES ($15 MILLION), (B)
INSTITUTES FOR COUNSELING. PERSONNEL
($6,900,000)

In the kind of world we are facing, our
youth must meet challenges which im-
pose new requirements of personal ini-
tiative, effort, and ability. In order to
accomplish this, we must maintain
imaginative programs of guidance and
counseling in our schools. This is the
objective of title V of the NDEA. A dra-
matic example of how this program is
aiding our schools reduce “drop-outs”
and thereby to cut down on delinquency
and unemployment is provided by the
higher horizons project in New York
City. This project has enabled the suc-
cessful education transition of children
coming from families of minority groups
in New York City, such as Puerto Ricans,
by providing special guidance and edu-
cation programs which are supported by
title V funds. Otherwise, a substantial
number of these children would find it
impossible to get alone in school with the
result that many would drop out and
add to the delinquency problem. This

“

(TITLE Iv}
7688

is the sort of activity that needs to be
spread across this country if we are to
combat the evils of delinquency and the
problems of unemployment due to lack
of education.

ADVANCED TRAINING FOREIGN AREAS AND

LANGUAGES (TITLE VI) ($15,250,000)

The teaching of foreign languages so
that the learner can converse fluently
and comprehend quickly is an imperative
skill in a world which, almost overnight,
has shrunk to a neighborhood. Within
the past few years the aims of such
teaching have altered. The methods
have changed. The materials of instruc-
tion have expanded. To meet this
change, the NDEA is supporting .more
institutes for retraining teachers and
more research to discover the most ef-
fective teaching methods and develop
specialized materials.

Under the NDBEA, 48 language centers
are now in operation and more than 4,000
teachers will attend summer institutes
in 1962.

Great progress is being made in the
development of teaching materials such
as guides, grammars, readers, and man-
uals; and projects have been undertaken
‘for research in the improvement of the
technique of teaching languages,

NEW EDUCATIONAL MEDIA! RESEARCH AND DIS=

SEMINATION OF INFORMATION (TITLE VII)

($4,700,000)

Educators and laymen alike are con-
vinced that the solution of many of our
educational problems may be found in
the wider and more effective use of mo-
tion pictures, TV, radio, and the other
media of communication. Current de-
velopments in teaching machines, edu-
cational TV, language laboratories, and
similar devices are opening up possibili-
ties that hold much promise for improve-
ment of educational communication.
This program will undoubtedly intro-
duce changes in practice, but more im-
portantly, it is creating a solid basis for
changes built on sound research.

AREA VOCATIONAL PROGRAMS (TITLE. VIII)

($12,800,000)

This allocation provides for the train-
ing of technicians in occupations requir-
ing scientific know-how in fields neces-
sary for the national defense such as
automation, chemical and metallurgical
engineering, civil construction, and elec-
tronics.

Prior to the advent of the NDEA a
relatively small number of schools and
institutions in a comparatively small
number of States offered technical pro-
grams for training technicians. Now
new buildings and facilities are being
provided by the States and communities.
High standards have been developed and
students of top-level ability are being
attracted.

The committee believes the accelera-
tion of this program can be accomplished
by adding $1 million to the budget re-
quest as provided by the Committee bill.
GRANTS TO STATES FOR IMPROVEMENT OF STATIS=

TICAL SERVICES (TITLE X) ($1,550,0000)

These grants provide a sorely needed
stimulus toward implementation of ade-
quate data systems and standard defini-

_ tions essential in order to have meaning-
ful and comparable data in the schools.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

The work essential to achieving an ade-
quate modern record and data system for
the States and their 40,000 constituent
local school units is underway.

Before the NDEA 13 States were using
machine data processing to some extent,
now 38 States either have installed or
have definite plans to install machine
systems.

This completes the presentation of the
ND@A items.

MENTALLY RETARDED

The appropriation bill contains $1 mil-
lion for grants to aid in the training of
teachers of mentally retarded children.
The American promise of equality and
human. worth must extend to every child
within the borders of our country, no
matter what are his capacities or his
lacks.

There is no community in the United
States that does not contain youngsters
handicapped by mental retardation. We
know that mental retardation can be
caused by a variety of conditions and dis-
eases, and yet we are just beginning to
realize that much can be done to prevent
these causes and~ to cure the disease.
The future holds a great deal of hope
and promise for the mentally retarded.
Thousands of them can be returned to
health and well-being. Presently there
are approximately a million and a quar-
ter mentally retarded children in the
Nation and only about one-fourth are
receiving suitable education. Through-
out the years, the greatest single barrier
to the expansion of educational services
for these children has been the lack of
qualified teaching and supervisory per-
sonnel. The program developed under
Public Law 85-926 will help greatly in
alleviating this serious problem.

Public Law 85-926 is designed to en-
courage expansion of teaching in the
education of mentally retarded children

-through grants to institutions of higher

learning and to State educational agen-
cies. It is carrying on that objective in
@ constructive and heart warming way.

It is estimated that in 1962 the budget
request of $1 million would provide 68
fellowships to: approximately 20 institu-
tions of higher learning, plus 2 fellow-
ships for each State; it is expected that
this stimulation will reach the grass-
roots in every community. We shall
know more about mental retardation
and be able to go forward with a pro-
gram of rehabilitation and hope for the
national welfare, the community prog-
ress and the individual well-being.

As our committee report indicates it
is time for consideration of broadening
this program to other areas of handi-
capped children, particularly those
afflicted with speech and hearing defects.
I plan to introduce legislation which I
hope the legislative committee will ur-
gently consider.

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

There is no agency of Government
which surpasses the U.S. Office of Ed-
ucation in the dedication and accom-
plishments of its small staff. The Office
has grown in numbers in recent years
because of the. tremendous workload
assumed under the NDEA and other ac-
tions of the Congress. But we must be

May 17

aware of the great importance of its
contributions to the cause of education
through the services it provides to all
our citizens.

This is one of the areas where we had
to compromise differences within the

Committee. The bill provides for an in- -

crease over 1961 but is a reduction of
$500,000 from the request.
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH IN EDUCATION

The committee received expert testi-
mony from a distinguished group of ed-
ucators and private citizens. who recom-
mended a strengthening of the program
of cooperative research in education con-
ducted by the Office of Education. This
research which is done in the colleges
and school systems throughout the
country has shown remarkable poten-
tiality for improving educational prac~
tices. In recognition of the administra-
tion’s concern for this program, the
President sent a special message and
amendment to the budget of the Office
of Education which asked for increased
research funds for the areas of English
instruction and the identification of
talent.

It is a national disgrace that the total
investment in education research in this
country is such a small fraction of the
tens of billions of dollars spent by our
people on education. We felt that the
testimony received by the committee
from this eminent group of educators
gave the committee sufficient evidence

_to support an increase in the budget. for

this activity. Accordingly, the bill con-
tains $5.5 million for this purpose, an
increase of $360,000 over the revised
amount recommended by the President.
Further, in view of the increasing im-
portance of this activity the committee
recommends in the bill its establishment
as a separate appropriation account
rather than its continued inclusion in
the salaries and expenses budget of the
Office of Education. In this way the
Congress can have a much clearer con-
cept of the amount of money available
for this purpose.
OFFICE OF VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION

The bill recommends approval of all
funds requested for the Office of Voca-
tional Rehabilitation, plus certain in-
creases. This Federal-State program,
which is devoted to rehabilitating dis-
abled people and placing them in useful
jobs, is doing one of the better jobs
emong public agencies today. It has
had the interest and support of both
political parties, both in the Congress
ahd in the executive branch, and ovr
confidence in it has not been misplaced.
The number of disabled people being re-
habilitated is increasing steadily each
year, although I must say that I would
be much happier if the rate of increase
could be stepped up.

The request for grants to States for
support of the basic program of rehabili-
tation services was for $90 million. The
request made no provision for an allot-
ment base, which has been used in this
appropriation for several years to make
available. maximum Federal funds for
State matching, without appropriating
large sums. which we know will revert to
the Treasury. The committee has,
1961

therefore, reinstated in this bill the pro-
vision for an allotment base, in the
amownt of $90 million, thereby making it
unnecessary to appropriate some $27
million which would not have been used.

The committee has recommended in-
creases for the research and training
programs of the Office of Vocational Re-
habilitation. In my opinion, the funds
for this important work are still far
short of what we should be investing,
and I am disappointed that the admin-
istration’s request was so far short of
the need.

The request for training funds is a
good example of what Imean. We can-
not expect to see major increases in re-
habilitation services for disabled people
unless we do something about the serious
shortages of professional personnel who
work with the disabled. Despite repeated
testimony before the committee, from
experts within the Government and out-
side, describing the serious and wide-
spread effects of these shortages, we still
are getting requests for inadequate funds
to reduce these shortages and to permit
public and voluntary agencies in re-
hahbilitation to recruit trained personnel
when they need them. The committee,
accordingly, has increased the amount
for training by $1 million.

In the rehabilitation research program,
I have been equally disappointed that
the request for 1962 made so litile pro~
vision for. the expansion needed. We
must be willing to invest much more in
the pursuit if new knowledge of our re-
habilitation programs of the future are
to measure up to their responsibilities.
The committee has noted a number of
research projects now underway which
give promise of helping to do a better job
among the severely disabled, particu-
jJarly among disabled persons who are
social security beneficiaries, as well as
others in their later years. In mental
retardation, I have noted with satisfac-
tion that a number of research projects
are underway, as well as demonstration
projects to apply earlier research find-
ings,

These and other evidences of progress
are encouraging, but this research pro=
gram is still operating on an extremely
limited scale and I hope that the request
for next year will indicate a more realis-
tic approach to research needs in this
important field. :

As one step in this direction, the com-
mittee has included in this bill an addi-
tional $1 million for the establishment
of two or three pilot regional rehabilita-
tion institutes, in which a comprehen-
sive effort can be made in programs of
_ teaching and research in rehabilitation.
The committee received testimony
which convinces us that such institutes
ean play an extremely important role in
advancing this whole field, and partic-
ularly in undergraduate and graduate
teaching in physical medicine and re-
habilitation, along with the other spe-
cialized fields in rehabilitation. Each of
these centers would also have formal
working arrangements with a large vol-
untary rehabilitation center which pro-
vides services to disabled people, so that
the teaching and research phases could

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD —- HOUSE

be related to the practical needs of serv~
ice programs.

The committe. is in complete agree-
ment on the amounts in this bill for the
Office of Vocational Rehabilitation and IT
urge your support of this appropriation.

for the Public Health Service, with re~
spect to buildings and facilities, we gave
them what they asked for.

Under community health activities,
many appropriation items were lumped
together. We broke them down into in-
dividual items, like chronic diseases and
health of the aged, communicable dis-
ease activities, control of venereal dis-
eases, control of tuberculosis, community
health practice and research, and so
forth. . Starting on page 14 you can see
the comparison between the amounts for
last year and the amounts in the bill.

AIR POLLUTION

- In one area, air pollution, we have al-~
lowed $560,000 more than the budget re-
quested because of the terrific problem
we are having now in that field.

No other environmental hazard, it
seems to me, is growing faster in im-
portance than air pollution. This is true
whether you judge it by the growing pub-
lic awareness of the problem—as re-
flected in the newspapers and maga-
zines—or by the growing evidence that
filth in the air, like filth in the water, can
seriously endanger our health.

The projected budget increase for the
Public Health Service’s part in the ha-
tional effort to keep air pollution within
bounds can be justified, in my opinion,
by a single fact: all four of the principal
sources of air pollution are expected to
grow even faster in the near future than

they have in the past. These are popula-
tion, urbanization, industrialization,
transportation. :

That means more people, crowding
more than ever into our biggest metro-
politan areas. It means more indus-
tries—to supply our wants and to Keep
our living standards climbing, but also
to durmp more and more waste products
into the urban atmosphere. It means
more and more cars and trucks belching
their exhaust gases on our streets and
highways.

But there are also other new facts
which give urgency te our need for more
vigorous Federal leadership in this field.

For example, the early evidence—pri-
marily statistical evidence—which indi-
cated an asscciation between air pollu-
tion and lung cancer is being increas-

‘insly confirmed by followup studies, in

the laboratory as well as in the field.
One of the latest and most meaningful
of these is the production, for the first
time, of a human type of lung cancer in
mice by inhalation of air pollutants.

In addition to new knowledge about
cancer, with which we are all so deeply
concerned, the Public Health Service
program is also providing convincing
evidence of the relationship between air
pollution and other types of lung ail-
ments. .

Research in these important areas
must be accelerated. Furthermore, we
must make more effort to apply—much
more generally than is now being done—

7689

what we already know about controlling
air pollution.

While air pollution’s economic dam-
age is less alarming than its potential
health hazards, it certainly seems worth

_mentioning when you consider that the

jatest estimates put the national annual
economic toll as high as $7.5 billion.
This. includes injury to vegetation and
livestock, corrosion and soiling of mate-
vials and structures, interference with
visibility, and depression of property
values.

The efforts of the Public Health Serv-
ice, of course, are calculated to help re- —
duce both kinds of damage. The in-
crease in the budget for Federal activity
in, this field is in line with the objective
suggested in President Kennedy’s mes-
sage on natural resources, to provide
“new leadership, research, and financial
aid and technical assistance for the con-
trol of air pollution.”

In this connection, I also want to make
a few comments on two of America’s
biggest industries, the automobile indus-
try and the oil industry, and their con-
tributions—to air pollution and to air
pollution control.

Motor vehicles constitute one of the
major sources of air pollution and, un-
like many other important pollutant
sources, this oné is universal throughout
the United States. Our cars and trucks
go everywhere.

I cannot escape the conclusion that
the automobile industry has been drag-
ging its feet in the matter of factory in-
stallation of blow-by devices. These, as
you probably know, are relatively inex~-
pensive devices for controlling emissions
from automotive crankcases. While
they will not solve the larger problem
of exhaust emissions from the tailpipe,
they do eliminate from one-fourth to
one-third of the motorcar’s total con-
tribution to our air pollution problem.

Such devices were factory-installed on
new cars sold this year in the one State
of California and are available—at a
higher price, of course—as optional
dealer-installed equipment on new
American cars in other localities. In
view of the mounting evidence that air
pollution not only is costly but may also
be highly hazardous to human health—
and since this new device eliminates a
part of it at a low cost—it would have
seemed both good business and good
public relations for the auto industry
to install such a device at the factory on
all new cars sold in this country. This,
in fact, is what Secretary Ribicoff re-
cently recommended.

Unlike automobiles, oil refineries are
not an important part of the air pollu-
tion problem in every city, but they cer~
tainly are in many cities. In the Los
Angeles area refineries have placed into
effect control measures which drastically
reduce their potential contribution to
Los Angeles smog. What this means,
then, is that Los Angeles suffers a mini-
mum of refinery emissions and, in ad-
dition, receives new cars with blow-by
control devices factory installed.

In other parts of the country, however,
neither the automobile industry nor the
7680

oil industry is cooperating half so well.
New Jersey, for example, is one of the
many States that receive almost none of
the advantages insisted upon in Los
Angeles. Mew Jersey comes to mind be-
cause it has just recently come to my
attention that New Jersey’s Rutgers Uni-
versity is attempting to develop smog-
resistant plants in order to help truck
farmers to survive. A single ride at
almost any hour of the day on the upper
stretches of the New Jersey Turnpike
makes it patently clear why Rutgers is
interested in plants that can survive
smog, and you don’t have to be an expert
loaded down with instruments to see
that both refineries and automobiles
play an important rele in New Jersey’s
smog problem.

I should think that these two rich
industries—simply in enlightened self-
interest, if for no other reason—would
do everything they reasonably could do
to abate their own contribution to this
growing environmental hazard, if only
to avert the risk of drastic legislation
which might seem to them much less
reasonable in its demands. Many of the
controls imposed on the refineries in
Los Angeles also make economic good
sense, too, in that they cut down losses
from evaporation of a marketable prod-~
uct. And factory-installed blow-by de-
vices for automobiles cost less than $5
and also improve the car’s function.

What could be more reasonable than
for both the oil and automobile indus-
tries to follow throughout the country
the splendid example set in Los Angeles?

NURSING SERVICES

In. nursing services and resources, we
gave them $300,000 more than they asked
for to try to develop a home care pro~
gram that will reduce hospital costs.

The supply and quality of available
nursing services continues to be a matter
of foremost importance since these are
fundamental to the success of all med-
ical and health programs related to
patient care. Already faced with short-
ages of nursing services, health admin-
istrators face hew pressures in connec-
tion with the rising demand for nursing
care for people sick in their homes. It.
is for this reason that the committee
recommended an additional $300,000 for
the Division of Nursing, with the sug-
gestion that it be used for traineeship
grants. It is understood, however, that
such grants are-a long-term approach
to this problem since they are primarily
intended for the support of teaching,
supervisory, and administrative person-
nel. It is recognized that there is also
an immediate and urgent need for
special training for these who give direct
care tothe patient. This includes learn<
ing to care for patients with complicated
appliances, or needing special treat-
ments, learning how to teach patients
to care for themselves, and learning new
methods of helping them back to as
complete activity as possible. The in-
tention of the committee is to provide
some immediate help in developing the
nursing resources needed for home care
and aged health services in any appro-
priate manner,

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

- In grants for hospital construction, we
gave them the budget estimate which is
what they had a year ago.
WATER POLLUTION AND SHELLFISH SANITATION
On the item of milk, food, interstate,
and community sanitation, we have
added $1,800,000 for construction of two
sanitary laboratories—one to be located
on the east coast and the other on the
gulf coast; and for water supply and
water pollution control we allowed the
full request which is an increase of $3

‘million over the appropriation for 1961.

History seems to be repeating itself.
In the early days of this century typhoid
fever was the No. 1 public health prob-
lem of the Nation. People got it. from
the drinking water; they got it from
shellfish that fed on polluted water. By
the early 1920’s the whole shellfish in-
dustry was threatened with extinction.

Then, at long last, something was
done. The people of this Nation de-
manded and got drinking water that was
free from harmful bacteria. The shell-
fish industry, working with the Public
Health Service, regained its reputation
for providing safe and nutritious food.
In most parts of the country, there has
not been a case of typhoid fever in years.
But a lot of lives were lost, a lot of
people suffered, before we got busy and
did the things we knew ought to be done.

Well, you would think after 30 or 40
years, we would be a little more pro-
gressive when faced with a similar prob-
jem, hepatitis. That is a serious disease.
It can be fatal. It can be chronic. It
almost always results in a long and de-
bilitating illness. Although it occurs in
cycles,
faster and faster in recent years and,
in each cycle, the number of cases have
been higher. So far this year, over
30,000 cases have been reported—a rec-
ord high—and there are undoubtedly
thousands of others that have not been
reported. Moreover, the evidence is
mounting that hepatitis is a water borne
disease. We know that hundreds of peo-
ple in Mississippi and New Jersey got
hepatitis from eating raw shellfish
harvested from contaminated waters.
That problem was pinpointed and re-
medial action was taken..But what
about the inland States where people
seldom eat raw shellfish but where there
has been an even higher incidence of
hepatitis? Must we wait until there is
absolute and final proof that polluted
water is causing this iliness and perhaps
2 lot of other virus diseases?

A better way, I say, is to take heed
of the warnings we have had this year
and step up our water pollution control

_ and shellfish sanitation programs.

Sewage, chemicals, and radioactive
pollutants are a fast-growing threat to
the safety of our water supplies. They
endanger all industries—and the shell-
fish industry is only one of many—that
depend on clean, safe water in order to
operate.

We need to strensthen our water pol-
lution control program all along the
line—better enforcement, more research,
more personnel, more money for sewage
treatment works.

the cycles have been coming.

May 17

We also need to step up shellfish sani-
tation research. It is a national disgrace
that we now have only one small lakora-
tory--out in Purdy, Wash.—making any
study of how all this new and growing
pollution, chemical and radiological as
well as biological, may be affecting a
basic food supply. We need. shellfish
research laboratories on the northeast
and gulf coasts as well as in the North-
west. If we already had them, the trag-
edies of the oyster eaters in Pascagoula
and the clam eaters in New-Jersey might
have been prevented.

Ii is no longer enough to curb the
gross pollution that we.know mekes
People sick. What we should be con-
cerned about now is the water people
use with confidence because they think
it is safe. Probably most of it is safe,
now, but you cannot wall off pollution
with chemical treatment indefinitely.
More and more people are going to find,
as the shellfish harvesters. in Raritan
Bay found, that the water they thought
was safe, was not safe. Just let that
happen to the water supply of a big
city—as it could happen—and imagine

‘the consequences.

We have a clear duty to do everything

within our power to see that the known

methods of controlling pollution are
fully applied and that research on ways
to screen out viruses, chemical poisons,
radioactivity, and other pollutants is
speeded up. This bill represents our
minimum responsibility to protect the
water and water products used by Amer-
ican industry and by the American
people.
NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH

The NIE stands today at the center of
our national medical. research effort.
Over the years the Congress has re-
sponded vigorously te the public demand
for an.all-out attack on the dread dis-
eases and the fearful disabilities which
constantly threaten each of us. It has
consistently acted on its firm conviction
that the steady and orderly expansion of
medical research is a sound investment
in our future welfare and that the de-
fense of the health of our people is no
less vital or less urgent a national need
that the defense of our shores and the
air above us.

There is abundant evidence that this
investment is paying off—first, and most
importantly, in better health and better
medical care for the American people but
also in dollars and cents by steadily re-
ducing the economic losses due to illness
and premature deaths. The potential for
even greater dividends is there if we will
but maintain the momentum which has
been so painstakingly built up.

This House can be justly proud of the
aggressive part it has played in turning
what was once a mere handful of labora-
tories, sheltering a few Public Health
Service scientists anxious to do research,
into the leading medical research insti-
tutions not only in this country but in the
world. In field after field, a high pro-~
portion of the leading investigators are
found among the clinicians and scientists
whom NIH has developed either in its
laboratories and Clinical Center at Be-
1961.

other institutions through research
erants or fellowships.

For my own part, IT am especially
proud to have had the privilege of serv-
ing as chairman of the Appropriations
Subcommittee which must review the
WIH budget during the 11 years in which
most of the growth of the Institutes has
taken place. Ido not say this boastfully
nor do I seek credit for any part IT may
have had in fostering this growth. I
say it because I want. you to know—and
I want my constituents at home in
Bhode island to know—that no task in
my 20 years of public service in the Con~
gress has given me greater satisfaction
than this opportunity to press forward
a program whose success will so directly
effect the well-being of every man,
woman, and child. Each Member of this
House has taken an oath te uphold the
Constitution of the United States. The
preamble of the Constitution says that
one of its purposes is to “promote the
general welfare.” I believe that noth-
ing will promote the general welfare
more meaningfully than a program de-
signed to promote sound health and a
long and active life for each individual
American.

It is therefore all the more astonish-
ing to me that the executive branch,
which, under our system of government,
has the primary responsibility for de-
veloping national policy, has so consist-
ently left it to the Congress to take the
Jead in stimulating the vital programs
of the National Institutes of Heaith.
Only once during the past 9 years—and
that was 5 years ago—has the adminis-
tration come forward with a budget
which requested any substantial increase
for the NIE programs, and even then
the proposed amount was inadequate for
the needs. In the past 3 years, the ap-
propriation requests submitted to the
Congress have simply tried to hold the
budget line and have represented a re-
trenchment and a flat refusal to grasp
the opportunities for progress which
were so clearly at hand.

The budget sent to the Congress in
January by the previous administration

was in this same short-sighted pattern... g

Members of the House will recall that
_ the budget message spoke of “a substan~
tial program increase for medical re-
search and training.” But what did the
pudget actually provide? It provided
for an appropriation which was $20 mil-
“tion less than the Congress appropriated
for 1961. The budget cutters created
the illusion of an increase by putting
their sharp pencils to work on the 1961
appropriation. To get a favorable com~-
parison. they cut out of the 1961 figure
a lot of so-called nonrecurring items and
so came up with an apparent increase.
They even deleted .one program—
grants for construction of cancer re-
search facilities—started last year on a&
trial basis, that has now proved its worth
and must be continued. .

In order to have a fair basis for judg~-
ing the adequacy of the budget, the com-
mittee asked the NIH to submit for the
record a full and frank statement of the
history of its budget requests for 1962.
I wish every Member of this House would

No. 82--—11

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

thesda or by supporting their work at.

study the facts submitted—-as every
member of the committee has studied
them. The original estimates which the
various Institutes submitted te the Di-
rector of NIH and which reflect the
sound professional judgment of the pro-
gram administrators on the actual needs
of their programs were, in the aggregate,
slashed 28 percent before they were ac~
ceptable to the past administration for
submission to Congress. .

I want to emphasize that the original
figures prepared by the Instilutes were
not wild estimates but realistic assess-
ments of what would be required to push
forward with successful programs, to
make available support for all first-class
research projects that pass muster un-
der NIE’s rigid review system, and to
meet training and construction needs.
Each Institute Director when pressed
during his testimony admitted—and
some of them were very reluctant to tell
the committee this—that his actual need,
the money he could profitably invest in
health research, was greater than his
original request to NIH. This was con-
firmed by the expert witnesses in whose
professional competence and personal
jntesrity the committee has the highest
confidence. They too, testified that the
NIH budget, even as revised by the pres-
ent administration, fell far short of our
national requirements,

It is to the credit cf the present ad-
ministration that it recognized that the
budget ficures submitted to Congress be-
fore it took office were unrealistic. In
response to a Presidential directive, the
NIE submitted a revised estimate in
February. It was virtually the same as
the one it had originally submitted.
This time the Public Health Service and
the Department approved it without
change but the Bureau of the Budget
arbitrarily cut the figure by $58 million.
The revised estimate is therefore 9 per-
cent short of NIH’s conservative request
and 23 percent short of what the Insti-
tutes originally asked for. I cannot tell
you exactly how. much more it falls short
of what is actually needed if we are as
serious as we ought to be about pushing
these vital pregrams as hard as they can

o.

Frankly, I am disappointed. I had
hoped—not for partisan reasons but be-
cause I feel so strongly that we have no
obligation more demanding of us than
promoting the health and welfare of
our people—that the new administration
would develop a vigorous, forward-look-
ing program to meet the needs of medi-
cal research.

I had hoped that we would see the
new administration take real initiative
in regard to the NIH programs. As it
has nos yet seen fit to do so, it remains
the responsibility of the Congress to
champion progress toward human
health.

In doing so we are on solid ground.
The programs which have been devel-
oped by the NIH, at the urging of the
Congress, have demonstrated beyond
question that they meet urgent and vital
needs. They have demonstrated that
they have earned the highest respect of
the medical and other health professions
and of the entire scientific community.

7691

They have demonstrated that they enjoy
widespread public support—that the tax-
payers cf this country feel. that this is
one Government activity which should
not be stinted. They have demonstrated
that they are productive—that the coun-
try is getting tangible returns on its in-
vestment of faith and funds in medical
research. And they have demonstrated
that the problems are as varied and com-
plex as the need is urgent and vital—
that we cannot stand pat but must ex-
pand our efforts as fast as our capabil-
ities and opportunities develop.

A hold-the-line budget, or one with
so small an increase as the Bureau of
the Budget proposed, simply will not
hold the line on the health frontier. It
will leave serious gaps and may deny
support to the very projects which might
have resulted in the most. dramatic new
advance. In medical research, as in so
many areas of science, the new. break-
through often comes in the most unex-
pected quarter.

A substantial expansion of the NIH
support programs is also necessary if
we are to provide research opportunities
for the physicians and scientists who
have been so painstakingly trained under
the fellowship and training-grant pro-
grams of the National Institutes of
Health. The Congress has appropriated
a lot of money during the past 10 years
to enable the NIH to support a wide
range of research training programs.
We took long-range measures to remedy
significant manpower shortages or to
broaden the capabilities of clinicians and
medical scientists. It would indeed be
false economy and seriously delay the
attainment of our long-term objectives if
these highly qualified investigators were
now to be denied the opportunity for
carrying out the research for which they
were trained.

The clinical research center program
must go forward. This program, for
the support of general therapeutic
and metabolic research centers, was
jJaunched to meet part of the need for
facilities and is now in its second year.
It is designed to serve investigators in
a wide range of medical specialties and
scientific fields by making available to
them the specialized services and re-
sources for complex studies of human
patients. Awards have been made to
19 of these centers and a number of
other very promising. .proposals are
under review. The program has been
enthusiastically réceived by the research
community. We may confidently ex-
pect that it will result in significant ad-
vances toward the solution of a wide
variety of disease problems.

’ The parallel program, launched
this year, for the support of categorical
clinical research centers—that: is, cen-
ters devoted to a single category of
diseases—is also responding to a widely
felt and urgent need. This is evident
from the many well-thought-out plans
which lave been received since this
program was announced less than a
year ago. The Cancer Institute has ap-
plications which clearly deserved sup-
port worth five times the amount avail-
able for this program. The Heart In-
stitute had 40 requests for center grants
7692

under its $5 million appropriation.
The Institute of Mental Health had 11
totaling over $4 million and only had
half a million to disperse. The Insti-
tute of Neurological Diseases and Blind-
ness, which aiso had only half a
million dollars, had 14 applications to~-
taling nearly $3 million. These are
programs that must obviously be con-
tinued. ©

The committee received evidence that
there is a need to develop the center
concept for anesthesiclogy. This is a
field that is deeply concerned with the
public health even though its importance
has not been sufficiently understood.
Competent surgery is impossible without
competent anesthesia. If it is true that
a Center will develop knowledge and save
lives in heart disease and cancer, it
would seem that the concept of a Center
for anesthesiology will be most fruitful
in the development of life saving skills.

The proper environment for intel-
lectual growth, imaginative stimulation,
and the development of scientific and
clinical skills, requires the collection of
the best available minds. 'These people
must become available in such numbers
that their daily-duties in a department
of anesthesiology can be performed
satisfactorily and yet time be provided
for study, reading, discussion and the
gathering of new knowledge. Lahora-
tories, technical assistance, equipment
and office space must be made available
for proper functioning. 'This well bal-
anced environment of education, train-
ing of scientists, research work of the
highest caliber and the best possible
patient care constitutes an Anesthesi~
olegy Center.

The committee was informed that the
shortage of facilities was one of the rea-
sons which led the NIH to request no
substantial increase in funds for the
support of research-training. The train-
ing programs were greatly expanded in
each of the past 3 years and their rapid
growth has not only strained facilities
but has created some administrative and
planning problems which the schools
must have time to resolve.

The only increases contemplated for
1962 are an additional $2 million for the
expansion of the graduate research
training program and an increase of
$400,000 for the training of chairside
assistants for dentists. We face a severe
shortage of dentists and the use of chair-
side assistants will enable the dentist to
work more efficiently and to handle more
patients, by relieving him of a lot of
routine, time-consuming tasks.

The total appropriation for training
included in the bill is nearly $14 million
less than the amount. appropriated last
year but I want to assure the House that
no cut-back of the research-training
programs was intended by the Commit-
tee or suggested by NIH. The decrease
is more than off-set by the non-recurring
expenditure in 1961 of over $16 million
to get all these training programs on a
forward-financing basis. The payment
dates of these grants have now been
adjusted so that all schools will know
well before the beginning of the academic
year exactly how much training money
they. will have available.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

I do not want to leave the impression
that all the needs for new research-train-
ing programs have. been met. On the
contrary, the Committee is convinced
that further opportunities for building
up our supply of competent research
manpower exist and should be vigorously
pursued, However, we have accepted the
judgement of the Director of NIH that a
year for assimilating the recent increases
is desirable and that the direction of
effort in the training area needs re-ex-
amination. .The Committee has there-
fore directed the NIH to prepare, for
next year’s hearings, a balance sheet
showing the estimated needs for research
manpower 5 and 10 years from now so
that the Congress will be able to assess
what further expansion of the training
programs, if any, is necessary.

I do not want to take the time of the
House to dwell at Jength on the many
successes of the past or to describe the
many promising investigations that are
underway. The highlights are laid out
in the transcript of the hearings which
every Member of this House should take
time to review.

The record is impressive. There has
been progress all along the line. We are
moving rapidly ahead in getting a bet-
ter understanding of the functioning of
the human body. Knowledge of the
specific causes of diseases—always the
first step toward a cure—is increasing
every day. There has been a substantial
advance in ability to diagnose diseases,
in the development of cures or more ef-
fective treatments, and, for some dis-
eases, in the development of preventive
methods. The clinicians and scientists
supported by the NIH programs have
created, tested, and perfected new drugs,
new surgical procedures, and new diag-
nostic and therapeutic techniques.

It is impossible for a layman to de-~
scribe in detail all that has been done
during the past year but I would like
to give you some examples of the sort
of things that-were reported to the com-
mittee during cur hearings.

Scientists in the Cancer Institute have
for the first time achieved a 5-year sur-
vival for a mumber of patients with a
rare but deadly cancer by treating them
wholly with drugs. There has been
marked improvement in the survival
rate of women with. breast cancer
through the use of a combination of sur-
gery and drug treatment. Research into
the relationship between viruses and
cancer—a very hopeful area of re.
search—has been greatly accelerated
both in the Institute itself and through
research grants.

We were told of an important discovery
eoncerning the cause of the type of
hardening of the arteries that usually
leads to heart attacks and is one of our
greatest killers. We were told of re-
markabie achievements in heart surgery,
including. the invention of an electronic
device which, in certain types of heart
failure can keep the heart beating until
it is able to resume its own regular
rhythm, and of the development of a
method for massaging the heart to re-
store the flow cf blood without the neces-
sity of opening the chest.

‘In their success.

May 17

Progress is being made in the study
of cystic fibrosis and virus infections,
in the treatment of rheumatoid arthri-
tis and diabetes, and-strokes, in the diag-
nosis and treatment of mental disorders,
and in dozens of other disease areas and
basic biological problems which I will
not attempt to describe. ,

These advances are due as much to
the high competence of NIH scientisis
in Bethesda as to the excellent work
done by NIH grantees throughout the
country. It is, therefore, particularly
disturbing to me to learn that the Insti-
tute now faces a critical personnel
problem.

The NIH, through its grant programs,
has progressively strengthened the uni-
versities and medical schools and en-
abled them to embark on stimulating
research programs. This was the aim
of the Congress in appropriating funds
for these grant programs and the House
will, I am sure, take much satisfaction
But .one result of
having strong research institutions
throughout the country has been to
heighten the competition for first-class
men. ,

In this competition, the NIH, with only
a few positions above the GS-15 level
and a salary ceiling of $19,000, is at a
serious disadvantage.

During the past year NIH has lost
@ number of outstanding men with the
result that there has been an unfortu-
nate disruption of some of its research
programs, In his testimony, the Direc-
tor cited, as an example, one Institute
in which an important program has
been built around four really topflight
scientists. All four were offered dis~
tinguished positions in some of our best
universities at salaries the lowest of
which was $25,000 and these positions
offered opportunities for part-time prac-
tice or consultation, which the govern-
ment does not permit. Three of these
men accepted. It is a fair guess that
their annual income will be $30,000 or
better. . :

I might add that it speaks weli for
the spirit which prevails at NIH that
the fourth man passed up the oppor-
tunity to increase his income by more
than 50 percent and chose to stay in
Bethesda.

_ Salary is not the only factor which
governs the scientist job preference but
it often determines the choice of-men
with families to support. and children
to send to college. It is clear to me that
NIE must be given some flexibility in
in its salary structure so that it will re- .
tain its ability to attract and to hold
men of superior talent. /

The committee has therefore urged
the Surgeon General and the Secretary
to give prompt consideration to this
probiem and to make suitable recom-
mendations to the appropriate congres-
sional committees.

The impressive catalog of the achieve-
ments of NIH scientists, and of the sev-
eral thousand outside investigators
whese work NIH supports, has focused
the committee’s attention on a highly
important aspect of research to which
too little attention is given. This is the
1961

communication of research results to
medical practitioners.

The ultimate purpose of medical re-
search is to make it possible for the
medical and related health professions
to give the American people more effec-
tive medical care. It is for this reason
that the public supports research pro-
grams so enthusiastically and it is for
this purpose that the Congress has made
such sizable appropriations available for
them.

Let no one forget that a research proj-
ect does not end until the applicable
resulis have been made readily available
to medical practitioners throughout the
country. .

I do not pretend that this is a simple
task. The mechanisms availabie at
present—medical journals and other
publications, symposia, medical conven-
tions, and the other traditional means
of professional communication—are slow
and time consuming. They do not reach
many practictioners who are either too
busy to avail themselves of these means
or are in remote areas not easily served
by some of them. /

But NIH has taken too little initiative
in tackling the communication problem
and in applying the great progress which
has been made in communication tech-
niques to the areas of its special inter-
ests and responsibilities. The commit-
tee feels that the possibilities of radi-
cally new approaches to the communica~
tion problem need to be thoroughly and
systematically explored.

No funds have been specifically ear~
marked for this purpose in the 1962 ap-
propriation but the committee has made
it clear to NIH. that it expects it to pre-
sent, at next year’s hearings, a well-
considered plan which will.set out the
responsibilities of the various compo-
nents of the Public Health Service and
outline a. vigorous developmental pro-
gram in medical communication.

Another area which might profitably
receive more attention—as NIH _ itself
has recognized—is the application of
physical science and engineering tech-
niques to medical research problems.
The possibilities range from the devel-
opment of simple prosthetic devices to
new. surgical tools and elaberate auto-
mated laboratory instruments. We had
some interesting testimony on this dur-
ing the hearings from a couple of wit-
nesses who showed the committee an
ingenious mechanism for stapling to-
gether tiny blood vessels which cannot
be sewn by hand and told us about a
small electronic device which a heart
patient might wear to warn him of over-
exertion,

During the course of the testimony by
outstanding leaders in the fields of re-
search, health services, and medicine,
several witnesses emphasized the prob-
lem presented by the rapidly rising cost
ef present-day hospital care. ‘Research
. has made possible rapid and far-reach-
ing changes in the nature and character
of hospital and medical practice but a
major barrier to the widespread applica-
tion of new techniques and research find-
ines is the economic factor. It has
therefore become urgently necessary. to
determine the most effective and eco-

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -—- HOUSE

nomical means of providing these new
approaches to the diagnosis and treat-
ment of disease in the hospital setting.

Witnesses emphasized that these ap-
proaches could best be developed by
carrying out research in. the design and
construction of hospitals and treatment
facilities to determine how patients,
especially those requiring intensive
treatment and 24-hour nursing services
could best bs handled to make the most
use of research findings, and at the same
time, reduce to a minimum the costs in-
volved in treatment. The committee
was much impressed by this testimony.

The committee has therefore included
in the bill a new appropriation of $10
million for grants for hospital research
facilities. These funds would be used
for making grants, as authorized by sec-
tion 433(a) of the Public Health Service
Act. These grants would be made on a
matching basis which would permit the
use of Federal funds for not more than
two-thirds of the cost of these facilities.

I have not attempted to discuss each

£ the many NIH activities for which
funds are appropriated in this bill.

I have, for example, said nothing about
the new institutional grants which were
authorized by the Congress at the end
of the last session. Five percent of the
research project funds in this year’s ap-
propriation will be used to make these
formula grants to medical, dental, os-
teopathic, and public health schools, and
certain other institutions, for the gen-
eral support of their research and re-
search-training activities.

I have said nothing about the new
program, which the Congress also ap-—,.
proved last year, for making research
career awards to selected investigators
who want to devote their professional
life to medical research.

Both of these programs are important .

steps in the development of even closer
cooperative relations between the NIH
and the institutions in which the bulk
of non-Federal medical research is con-
ducted. Both are described in the re-
port of the Committtee on Appropria-
tions on this bill.

The major items which the Bureau
of the Budget so recklessly cut from the
budget request and which the commit-
tee has restored are $17,300,000 for the
support of new research projects; $9,-
500,000 for the institutional research
grant program; $14 million fer the in-
creased support of general therapeutic
and metabolic research centers; $7,500,~-
000 for the enlargement of the categor-
ical clinical research center program;
and $5 million for a new program for
special research resources centers.

I am sure that the House will agree
that these are important and necessary
elements in the further growth of med-
ical research which should not be im-
peded by the lack of essential funds.

These appropriations for the National
Institutes of Health total $686 million,
including $30 million for the sixth and.
final year of the program under the pres-
ent Health Research Facilities Construc-
tion Act. This is a small sum in rela-
tion to the many vital needs which it
serves. It is, my colleagues, the mini-
mum investment we dare make to pro-

7693

mote so fundamental an aspect of the
general welfare as the psople’s health.
' For grants fer waste treatment works
construction, we allowed the full $50
million which is authorized by law.

_ For foreign quarantine activities, be-
cause of the increased foreign travel into
this country, especially at airports, we
allowed an increase of $200,000.

In our hospital and medical care pro--
gram, in order to make them first-class
hospitals, we have raised that figure
by $500,000.

Four years ago the Surgeon General
had special surveys made of the Public
Health Service hospitals to determine
their staffing needs. Even in view of the
considerable needs that were demon-
strated by these surveys, only modest
increases were provided in fiscal years.
1959, 1960, and 1961 as the first three
steps in a 4-year program to get the
hospitals to an adequate staffing level.
The 1962 budget provided for an increase
of only 27 additional man-years of em-
ployment. In recognition of the inade-
quacy of the budget request the justifica-
tions stated the estimate provides for
additional staff in the hospitals to the
level approaching that previously identi-
fied as needed. Everyone who has made
any serious study of the Public Health
Service hospitals has concluded that
there are two definite needs that are not
yet filled. One is for additional operat-
ing staff and the other is for a good re-
search program which will help in at-
tracting and retaining good personnel as
well as contributing to our conquest of
disease. ‘The committee will expect that
the increase of $1 million be allocated to
these two purposes, giving first priority
to operating personnel, thus assuring
better care for patients.

In the National Institutes of Health,
and this is where the largest increases
are, we have raised the President’s budg-
et by $58 million. This is a compromise
ficure. There were several figures the
committee had to consider. The orig-
inal estimates of the Institute directors,
the original budget submitted in Jan-
uary, the revised President’s budget, the
public witnesses requests, and so forth.
The amount of $641 million included in
the bill is the U.S. Public Health Serv-
ice’s final official request which was cut
$58 million by the Bureau of the Buds~
et.

We have $5 million for grant for con-
struction of cancer research facilities on
a nonmatching basis because we find
time and time again one of the greatest
needs in cancer research is lack of facili-
ties.

Then we have $19 million for research
in the construction of hospital facilities.
We are convinced it will cut the cost of
care in hospitals, which is going up and
upand up. About 65 percent of our bills
in a hospital represent personnel costs,
and hospital costs have gone up 300 per-
cent in the last 20 years. /

A 6-year study was carried on in Roch-
ester, Minn. It was a controlled study
of the circular hospital unit. It was
developed that with this kind of new
design, they could reduce the cost from
$54 per day to $14. They claim 60 per-
7694

cent of all hospital patients in any given.
area in the country require general hos-
pital care. About 20 percent do not re-
quire as much hospital care, and there
is 20 percent of the population in. the
hospital that demands that kind of in-
tensive care which is the most expensive,
that is, where you have a nurse around
the clock—3 nurses which cost $50 per
day. In some of our Eastern States it
will go as high as $60 and $70 a day.
They found by building this circular
hospital and having the nurses in the
center where the nurse can see every
patient and the patient can see the
nurse, that they can bring about this
economy and also that in one 8-hour

shift a nurse will walk more than a mile |

Jess than she would in the old rec-
tangular designed hospitals that have
been built heretofore. They gave us
other facts and figures which are in the
hearings, but the main thing is that
through a controlied study like this, they
have been able to reduce the cost of
nursing care for those people who need
this most intensive care from $54 to $14
per day, or $40 a day.

Grants for construction of health re-
search facilities was allowed $30 mil-
lion. That is the authorization. That
runs out this year, but legislation has
been introduced to increase this to $50
million, We gave them just what they
asked for. ;

Scientific activities overseas: We re-
duced the request by $2,084,000, but
allowed $4,293,000 more than they have
this year.

National health statistics: We gave
what they asked for.

The National Library of Medicine is
the best library of its kind in the world.
We gave just what they asked for.

For St. Elizabeths Hospital, we have
increased this appropriation by $166,000
to fully man the new buildings that have
been built out there and provided 150
more positions for St. Elizabeths than
called for in the budget.

Now we come to the Social Security
Administration. We increased the limi-
tation on “Salaries and expenses, Bureau
of Old-Age and Survivors Insurance,” by
$320,000 to buy some land adjacent to
their site in Baltimore. It undoubtedly
will be needed in the near future to
enable them to build larger quarters.
We were told that if we did not buy the
Jand now it would surely cost much more
later on.

For grants to States for public assist-
ance, we gave them the request of
$2,285 million. This is the largest sin-
gle item in the bill, and there is abso-~
lutely nothing we can do about it, for the
law provides that if the States put up
their money, under the law, the Federal
Government is bound to match it. In
the present bill it is $2,285 million.
There is nothing we can do about it
unless we change the law.

We reduced the request for salaries
and expenses, Bureau. of Public Assist-
ance $79,000.

CHILDREN’S BUREAU

For salaries and expenses, Children’s
Bureau, we approved the request.

It has been suggested to every Secre-
tary of the Department of Health, Edu-

quency.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

cation, and Welfare and every. adminis-
trator of the Federal Security Agency
that. it is wrong to relegate the Children’s
Bureau to a third level position. The
committee strongly feels that the re-
sponsibilities and the activities of the
Children’s Bureau are of sufficient im-
portance to warrant placing it on a level
directly below the Secretary rather than
being just another office in the Social
Security Administration. The Secretary
has always had the authority to make
such an organizational change and give
the Children’s Bureau the recognition
that it deserves.

The Committee also feels that the
Children’s Bureau should be given more
responsibilities for research than it has
in the past. The research programs of
the National Institutes of Health have
been primarily in the disease areas and
the Committee is of the opinion that this
is as it should be. There has been some
tendency however during the past few
years to do more work in the behavioral
research area especially in connection
with children. This, it seems to the
committee, should more properly be the
roie of the Children’s Bureau. When
this was discussed during the hearings,
considerable doubt was expressen as to
the authority of the Children’s Bureau

to make research grants in this area..

While much important research could be
done directly, a well’ rounded research
program should include extramural ac-
tivities. The committee is especially
anxious that the Children’s Bureau be
given a more important role in connec-
tion with the problem of juvenile delin-
It may well be that the Com-
mittee itself is as much at fault as any-
one for the current situation, for the
committee encouraged the Mental Health
Institute in this field rather. than at-
tempting to lay a foundation, and en-
couraging the Department to take the
steps necessary, for such a program in
the Children’s Bureau. However, it
will be expected that. the Department
give serious consideration to this matter
during the next year and if necessary
seek legislation to make a well-rounded
program possible; and be prepared to
present such a well-rounded program to
the committee next year.

We increased grants to States for ma-~

. ternal and child welfare by $2,350,000.

The net increase over the amount re-
quested represents an increase of $1 mil-
lion each for the. three original cate-
gories and a reduction of $650,000 in the
amount requested for the new activity
“Research or demonstration projects in
child welfare.” ‘There was $1 million re-
quested for the later program of which
$350,000 was estimated to be necessary
for expenses in fiscal year 1962, and
$650,000 was. for obligations to be in~-
curred in 1963 and succeeding years.
The committee does not feel that it is
wise to deviate from the standard pro-
cedure of providing funds for such ac-
tivities on an annual basis, thus assur-

~ing a review at least once each year.

The authorization for each of the three
original categories is $25 million. For
“Maternal and child health services” the
bill provides $23 million compared with
$18,167,000 available for 1961. The bill

May 17

includes $25 million for “Crippled chil-
dren’s services” compared with $20 mii-
lion available for fiscal year 1961. .The
bill includes $18,750,000 for “Child wel-
fare services’ compared with $13,666,-
000 available for 1961. Over the. last
several years these appropriations have
not even Kept up with the increase in
child population and the increase in
costs, let alone provide for any improve-
ment in these services. In one category
the figures show that in the decade from
1950 to 1966 these appropriations actual-
ly decreased $6 per year per 1,000 chil-
dren. In view of these facts the com-
mittee feeis that this increase is rather
modest.

In the past far too little attention has
been paid to the plight of unwed moth-
ers in the teenage group and their chil-
dren. Despite the efforts of welfare
agencies and law enforcement. officials,
there continues to be a thriving black
market in babies. This is made possible
to a large extent by the lack of decent’
programs for young unwed mothers and
their children. The committee will ex-
pect that the Children’s Bureau use a
portion of the increased funds in fiscal
year 1962 to get effective programs start-
ed to better deal with the problem, and
to rehabilitate these mothers so that they
may become a part of decent society
rather than going on to further degrada-

. tion as now so often happens.

For cooperative research in social se-
curity we have given them $350,000 more
than they had in 1961, but $800,000 less
than the request. The reduction made
by the committee represents funds that
were requested for obligation beyond fis-
eal year 1962. As I have already men-
tioned the committee does not feel that
it is wise to deviate from the standard
procedure of appropriating funds for
such programs on an annual basis.

Then there are several items for which
we aliowed the budget request without
change: Salaries and expenses, Office
of the Commissioner; American Print-
ing House for the Blind; Gallaudet Col-
lege, the only college in the world for
deaf people; and Howard University.

PROGRAM IN AGING

We have included the full amount of
the budget request for the Office of the
Secretary.

During the hearings I expressed. deep
concern, disappointment, and dissatisfac-
tion with the Department’s activities in
aging. There is no clearly defined pro-
gram and. little evidence of leadership
directed toward positive action follow-
ing the White House Conference on Ag-
ing.

The report of the Conference, “The
Nation and Its Older People,” trans-
mitted to the President, April 10, 1961,
is not the blueprint for action the coun-
try was promised during the years pre-
ceding the Conference and in the hun-
dreds of meetings that were. held
throughout the Nation in preparation
for it.

The report at best is little more than
a directory of participants, a collection
of general policy statements, and a wide
assortment of recommendations that
have little significance without some in-
1961

dication of the plans that will convert
them into action.

Unless a more useful document is pre-
pared for the American public’ with a
determination on the part of HEW to fol-
low through, the White House Confer-
ence on Aging will have been not only
one of the most expensive, but the least
productive of the national conferences,
and could become one of the cruelest
hoaxes ever perpetrated against the Na-
tion’s senior citizens. Immediate action
must be taken to develop a program that
will achieve the aims and purposes set
forth in the bill which established the
conference.

The Office of Field Administration
asked for 18 new positions, for an analyst
and a secretary in each regional office.
We denied that request. The total re-
duction was $138,000.

In related agencies, the National Labor
Relations Board shows a cut of $667,000.
We explain this in the report.

That is, I think, the main changes we
made in this bill.

Mr. SEELY-BROWN. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield? _

Mr. FOGARTY. I yield to the gentle-
man from Connecticut.

Mr, SEELY-BROWN. On page 9 of
the report, at the bottom of the page,
you indicate a decrease of a million dol-
lars from the amount requested for na-
tional defense fellowships.

Did the gentleman explain why there
was that reduction in the amount re-
quested?

Mr. FOGARTY, This has been one
of the more controversial sections of the
Office of Education. It has received
some bad publicity. with reference to cer-
tain of the fellowships that were granted
in connection with the teaching of folk-
lore and other things like that. As a
result, this million dollars was cut. I
may say to the gentleman there were
some who wanted to cut a lot more.

Mr. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?

Mr. FOGARTY, I yield to the gentle-
man from California.

Mr. BALDWIN. On the same page 9
of the committee report, the committee
has reported on funds for Public Law 874.
The funds appropriated are simply for
the permanent section of the law which
applies 100 percent to the children who
live on Federal property and their par-
‘ents live on Federal property. The Com-
mittee on Education is working on a bill
which will extend the section B authori-
zation for children who live on private
property although their parents work on
Federal installations. If that bill is
passed, does the gentleman expect to
take the initiative to bring a supple-
mental appropriation bill in during this
session to provide the funds required?

Mr. FOGARTY. We would expect the
administration to send up a request for
a supplemental bill, and I hope we will
give them every dime they are entitled
to under the law. That has been my
position since 1950. :

Mr. BALDWIN. I appreciate that.
The gentleman from Rhode Isiand has
been a leader in this field for Public Law
874. The reason I raised the point is
due to the fact that some school dis-

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD —

tricts are having great difficulty and will
have more difficulty unless those funds

are appropriated in the current session. -

Mr. FOGARTY. I can assure the
gentleman from California that when
this legislation is. extended we will try
to do everything we can to get the ap-
propriation to meet the law as extended.

Mr. BALDWIN. I thank the gentle-
man.

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?

Mr. FOGARTY. I yield to the gentle-
man from Iowa. .

Mr. GROSS. Did I understand the
gentleman to say he gave the Office of
the Secretary of Labor a special assist-
ant as réquested by the Department and
as Geseribed in the hearings?

. FOGARTY. A special assistant,
yes”

Mr. GROSS. A special assistant to
the assistant Secretary?

Mr. FOGARTY. That is right.

Mr. GROSS. You gave them an as-
sistant?

Mr. FOGARTY. Yes.

Mr. GROSS. That was for the pur-
pose of maintaining proper relations
with other Departments?

Mr. FOGARTY. No.

Mr. GROSS. You did not give them
this assistant?

Mr. FOGARTY. No, not for liaison
work with other Departments.

Mr. GROSS. Iam glad -to hear that.
I do not know of any other department
that has to have a special assistant to
maintain proper relations with other
departments.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Rhode Island has ex-
pired.

Mr. FOGARTY. Mr. Chairman, I
yield myself 5 additional minutes.

Mr. GROSS. Did I understand the
gentleman to say that you increased
the number of labor attachés in foreign
countries?

Mr. FOGARTY. No. All this does is
to provide more funds for the people
here in Washington. These people in
the Department of Labor I might say
have been doing a good job. They asked
for a $132,000 increase. We allowed
them an increase of $66,000, half of what
they requested. The Labor attachés are
appointed through the Secretary of
State. These people in the Department
of Labor also back up the delegates to
the International Labor Organization,
That meeting is going to be held next
month in Geneva.

Mr. GROSS. So they did get some
more money for the reason stated in
the hearings, because the Labor Depart~
ment has acquired heavy new responsi-
bilities-in respect to the development of
U.S. foreign policy.

Since when did the Department of
Labor start becoming a vital factor in
foreign policy?

Mr. FOGARTY. I do not know how
vital it is.

Mr. GROSS. Well, having heavy new
responsibilities.

Mr. FOGARTY. I thought the witness
gave a very good account of the Interna-
tional Labor Organization. I thought
what. he said made sense; that in some

HOUSE

7695

foreign countries many of the leaders in
government came up from the ranks of
labor, and it is good to have people who

know the problems. of labor in these

countries, like Africa, for example.

Mr. GROSS. Did we have labor
attachés in Cuba, and if we did, what
happened to that situation?

Mr. FOGARTY. We do not have a
labor attaché in every country in the
world.

Mr. GROSS, Now, I understand from
the hearings that these labor attachés
are trained some place; they are given
training some place. Can the gentle-
man tell me where that school may be
and who operates the training school?

Mr. FOGARTY. The Department of ,
State, I assume.

Mr. GROSS. The Department of
State?
Mr. FOGARTY. Yes. The labor

attachés are appointed by the Depart-
ment of State. They are not appointed
by the Department of Labor, and there -
is nothing in here for labor attiachés;
not in this bill.

Mr. GROSS. No money in this bill
for labor attachés?

Mr. FOGARTY. No.

Mr. GROSS. Even through the De-
partment of Labor?

Mr. FOGARTY. No. This section in
the Department of Labor has been
headed by Mr. Lodge for the past 2 or
3 years.

Mr, GROSS. Is Lodge the man who
has had such wonderful training through
his father in operating the giveaway
program?

Mr. FOGARTY. Yes; he still is.

Mr. GROSS. He still is what?

Mr. FOGARTY. He is still head of
this program for the Department of
Labor.

Mr. GROSS. Yes; I have no doubt
of that. If you can dig up any more
internationalists to run this show, they
will be dug up.

Mr. FOGARTY. Tf think he has done
a very good job. He is a very energetic
young man, and I think he is putting
some sense into this program. He is do-
ing a good job.

Mr. JUDD. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?

Mr. FOGARTY. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Minnesota.

Mr, JUDD. I think it ought to be
said that in many countries which have
strong labor movements and sometimes
labor governments, most of the impor-
tant and effective work that has been
done in combating communism has been
done by men coming out of our cwn
labor movement. They understand the
kind of fight that has to be made be-
cause they went through the battle of
resisting Communist infiltration of some
unions in this country. They have ex-
erted a constructive and helpful in-
fluence in keeping several other coun-
tries in the free world instead of having
their will as free nations gradually
eroded with inevitable movement toward
or into the other camp. These labor
leaders ought to. be commended for the
beneficial. work they have done. -

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, if the
gentleman will yield further, I wonder
1696 |

if the Commitiee on Foreign. Affairs
called Mr. Goldberg up.to tell them how
to handle these foreign aid bills and so
en and so forth.

Mr. FOGARTY, Ido not know wheth- ‘

er they did no not, but it might have
been a good idea, because he is a very
able man.

Mr. GROSS. From what he said .it
would be a good idea?

Mr. FOGARTY. Mr. Goldberg is go-
ing to be one of cur great Secretaries of
Labor.

Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan.
Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr, FOGARTY. Iyield to the gentie~-
man from Michigan.

Mr. HOPFPMAN of Michigan. Speak-
ing about Mr. Goldberg, he just testified
here last week that all the jobs even in
the defense plants should belong to
union men. And, when the gentleman
from Minnesota talks about the State
Department and the Foreign Service,
knowing what we do know, I wonder if
the gentleman has forgotten about Wal-
ter Reuther’s training in Russia, to-
gether with his brother, when they were
working in the factories.

Mr. FOGARTY. I do not know where
he got his training but wherever he got
it, it has stood him in good stead. I do
not. think there is one. any more willing
or who has done more to fight com-
munism in this country than Walter
Reuther.

Mrs. CHURCH. Mr.
the gentleman yield?

Mr. FOGARTY. I yield to the gentle-
woman from Mlinois.

Mrs. CHURCH. I would like to call
the gentleman’s attention to the second
paragraph on page 41 of the report:

The bill includes $95,000, the amount of
the request, as the final amount necessary
to liquidate contract authority previously
granted for the construction of the audi-
torium-fine arts buliding.

Mr.

Chairman, will

I wonder if the gentleman could tell

me the progress of the program for the
auditorium-fine arts building, for How-
ard University—and just what the liqui-
dation of the contract authority por-
tends for the future. The gentleman
knows of my long interest in Howard
University.
. Mr. FOGARTY. We chided them a
little bit on their presentation because
in all of their building programs they
have been a year or two behind. But
we have given them enough to complete
the building.

Mrs. CHURCH. Then there is no-

>. thing portentous about the term liquida-

tion of contract: nothing to indicate that
completion of the building will be inter-
fered with?

Mr, FOGARTY. Oh, no. a are just
finishing the financing.

Mrs. CHURCH. There is no intent
to phase out any part of the programs?

Mr. FOGARTY. No. We gave them
everything they asked for.

Mrs. CHURCH. I thank the gentle-~
man.

Mr. FOGARTY. .I think they deserve
it. I think they are doing @ good job at
Howard University. That is becoming a
really great school, and this Congress

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

and past Congresses have helped tre-
mendously in this regard.

Mr. BASS of Tennessee.’ Mr. Chair-
man, will the gentieman yield?

Mr. FOGARTY. T yield.

Mr. BASS of Tennessee. In the report
on page 22 IT notice the committee rec-
ommended that 5 percent of the total
appropriation for research grants be al-
lowed in fiscal year 1962 for institutional
grants to public and other non-profit
institutions. Is it the intention of the
committee to increase this gradually up
to the 15 percent that was originally
authorized?

Mr. FOGARTY. That would be based
on the testimony next year. When the
act passed Congress a-year ago the plan

of administration called for 5 percent
firs} year, 10 percent the second”

for the
year, and then it will go up to 15 percent.

Mr. BASS of Tennessee. It will be the
intention of the Chairman of the com-
mittee to recommend that the authoriza-
tion be raised to the 15 percent figure?

Mr. FOGARTY. Uniess something
happens to indicate this program is not
an efficient way to carry out the research
program.

Mr. BASS of Tennessee. I thank the
gentleman and I commend him for his
outstanding work in this field of med-
ical research.

Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Cha
the gentleman yield? -

Mr. FOGARTY. yield.

Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I
should like to congratulate and commend
the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr.
Fogarty] and the Members of his com-
mittee for their work not only this year
but down through the years, which I
think. has been very. thorough. The
bills that have been brought to this floor
have reflected painstaking inquiry and
a, thorough-going dedication to construc-
tive accomplishments in the field in
which they are working. I think they
have done a magnificent job.

Mr, FOGARTY. I thank the gentle-
man. :

Mr. EDMONDSON. Mr.
will the gentleman yield?

Mr, FOGARTY. Ivyield to the gentle-
man.

Mr. EDMONDSON. Mr. Chairman, I
would like to join my friend from Texas
[Mr. Wricut] in expressing personal
appreciation to the gentleman from
Rhode Island and his subcommittee of
the fine bill which they have reported
and of their very informative report.

I hope when we go back into the House
some of the sections of this report, par-
ticularly those dealing with cancer and
with infant mortality may be made a part
of the record of these proceedings be-
cause I think the gentleman is bringing
to the attention of the House some very
significant and basic information. The
information on the subject of sir pol-
lution control, indicating the probability
that many deaths are occurring across
the country because of. polluted air, is
vital information. There is vital in-
formation in the report on the subject
of infant mortality. I wonder if the
gentleman can tell us how the Public
Health Service accounted to the com-

irman, will

Chairman,

May 17

mittee for the fact that we are witness-
ing. an increase in infant mortality in
the United States.

Mr. FOGARTY. They did not-give
us a very good explanation. In the re-
port we. encourage the Public Health
Service: and the Children’s Bureau to
make a complete study on the rise in
infant mortality. It was brought out in
the hearings, however, that the State
have some responsibility in this,. aiso.
There is a great range in the figures.
The low is 20 per 1,000 and it goes up
to 43 per 1,900 live births in the highest
State. Some States are not doing a very
good joo in this particular area.

‘Mr. EDMONDSON. Mr. Chairman, I
know that many of us will be awaiting
with a great deal of interest the report
of the Public Health Service on this
analysis that IT am glad te see the com-
mittee is having made; and I think the
gentleman.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. Mr.
will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FOGARTY. I yield to the genile-
man.

Mr.

Chairman,

ROOSEVELT. Mr. Chairman,

. first may I compliment the gentleman

on what I think is a very fine report and
a very fine bill. .

Regarding the Department of Labor
appropriations as set out in Report No.
382, page 5, of the Appropriations Com-
mittee, I note that the committee has
provided for a substantial increase in the
suggested appropriation for the Bureau
or Labor Standards. As the Members
know, the Special Subcommittee on
Labor will begin hearings Wednesday,
May 24, on amendments to the Welfare
and Pension Plans Disclosure Act which
is administered by the Bureau of Labor
Standards. :

I think the Members, therefore, would
be interested in comments contained on
page 5 of the report with respect to the
need for amendments to the act. The
report states:

Activities required of this Bureau by the
Welfare and Pension Plans Disclosure Act
cost approximately $500,000 per year. Sec-
retary Mitchell stated that this act provides
only “a shameful illusion” and: “no per~
suasive deterrent to those who wish to ig-
nore its provisions, or to manipulate or em-
bezzle funds.” When asked his opinion of
this statement, Secretary Goldberg said “TI
join in that statement 100 percent.” The
cormmittee does not like to see funds wasted
and hopes that legislative action will be
taken to correct this matter.

I would like to emphasize the last
statement wherein the committee hopes
that legislative action will be taken to
correct the deficiencies in the present
law. This becomes very meaningful in
view of our hearings to begin next week
on proposed amendments, and I hope
all interested Members will contact the
commiitee.

Mr. FOGARTY. It was testified by
Secretary Mitchell a year or two ago
that this law did not really accomplish
anything. We asked the present Secre-
tary of Labor this year if he agreed with
Mr. Mitchell and he said he did. That
is why we put it in the report that way.

Mr. DENTON. Myr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
1961

Mr. FOGARTY. I yield to the gentle-
man from Indiana.

Mr. DENTON. Mr. Chairman, one
thing that has bothered me over a con-
siderable period of time has been the
method of processing the total and
permanent disability claims under the
social security law. It has caused a
great many complaints to be made to my
office and many other Congressmen tell
me that they have had similar difficulty.
A great deal cf time is spent by the
congressional staffs in working on social
security cases. I think this has been
' brought about partly because of the sys-
tem by which the claims are processed.

The claimant makes out his claim
with the district office of the Social Se-

curity Administration. Under the law,

of course, he is expected to make out his
case, but unless a man was given assist-
ance it would be impossible for many of
them to make out their claims. The dis~
trict office does assist the claimant.
However, he does not have the same as-
sistance that a veteran receives where
there is generally a county service officer,
@ veterans contact man in the Veterans’

Administration office, and a service offi- .

cer in the various veterans’ organiza-
tions, locally, to assist the claimant.

After the claim has been processed in
the district office, it goes to the State
vocational rehabilitation cffice, which
decides whether the claim should be
paid. From there, it goes to the social
security office at Baltimore, which again
reviews the case and claim. While they
have no authority to set aside a denial
of the claim which they consider erro-
neous, they send back all claims which
they think are wrong to the State office.
They have only authority to set aside
the allowance of a claim they think is
erroneous. The evidence shows that the
State office had to reinvestigate or call
for a reinvestigation in some 55 percent
of the claims, and the Baltimore office
sent back to the States approximately
“15 percent of their claims. —

This process of going through the
State office causes a.delay of from 60 to
90 days, costing $19 million, and makes
one think that what is everybody’s busi-
ness is nobody’s business.

Thus it must be obvious that the sys-
tem is cumbersome, inefficient, and
wasteful administratively. We have the
unique situation where State vocational
rehabilitation agencies, with no mone-~
tary interest, determine the eligibility of
claimants applying for benefits under a
Federal program. Since the Federal
Government pays 100 percent of the ex-~-
penses of the State agencies, and since
the State agencies have no monetary
stake in the program, there is obviously
no incentive on the part of the State
agencies to economize, or even operate
efficiently, except the personal pride of
the individuals.

Some have sought to defend this ad-
ministrative monstrosity with the argu-
ment that it requires the applicants to
come in contact with the facilities for
rehabilitation and so be rehabilitated.
The facts are that through this pro~
gram 1,317,000 persons were referred to
State vocational rehabilitation agencies
through June 30, 1960, and only 6,600—

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

one-half of 1 -percent—were. successfully
rehabilitated. It is worse than a failure
from the standpoint of vocational re-
habilitation, and thus attempts to make
claims examiners out of people trained
in rehabilitation. This diverts trained
persons from this field that already has
a shortage of such manpower.

Many formal and informal studies
have been made of this matter and prac-
tically all have found serious shortcom-
ings. On March 4, 1959, when the Com-~-
mittee on Appropriations was holding
hearings on the budget for fiscal year
1960, Mr. Mitchell, the Commissioner of
the Social Security Administration, was
asked: , :

What is your personal opinion of bringing
the States into this?

Mr. Mitchell replied:

My personal opinion is that if this were
asked at the beginning of the program, I
would have recommended against it, and
quite strongly, because I think it violated
some of the fundamental principles of Fed-
eral-State relations in that, for one thing,
it gave the States an opportunity to write
blank checks against Federal funds.

When asked, in connection with the
hearings this year, Mr. Mitchell indi-
cated that his opinion in the matter had
not changed.

On October 23, 1959, the Comptroller
General of the United States transmit-
ted to the Speaker of the House a copy
of the report on the General Accounting
Office’s study of this program. ‘The
summary of principal findings and rec-
ommendations included the following:

Our review indicated that the handling of
applications for disability benefits by the
State agencies is cumbersome and results
in unnecessary costs and excessive process-
ing time. An evaluation of the present re-
quirements of law, that disability determina-
tion must be made by State agencies, is
needed.

Last summer and fall, the survey and
investigations staff of the Committee on
Appropriations made a detailed study of
this program and came up with similar
conclusions and recommendations, with
considerable detail to document the fact
that this is a most unsatisfactory pro-
gram from many voints of view.

This report brought out the fact that
budget controls were weak and applied
differently in different States, that in
many States records were insufficient to
allow for 2 definite separation of funds
which were spent for State programs
and funds which were spent on Federal
programs of determining disability, and
that there was absolutely no uniformity
in fee schedules for medical examina-
tions, —

Just to take the medical fee schedules
as one example, it was pointed. out that
of 54 contracting State agencies, 39 are
free to revise the schedules used in their
program without even relating them to
other programs in the States. Among

_ the various State agencies, some use the

workmen’s compensation program fee
schedule, others use Veterans’ Adminis-~
tration fee schedules, and one uses Blue
Shield, but most set their own, which are
revised from time to time, with no uni-
formity in the base schedule or the re-
visions as compared to what other States

7697

are doing. One thing is common—the
fees and other costs are continuing to
goup. While the cost per case for fiscal
year 1960 was budgeted at $32.50, it
actually amounted to $36 by the time the
year was over. The estimates for fiscal
year 1961 were based on a presumption
that the cost would average $36 per case
during that fiscal year; however, at the
time of the staff’s inquiry the unit cost
had already risen to $41 per case. In
1957, the cost per case averaged $17.64.

‘In just 4 years the cost has gone up

over 130 percent.

While just the unnecessary expense of
this program is certainly sufficient cause
for change, the same basic administra-
tive requirements which lead to waste of
funds also lead to undue delays in claims
processing, inconsistent determinations
as to eligibility, and in general lead to
unsatisfactory and inequitable treatment
of claimants.

Coupled with these difficulties is an

‘ appeals system which leaves much to be

desired. The Appeals Council is tech-~
nically a part of the Office of the Sec-~
retary; however, the Council and all em-
ployees are paid from Social Security
Administration funds and are actually
more under the supervisory control of
the Social Security Administration than
under the Secretary. This cannot help
but influence appeals decisions. ©

If any further proof of the weakness
of this whole system were needed, one
has only to look at the sorry court record
to find it. According to recent statistics,
of the cases that were taken to court,
173 had been affirmed and 103 were re-
versed. This is not to say the court
found that in 173 cases the appeals were
correctly decided, but only that the court
found there was sufficient evidence in the
case to sustain a finding. Thus in over
a third of the cases the court found
that there was not even sufficient evi-
dence to sustain a finding. .This is prac-
ticaliy the same as the court’s setting
aside the verdict of a jury. It certainly
is not only an indication, it is proof that
there is something really wrong with
this program.

On the whole, I think the social secu-
rity district offices and. the review office
in Baitimore are doing a good job under
the circumstances. I think that the
problem is the system under which they
work, The following facts will show that
something must be wrong with the sys-
tem besides the expense and unnecessary
delay.

There are approximately 30,000 appli-
cants each month under the disability
provisions of the act. Of this number,
approximately 19,000 will be allowed and
11,000 will be disallowed. Out of the
group whose claims are disallowed, about
3,096 will want their cases reconsidered,
Of that number, about 40 percent, or
1,300, will have their claims allowed on
reconsideration. Out of the 60 percent,
or 1,700 disallowed, about 700 will go on
to a requested hearing before a referee.
Of that number, about 2006, or 30 percent
of those whose claims were disallowed,
will have them allowed before the referee
of Appeals Council. :

Then, a small percentage go to court,
and of that number over one-third have
7698

their claims allowed. This leaves one
te wonder about the 8,000-plus whose
claims are denied and never ask for
reconsideration or appeal. Undoubt-
edly, many claims for disability are filed
which are unfounded and should not be
allowed; but when 40 or so percent of
those who ask for a rehearing after
their claims have-been denied are then
allowed the claims on reconsideration,
and the claims of 30 percent of those
who have had them denied on recon-
sideration are allowed by the referee or
the Appeals Council—and then over
one-third of those disallowed by the
Appeals Council are allowed by the
court—one wonders, if these 8,000 who
did not ask for reconsideration had the
ability or the assistance to exercise their
rights, just how large a percentage of
these disallowed claims would eventual-
ly have been allowed.

I want my Government to be a fair
government, but. in this case I am cer-
tain in my own mind that justice is
being denied a great many people.
Certainly if there is any group of people
in our Nation that deserves just treat-
ment it is this group of disabled who
in so many cases are unable to help
themselves. In the interests of efficfent
government, in the interests of saving
the taxpayers millions of dollars now
being wasted, and for just plain human-
itarian reasons, I hope that we will not
put off much longer straightening out
the administrative mess that we have
helped create in connection with this
program.

(Mr. DENTON asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)

Mr. OYHARA of Illinois. Mr. Chair-
man, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FOGARTY. I yield.

Mr. O'HARA of Illinois. I wish to say
to the gentleman that no Member of the
Congress performs a more useful and
valuable work than the gentleman now
in the well of the House. It was a
stimulus to national morale, and an ex-
ample of dedication to the public service
over and beyond personal ambition and
aims when the gentleman offered almost
on a silver platter a-seat in the other
body, elected to remain here in this
body to continue the great and dedicated
work he is doing, for which the American
people always will be indebted to him.

I have received a number of telegrams
from my constituents interested in the
continuance on an enlarged scale of ap-
prenticeship training. I commend the
gentleman and his able colleagues on
the subcommittee for acting favorably
in that area.

Mr. FOGARTY. Yes. We increased
that amount by $500,000 over the budget.

Mr. O’HARA of Illinois. I have here
a telegram from the chancellor of the
University of Chicago, reading: |

Strongly urge restoration of funds for sup-
port of NDEA, title IV fellowships which are
of great importance to programs being
financed jointly by the Government and the
universities,

Is that covered in the present bill?
Mr. FOGARTY. Weill, not to his
liking.

‘report.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

Mr. O'HARA of Illinois. Does my col-
league disagree with the eminent chan-
cellor of the University of Chicago?

Mr. FOGARTY. This is a unanimous
There was some give and take
on this, and what we came out with is
the best compromise we could agree on.

Mr. O'HARA of [llinois. I appreciate
that in the grinding of the legislative
mills compromises sometimes become
necessary, but I do hope that in the
other body the funds will be restored
as recommended by the chancellor of
the University of Chicago who is an
outstanding scientist as well as. educa-
tor, and the House conferees will agree
to accept such restoration, if in the
judgment of the other body, it is made.
I know that my colleagues on the sub-
committee always will welcome the
counsel of the Nation’s educators and
scientists, among whom the chancellor
of the University of Chicago is pre-
eminent.

Mr. BECK WORTH.
will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FOGARTY. I yield to the gentle~
man from Texas, :

Mr. BECKWORTH. I wish to com-
mend the distinguished gentleman from
Rhode Island. He knows that I am in-
terested in what procedure the Govern-
ment follows in connection with hiring
older people. I note on page 41 of the
report this short paragraph that I would
like to read:

During the hearings the chairman of the
subcommittee expressed deep concern, dis-
appointment and dissatisfaction with the
Department’s activities in aging. There is
no clearly defined program and little evi-
dence of leadership directed toward positive
action following the White House Confer-
ence on Aging.

There has been a lot of talk about
helping the aged to obtain work. I-per-
sonally have undertaken from time to
time to_ascertain from the various de-
partments of the Government the num-
ber of people actually hired 45 years of
age or older and 60 years of age or older.
It is very clear that when one seeks
those actual figures it is quite difficult
to get any figures. The heads of the
departments will always tell you, “We
have a policy of not discriminating
against older people,” but when you ask
for figures they do not seem to have
them and are not interested in obtaining
them. The gentleman has undertaken
to help me get those figures, and I want
to thank him again for that, but I hope
too, that a new effort will be made to
find out whether or not the various de-
partments are in truth and in fact fol-
lowing their own policies about hiring
older people.

Mr. FOGARTY. I thank the gentle-
man.

Mr. GIAIMO. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?

Mr. FOGARTY. I yield to the gentle-
man from Connecticut.

Mr. GIAIMO. I also would like to
commend the gentleman on the work he
has done with his committee in bringing
the pending bill before us. On page 17
of the report, you speak of the need for
shellfish laboratories on the east coast

Mr. Chairman,

May 17

and the gulf coast. I believe this is in
the amount of $1,820,000. I believe this
came about as the result of the hepa-
titis outbreak in the shellfish and oyster
industry.

Mr. FOGARTY. That has been traced
to oysters in the Mississippi area, and
clams in the New York, New Jersey area.

Mr. GIAIMO. On the east coast near
Milford, Conn., the Fish and Wildlife
Service specializes in shellfish and oyster
culture where we have a great industry
in shellfish and oysters. At the present
time there is pending before the House
Committee’ on Merchant Marine and
Fisheries a bill which will enlarge the
functions of this fish and wildlife agency
in Milford, which will initiate a research
project into the whole area of the oyster
industry and the commercial production
of shellfish and oysters.

Mr. FOGARTY. This bill would have
no effect on that at all.

Mr. GIAIMO, Would this have any
effect on that?

Mr. FOGARTY. The gentleman
raised the question with me a couple of
days ago, and I went to the trouble to
get the details on this subject. We have
complete cooperation between the Pub-
lic Health Service and the Fish and
Wildlife Service. There is no duplica~
tion of effort there at all. But they
work together and the people of the
Public Health Service are backing this
bill that you speak of.

Mr. GIAIMO. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. HECHLER. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?

Mr. FOGARTY.. I yield to the gentle-
man from West Virginia.

Mr.: HECHLER. I commend the

‘gentleman and the committee for giving

cognizance to the extremely. serious
problems of automation and recom-
mending additional funds for the De-
partment of Labor in the retraining of
industrial workers. I note on page 57
of the hearings the gentleman states
and I quote: :

We have talked @ lot about retraining
workers during the last 4 or 6 years, but I
do not thing anything very worthwhile has
materialized.

I wonder if the gentleman does not
feel this is in an area where we could
make a larger investment?

Mr. FOGARTY. I am sure we could.
We have been asking the Secretary of
Labor every year to spend more time
and effort in this area. Everyone agrees
more should be done, but nothing much
has been accomplished.

Mr. HECHLER. I thank the genitle-
man. :

Mr. BAILEY, Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?

Mr. FOGARTY. I yield to the gentle-
man from West Virginia.

Mr. BAILEY. The records of the
Congress will show that. the distin-
guished gentleman from Rhode Island
has been closely associated with me in
our effort to do something about the
education program of the United States.
I am just a little bit surprised to see
reductions made in the appropriation. .
1961

Mr, FOGARTY. As I said a while
ago, this is a unanimous report and,
therefore, a compromise report.

Mr. BAILEY. I would just like to say
to the gentleman from Rhode Island that
my Committee on General Education will
begin hearings on amendments to the
Defense Education Act on Tuesday of
next week, and we will probably be talk-
ing to you a little bit later.

Mr, ST. GERMAIN. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FOGARTY. I yield to the gentle-
man from Rhode Island,

Mr. ST. GERMAIN. I also want to
thank my colleague, the gentleman from
Rhode Island for the work he has done
in this field and for the report he has
given us today on the floor. In line with
what previous gentlemen have said, I
thank him for remaining on this side of
the Congress and for the help he has
given me and for the stature he gives to
the State of Rhode Island by virtue of
his position here in the Congress.

(Mr. ST. GERMAIN asked and was
given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)

Mr. FOGARTY. I thank my col-
league.

Mrs. SULLIVAN. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?

Mr. FOGARTY. I yield to the gentle-
woman from Missouri.

Mrs. SULLIVAN. Mr. Chairman, I,
too, want to compliment the gentleman
from Rhode Island and the subcommit-
tee and the staff for the excellent report
on this bill.

(Mrs. SULLIVAN addressed the Com-
mittee. Her remarks will appear here-
after in the Appendix.)

Mr. MEADER. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?

Mr. FOGARTY. I yield to the gentle-
man from Michigan.

Mr. MEADER. The gentleman will
recall Dr. Ralph A. Sawyer, vice presi-
dent of the Department of Research at
the University of Michigan who appeared
following me and Senator Hart before
the gentleman’s subcommittee, to urge

the removal of the 15-percent limitation ~

on overhead expenses.

His testimony appears at page 692 of
the hearings with regard to section 204,
page 45 of the bill. I gather that no
action was taken by the subcommittee
with respect to either the removal of that
limitation of 15 percent or an increase in
the percentage. Was this considered by
the committee?

Mr, FOGARTY. Yes,
sidered.

it was con-
I think the gentleman from

Michigan made a very excellent state-

ment, and the doctor he brought with
him from the University of Michigan
made a fine statement. We did not,
however, have the votes in the commit-
. tee to raise the 15 percent. Some mem-
bers wanted to cut it below 15 percent.
The result is that we have a compromise
agreement to hold what we have.

Mr. MEADER. I take it the gentle-
man himself is receptive to the sugges-
tion and that he himself favors some
relaxation of this limitation.

Mr. FOGARTY. There are many who
feel that direct aid to medical schools is

No. 82——-12

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

the answer. I think the quicker we get
that the better off we are going to be.
I think we should have some legislation
glong that fine.

' Mir. DURNO. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?

| Mr, FOGARTY. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Oregon.

Mr. DURNO. I would like to express
my appreciation to the gentleman from
Rhode Island. As he may know, I have
been a practicing physician for 35 years.
T realize the difficulty the gentleman has
in getting this apprepriation. Iam in-
terested in knowing how you go about
justifying the $58 million in excess of
the request. What is the authority
for the increase?

Mr. FOGARTY. First, we asked the
various institute directors what they
thought they needed. We got their esti-
mates. Then we asked the Surgeon Gen-
eral what his recommendation was for
those institutes.
requests by a few million dollars. Then
it goes to the Department and to the
Bureau of the Budget and they cut it
further. Sometimes in the Bureau of the
Budget it is just an arbitrary cut to come
within a ceiling.

After listening to all these Govern-
ment people we have some of the out-
standing people in these various cate~
gories come in, at their own expense, and
they tell us what they think ought to be
done in these various areas.

This amount of $641 million is the ex-
act amount the Surgeon General said
was required. This was the compromise
we reached.

I wanted to include $200 million over
the budget. I think we could spend $200
million more very effectively.

Mr. DURNO. This is an emotional
matter. I agree that very much more
could be spent, but I would like to ask
one final question: Did organized medi-
eine ask for any of this?

Mr. FOGARTY. No, They had an
opportunity. We never refuse anyone
from appearing before our committee
and testifying. We have talked to them
from time to time, and in the research
field, we find ourselves in agreement
with the organized professional associa:
tions. :

Mr. THOMPSON of New Jersey. Mr.
Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FOGARTY. I yield to the gentle-
man from New Jersey.

Mr. THOMPSON of New Jersey.

-First, I would like to commend the chair-
man of the subcommittee, and the sub-

committee for its work. I have read a
great deal of the hearings and I find
them most enlightening. But there are
three major cuts which are. distressing
to me. As.a member of the Committee
on Education and Labor, it is my inten-
tion to follow the lead of the gentleman
from Rhode Island.

I am concerned, however, about the
reduction of a million dollars in fellow-
ships under the National Defense Edu-
cation Act. This act is barely underway.
If, indeed, its original purpose was meri-
torious at all, they should be given more
now. :

He generally cuts the.

7699

The. second cut is a reduction of
$350,000 in the request for. institutes for
the guidance of personnel, something
very badly needed throughout the whole
system and in the National Defense
Education Act. . Many of us felt that the
original amount provided and requested
was too little.

The third one is the $500,000 cut in the
salaries and expenses section. This
would retard the work of the educational
statisties group, as well as the college
information center, which is vitally
needed.

I think that these three cuts do great
violence to the: program of education
under the National Defense Education
Act.

Mr. BATES. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?

Mr. FOGARTY. I yield to the gentle-
man from Massachusetts.

Mr. BATES, I observe in the report
that the committee has included a pro-
vision of $1,800,000 fcr the establish-
ment and operation of shellfish labora~
tories.

Mr. FOGARTY. Yes.

Mr. BATES. I wish to commend the
committee for that. We have a very
serious problem up there. Iam well ac-
quainted with the situation on the east
coast. I thank the gentieman for in-
cluding this in the report.

(Mr. BATES asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)

Mr. ST. GERMAIN. Mr. Chairman,
I am pleased to express approval of the
report of the House Committee on Ap-
propriations, presented by my colleasue
from Rhode Island, Joun Focarry, mak-
ing appropriations for the Departments
of Labor, and Health, Education, and
Welfare, and related agencies, for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1962, and for
other purposes. Many of the provisions
of this bill, in addition to benefiting all
the people of this Nation, are of special
interest to the people of Rhode Island.
An example of this is the inclusion of
funds in the Office of the Secretary of
Labor to institute an effective program
for the training of men and women for
skilled industrial positions. As the com-
mittee’s report points out, this is of par~
ticular iniportance in areas where mi-
gration of industry and other economic
factors have raised unemployment to
high levels. The value of such a pro-
gram cannot be too highly estimated,
because the benefits which will accrue
to those areas where chronic unemploy-
ment exists are innumerable.

With respect to the all-important field
of education, grants for library services,
assistance for school construction, ex-
pansion of. teaching and education for
the mentally retarded, and those with
speech and hearing defects, and pro-
vision for a program in cooperative re- —
search are of the greatest necessity.

Also, funds for accident prevention,
chronic diseases and health of the aged,
community health research, control of
tuberculosis, nursing services and re-
sources, hospital construction activities,
and other health services are important
to the well-being of Rhode Island as
7700

well as that of the entire country. The
expansion of programs for cancer re-
search, -mental health activities, re-
search in heart disease, arthritis, and
other iNnesses are essential phases of
integrated, realistic health planning.

I am very happy to note that funds
have been recommended for the estab-
lishment of a Public Health Service sheli-
fish laboratory in the East. This will
greatly benefit Rhode Island due to the
importance of the shellfish industry to
my State and the danger to health
which results from the contamination
of water in which many shellfish are to
be found. Progress toward providing
solutions for this problem is very de-
sirable and of great concern to Rhode
Island.

The expansion of services under the
Social Security Administration through
increased grants to States for public as<
sistance, maternal and child welfare,
and provision for cooperative research
in social security, continues and increases
the benefits our citizens enjoy under
our social security system.

The committee is to be commended
for its realistic appraisal of human
needs and its determination to meet
these needs. Such farsighted judg-
ments deserve careful consideration and
approval by the Congress.

Mr. LAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I yield
myself 5 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, as a member of the
committee submitting the report on the
bill covering appropriations for the De-
partments of Labor, and Health, Edu-
cation, and Welfare, I should like to
express my strong support of the com-
mittee’s actions and recommendations
and urge that the House approve them.
I have served on this committee in the
83d, 85th, 86th as well as now. in the

87th Congresses, and I am acutely aware °

of how the programs of these agencies
directly affect the lives and welfare of
every man, woman, and child in this
country. The Members of this Congress
are also well aware of what these pro-
grams mean to each of our citizens, rang-
ing as they do from unemployment com-
pensation to such things that shall have
a profound effect on our future as edu-
cation and medical research.
NATION’S HEALTH IMPORTANT

There are many areas represented in
these appropriations that I could com-~-
“ment on, but I would like now to discuss
some of the National Institutes of Health
activities not covered by the gentleman
from Rhode Island [Mr. Focarty] in his
remarks. We give special emphasis to
the appropriations of NIH for a number
of reasons. First, because these appro-
priations support a series of programs
which are of fundamental importance to
the. health and well-being of this Nation.
This is an area of the national interest
with which I have had a constant con-
cern since my election to the Congress.
The research programs carried out by the
National Insitutes of Health. have made
possible a substantial expansion of
knowledge concerning disease and health
problems. The continued support of the
programs will substantially increase the
probability of major discoveries which
will have as powerful effect upon the

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

health status of the Nation in the future
as the discovery. of the antibiotics and
immunizing vaccines have had in the
past. Second, I am convinced that the
people of this country are fully in sup-
port of the contnued effort to enlarge
the Nation’s medical research program.
Those of us on the committee who work
closely with the research and reiated
programs served by these appropriations
can attest—simply from the amount
and nature of our mail from the general
public—to the desire for a greater ef-
fort in medical research. One thing
that is generally acknowledged in this
outpouring of sentiment for planned and
productive medical research is that the
United States is second to none in this
field. Of this we can be proud because
a healthy people, is a strong people, and
a healthy nation is a strong nation. If
we are to remain free from today’s
health hazards and from those that may
involve from today’s environment and
if we are to remain free from those who
seek to dominate us, then the answer is
quite clear:

We must continue to make this in-
vestment commensurate with our in-
tellectual and financial capacity to seek,
find, and apply new knowledge for the
benefit of man.

A third reason for my interest in the
programs of the National Institutes of
Health that the Members of this Con-
gress should be aware of is this: For a
number of years, our committee and
those who administer the programs of
the National Institutes of Health have
been agreed that there is one key factor
in developing a logical, orderly, fruitful
national medical research program,
namely, balance. Support of current re-
search must be balanced by efforts to
enlarge the medical research manpower
of the future through training. These
programs in turn must be completed by

‘efforts to provide additional research fa-

cilities through construction—particu-
larly for the highly specialized and com-
plex facilities which research in major
disease programs such as cancer require.
BACKGROUND OF RESEARCH FACILITIES. CON~
STRUCTION

During the past 2 years it has become
more and more evident that development
of up-to-date research facilities—some
of which could be identified as large, re-
gional, or national resources—was lag-
ging behind. To get some measure of
just where we stand, we need to look
back more than 10 years when the so-
called Public Health Seivice omnibus bill
was enacted. That legislation through a
key action (433a) provided the statutory
authority for the Public Health Service
to make grants for the construction of
medical research facilities essential for
the carrying out of research in the sev-
eral categorical disease areas. Under
this authority a small number of grants
were made for the construction of can-
cer and heart research facilities, but the
Korean war, among other factors,
brought this program to a halt. From
that time until 1956, a hiatus—in retro-
spect, a very serious hiatus—occurred.

In 1956, the Congress added title VIT
to the Public Health Service Act, author~
izing up to $30 million each year for 3

‘awaiting action of the Council.

May i?

years to assist in the construction and
equipping of research facilities to enlarge
the general capacity of medical schools,
universities, and other institutions for
research. in the seliences related to
health. ‘These géneral needs have been
so urgent that in 1958 the Congress ex~
tended the authority for an additional 3
years—through fiscal year 1962.

MATCHING PROGRAMS SUCCESSFUL BUT LIMITED

Let me sketch briefly some of the ac-
complishments that have been achieved
through this modest effort alone. Since
this program was announced in the fall
of 1956, over $321 million in Federal
funds have been requested by eligible
applicants. These requests have been
thoroughly documented in more than
1,100 applications from institutions do-
ing. health-related research—by public
and private nonprofit schools of medi-
cine, dentistry, osteopathy, and pub-
lic health: and by hospitals, uni-
versities, and other research institutions.
From the $150 million appropriated for
the first 5 program years, 755 grants
have been awarded to 320 institutions in
47 States, the District of Columbia, and
Puerto Rico. According to. the latest
report we have received, 265 of these
projects have been completed and over
180 projects are under contract—many
of which are nearing completion.

With the kind of progress we have ex-
perienced in the construction of research
facilities in the past 3 years, one might
ask: “Is this enough? Does not this not
satisfy the need?” The answer, our
committee has found, is positively “No”
on three counts, First, the funds au-
thorized for this program are inadequate
to meet any but a small portion of the
need that exists. Secondly, the limita-
tions of our matching program simply
are too restrictive to allow many institu-
tions to help fill national research needs
perceived by our committee because of
the inability of those institutions to fi-
nance construction to carry out research
for which they are otherwise well quali-
fied. Thirdly, since the program was
directed to the general research needs of
institutions it has failed to provide sup-
port for construction of facilities directly
aimed at the highly complex and spe-
cialized needs of research in two specific
major disease problems.

Now on the first point—that is, the
inadequacy of the appropriation author-
ization,, we noted in the statement in
support of this year’s appropriation re-
quest that there are projects awaiting
action, despite the fact that the full ap-
propriation has been used every year for
the past 6 years. Let me give you the
picture: As of March 10, 1961, there was
a backlog of $22 million worth of projects
that had been approved by the National
Health Research Facilities Advisory
Council but were awaiting payment. An
additional 126 applications of over $48
million were pending, which represented
new or deferred applications that were
And an
additional 93 notices of intent to file
applications valued at over $33 million
were on file. After persistent inquiry,
our committee persuaded the expert wit-
ness on this subject to give us his best
realistic estimate of the. amount that
1961

could be used each year. That estimate
was $65 million a year—over twice our
present limitation and $15 million a year
more than authorization provided in the
amendment of this legislation submitted
to the Congress by the administration.

NONMATCHING PEOGRAM FILLS SPECIFIC NEED

Now I would like to turn to the other
points having to do with the availability
of support for the construction of cate-
gorical research facilities on a non-
matching basis. In the. course of the
committee’s hearings last year, we re-
quested and were provided with data ob-
tained from NIH, its advisers, and others

that clearly demonstrated the need for.

cancer research facilities. We were told
that those needs were not otherwise
typical of organizations doing research,
since their programs. focused cn the
cancer problem exclusively in contrast to
most university research programs,
which ustially encompass a variety of re-
search fields. The data, accumulated
from 10 cancer research institutes, indi-
cated an immediate need for over $28
million in research laboratory space. In
addition, I made a special effort to bring
out some of the facts about the statutory
authority of such grants. It was gener-
ally acknowledged that purely categori-
cal cancer research facilities represented
a true national nsed. As a result, cur
committee recommended, and the Con-
gress provided, a special earmark appro-
priation of $5 million to the National
Cancer Institute for the support of con-
struction of cancer research facilities.
This was not offered as a 1-year effort;
it was a start upon which could. be
mounted a national program for cancer
construction needs and one which might
be extended to other categorical areas
as needs were demonstrated and as pro-
grams were described and presented. Yet
considerable misinformation about’ this
program has persisted, and, in fast, the
administration itself early in this session
offered-—-as part of its recommended
legisiation——a proposal to repeal the au-
thority for making nonmatching con-
struction grants.

The Kennedy administration in rec-
ommending the repeal of the authority
by which cancer research facilities are

being built on a nonmatching basis com-

pletely disregards the most pressing need
in the area of cancer research which
exists in our Nation this year. This need
was emphasized time and again during
the many days of hearings held before
our subcommittee. Dr, Kenneth Endi-
cott, Director of the Wational Cancer
Institute, testified before our committee
as follows in testimony taken from part
2 of our hearings, page 871:
APPLICATIONS FOR GRANTS FOR CANCER RESEARCH
FACILITIES .
Mr. Larry. In the area of cancer research
facilities, limited to this categorical area,
you have before you at the. present time, I
understand, a group of applications for med-
ical research facilities. One of the require-

ments of these applications was the certifi- °

cation that ail avenues had been investi-
gated and that the facility which was pro-
posed could not possibly be constructed if
they were. required to meet the standards
of the Medical Research Facility Act. What
do these applications total in dollars and
cents?

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

Dr. Enprcotr. We have before us for con-
sideration at the next meeting of the council
some 30 applications for $25,319,165.

Mr. Larry. And there is a certification with
these applications that the research facilities
could not be constructed under any other
program?

Dr. Expicorr. We have asked them to dem-
onstrate. that they have exhausted every
reasonable possibility of raising matching
funds. Now, of course, all of these appli-
cants will be visited before their grants are
acted upon. The visiting teams are now in
the field. The council meeting will be at
the end of April, the 29th and 30th of April
and ist of May.

I had an opportunity to talk to the site
visitors, who have visited perhaps half by
now, and the report was made at the Council
meeting a week or so ago, 2 weeks ago I guess
it was, that none of the applicants visited at
that time could be excluded from eligibility
on this basis. In other words, so far as the
visitors could tell, they had, in fact, ex-
hausted every reasonable possibility of raising
matching funds.

Mr. Lamp. You have $5 worth of applica-
tions for every $1 that you have available. to
you for this program.

Dr. Enpicorr. Yes, sir.

Mr. Lairp. Do you know of any other pro-
gram in the National Cancer Institute where
there is such a great demand for funds, in
any ratio like that?

Dr. Enpicotr. Not this year, sir,

Against this historical backdrop, let us
examine the most recent developments.
First, and most importantly, what has
happened as a result of the conservative
start afforded by the $5 million cancer
construction program authorized for the
current year? Although there has been
relatively little positive publicity on the
program, universities, medical schools,
hospitals, and other research institutions
have responded with well thought out
programs in the cancer research field.
In fact, I understand that the National
Adviscry Cancer Council, which met just
last month, considered over 30 applica-
tions from nearly as many institutions
for grants totaling over $25 million.
This set of facts alone indicate that our
earlier judgments not only were correct
for the current year but will probably
hold, at least in principle, for the fore-
seeable future.

For, the second most recent develop-
ment in this effort to examine all the
pertinent facts om health research con-
struction, we need only turn to the
record of the committee’s hearings, re-
leased earlier this month. During the
questioning of the administration wit-
nesses, I asked for an estimate of what
the greatest needs would be in medical
research ih the next 3 years. Three fac-
tors were cited, and the first of the three
was research facilities. To make sure
that there would be no misunderstand-
ing, I asked. which one of the three fac-
tors mentioned should have the highest
priority; and the unhesitating answer
was, and I quote, “Most acutely, research
facilities.” Later, in response to a spe-
cific question as to what might happen if
the research construction were limited
to a 50-59 matching program only, the
committee was told, if the present bill
(to repeal) is enacted as such, I think
there is going to be a serious deficiency
because I think that many schools cannot
develop the research plans they desire
on a 50-50 basis.

TOL

FACILITIES ESSENTIAL TO PROGRESS

These are the facts, then, that make
our course clear; if medical research is
to continue to flower, we must take the
necessary steps to see that the construc-
tion of facilities—not only general pur-
pose facilities—but the specialized facil.
ities for research in categorical diseases,
keeps pace with the. other component
factors of sound medical research—
growth for the Nation. I am thinking
specifically of the urgent need to provide
research space for the numbers of bright
young people emerging from our training
pregrams—young people with creative
minds and full measures of research
ideas of high potential, Iam thinking
of the rapidly evolving research tech-
niques and instrumentation for cancer
research and cardiovascular research |
that are crying for up-to-date facilities
in which to be put to work for the bene-
fit of mankind. The steps we must take,
as the facts I have just related indicate,
are:

First, we must not only continue the
health research facilities construction
program, we must substantially increase
its annual limitation in the years ahead,
and .

Second, we must not only continue the
present nonmatching program for con-
struction of research facilities to meet
national and regional needs in the cate-
gorical area, of cancer, but we must also
expand this program to other categorical
areas aS opportunities and meaningful
programs are developed and presented.
INCREASES FOR ALL RESEARCH APPROPRIATIONS

SUPPORTED

Now I would like to turn to the gen-
eral considerations surrounding my sup-
port for the appropriations for the Pub-
lie Health Service’s medical research ac-
tivities. Tam sure thai there is general
agreement on the consistent bipartisan
nature of the support in Congress for
these programs which seek to acquire
new knowledge in order that people may
have better health. I cannot recall that
there has ever been a. time when the ac-
tion of a committee members or of the
committee itself has been governed by
considerations related to the party in
power. There have been years, how-
ever, when the executive branch has
been unduly restrictive in setting the
level of its appropriation requests for
medical research activities; and this, I
am sorry to say, is one of those years.

We have heard much about the New
Frontier but apparently it does not yet
include the frontier of the medical sci-
ences. The administration is organiz-
ing a bold new program to help our fel-
low man in underdeveloped countries
but it is apparently not yet ready to
expand a health research program which
will benefit men everywhere. It ap-
parently finds ncthing cdd in planning
to spend three times as much to put
man into space as it proposed to spend
for the research needed to keep men on
earth a little longer.

The Members of this Congress should
know that the level of $641 million for
the NIH appropriations represents the
original estimate for fiscal year 1962 pre-
pared by the Director of NIH,. working
in conjunction with the directors of the
7702

several institutes. This is the same
budget that. was supported by the Sur-
geon General of the Public Health Serv-
ice and by the Secretary of Health, Edu-~
cation, and Welfare. In fact, the new
Surgeon General in testifying before our
subcommittee supported the $641 mil-
lion appropriation with a most positive
statement. His testimony makes it very
elear that his request of $101 million
above the original $540 million budget
for the National Institutes of Health
would be the absolute limit which he
could support. No guidelines or limita-
tions were imposed woon him in arriving
at this figure. His testimony on page 5¢
of volume TZ of our hearings is as
follows: .
NIH BUDGET FOR 1962 :

Mr, Larrp. You are a new Surgeon General
and you made a very careful study of the
budget of the National Institutes of Health.
You had long experience in the National
Institutes of Health, and served as the Act-
ing Director of the Heart Institute. You
prepared a budget which you submitted to
the Secretary of Health, Education, and
Welfare?

Dr, Terry. Yes, sir.

Mr. Lairnp. That provided for an increase
in the NIH budget of $101 million.

Dr. TERRY. Yes, sir.

Mr. Latrp. That was your best judgment?

Dr. Terry. Yes, sir. .

Mr. Lairp. As to what the National Insti-
tutes of Health could use to carry on an
effective program for 1962?

Dr. Terry. That is correct, sir.

Mr. Latrp. Do you think that we would be
getting to the point where you would have
better control over this program if we fol-
lowed your recommendation this year?

Dr. Terry. I do not know, sir.

Mr. Lairp. You did not have any guide-
lines given to you by President Kennedy, or
the Bureau of the Budget, or anyone else,
in determining that particular figure?

Dr. Terry. We had guidelines, but not
limitations, sir. .

Mr. Larrap. But there was no limitation
imposed upon you, that you could not go
above $101 million?

Dr. Terry. There was no suggestion that
I could, should, or could not.

Mr. Latrp. And you had complete freedom
in the area of funding when you came up
with that recommendation?

Dr. Terry. I had complete freedom in
terms of making what I felt was the best
recommendation that could be made for the
National Institutes of Health.

It is interesting to note that the Bu-
reau of the Budget arbitrarily cut back
the $641 million figure to $583 million
“ for the National. Institutes of Health.
This cutback in the requests of the
Surgeon General and the Public Health
Service represents the New Frontier’s
position on these vital health research
programs. .

In past years, the Congress—respond-
ing to the wishes of the people it repre-
sents——has appropriated those additional
funds which medical research could
wisely and profitably use. The record
gives substantial evidence that these
additional funds were, in fact, wisely and
profitably used, and that the forward
thrust of these programs will not be sus-
tained unless additional funds are pro-
vided now. I am therefore whole~
heartedly in support of the commiitee’s
bill, which is now before you for action,
calling for a.level of $641 million for the

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

eight appropriations of the National In-
stitutes of Health. It is impossible to
measure these $641 million against vital
statistics that report on the deaths from
cancer, heart disease, diabetes, infec-
tions, and a host of other health hazards.
We cannot talk of them in terms of
death rates or millions of deaths per
year. What we are concerned with is
people and with supporting a long-range
and tireless effort to produce health
facts—facts that mean children may be
strong instead of crippled; families heid
together in strength instead of separated
by death; and for even the most severely
crippled, a productive life instead of
long-term disability.

The appropriation figure of $641 mil-
lion for NIH for 1962 is a sound one, and
I urge each Member to join with me and
the members of our committee in sup-
porting this funding level for the coming
year.

VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION

Mr. Chairman, the bill before us
contains an amount of $64,450,000 for
grants to States for the Office of Voca-
tional Rehabilitation. Grants to States
will be made on the basis of a $80 million
allotment. This is, without doubt, one
of the best investments we make, for
this is the program which helps restore
disabled people to activity and usefulness
and jobs. In addition we have approved
an appropriation of $19,250,000 for re-
search and training. This is an increase
of $2 million above the Kennedy budget.

I have great enthusiasm for the work
being done in this program. It has been
developing soundly for the past 40 years
and I believe it has reached the place
where we should support a substantial
expansion in this humane and sensible
approach to the problems of our dis-
abled men and women.

EISENHOWER ADMINISTRATION LEADERSHIP

For much of the improvement in the
vocational rehabilitation program, we
are indebted to the previous administra-
tion, which proposed the law which was
enacted in 1954, and which is now the
basis for this entire rehabilitation effort
on the part of the Federal Government
and the States. I take pride in the fact
that, since 1954, the Federal-State pro-
gram has nearly doubled the number of
disabled people rehabilitated each year.
In addition, there is an excellent research
program, to secure new knowledge and
new methods, and a training program to
produce the skilled staffs to work with
larger numbers of the disabled.

The previous administration consist-
ently requested increased funds for the
rehabilitation program and our com-
mittee has never failed to report a bill
in support of these increases. We have,
in fact, recommended additional in-~
creases on several occasions, for I am
convinced—as the committee has been—
that we still are not fully capitalizing on
the great potentials of the vocational
rehabilitation. program.

The previous administration provided
a foundation for expanding this program
and I should like this to be clear. In
fact, during the committee’s. hearings
this spring, the eminent Director of the
Office of Vocational Rehabilitation, Miss

GARTYI.

May 17

Mary E. Switzer, expressed her gratitude
for the great progress made possible by
the last administration. She pointed out
that the clear commitment made by the
last administration, back in 1954, has
actually made today’s program possible.
On this point, I would like to quote Miss
Switzer from the record:

I think we cannot-say often enough that
the commitment of the previous adminis-
tration ‘to this program in a very special
way has made it possible for us to tell the
story we are. now able to tell. I think it
has not only been in the shift in the law
and the funds that were provided by the
Federal Government to permit the States to
move ahead, but in the development of
the research and training program and, fi-
nally, in the development of the interna-
tional program. I would certainly like the
record to be clear as to my views on that.

I should like also, at this point, to pay
my respects to the able and distinguished
chairman of our committee [Mr. Fo-
The gentleman from Rhode Is-
land has served on the HEW appropria-
tions subcommittee longer than any
member of the Senate or the House. He
has been a consistent and effective cham-
pion of the vocational rehabilitation
program. Under his chairmanship; the
program receives the same careful secru-
tiny as all requests coming before the
committee, yet he has shown his belief
in the basic soundness of the rehabilita-
tion program by his support of the funds
required to expand it.

WISCONSIN REHABILITATION PROGRAM

In Wisconsin we have a rehabilitation
program which is doing an excellent job
and which was for many years a leader
among the States-in this work. I am
hopeful that Wisconsin will soon be able
to develop its program to the place where
every disabled person in our State will
be able to get the rehabilitation services
he needs to become self-sustaining
again—and I would offer that same hope
for the disabled residents of every State,
for this is one of the things we mean
when we say that the United States is
the land of opportunity.

IN 1962 OVER 107,000 TO BE REHABILITATED

Last year the Federal-State rehabilita-
tion program restored 88,000 disabled
people to employment. This year they
expect to rehabilitate 96,000. The bill
before us now will provide enough funds
to enable the State agencies to rehabili<
tate about 107,000 disabled individuals.
To me, this is a wonderful thing to do—
to. provide the means whereby these
thousands of handicapped Americans
will become able to look after themselves,
learn a job, and have the satisfaction of
being self-supporting citizens.

I find a special pleasure in the fact
that this appropriation will make it pos-
Sible for the Federal-State program of
vocational rehabilitation to reach an-
other milestone in its history—for if the
committee’s bill is approved, 1962 will be
the first, year in which this program has
rehabilitated more than 100,000 disabled
people in a single year.

Aside from the numbers being rehabil-
itated, the State rehabilitation agencies
today are helping us in many ways in
the economic. and social problems which
confront both the States and the Federal
1961

Government. While the appropriations
for this work: represent an outlay of
Federal funds and of State funds, the
rehabilitation programs have shown time
and again that the cost of this work is
returned to the Federal and State Treas-
ury many times in the form of taxes
which the disabled people pay when they
return to work.

While our Government is considering
many proposals having to do with our
older citizens, the rehabilitation pro-
gram is already doing something con-
structive about it. As we all know, the
proportion of disability increases with
age. However, with proper rehabilita-
tion services, many of our older citizens
cannot only become active again, but
many of them can work at their old jobs
or at’: new ones. The rehabilitation pro-
grams in the States have been proving
this for several years. Back in 1945 less
than 7,500 disabled persons over.45 years
old were rehabilitated and restored to
employment. That represented about 17
percent of the total for that year. This
number has been growing steadily since
then, and next year an estimated 33,000
disabled people in this age group, or. 31
percent of the total, will be rehabilitated.

The success and the growth of this
program—and many other rehabilitation
programs outside the Government—are
due in part to the excellent programs in
training and research conducted by the
Office of Vocational Rehabilitation.

TRAINING REHAB WORKERS

We cannot expect to see larger num-
bers of disabled people restored unless
something is done to cope with the short-

ages of professional personnel who work _

with the disabled. This need is so serious
that it affects both the public program
and the many fine voluntary agencies
now engaged in this bill for expanding
the training grant program aimed at
meeting at least a part of this need, so
that in the coming years there will be
more physicians trained in the special
procedures of rehabilitation—more phys-
ical therapists and occupational thera-
pists—more rehabilitation counselors to
work with the State agencies and
others—and an increase in several other
types of professional workers who are
essential in providing rehabilitation
services.

At the same time, the training program
will support short, intensive courses of
instruction for personnel already work-
ing in rehabilitation, to give. them spe-
cialized training for working with people
who have severe and especially difficult
handicaps. One of these is mental ill-
ness, in which the possibilities for ex-
panding our rehabilitation work are so
tremendous. Another is mental retarda~
tion, in which the rehabilitation pro-

grams are trying to make a major effort...

These disabilities require special knowl-
edge which is now being provided to the
staffs of the State agencies and other or-
ganizations through the training pro-
gram of the Office of Vocational Re-
habilitation.

REHABILITATION RESEARCH PROGRAM
The research program holds the real
key to the future of rehabilitation work.
We must have new knowledge, new pro-

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE |

cedures, new information if our invest-
ments in coming years are to pay the
greatest dividends. Already the benefits
of such research are beginning to flow
into the work of rehabilitation agencies.
Advanced types of artificial limbs are be-~
ing developed, some. of them offering
simplified mechanical apparatus which
reduces pressures on the user and aids
his walking. Experimental work now
is being done to see if the power im-

pulses generated by certain muscles in‘

the body can be used as control signals

to manage artificial limbs. Other-re-
search is developing various kinds of
external power, such as the hydraulic
principle, to see if this type of power
can be brought under control to the
delicate degree required to safely actuate
an artificial arm and hand.

A great variety of other research is
being done in several hundred hospitals,
universities, rehabilitation centers, and
other research institutions of the coun-
try. In certain places, projects are un-
der: way to develop and increase the re-
search capacities of schools and institu-
tions which already have the nucleus of
talent and facilities they need. One of
these is in my own State of Wisconsin
where the Curative Workshop of Mil-
waukee and the Marquette University
School of Medicine are cooperating to
develop a well-rounded plan and pro-
gram of research in rehabilitation.

REHABILITATION CENTERS

The committee has also heard testi-
mony on a further proposal in research
which I believe has great merit. We still
have not provided, in the field of reha-
bilitation, comprehensive research and
training institutions where the several
kinds of scientists and professional peo-
ple can jointly work on the complicated
problems of severe disability. This con-
cept of the major and complete research
and teaching center has been adopted in
many other fields-—-in medicine, in space
problems; and other areas—-and it can be
a powerful step forward in solving many
of the problems of disability which re-
main unanswered today.

I believe we should support the estab-
lishment of several such centers and this
bill provides the funds to begin with two
in 1962. These centers would make
available, as part of a total rehabilitation

_research effort, the skills of physicians,

therapists, prosthetics experts, rehabili-
tation counselors, engineers, physicists,
and other scientific personnel who play
key roles.in developing new knowledge in
the total problem of disability and re-
habilitation. They also would provide a
complete training program for profes-
sional students. This sort of center prob-
ably will require that the work be carried
out in a university, where the personnel
and facilities can be provided in one or-
ganized effort. We have a number .of
outstanding universities in this country
which already are engaged in teaching,
research, and service in rehabilitation,
and which would be prepared to under-

‘take this sort of responsibility within a

very short time.

In summary, then, I believe this bill
provides essential finds for the further
development of one of our most impor-

77103

tant public programs—vocational reha-
bilitation. I believe these funds for the
rehabilitation of our disabled citizens
represent one .of the finest investments
we make. I urge your support of this
appropriation.
GRANTS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF HOSPITAL
RESEARCH PACILITIES

The Bureau of Labor Statistics esti-
mates that hospital rates have gone up
over 300 percent over the last two dec-
ades. This increase will continue unless,
through research, hospital design and
operations can be improved.

This bill which we bring before the
House of Representatives today provides
for a new program to study hospital costs
through the construction of two hospital
research facilities. This program is un-
dertaken under the authority of section
433A of the Public Health Service Act.
Our committee feels that there will be
sufficient benefit to any community in
which such a research facility is located;
that there should be a minimum of one- .
third non-Federal matching funds con-
tributed by the community. involved.

Our committee is very proud of start-
ing this new program and wishes to give
proper credit to cutstanding doctors
from the Mayo Clinic and Rochester
Methodist Hospital who appeared before
our committee suggesting that we em-
bark on a hospital research facility pro-
gram. I particularly wish to pay tribute:
to my friend and colleague, from Minne-
sota’s First Congressional District, Mr.
Quiz, who has worked very closely with
our committee in the development of this
new program.

The bill before us today includes $16
million to carry on this research pro-
gram in hospital facilities and costs.

Since 1955, personnel of the Rochester
Methodist Hospital, members of its board
of directors, and members of the staff
of Mayo Clinic have studied intensively
several aspects of hospital function and
design, in preparation for new hospital
facilities. These studies have had as
their objective new approaches to hos-
pital construction and operation, to more
efficient utilization of personnel, to im-
proved care of the patient and to reduc-
tion of hospitalization costs. The
studies to date include construction of,
and controlled experiments with, a cir-
cular 12-bed nursing unit for the care
of the critically iil.

Further studies are needed to. reach
the goals of improved care and reduced
costs. The Rochester Methodist Hos-
pital is seeking financial assistance for
construction of an experimental and
demonstrative hospital for research in
patient care, hospital function, and de-
sign.
~ Surprisingly little controlled research
is recorded in medical literature on the
effect of physical facilities on care of
the patient or on how design can reduce
hospitalization costs. The lack of re-
search in this field contrasts sharply
with the tremendous amounts of money
and energy expended for research in
medicine and industry. And this dearth
of critical studies is particularly sur-
prising when one realizes that the op~
eration of hospitals is said to be the
third largest industry in the United
/

7704

States. illions of dollars have been
spent for hospital construction in this
country alone in recent years.

A further indication of the need for
careful reappraisal of hospital design
and operation is the continuous increase
in the cost of hospital care since 1940.
Statistics from the U.S. Department of
Labor demonstrate increases of almost
300 percent in the rates charged by hos-
pitals in this period. This is much
greater than the increase in consumer
prices and the increase in physicians’
fees over the same period.

A survey was made in Rochester in
1955 to determine variations in care re-
quired by patients in St. Marys Hospital
and Rochester Methodist Hospital. This
survey included classification by Mayo
Clinic physicians of 1,100 patients for
7,513 patient-days according to the type
of care required by each patient. Hach
day for a week each patient was placed
in one of three categories based on the
amount of nursing care required:

Stage 1: Constant observation because
of serious illness.

Stage 2: Average care.

Stage 3: Minimal care because of sait-
isfactory progress or. a nonserious type
of illness.

Analysis of this data revealed that on
any given day approximately 20 percent
of patients required stage-1 care, 60-per-
cent stage-2 care, and 20-percent stage-3
care. While these percentages will vary
somewhat from one hospital to another,
the study did quantitate what has been
recognized as a fact: Not. every patient
in a given hospital requires the same
amount of care. Patients in stage 1 need
more hours of nursing care daily and
the care of more skilled personnel than
patients in stage 2 or stage 3. Con-
versely, patients in stage 3 need fewer
hours of nursing care daily and care of
Jess skilled personnel than patients in
stage 1 or stage 2. In addition, patients
in the convalescent or stage-3 category
appeared not to require the extensive
equipment and facilities that are neces-
sary for care of seriously ill patients.

The initial studies were directed
toward the seriously ill patient who re-
quires constant observation and more
than average care, since it is this patient
that incurs the greatest hospital expense.
After consideration of many different
possible architectural designs, it was the
consensus that this category of patients
eould be cared for best in a small nursing
unit of circular design with the nurses’
station centrally located and the. pa-~-
tients’ rooms placed peripherally. The
inner wall of each room was to be made
of double doors containing clear giass
panels. This design would make each
of the 12 patients visible to the nurse
from her centrally located work station
and the patients could at all times see
the nurse. It would also reduce the
distance between the patient and the
nurse at her desk.

Funds were collected to build such
an. experimental unit from private
foundations and from the Methodist
Hospital. A research committee of
Mayo Clinic physicians was appointed
to supervise controlled research in an
effort to determine the effect of hospital
design and function on patient care.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

Time does not permit review of the
considerable mass of information ac~
cumulated from these studies of patient
care in the circular unit and in the rec-
tangular unit. Detailed data°was ac-
cumulated and has been published.*

Among the many factors studied, sev-
eral stand out. It was shown that the
patiens was better satisfied with his care
in the circular unit, as were the
patient’s relatives because of the reas-
surance provided by constant visual con-
tact between the patients and the
nurses. Corridor travel by nurses was
significantly less. Most surprising was
the cost. A patient. in a conventional
unit requiring three special duty nurses
around the clock pays $54 a day plus a
room charge on an average of $20 or a
total of $74. In the circular unit, equal
or superior Gare was given for a. total
of $36 per day—a savings of $38 per day.

The experimental team has completed
controlled studies of the care required
by the patient who is acutely ill and
evaluated how this is affected by archi-
tectural design. It has, however, only
seratched the surface. What will be the
effect of design and different methods of
operation on the other 80 percent of the
population in the hospital? Some hos-
pitals have considered various phases of
progressive patient care, but to date
there has been no critical evaluation of
the quality of care or its cost. This
should be done before the method is
ynore widely copied. Under ideal and
controlled conditions is progressive pa-
tient care of a higher quality and lower
in cost? :

PROPOSED FUTURE HOSPITAL RESEARCH

Those responsible for studies to date
have begun development of a program of
study for the future when the experi-
mental hospital is available. The re-

search to be carried out in such a hospi-

tal would include:

First. Comparison of the circular
nursing units with rectangular units in
care of stage 2 and stage 3 patients to
determine whether the circular design
is superior for these groups. Both the
quality of such care and the cost per
patient-day would be evaluated:

Second. Positive determination of the
feasibility of progressive patient care of
patients in a general hospital. Again
both the quality of the care received by
the patients and the cost of that care
would be ascertained.

Third. Study of other proposed
schemes for segregation of patients by
clinical service or probable length of
stay. -Possibly patients admitted for 1
te 3 days for a special diagnostic or
therapeutic procedure could be accom-
modated at lower cost in a special hos-
pital unit.

Fourth. Consideration of all possible
mechanical, electric, and pneumatic
devices to reduce hospital labor costs
and installation of such devices for ac-
tual trial if determined to be of prac-
tical value.

 

2Sturdevant, Madelyne: Comparisons of
Intensive Nursing Service in a Circular and
@ Rectangular Unit:.American Hospital As-
sociation, 1960.

May 17

SUMMARY

Considerable effort has been devoted
to the Rochester Methodist Hospital
study project by those bearing the local
responsibility, and only after such effort
had been-‘made was it felt proper to seek
help elsewhere. A great deal of data
has been collected, study methods have
been developed, and. appraisal tech-
niques have been refined, but much work
remains to be done before the fuil sig-
nificance and potential of the concepts
under study can be precisely delineated.

In order to evaluate completely the
patient care, costs, and patient-relative
acceptance of stage care, an experi-
mental hospital with its design based on
function is necessary. This will be @
tool for future studies. If approached
with boldness and imagination, one can
visualize that critical research might
produce contributions in hospital design
and patient care that could be proto-
types throughout the country for many
decades to come.

With the increasing and aging popu-
lation, with the obvious immediate need
for more hospital beds, with inadequate
numbers of trained nurses available, and
with the ever-increasing costs of hos-
pitalization, it seems reasonable that any
effort to solve these problems is a worth-
while contribution to the Nation’s health
and welfare.

The gentleman from Rhode Island has
served on this committee longer than
any Member of either the House or the
Senate, and has gone through this bill
on an item-by-item basis during the last
45 minutes.

This bill is not an easy one for the
Members of the House Committee on
Appropriations to labor with each year.
There is more testimony taken on the
record than before any other: subcom-
mittee of the Committee on Appropria~
tions, with the exception of the Defense
Appropriations Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, this- bill has been
growing. In each of the last 9 years
there have been substantial increases in
the bill. This is particularly true when
we look at the National Institutes of
Health and the budget submission of the
National Institutes of Health over the
last 9 or 10 years. We have found our-
selves in a position here in the House
of Representatives where we have had
additions made in the National Insti-
tutes of Health budget well beyond the
appropriation level which has been es-
tablished by our House committee dur-
ing each of the last 7 years.

It was my hope that this year we would
find ourselves in a position where the
executive branch of our Government
would take over the leadership of this
particular program, and where the new
Surgeon General would be in a positior
of giving strong leadership to the med-
ical research program conducted by the
National Institutes of Health.

I was indeed disappointed that this
did not take place. We find that the
recommendation made by the Surgeon
General, after a considerable amount
of. study, meant very little to the New
Frontier. These recommendations were
made by a man who had served as act-
ing head of the Heart Institute, who
had long experience with the National
1961

Institutes: of Health and the Public
Health Service, but were not given much
consideration by the New Frontier, It
seems to me that it is most important
that the executive branch under the
leadership of the Surgeon General
take control and give leadership to the
whole area of medical research.

For that reason our subcommittee has
included in this bill for the first time
the recommendation of the Surgeon
General as far as the National Insti-
tutes of Health are concerned. In the
past the figures which have been rec~
ommended by the Surgeon General have
been increased from $100 million to as
high as $200 million by the other body.
This year we are basing our committee
recommendations on sound testimony,
study, and research which has been done
by the new Surgeon General as weil as
our committee. It may be necessary for
us to bring this bill back to the House
of Representatives at some future time
in order to substantiate the $64 million
figure, anticipating that the Senate
might take action to increase this bill.
The House of Representatives I am sure
will stand firm on the recommendations
of this subcommittee, and I believe that
such a vote at a future time is probably
inevitable.

In this particular bill we are placing
special emphasis upon several programs.
First, we are placing greater emphasis
in the area of training the unskilled
worker and the semiskilled worker and
in also training people who are taken
off the labor. market by. various handi-
caps. It seems to me that when we con-
sidered the depressed areas legislation
passed early in this session of the Con-
gress, a bill with over 95 percent of au-
thorized funds in direct subsidies to in~-
dustry, with less than 5 percent. of the
authorization going to this area of train-
ing individuals. It is sad but true that
we enacted a piece of legislation which
did not clearly meet the problems as
we face the challenge of the 1960’s.

During our committee hearings the
new Secretary of Labor, and last year
Secretary of Labor Mitchell, pointed out
to us that the need in the labor market,
as we face the next 5- and 10-year period
is in the area of the semiskilled and the
skilled worker. It seems that the em-
phasis which we give in this bill to train-
ing individual Americans is a much
greater step forward than the legislation
which passed the House giving 95 per-

cent of the aid in the form of direct sub-

sidies to industry.. I believe that the
increased emphasis which we give to vo-
cational training and vocational reha-
bilitation, the emphasis which we are
giving to the apprenticeship training
program, will go a long way in facing
up to the problems of employment in
“ea sixties.
‘a has to but pick up the New York
, the Los Angeles Times or any
ute other large metropolitan papers in
ue United States today and find on each
Sunday new records being made in the
want-ad sections of those papers, show-
ing job opportunities for semiskilled and
skilled workers. This type of training
approach will go much farther than the
depressed-area type of approach which

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

places the emphasis on subsidies to in-
dustry instead of helping individuals se-
cure job opportunities.

Mr. Chairman, this is a bill that was
arrived at through hard work on the
part of our subcommittee, and by the
full committee and it was in a spirit of
compromise that several of the sections
are brought before us today. I do be-
lieve that the emphasis which we are
giving to the program in this next year,
the increased emphasis we have given to
training individuals, to educational co-
operative research, as compared with the
budget presented to us, represents
sound progress.

Mr. SEELY-BROWN. Mr,_Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LAIRD.. I am happy to yield to
the gentleman from Connecticut.

Mr, SEELY-BROWN, Mr. Chairman,
I wonder if the gentleman would care
to comment on the reduction of $1 mil-
lion in the amount for national defense
fellowships; if he could explain why that
was done.

Mr. LAIRD. The budget estimate was
for $22,762,000. We reduced this to
$21,762,000. Ithink it is important to
realize that this represents an increase
over last year’s program of a little over
$1 million.

Mr, SEELY-BROWN. That is right.

Mr. LAIRD. We feel that the fellow-
ships which have been approved by the
Office of Education should be very care-
fully scrutinized. I direct the attention
of the gentleman to the record of the
hearings of our committee, in which all
of these fellowships as they were ap-
proved by the Office of Education are set
forth. We feel that some of the fellow-
ships approved are not in keeping with
the intent of the National Defense Edu-~
cation Act as it was explained, as it
was presented, and as it was passed by
the House of Representatives and the
U.S. Senate. We feel that this needs
review. Certainly an increase of $1 mil-

‘lion over last year’s budget allows suffi-

cient latitude for the Office of Educa-
tion to carry on a very fine program,
but we want to give them a warning, we
want these programs and grants reviewed
very carefully.

Mr. SEELY-BROWN. The gentile-
man feels that there is sufficient money
in the bill to carry forward the proper
program which was properly laid out in
the law? ‘You feel some abuses may
have come into it, and that is why you
have cut it back? Is that correct?

Mr. LAIRD. That is basically
correct.

Mr, SEELY-BROWN. I thank the
gentleman,

Mr. LAIRD. We are almost up to the
full authorization for this. The full au-
thorization happens to be $22,762,000.
We are only $1 million below the au-
thorization. I believe this is healthy
for the program.

Mr. HECHLER. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?

Mr. LAIRD. I yield to the gentleman
from West Virginia.

Mr. HECHLER. I want to commend
the gentleman from Wisconsin on what
he said about retraining. I think his
analysis was excellent. Does the gentle-

. last year.

T7105

man feel the amount in the bill is ade-
quate for these purposes?

Mr. LAIRD. I feel that the amount
contained in this bill is a great improve-
ment over what the administration
asked for as far as these activities are
concerned. Whether the administration
will expend the funds at the rate that
we have established I cannot say. Iam
hopeful these funds will be released by
the Bureau of the Budget. :

Mr. HECHLER. I share the gentle-
man’s enthusiasm for retraining as a
means of picking up the economy in
those areas affected by automation. I
think it is a direct method. I think it
gives full attention to the human prob-
lem. I hope that additional steps for-
ward will be made in this very vital area
of retraining.

Mr. LAIRD. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?

Mr. LAIRD, I yield to the gentleman
from Iowa.

Mr. GROSS. Do I correctly under-
stand that this business of international
research grants has grown so big they
have had to set up a staff officer to take
care of it?

Mr. LAIRD. The international re-
search grants as far as the National
Institutes of Health are concerned?

Mr. GROSS. Yes.

Mr. LAIRD. Yes. The total amount
of funds made available, using soft cur-
rencies wherever we can in this par- |
ticular area, has grown in the last few
years.

An Office of International Research
has been established at the National
Institutes of Health to coordinate and
exercise control over the development
of these programs. Dr. Martin Cum-
mings, who is now chairman of the de-
partment of microbiclogy at the Univer-
sity of Oklahoma Medical School, has
been appointed Chief of this Office. It
is my understanding that Dr. Cummings
is an outstanding investigator with a
broad background in medical research
and its international ramifications.

Mr. GROSS. This is a brandnew
Office, is that correct, or comparatively
new?

Mr, LAIRD. Tt is a unit within the
Office of: the Director of the National
Institutes of Health. It will have the
function and responsibility for admin-
istering these oversea research activities.

Mr. GROSS. Did the committee go
into some of these research grants? I
called attention to one or two of them
Did they go into it this year?

Mr. LAIRD. Yes, we did. I think the
gentleman referred last year, when this
bill was on the floor, to some of these
grants. We made a rather thorough
study of them this year.

I will be very glad to furnish the gen-
tleman a list of those grants.

Mr. JUDD. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?

Mr. LAIRD. I yield to the gentleman
from Minnesota.

Mr. JUDD. I commend the gentle-
man and the chairman of the subcom-
mittee and all its other members for this
bill as a whole and especially for two
particular items which I think are of
7706

great significance. One is the provi-
sion of funds to establish two regional
institutes of vocational rehabilitation.
At one time I had prepared a bill to es-
tablish in the National Institutes of
Health an additional institute on voca-
tional rehabilitation. This is a field.
that has been too long neglected, and it
is a field that pays special dividends in
that it returns disabled people to useful
work. Thousands of persons who are in
some way or other disabled are converted
from tax consumers to self-supporting,
self-respecting taxpayers.

But as I considered it further, it
seemed wiser to follow the course this bill
adopts of aiding and developing existing
institutes, because research in rehabil-
itation is not so much a matter of lab~
oratory research or test tube studies as

it is a matter of working directly with,

patients. This research and training can
best be done where the patients are in
various places throughout the country
rather than in Bethesda. So your com-
mittee, in its wisdom, very properly has
recommended on a sort of trial basis, ap-
propriation of $500,000 to each of two es-
tablished institutions, cach already co-
operating with a high-grade university
that is doing work in the same field. I
am sure this is a pattern of Federal as-
sistance which, at least in this special
field, can be very productive, and I com-
mend the subcommittee for its leader-
ship and foresight.

Mr. LAIRD. I thank the gentleman
from Minnesota.

I have talked with my colleague on
several occasions about the need for this
type of center approach. ‘We feel that
the two centers which are provided for
in this bill will be a real help. They will
not only help to take care of individuals
who happen to have an opportunity to
use these centers, but I think even more
important functions will be served by
them in that they will provide a com-
plete training program for professional
students in vocational rehabilitation and
will demonstrate procedures that others
may follow in improving vocational
rehabilitation programs throughout the
Nation.

I would like to say we are making good

and great progress in the field of voca-

tional rehabilitation and this bill not
only provides for the starting of these
two additional centers, but it will make it
possible to rehabilitate 107,000 individ-
uals next year. This is real progress.

I wouid like, too, to point to the fact
that it was President Eisenhower who
sent a special message to the Congress
on vocational rehabilitation, and since
that message came to the Congress, I
think there has been an entirely different
emphasis on this program. We have
gone from rehabilitating about 60,000
people each year, to over 100,009 people.
This is a very fine program and it is done
on a cooperative basis with the States.
It is a matching program, with the States
and: the local communities really being
responsible for its operation, under some
guidance and these matching funds from
the Federal Government. :

Mr. JUDD. I thank the gentleman
for yielding further. The other pioneer-
ing step I would like to commend is the

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

provision of $10 million for hospital con-
struction following out the pattern that
very careful research and study at
the Mayo Clinic have demonstrated can
be so effective in giving better medical
care to acutely ill patients who need 24-
hour nursing care. Furthermore, it pro-
vides the better care at greatly reduced
costs and with enormous benefit to the
state of mind of the patients. A serious-

ly ill and anxious patient who is down at .

the end of a long hall and may be afraid
that when he wants help, the nurse may
not be able to come, often pushes the
button unnecessarily just to see the
nurse and be reasured. In contrast, in
this circular arrangement which was
worked out at Rochester, and which I
have had an opportunity to examine,
there is a large picture window from the
room to the center where the nurses are.
The patient can see the nurses at all
times and the nurses can see the patient.

A curtain can be drawn when relatives

are visiting or when treatments are being

iven, so that the patient is given the
necessary privacy when needed. It
makes the patients feel better, more
secure, if they can look out and see the
nurse and know she is available. This
new pattern offers great possibilities,
both from the standpoint of the well-
being of patients and from the stand-
point of the costs of hospital care to all
who have to pay them. Again, I com-
ment the gentleman and his committee
for this important breakthrough. -

Mrs. MAY. Mr, Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?

Mr. LAIRD. I yield to the gentle-
woman from Washington.

Mrs. MAY. The gentleman from
Wisconsin answered some questions con-
cerning a portion of the committee re-
port on the extension of teaching and
education of the mentally retarded. As
I understand the appropriation made in
this bill is $1 million, the amount of the
budget request, and is the same as it was
for fiscal year. 1961. The committee in
its report, however, had recommended
the broadening of the authorizing legis-
lation to cover the area of increased
responsibility, especially for teachers of
the mentally retarded and for teaching
children with speech and hearing de-~
fects.
the committee had in mind when it
made this recommendation?

Mr. LAIRD. It would be necessary
for the authorization to be amended,
and legislation is now pending which
raises this particular authorization.

Mrs. MAY. I think this is highly to
be desired. I have a very particular
interest in this field. One more ques-
tion, if the gentleman will permit. On
that. same page of ‘the report the com-
mittee states that it feels that the ac-
tivity of the service for mental retarda-
tion under the Office of Education is of
such importance that they have made
another recommendation that consid-
eration should be given to designating
an Assistant to the Commissioner to be
in charge of that phase of the activity,
other exceptional children, and children
with speech and hearing defects. Would
the gentleman enlarge on that specifi-

Will the gentleman tell us what.

May 17

cally and tell us what action may be -
taken in this important field? -

_ Mr. LAIRD. This action can be taken
by the Commissioner to designate an in-
dividual whe would be in charge of this
program. We feel that by concentrat-
ing responsibility in one person who .
would devote his entire time to this pro-
gram and acquiring a thorough under-
standing of what is taking place
throughout each of the 50 States, that
it would be of great help in furthering
the programs of help to this group of
children. °

Mrs. MAY. I commend the gentle-
man for his attention to this subject.
The State of Washington has done some
rather outstanding work but we need
additional assistance in this field. I feel
this is deserving of the support of all.

Mr, LATRD. I- thank the gentle-
woman from Washington for her help-
ful suggestions.

Mr. GARLAND. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?

Mr. LAIRD. I yield.

Mr. GARLAND. Can the gentleman
from Wisconsin tell me where these two
vocational rehabilitation institutes will
be located?

Mr. LAIRD. The location of those in-

‘stitutions is not established by our com-—

mittee. I would like to call the atten-
tion of the gentleman from Maine to the
wording of our report, page 12, where is
set forth the basis: under which the
assignment will be made.

Mr. GARLAND. That will be left to
the Department to determine where they
will go?

Mr. LAIRD. That will be left to the
Office of Vocational Rehabilitation. and
their advisory committee.

Mr. GARLAND. I thank the gentle-
man.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Wisconsin has expired.

Mr. LAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I yield
myself 4 additional minutes.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. Mr.
will the gentleman yield?

Myr, LATRD. I yield to the gentleman
from California.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. Would the gentle-
man explain to me, on page 5, in the
“Grants for construction of cancer re-
search facilities,” that $5 million is not,
am I correct in my understanding, sub-
ject to the 50-percent matching fund?

Mr. LATRD. ‘That is correct. That is
made available under section 433fa) of
the Public Health Service Act, which
does not require matching. There is no
matching requirement.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. I thank the gen-
tleman, /

Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr, Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LAIRD. I yield to the gentler
from Towa.

Mr. SMITH of Iowa. I wonde
gentleman will explain why kan
the expenditure of $58 million 1.

NIH than the Budget Bureau reque.

Mr, LAIRD. In my statement I tric
to explain the reason I supported the
work done by the National Institutes of
Health, why I felt this is a reasonable
budget. It is not as much as some mem-
bers of our committee advocated, as the

Chairman,
1961

gentleman from Rhode Island pointed
out, but I believe that we in the Con-
gress are operating on a sound basis by
accepting these figures which were justi-
fied in the budget submission of the
Surgeon General as the best figure, the
best funding level for fiscal year 1962
that he could arrive at after long and
deliberate study on his part.

We had public witnesses who came
before us. If you take the hudgets of
the individual Directors, you will find
those budgets will total about $100 mil-
lion more, and the public witnesses $200
or $300 million more. I believe we are
on a sound footing by accepting the
Surgeon General’s figure.

I want to direct the attention of the
gentleman from Iowa to the hearing
record in which Dr. Terry testified at
some length as to the proper funding
level.

If you will turn to page 55, part ITI, you
will find a discussion there between Dr.
Terry and me in which this figure is sub-
stantiated very well, I believe.

Mr. SMITH of Iowa. The Government
Operations Committee had a study made,
and they found considerable inefficiency
in the administration of some of these
research projects. ;

Mr. LAIRD. From the press release I
read, I felt there would be a lot of crit-

icism in the report of the Government ~

Cperations Committee. I went over the
report and I did not find the report very
critical. ‘There were statements made in
the report that referred to the review of

‘grants, and that they felt there should
be better review; and a few other rather
raild criticisms.

This program has grown at a rapid

rate. That is why I support this
funding level. Iam not going to support
the funding level requested by the public
witnesses or the estimates by the In-
stitute Directors of what could be spent.
[I think this is 4 reasonable funding level,
one under which this program can make
proper growth and proper progress
in 1962.

Mr. SMITH of Iowa. These. findings
were taken into consideration in setting
this fisure: is that right?

Mr. LAIRD. Before this bill was
marked up I tock that report home and
spent a considerable amount of time on
it, during the weekend before this bill
was marked up.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Wisconsin has expired.

Mr. LAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I yield
10 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa
[Mr. Gross].

(Mr. GROSS asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I, too,
would like to compliment the gentle-
man from Rhode Island [Mr. Focarry]
but I would compliment him for his
consistent record. I think he has been
very, very liberal with the taxpayers’
money in this bill, as he has been in
the past.

I was impressed by his answer to a -

question by the gentlewoman from Iili-
nois [Mrs. Cuurcu]. He said, “Yes, we
gave them everything they asked for,”

No. 82———13

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD —- HOUSE

and I think that runs the full course
of this bill, with only a few items, per-
haps, shaved a little. Throughout the
hearings—I have done my best to read
them, and they are voluminous, I will
say to the gentleman—I find the gentle-
man asking many of those who appeared
before the committee if they could not
use a little more money. “Have you got
enough money? Can you not use just
a little bit more” or “quite a little bit
more?” So, I want to compliment the
gentleman for being real liberal.

Now, I obtained recently a copy of’

the report of the Committee on Govern-
ment Operations, the Intergovernmental
Subcommittee, chairmaned by the
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr.
Founrvain]. It is a report on a study of
the National Institutes of Health, in
which it was found, among other things,
that funds were being mishandled.
There is a good deal of criticism to be
found in this report. I wonder if the
gentleman frora Rhode Island has seen
it?

Mr. FOGARTY. Yes, I will say to the
gentleman from Iowa, I have seen it
and I have read it.

Myr. GROSS. And the 13 recom-
mendations were made by the subcom~
mittee?

Mr. FOGARTY. Some of the recom-~
mendations have already been carried
out, and others are being worked on. I
will say to the gentleman that the Com-
mittee on Appropriations had a similar
investigation made 2 years ago, and
there are some discrepancies between
the two reports. We plan to have both
reports examined this coming year to
see where the discrepancies are, because
the Committee on Appropriations in-
vestigators did not agree with some of
the findings of this committee you
speak of. But, we think it is a good
idea for the other commitice to make
these investigations, and if they come
up with some good suggestions, they will
be followed.

Mr. GROSS. I am pleased to hear
that the gentleman is going into the re-
port. Now, I would like to ask the
gentleman if he has any kind of a guess
as tothe number of new employces that

-will be put on the payroll as the result

of this appropriation bill we have be-
fore us today. It seems to me, in going
through the hearings, that a lot of new
employees will be put on the payroll.

Mr. FOGARTY. ‘There will be about
400 in the Department of Labor.

Mr. GROSS. 400?

Mr. FOGARTY. Yes.
mately 3,000 in HEW.

Mr. GROSS. 3,000. That. would be
3,400 additional employees to be put on
the payroll.

Mr. FOGARTY. That is in round
figures.

Mr. GROSS. Yes.
lot of people.

Mr. FOGARTY. Most of these are in
the Public Health Service.

Mr. GROSS. That leads me to a little
discussion of some of the things we had
up last year. Is the Public Health Serv-

And approxi-

Well, that is a

_ice still making grants for the training

of dogs?

T107

Mr. FOGARTY. I do not know
whether they are or not; but, if they
are, there is some good reason behind it.

Mr. GROSS. And a study of bird

_sounds at Cornell University?

Mr. FOGARTY. And the love life of
a goat, which turned out to be pretty
good research.

Mr. GROSS. Now, in what way could
that be good research?

Mr. FOGARTY. Well, I would have
to refer to the hearings. That was a
project that was ridiculed 10 or 11 years
ago. But, when we got the facts about
it, it turned out to have been a good
project and resulted in new information
of value. I remember that even one of
the writers who ridiculed it admitted
afterward that it was a worthwhile proj-
ect. Some of these things that were
criticized severely years ago have turned
out to-be good projects, although, from
their titles, they might sound very fool-
ish to some of us.

Mr. GROSS. For the edification of
the new Members, I want te describe the
research grant to the Israel Institute of
Applied Social Research in Jerusalem,
Israel. The grant is for $33,100. It is
described as “A test of the husband-wife
relationship.”

It is further described as follows:

The aim is to develop a diagnostic pictorial
test of both intrapersonal and interpersonal
aspects of the role relationship of husband
and wife. The test should be sensitive to
the perceptions of actual behavior and norms
and to the consonance perceived between
these.

L want to ask, as I did last year, wheth-
er this grant has expired. Has there
been any report made, if the gentleman
knows; and if so, what was the result of
this study of the intrapersonal and inter-
personal relationship of the husband
and wife? ,

Mr. FOGARTY. I do, not know
whether the report has been completed
or not.

Mr. LAIRD. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield? ,
Mr. GROSS.

man.

Mr. LATRD. We will see that the
gentleman gets a copy of this report as
soon as it is filed.

Mr. GROSS. I thank the gentleman;
T should like to have it. For the edifica-
tion of the new Members on both sides
of the aisle, there has been some $89,000
spent by the Public Health Service, and
part of it has gone for a study of be-
havior at cocktail parties. For their
edification, I shall read briefiy from a
preliminary report. It says—

That the room in which the bar is situ-
ated tends to become crowded; that there
is a variety of guests who will cringe in cor-
ners, while others sing, dance, slop martinis
into the piano, and pursue members of the
opposite sex to the pantry or beyond.

I yield to the gentle-

Then it goes on to say:

As the party be: , the living room filled
with friends; they cOhversed quietly in small
groups of the same sex. Soon the unmarried
guests began to scan the knots of people of
the opposite sex and then to maneuver.
Cross-sex conversations developed.

Things seemed. to be off to a fair enough
start, and around the bar in the dining room
TI0E

they stayed lively enough, but in the living
room there was an ominous lag: “There was
a long period of desultory conversation.”
Just as a social crisis appeared imminent,
the gaiety of the dining-room set began to
engulf the others. Things were jumping so
much that in the living room dyads of
friends came together simply to rest.

Gradually the guests went home; or went
to sleep. One hostess at 5 a.m. was unable
to find a vacant bed.

I should like to know if we are con-
tinuing to spend money for this sort of
thing,

Mr. LAIRD. Mr. Chairman,
gentleman yield?

Mr. GROSS. Iam happy to yield to
the gentleman, if he can shed some light
on this.

Mr. LAIRD. The Saturday Evening
Post had an editorial on this, and I di-
rected an inquiry to the Director of the
National Institutes of Health about it.

My.
Health Service, not the National Insti-
tutes of. Health. Is the gentleman tell-
ing me that the National Institutes of
Health is engaged in something similar
to this?

Mr. LAIRD. I believe this was funded
by the National Institutes of Health.
This particular project had to do with
work of the National Mental Health In-

stitute. Although this project was ap-
proved by the study group, and approved
by the advisory council and went all the
way through the usual procedures for
proper approval; I, frankly, do not be-
lieve it should have been approved. On
the other hand, I don’t think we should
be too critical if there are three or four
' bad decisions made out of the thousands
of applications that are considered each
year.

Mr. GROSS. I have made a request
for the complete report by the Public
Health Service on “Behavior at Cocktails
Parties.” IT have not been very success-
ful in getting it; in fact, I have not
gotten anything except these excerpts
from a preliminary report. As the gen-
tleman from Wisconsin is a member of
the Committee on Appropriations, would
he be good enough to help me try to get
a copy of the full report?

Mr. LAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I will be
very happy to see that the gentleman
gets a copy of the report on this par-
ticular study. Support for the subject
the gentleman is discussing now has
been discontinued. It is not being

funded at the present time. But I will
be glad to see that a report on the in-
formation gathered up until the time it
was stopped is made available to the
gentleman.

Mr. GROSS. TI do not like to deal in
excerpts from material, I like to have the
full report.

Mr. LAIRD. Iam not sure how com-
plete the report will be, because that
project was discontinued, as I understand
it.

Mr. GROSS. Let me say, in conclu-
sion, that I think an awful lot of money
could be saved if the expenditure of these
funds was properly screened. I cannot
‘yote for this appropriation bill, dealing

_as it dces in more than $4.3 billion, until
the waste and extravagance is eliminat-
ed. .I am convinced that many millions

will the

,GROSS. This is in the Public

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

of dollars could be saved without ham~-
pering in the least essential research
and health services. ~

Mr, LAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5
minutes to the gentleman from Minne-
sota [Mr. Que],

(Mr. QUIE asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his
remarks.)

Mr. QUIE. Mr. Chairman, included
in the report from the Appropriations
Committee is a recommendation for the
expenditure of $10 million for the con-
struction of research hospital facilities.
T rise in support of this recommendation,
not merely because the experimental
work on this proposal was conducted in
my congressional district at the Roches-
ter Minnesota Methodist Hospital. But,
more importantly, because the results
of their work which started 6 years ago
could have. a dramatic and profoundly
important conseduenice for all Ameri-
cans.

First, I will discuss the specific prob-
lems which the Rochester Methodist
Hospital confronted. Then, I will ex-
plain the scope of the problem as it
concerns our country as a whole. Fi-
nally, ¥ will discuss the results of the
experimental work already completed,
discuss what remains to be done and
why this program should receive the
support of Federal financing.

Mr. Chairman, I doubt if there is a
member here in this House who has not
personally been a patient in a hospital
or has not had a member of his family
as a patient in a hospital. This experi-
ence is also generally true of our citizens
as a whole. Therefore, ali of us have
some general knowledge of the tre-
mendous rise in the costs of hospitaliza-
tion.

To be more specific, the costs of hos-
pitalization have risen——according to the
Department of Labor statistics—more
than 300 percent in the past 20 years.
In a study conducted by doctors at the
Mayo Clinic, in Rochester, Minn., it was
found that of the total hospital charges
to a patient, about 65 percent of these
charges were the result of personnel
costs and of this 65 percent about one-
half was the cost of nursing personnel.

As a first consideration, the doctors
at the Mayo Clinic and at the Rochester
Methodist Hosiptal thought it .best—
back in 1955—to find out just what kind

- Of patients the average hospital in this

country took care of. Through a scien~
tific sampling method, they sampled two
hospitals In Rochester, Minn. One was
the Rochester Methodist Hospital, which
has 500 beds, and the other was St.
Mary’s Hospital, which has 900 beds and
is the largest private hospital in our
country.

Mayo Clinic doctors and adiministra-
tors found that on any given day, about
20 percent of the total hospital popu-
lation was made up of those people who
needed intensive nursing care; about 60
percent was made up of those who
needed average nursing care and the
other 20 percent needed less than aver-
age nursing care.

Therefore, it became obvious to these
doctors and administrators that the
patients. they should concentrate on

May 17

were the patients costing the most, that
is, the 20 percent needing the intensive
nursing care.

Their problem then was to attempt to
cut the costs of intensive-care patients,
and they decided to do this by econstruct-
ing a radically new type of hospital
which they hoped would enable a highiy
efficient level of nursing care to be main-~
tained at a drastic reduction in costs.

You can easily visualize the type of de.

-sign they decided on when I tell you it

was @ circular design something like if
you cut an orange in the center. At the
core would be the nursing station, and
in the various cor:partments would be
the rooms. This enabled the patients
to have direct eye contact with the
nurses at all times, and also cut down
the walking distances of the nurses—
giving them more time with the patients
themselves. ,

After this 3-year study, they also
found that the drastic reduction in the
eost of nursing care which they were
hoping to accomplish was actually
realized. To bring these results into
concrete figures, an intensive-care pa-
tient in Rochester—-and these costs are
similar in most parts of our country—
would pay $54 a day for 24 hours of
nursing care. In this experimental
unit, the same nursing care was ob-
tained at a cost of $13.88 a day.

*Mr. Chairman, I think these results
are of vital importance to our whole
country. If the 20 percent of intensive-
care patients in our hospitals today
could all be taken care of with such
efficiency and with such savings, untoid
millions of dollars could be saved.

In addition, I need but mention the
salvaging of many families’ savings
which all too often are completely wiped
up by prolonged hospitalization at the
present high costs.

Now, I have discussed the problems
which the doctors. and administrators
of the Rochester Methodist Hospital tried
to solve, and the results of their experi-
ment with the 20 percent of intensive-
care patients.

I believe the results speak for them-
selves, but there is much more work to
be done. As the doctors and administra-
tors themselves point out, they have
satisfactorily proven out only the benefi-
cial effects of this new design on inten-
sive-care patients. Now, they want to
expand their study, and precisely deter-
mine if new hospital designs would prove
as beneficial and. efficient as their first
experimenial unit for patients requiring
only average or minimum nursing care.

To do this, they. wish to build a 450-
room hospital at a cost of about $11,500,-
000. Just as they did not expect the
costs of their experimental hospital to be
borne completely by outside sources, they
equally do not expect. the total cost of
this new experimental hospital to be
borne by the Federal Government.

The Rochester Methodist Hospital
representatives have reported to the
Appropriations Committee that they
could raise—on a local level—about one-
third of the construction costs if the
Federal Government would provide
two-thirds of the costs. This wouid
1961

come under section 433(a) of the Pub-
lic Health Service Act.

In view of the dramatic results al-
ready obtained in this first experiment,
and considering the ever-increasing
burden which the hospitals of our
country will have to face in the future
because of increasing population and a
greater percentage of older citizens, T

strongly urge the Members of this body _

to support this endeavor. It is a pro-
gram that will ultimately benefit our
entire population.

In addition to urging your support,
I will conclude with an expression of
keenest admiration for the humane
work of the Mayo Clinic and Rochester
Methodist Hospital doctors and admin-
istrators for this great contribution they
have made the common property of all
our citizens—continuing in their great
medical tradition.

Mr. Chairman, I include at this point
in my remarks a letter directed to the
gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Harris],
chairman of the Committee on Inter-
state and Foreign Commerce, from the
executive director of the Louis W. and
Maud Hill Family Foundation of St.
Paul, Minn., in connection with this sub-
ject of research in hospital design and
function:

Lovis W. anp Maup Hint
PaMILy FOUNDATILON, —.
St. Paul, Minn., May 8, 1961.
Hon. Orgen Harris, .
The House of Representatives, Committee on
Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House
Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Harris: This letter is being sent
to you at the request of Representative
ANCHER NELSON. It is our understanding that
your committee wishes to have our evalua-
tion of the. contributions to date to hos-
pital care and management which have re-~
sulted from the research in hospital design
and function béing conducted in Rochester,
Minn., under the direction of the Rochester
Methodist Hospital and the Mayo Clinic.
We indeed are happy to comply with this
request. :

As a preface to our evaluation, may I say
that we in the Hill Family Foundation have
Reen concerned for some years over. the
rapidly increasing costs of hospital care.
Our studies of the problem lead us to these
conclusions, namely that: (1) solutions to
this cost problem must not in any way im-
pair the quality of care rendered patients;
(2) since the salaries and wages. of profes-
sional and nonprofessional personnel account
for nearly 70 percent of total hospital costs,
this is an area needing thorough study to
determine whether such personnel is being
enabled to work at maximum efficiency; (3)
there is a logical relationship between ef-
ficient use of personnel and physical design
and equipment of hospitals.

Our study of the literature revealed that
there had been no major changes in hospital
design for many years and that there had
been little objective research or study of the
relationships between design, function, ef-
ficiency of operations, quality of care and
costs.

We were pleased, therefore, to have the |

‘opportunity to participate financially in the
research undertaken by Rochester Methodist_
Hospital and the Mayo Clinic. Our support
for the first phase of this research under-
taking, directed to the care of patients need-
ing constant nursing care, totaled $100,000.

We believe that the findings of this re-
search clearly demonstrate that there is a
direct relationship between design and cost
of care of patients needing constant nursing
care. We also believe that the results show

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD —- HOUSE

that these reductions in costs can be made
without impairing the quality of care pro-
vided. In fact, there is significarit evidence
that the quality of care is improved and that
patients and their relatives prefer the cir-
cular design over the traditional design.

It may seem logical to conclude from this
research that the circular design will produce
the same savings, improvement in quality of
care, and patient satisfaction if applied to
patients needing normal nursing and even
minimal nursing care. This would be our
guess. However, we believe that these stages
of care should be studied in the same careful,
objective manner before large sums of money
are invested in new physical plants.

It is our belief that the results of the re-
search at Rochester provide substantial sup-
port for the concept of phase care. However,
further research is needed to confirm beyond
doubt the validity of this concept. We also
pelieve that the research done to date indi-
cates that it is highly desirable to give fur-

_ ther study to other phases of hospital func-

tioning such as new designs of equipment
and adaptations of new developments in the
fields of electronics and engineering to hos-
pital services and patient care. Certainly
the results to date of the research conducted
at Rochester Methodist Hospital. indicate
that these are promising areas for more
intensive study.

The fact that a number of new hospitals
and major additions to existing hospitals

are incorporating the circular design is evi-.

dence that the research at Rochester~has
had an impact upon the hospital manage-
ment fields. It also is a reason why it is
urgent that this research be extended as
quickly as possible.

Perhaps the best way to summarize our
thinking about the contributions to the
hospital field which are coming out of the
research at Rochester Methodist Hospital is
to say that recently Hill Family Foundation
made a grant to the hospital to aid it start
research on design and function as related to
the care of patients needing minimal nursing
care. We sincerely believe that the Roches-
ter Methodist Hospital, Mayo Clinic, and
their. consultants have opened up a fertile
field needing further scientific research and
that they are especially well qualified to
conduct this research. .

Sincerely yours,
A. A. HECKMAN,
Executive Director.

Mr. LAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I yield
such time as he may desire to the gentle-
man from Massachusetts [Mr. Morse].

Mr. MORSE. Mr. Chairman, I- wish
to make it clear to the gentlemen who
so ably serve on the Appropriations Com-
mitte, and to my other colleagues in this

House, that I have no quarrel with the

money request carried in the bill before
us today. I shall vote for passage.
While there are areas where I, per-
sonally, might wish to expand—or re-
duce—specifie items of expenditure, I do
not dispute the overall good judgment of
the committee which has spent so many
long hours studying every facet of the
appropriation.

I wish to emphasize my support of
srants to our research programs in the
vital search for the causes and cures of
the many-headed nemesis that stalks
mankind—heart disease, cancer, mental
illness, crippling diseases. I support the
continuation of our Federal share of the
hospital construction program, the ex-
tension of funds for the National Defense
Education Act and of grants to those
federally impacted school areas where
an unfair share of the tax burden would

 

7709

otherwise be borne by a community; and
assistance to our libraries. ,

The bill before us today is the fourth
fiscal year 1962 appropriation to come
before the House. It calls for an ex-
penditure of $4.327 billion, which is some
$199 million more than was originally
requested by President Eisenhower.

Now it is a fact that the Congress and
the American taxpayers have been ad-
vised by the Kennedy administration
that its revised -budget requests will
plunge the Nation into deficit spending
of anywhere from $2 to $4 billion for
fiscal year 1962. This would make it ap-
pear that annual increases in the na-
tional debt are becoming as inevitable as
death and taxes.

I do not approach the worthwhile
measure before us today in the spirit of
parsimony. I do, however, have a New
England. Yankee’s regard for the tax-~
payers’ dollar, and I wish to call the
attention of the House to a glaring
omission.

The bill—which calls for an increase ~
of $199 million over the original Eisen-
hower request—takes no cognizance of
the fact that the Congress in the past
has appropriated some $166 million
which, according to the Bureau of the
Budget, the Department has been unable
to spend to date and which will be. car-
ried over into the following fiscal year.
These funds are not obligated.

Many of you who served in the 85th
Congress will recall the overwhelming
public demand for enactment of H.R.
8002, the Hoover Commission Budget
Reform Act. Its purpose was to bring up
for annual congressional review these
same unexpended, unobligated carryover
funds—amounting to as much as $20
billion in the Department of Defense
alone—and to adjust subsequent annual
appropriations accordingly :

I am disappointed that the new ad-~
ministration has failed to accompany its
budget requests to the Congress with the
additional -request that Public Law
85~-759 be implemented.

You are all familiar with this law.
President’ Eisenhower twice tried to put
it into effect. I had hoped that Presi-
dent Kennedy, who sponsored the legis-
lation in the Senate and spoke vigorously
for its enactment, would promptly make
the same efforts upon taking office.

He has not done so.

Thousands of taxpayers across the
country—men and women in every walk
of life—who wrote to their Senators and
Representatives in the 85th Congress
urging enactment of this legislation, are
today under the impression that it is
actually being implemented, that the
promised billions are being saved.

Unfortunately, Public Law 85-759 has
been buried alive.

It is due to expire on April 1, 1962. It
has never been tried. Time is running
out. Without actual operating experi-
ence, we will never be able to-ascertain
whether we in the Congress can take a
firmed grip on the Federal pursestrings
and thereby give the taxpayers full value
for the dollars. they entrust to us.

I have taken the taxpayers’ case to
the White House, determined that they
shall have a voice in the National Leg-
islature: which will speak out on this is-
7710

sue. I ask leave to insert correspondence
with the office of the President which
speaks for itself. I have received no re
sponsive answer to my last letter, dated
April 13, 1961. I wish also to include a
table from page 623 of the budget which
shows the carryover balance in the De-
partment of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare. There is no carryover in the De-~
partment of Labor.
Marca, 24, 1961.
The Honorable Joun F. KenNepy,
President of the United States,
The White House,
- Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr, PRESIDENT: In reading your
budget message today, I am disappointed to
find that you have made no recommendation
that the Congress implement Public Law
85-759.

That this may be an oversight I have no
doubt, for I recall the splendid service you
performed as a Member of the 85th Congress
when you introduced this legislation in the
Senate and worked so vigorously to secure
its passage. I remember, too, the outstand-
ing efforts put forth by Ambassador Ken-
nedy, as a member of the Second Hoover
Comrfiission, in behalf of this budget reform
measure, . ,

In view of the fact that the budget you
have sent us today is precariously balanced
on a. tightrope of “ifs’—-and in view of the
fact that the Defense budget you will send
us next week is reported to call for a defi-
cit of as much as $1.5. billion—it seems to
me vital that Public Law 85-759 be imple-
mented at once.. As you point out in your
message, should present revenue estimates
prove overly optimistic, this deficit undoubt-
edly will be greater still.

Implementation of Public Law 85-759
might well help overcome such a deficit.

The Bureau of the Budget advises me that
as of the end of fiscal year 1960, unobli-
gated carry-over balances in various Fed~
eral departments had reached the staggering
figure of $37.565 billion—nearly one-half the
total of the proposed budget. At the end of

the calendar year 1960, $20 billion in De-

fense funds and more than $7 billion in for-
eign aid funds existed in unobligated carry~
over balance,

Implementation of Public Law 85-759
would return to the Treasury a substantial
amount of this tremendous, unspent, un-
obligated sum of money. It would, to quote
your own, excellent speech on the floor of
the Senate on June 5, 1957:

“Prevent a great carryover of funds, both
with respect to foreign aid, and defense,
which makes it almost impossible for us (the
Congress) to know exactly. what we are
doing, and the effect cur actions will have
on the amount of money available to the
executive branch. * * * This bill, in com-
bination with the cost-basis bill which was
passed last year, will give us far greater con-
trol over the amount of money the Govern-
ment will spend in each year. * * * The
reason why the Hoover Commission stated
that it would save hundreds of millions of
dollars is that placing this. system in opera-
tion in business has brought about savings
of 1, 2, and as. much as 3 percent.”

Estimates at the time, by experts, ran as
high as $4 billion in annual savings if the
legislation were enacted. It seems to me this
would be an important savings today when
our national cdebt has hit the $285 billion
mark, and you warn us that it must go
higher still before June 30.

Twice, since enactment of Public Law 85—
759 in 1958, President Hisenhower submitted
appropriation requests subject to limitation

_ on annual accrued expenditures. In his
fiscal 1960 budget, six ‘such limitations were
proposed, Exercising its prerogative under

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

the law, the House Committee on Appropria-
tions eliminated the accrued expenditures
proposals. President Eisenhower submitted
12 limitations in his fiscal 1961 budget. Again
the House Committee on Appropriations re-
fused to adopt them. Apparently despairing
of receiving any cooperation from the com-
mittee, President Eisenhower omitted all
such recommendations from his fiscal 1962
money requests.

' Public Law 85-759 will expire on April 1,
1962. The budget reform the Congress prom-
ised the American taxpayers has never, in
fact, taken place. I am sure you vividly

remember the flood of mail from thousands

of concerned citizens, in. all walks of life,
urging passage of the Kennedy bill, S. 484,
and its House companion, H:R. 8002, I have
no doubt that these citizens are under the
impression that now that the law is on the
books the promised billions are being saved.

In truth, Public Law 85-759 has been
buried alive.

Mr. President, I respectfully suggest that
as Chief Executive, with the economic sta-
bility of our Nation as one of your foremost
responsibilities, you resubmit your budget
requests with the addition of accrued ex-
penditure limitations for those. agencies

. which have established a system of accrual

accounting. I respectfully suggest, also, that
as leader of the party which controls the
Congress, and the committees of the Con-
gress, your recommendation that Public Law
85-759 be implemented will meet with a
warmer reception than was accorded Presi-
dent Hisenhower.

I feel that this is a matter of the utmost
urgency if the Congress is to recapture its
constitutional control over the power of the
Federal purse, and if the,American tax-
payer is to be given some hope of fiscal
responsibility in the management of his
hard-earned tax dollar. I am certain that
you share my deep concern.

Respectfully,
F, Braprorp Morse,
Member of Congress.

 

THE WHITE Hovss,
April 8, 1961.
Hon, F. Bravrorp Morsz,

. House of Representatives,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Brap: The President has asked me to
acknowledge your recent letter on accrued
expenditure limitations,

When the President was a Member of
Congress, he supported the Hoover Commis-
sion recommendation to change the method
of appropriating to the accrued expenditure
basis. Legislation introduced for this pur-
pose was modified before enactment to pro-
vide for accrued expenditure limitations
within appropriations on an obligation basis.
In accordance with this legislation, accrued
expenditure limitations were proposed in the
budgets for 1960 and 1961 for certain appro-
priations. These limitations were rejected by
the Congress.

The principal operating advantages and
economies to be obtained from the Hoover
Commission proposals on budgeting and
accounting are those associated with the
adoption of accrual accounting and cost-
based budgeting. As you know, both of these

have been widely adopted in the civilian

agencies of the Government, so that by the
end of the fiscal year over 75 percent of the
budgeting and accounting for civilian agen-~
cies will be on these bases. The President
has asked the Director of the Bureau of the
Budget to press. toward rapid completion of
the conversion of the remaining civilian
agencies and the Defense Department to ac-
erual accounting and cost-based budgeting
methods. :
Sincerely yours,
Myer FELDMAN,
Deputy Special Counsel to the President.

May 17

AprRIL 13, 1961,
Mr. MYER FELDMAN,
Deputy Special Counsel to the President,
The White House, Washington, D.C.

Dear Mixe: Thank you, sir, for your ac-
knowledgment of April 8 of my March 24
letter to the President.

President Kennedy deserves only the high-
est praise for his splendid efforts, as a Mem-
ber of Congress, in behalf of Hoover Com-
mission recommendations—particularly in
his fight to place appropriations on an ac-
crued expenditure basis. It is precisely be-
cause I know his keen interest in this im-
portant area that I felt no hesitation in
calling to his attention the failure to im-
plement Public Law 85-759. It seems to me
an ideai opportunity for the President to
put his Kennedy Budget Reform Act into
effect—or at least attempt to persuade. those
of his party who control the Appropriations
Committee to do so.

In your second paragraph, Mike, you point
out that accrual accounting and cost-based
budgeting procedures have been widely
adopted by civilian agencies of the Gov-
ernment, so that by the end of this fiscal
year more than 75 percent of them will be
operating on these bases. This is a fine
achievement, accomplished over the last 5
years under Public Law 84-8638. However,
Public Law 84-863 does only half the job.
To obtain the full operating advantages and
economies possible, Public Law 85-759 must
also be implemented. The President him-
self pointed this out in a speech he made,
as junior Senator from Massachusetts, on
the Senate floor on June 5, 1957. In urging
passage of his bill, S. 484, he stated that it
“* * * in combination with the cost-basis
bill which was passed last year, will give
us far greater control over the amount of
money the Government will spend in each
year.”

In a word, implementation of Public Law
84-863, as outlined in the second paragraph
of your letter is progressing satisfactorily.
But, to be truly meaningful, implementa-
tion of Public Law 85-759 must also be
made. And Public Law 85-759 has been
buried alive.

In 1959, a year after Public Law 85~759
was enacted, President Eisenhower proposed
limitations on six relatively small appropria-
tions as starting points for putting the law
into effect. The House Appropriations Com-
mittee struck the limitations from all six
appropriations.

Among these appropriations was that of
the Panama Canal Zone Government, Rep-
resentatives of the Canal Zone Government
thereupon went before the Senate Appro-
priations Committee with a strong plea for
reinstatement of the limitations. They
pointed out that their appropriation had
been on a cost basis for 6 years and empha-
sized their conviction that to gain maximum
benefits from Public Law 84-863, implemen-
tation of Public Law 85-759 was a necessary
and logical step.

On being asked by Senator Honiannp, of
the Appropriations. Committee, whether he
saw any benefits to be gained by adoption of
the limitations, the Comptroller of the Canal
Zone testified:

“I believe there are benefits that do ac-~
erue through control of accrual expenditures.
I think it places Congress in a position to
review through its budgetary techniques,
current expenditure requirements, which is
really the best measure of accrual accom-
plishments, and by extension, it is the best
point of performance control. It insures the
opportunity of review and appreval of an
expenditure program annually, and any in-
terim deviations from a planned program
would automatically be brought to the at-
tention of the Congress.”

The Senate subcommittee reinstated the
limitations on the Canal Zone appropriation
1961

and, after its passage by the Senate, Senator
HOLLAND, as' one of the conferees, indicated
he weuld fight for retention of the. limita-
tions. Nevertheless, the conferees struck the
Jast remaining limitation.

As I pointed out in my earlier letter, Presi-
dent Eisenhower proposed 12 appropriation.
limitations the following year. The Appro-
priations Committee again rejected them.

At a time when the Nation is plunging
more and more into deficit spending, at a

time when we will be asked to once more'

raise the temporary ceiling on the national
debt, it seems to me absolutely vital that as
responsible. guardians of the public . treas-
ure, we must search for every means of con-
serving unnecessary expenditures. Public
Law 85-759 offers that opportunity—offers it
without stripping worthwhile spending proj-
ects of needed funds and without slowing
down acceleration of programs which must
be stepped up in the national interest.

I respectfully reiterate my suggestion that
as Chief Executive, with the economic sta-
bility of our Nation as one of his most im-
portant responsibilities, the President resub-
mit his budget requests with the addition
of accrued expenditure limitations for those
agencies which have established a system of
accrual accounting.

I respectfully reiterate my suggestion that
as leader of the party which controls the
Congress, and the committees of the Con-
gress, his recommendation that Public Law
85-750 be implemented could meet with a
warmer reception than was accorded Presi-
dent Hisenhower.

Time is running short. Public Law 85-759
expires on April 1, 1962. Without actual
operating experience, we will never be able
to ascertain whether it is possible for Con-
gress to take a firmer grip on the Federal
purse strings and thereby give the taxpayers
full value for the dollars they entrust to us.

Sincerely,
F, BraprorD MORSE,
Member of Congress.

 

Department of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare—Balance, start of 1962

[In thousands of dollars]

Appropriations: Unobligated
Salaries and expenses, certifica-
tion, inspection, and other serv~
ices, Food and Drug Administra-
tion -.----~ wee eee eee eee
Pharmacological-animal labora-
tory, Food and Drug Adminis-
tration _-.-----.--------------  -ee-en
Grants for. library services, Office
of Education_..-.-..----------
Payments to schoo! districts, Of-
fice of Education___....------- ~.----~
Assistance for school construction,
Office of Education__.-.---.-~- -------
Defense educational activities, Of-
fice of Education._.__---------
Research and training (special
foreign currency program), Of-
fice of Vocational Rehabilita-
tion _._-.------.--------------
Buildings and facilities, Public
Health Service._.-----=-------
Hospital construction activities,
Public Health Service..--------
Grants for waste treatment works
construction, Public Health
Service___._-_-_----------+--+~+-- 5, 000
Medical care and foreign quaran~
tine, Public Health Service..--_ .~--~---
Construction of Indian health fa-
cilities, Public Health Service...
General research and services, Na-
tional Institutes of Health,
Public Health Service_-_-----. -------
National Cancer Institute, Public :
Health Service..-..---.--- meee eee eee
Mental health activities, Public:
Health Service...-.--~-------- --..-+-

19, 331

120
1, 699
124, 500

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE. -

Department of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare—Balance, start of 1962-—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Appropriations: Unobligated
National Heart Institute, Public
Health Servic_-_--.---~------- 2=----<<=

Grants for construction of health
research facilities, Public Health
Service ___.-~----~---+---- nee er een
Communicable disease activities,
Public Health Service._-.----- -------
Construction of mental health-
“ weurology research facility,
Public Healthy Service.-~----- 12, 048
Construction, mental health fa-
cilities, Alaska, Public Health
Service___...--.-----2-~------- -------
Major repairs and preservation of
buildings and grounds, Saint
Elizabeths Hospital__.--------- 57
Construction and equipment,
treatment and cafeteria build-
ings, Saint Elizabeths Hos-
pital.__-.---------------------
Extension and modernization of
administration building, Saint
Blizabeths Hospital.-_.-------- 84
Construction, continued  treat-
ment building, Saint Elizabeths
Hospital__-.---.---+~---~-+--- -------
Construction and equipment. of
treatment building, Saint Eliza-
beths Hospital_...-_------------ -~-----
Construction and equipment,
maximum security building,
Saint Elizabeths. Hospital_--.. -~-----
Grants to States for public as-
sistance, Social Security Admin- -
istration__.--+-.--..----+~----- -----=+-
Construction, Gallaudet College__ 197
Plans and. specifications, Howard
University_.._---+-.----------- 34
Construction of buildings, How-
ard University------~----------
Construction of men’s dormitory
(liquidation of contract au-

525

247

thorization) Howard Uni-
versity_---------+------------- -+-----
White House Conference on

Aging, Office of the Secretary-- ~------

 

166, 211

  

 

 

Balance of anticipated pay in-

crease supplementals included
above... --------------------- +--=---
Total appropriations__.-.----~- 166, 211

Contract authorizations: ’

Auditorium, Howard University.- 440
Other___.----------------------- eee
440

Total, contract authorizations_

Revolving and management funds:
Advances and reimbursements,
Office of Education____..-_-..- -------
Operation of commissaries, nar-
cotic hospitals Public Health

Bureau of State Services manage-
ment fund, Public Health Serv-

ice_..---- 7 eee eee nee ween -
National Institutes of Health
management funds, Public .,

Health Service____.-.--.------ -------
Service and supply fund, Public

Health Service_-_.-.----.----.. 2
Working capital fund, narcotic

hospitals, Public Health Serv-

Advances and reimbursements,
Public Health Service..-.----- -------
Operating fund, Bureau of Feder-
al Credit Unions, Social Secu-
rity Administration..----.----
Advances and reimbursements,
Social Security Administration—
Working capital fund, Office of
the Secretary_._~-~.------- a 81

TT
Department of. Health, Education, and Wel-
fare—Balance, start of 1962--Continued

[In thousands of dollars]
Unobligated

Revolving and. management funds:
Other ___---- n-ne eee eee See

Total, revolving and manage-
ment funds-_.---..---~--~

 

 

Proposed for later transmission:
Appropriation other than pay in-
crease supplementals._-.-----~ =--~----
Anticipated pay increase supple-
mental appropriations..------- -------

 

Total,. proposed for
transmission._.---..-----~ ~+----~

 

Total, Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare_.... 167, 633

Mr. LAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I yield
myself 1 minute.

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?

Mr. LAIRD. I yield to the gentleman
from Iowa.

(Mr. GROSS asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I take
this time to ask the gentleman a ques~-
tion. I note in the hearings that $1,118
was.expended in Iowa to take care of
the fishing industry. I did not know
we had a commercial fishing industry

in Iowa that required Federal funds.

In the hearings I also read that the
money was spent for care and mainten-
ance of marine engines and fish nets.
How much money for this purpose is
being spent around the country?

Mr. MARSHALL. I think what the
gentleman is referring to is the money
that is used in the vocational educational
end of the program, and it is being used
to display salesmanship and so on in
relation to fish. The testimony before
the committee was that this was a very
worthwhile part of distributive educa-
tion in that it was familiarizing people
just how to handle a product which is,

extremely valuable to the dietary re-

quirements of the people.

Mr. LAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I yield
such time as he may require to the gen-
tleman from IHinois [Mr. MIcHE].

[Mr. MICHEL addressed the Commit-
tee. His remarks will appear hereafter
in the Appendix.

Mr. LAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I have
no further requests for time.

Mr. FOGARTY. Mr. Chairman, I
yield such time as he may require to the
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Jar-
want.

Mr. JARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise
to pay tribute to the gentleman from

. Rhode Island and to the members of his

subcommittee for their outstanding work.
on this bill. Particularly, Mr. Chairman,
it is encouraging to see the emphasis
being placed on expanding the medical
research programs. Certainly, nothing
is more important to this Nation than
the health of our citizens.

Mr. FOGARTY. Mr. Chairman, I
yield such time as he may require to the
gentleman from. West Virginia I[Mr. .
STAGGERS].
(712

Mr, STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, I
aiso wish to compliment the chairman
of the committee and the members of the
committee for the work they have done,
and I concur with the gentleman from
Oklahoma in his remarks in regard to
research in the problem of medical care
in our country. ,

There is no doubt in my mind, and I
believe this to be true with the majority
of American citizens, that we must be
concerned about health.

During the past 15 years this country -

has made great progress In the attack
on disease, in the construction of hos-~
pitals, and development of cther medical
facilities.

” But a great deal more is to be done.
Expansion of present fields of research,
establishment of new fields, training of
medical personnel, and the availability
of medical services to the people, need
our serious study and support.

To save a life, to lessen pain, to cure’

the maimed—these are worthwhile goals
for which our dollars are spent wisely.
And more dollars are needed.

I join with my colleagues in support
of legislation that will provide the plans
and means to support a program for
medical research, medical training, and
medical service, not only to benefit. this
generation, but those to come.

Mr. FOGARTY. Mr. Chairman, I yield
such time as he may require to the gen-

 

tleman from Minnesota [Mr. Marsmaun]. -

Mr. MARSHALL. Myr. Chairman, it
is a rewarding experience to serve on the
apprepriations subcommittee for the De-
partments of Labor and Health, Educa-
tion, and Welfare and related agencies.
In one way or another, the work of these
agencies touches on the life of every
American family.

Our chairman, Joun Focarty, well de-
serves the nationwide reputation he has
earned for his great service to humanity.
Many witnesses before the committee
know first hand of his dedicated work as
a Member of Congress. Many organiza-
tions have learned to appreciate and sup-
port his judgment. The consideration
and fairness he shows as chairman
makes it a pleasure to work with him.

My goodhearted friend from Indiana,
WINFIELD Denton, brings to the subcom-
mittee legal training and experience to-
gether with genuine sympathy and un-
derstanding of the human problems with
which we deal. The people of his State
can be rightly proud of his effective con-
tribution to this important work.

During the years I have served with
Congressman Larrp, I have learned to
appreciate more and more his working
knowledge of the intricacies of many of
these programs. He is a tireless worker
who makes a real effort to understand
every phase of an agency’s work.

We were joined ‘this year by the gen-
tleman from Iinois (Mr. Mucuer].
Since it was my privilege to serve with
him on the agricultural appropriations
subcommittee, his efforts are not new to
me. A man of ability and common-
sense, he is making a genuine contri-
bution to the subcommittee.

Throughout our long and sometimes
arduous hearings, all of us appreciated
the services of Robert.Moyer, our’ well-

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

informed and able clerk whose work is
uniformly excellent.

In addition to the Department of La-
bor and the Department of Health, Edu~-
cation, and Welfare, we consider appro-
priations for the Naticnal Labor Rela-
tions Board, the National Mediation
Board, the Railroad Retirement Board,
the Federal Mediation and Conciliation
Service, the Interstate Commission on
the Potomac River Basin, and the U.S.
Soldiers’ Home. For the most part, these
agencies render good and necessary serv=
ice. Their activities are covered in some
detail in our report.

RAILROAD RETIREMENT CREDITS

I doe, however, want to call special at-
tention to an untidy situation that con-
tinues in regard to the railroad retire-
ment trust fund. We have consistently
urged that payments be approved to
cover the Military service credits au-
thorized by law. Ib seems to me that the
provisions of this law should be carried
out; every day of delay only postpones
the reckoning that must come.

Continued delay is bad budgeting and
is unfair to members of the system as
well as the taxpayers of the country. It
is my understanding that a proposal will
be made to the Bureau of the Budget to
bring contributions to the fund up to
date in five of six installments. I urge
the Bureau to recognize this obligation
tc implement the law passed by Congress

and to restore confidence in proper -

budgeting procedure.
U.S. SOLDIERS’ HOME

In studying the testimony concerning
the U.S. Soldiers’ Home, I am impressed
by the efficiency with which it is ad-
ministered by Gen. Wade H. Haislip and
his staff. As Governor of the Home, he
is to be congratulated on this fine record.

BOGGED IN PAPERWORK

The work of the Department of Labor
has always interested me, but I am con-
stantly amazed at the great mass of
paperwork required of this agency. I
am disappointed that the legislative
committee and the Congress have not
given more attention to climinating use-
Jess paperwork and the resulting unnec-
essary expense. .

An obvious example is the collection of
reports of little or no real value or legal
purpose. Thousands and thousands of
these reports are accumulating under
the Welfare and Pension Plans Dis-
elosure Act. Both former Secretary
Mitchell and the present Secretary Gold-
berg have called attention to the situa-
tion withoué avail.

NO ENFORCEMENT POWERS

Not only do we bear the needless cost
of employees and facilities but we con-
tribute to the public illusion that the
Secretary of Labor has enforcement
powers. Commenting on this shameful
deception, Secretary Mitchell said last
year that the act provides “no persuasive
deterrent to those who wish to ignore its
provisions, or to manipulate or embezzle
funds.”

Tt is almost unbelievable that assets
and insurance reserves of over $40 bil-
lion, which are intended to provide over
400,000 different benefits to 80 million

May 17

workers, are so little protected. Yet ad-
ministration of a law which does not
provide this protection will cost dbout
$580,000 next year.

LANDRUM-GRIFFIN COSTS

We encountered a similar situation in
examining operations under the Labor
Management Reporting and Disclosure
Act (Landrum-Griffin Act). The bill be-~
fore you includes $5,775,000 for purposes
of the act. In 3 years, Department of
Labor expenses under the bill will cost
the taxpayers about $13,467,000.

if a law is measured by the number
of jobs it creates, this one has been a
success since the budget requested funds
for 596 positions. The Bureau of Labor
Management reports originally requested
$86 positions and $7,500,000 for admin-
istration of the law. .

STATE LAWS APPLY

Our colleague, the gentleman from
indiana [Mr. Denwron], inquired into
criminal. actions to date. We were in-
formed. that there are 10 cases for
embezzlemen$ of funds. Convictions
have been obtained in six. The Depart-
ment admitted that State laws would
usually cover these cases. It was stated
that 1,469 alleged violations are under
investigation but this figure is meaning-
less, in my opinion, since a great many
will be dropped upon completion of the
investigations.

When the Landrum-Griffin bill was
before the Congress, people all over the
country were barraged with propaganda
originating mostly from  antilabor
sources. Some of this was misleading:
and some, downright false. Because of
their legitimate concern over conditions
disclosed by committees of the Congress,
many people accepted the propaganda
without further investigation.

EFFECT OF HASTY ACTION

The very people often interested in a
balanced budget and economy in Gov-
ernment, wrote, wired, telephoned, and
visited Members of Congress to demand
immediate adoption of the bill. Con-
gress responded to the pressure gener-
ated by these activities. What has hap-
pened is a good example of what can
happen when we legislate in this kind
of climate.

In the face of these preposterous ex-
penditures, I suggest that the Congress
reappraise its action.. Even the Depart-
ment of Labor budget. does not tell the
whole story since the Department of
Justice and the National Labor Relations
Board are also involved in this flurry of
fruitless activity.

REDUCTIONS IN LABOR BUDGET

The overall appropriation for the De~--
partment of Labor included in this bill
is $283,113,000, a reduction of $2,179,000
below the budget request, and $791,447,-
800 less than appropriated for 1961. The
large reduction is accounted for by ac-
tion which made appropriations of $500
million for the Federal extended com-
pensation account and $248 million for
the unemployment trust fund unneces-
sary in the present bill. A- reduction of
$30 million was made in unemployment
compensation funds for Federal em-~
ployees and ex-servicemen and $18,924,~
1961

000 in grants to States for unemploy-
ment: compensation and employment
service administration.

tT hope the Congress aecepts our rec-
ommendation for an increase of $500,000
for the promotion of industrial training
programs by the Bureau of Apprentice-
ship and Training. We have consist-
‘ently urged an effective program for the
training of skilled industrial workers.
At a time when both unemployment and
the demand for skilled workers are high,
the lesson is clear.

RESTUDY BUILDING costs

In our report, we call attention on page
6 to some disturbing testimony on the
proposed construction of a building’ at
6th and Pennsylvania Avenues to house
the employment service and unemploy-

ment compensation activities of the Dis- —

trict of Columbia. Present operation
and maintenance cost to the Govern-
ment is $2.21 per square foot per year,
while the estimated cost in this puilding
would be $4.45 per square foot—more
than double present costs. This is a con-
siderable increase; we have recom-
mended, therefore, that construction be
delayed pending further study or until
more information is presented to justify
construction.

The overall appropriations for the
many and varied activities of the De-
partment of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare are slightly more. than $4 billion.
Some of the programs involved are being
discussed in greater detail by other Mem-
bers, but I want to direct attention to
a few of special concern both because
of existing programs and because of new
legislation pending in this Congress.

OFFICE. OF EDUCATION

The Office of Education was created
by an act of March 2, 1867, to collect
such statistics and facts as.shall show
the condition and progress of education,
to diffuse such information as shall aid
the people of the United States in the
establishment and maintenance of ef-
ficient school systems, and otherwise to
promote the cause of education.

While both the authority and opera-
tions of the Office have been greatly ex-
panded by subsequent acts and executive
orders, one of its major functions con-
tinues to be the collection and dissem-
ination of information concerning edu-
cation, This is certainly a proper and
important purpose. The new Commis-
sioner of Education, Dr, Sterling M.
MeMurrin, acknowledged this in his
opening statement before our subcom-
mittee:

We are cognizant of the need for strength-
ening the Office as an agency for the acquisi-
tion and dissemination of accurate up-to-
date information on all phases of education,

NEED UP-TO-DATE STATISTICS

As the Federal Government moves into
more and more areas of education, we
need more current facts and accurate
figures on which to base public policy
decisions. Unfortunately, we often find
that the faster and farther the Office

of Education moves into new programs, .

the less up-to-date information we can
get.

When the Congress is being asked to
consider a whole series of new programs

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

in the field of education, we must have
factual information upon which to base
the practical decisions we are asked to
make.

AGREEMENT ON EDUCATIONAL GOALS

Let me make it clear from the outset
that there is no quarrel with the inten-
tion of any of these programs. I know
of no Member of Congress who is not
interested in promoting the best educa-
tional opportunities our resources can
provide. No conscientious citizen can
be indifferent to the welfare of all of the
schools of this country, whether devoted
to public or private elementary, second-
ary, or higher education. ;

All of us want to make all of our
schools as truly effective agencies of edu-~
cation as the resources of this Nation
permit. This concern and determina~
tion is too real and too immediate to
need elaborate embellishment.

FACED WITH PRACTICAL QUESTIONS

The test, however, is in applying our
potentions to concrete action. Although
we can agree on purposes, we must legis-
late in the area of ways and means. We
are faced with practical questions of how
it should be done, when it should be
done, and in what measure it should be
done. There are differences in prac~-
tical judgments which can be resolved
only on the basis of objective facts that
will enable us to fairly evaluate the alter-
natives available to us.

Yet today we often find that there is
no single fact or set of facts upon which
proponents and opponents of any pro-
gram can agree, whether it be the teach~
er shortage, the classroom lag, the scale
of local effort, the extent of local initi-
ative, or whatever. Instead of facts
based on consistent and valid standards,
we seem to be getting a wide variety of
conflicting opinions.

BUREAU OF BUDGET CRITICISM

The Bureau of the Budget has criti-
cized the Office of Education’s figures on
the classroom shortage and has com-
mented on their inaccuracy for purposes
of policy discussion.

In 1950, Congress ordered a survey of
facilities at a cost of over $5 million and
the Office of Education reported a short-
age of 312,000 classrooms. In 1954, the
Commissioner testified that the short-
age had grown to 370,000 classrooms and
other experts predicted it would rise to
600,000 in 3 years.

ESTIMATES ARE REVISED

Yet, when the White House Confer-
ence on Education polled the States, it
reported a shortage of 198,625 class-
rooms. ‘The Office of Education revised
its estimate, and by 1959 the estimated
shortage was 132,000 classrooms.

On his final day in office, January 9,
1961, the former Secretary of Health,
Education, and Welfare released a report
showing a shortage of 142,000 class-
rooms. This is the same figure given to
us at our hearing on April 12.

NO GHFECTIVE STANDARDS

in response to a question I asked, con-
cerning objective standards in determin-
ing classroom shortages so that valid
comparisons could be made between
States, we were told:

7178

There is a variation among States in re-
gard to the standards. There is no uniform
standard that is accepted or adopted by the
50 States. In some States they have stand-
ards written out in much greater detail than
in others. In some States they have stand-
ards just for the construction of new build-
ings that they are going to build. * * * The
answer specifically to. your question: ‘There
is a difference among the States in the stand-
ards.”

CLASSROOM CONSTRUCTION HOLDS

Based on this wide variety of stand-
ards, the report of January 19, 1961,
estimated a need for 607,600 classrooms
in the next 10 years. This suggests con-
struction of 60,760 classrooms a year.
The same report says that we have been
building classrooms at the rate of about
70,000 a year for the past 5 years.

Even if local efforts should decrease
by 13 percent, it appears that the need
would be met without any Federal ac-
tivity. ‘Persistent predictions that con-
struction activity would decline have not
materialized—despite some lag which
can certainly be attributed to perennial
promises of Federal assistance.

In any event, what assurance have we
that today’s predictions are more ac-
curate than those of 10 years ago, 5 years
ago, or last year?

OUTDATED FIGURES ANOTHER PROBLEM

These are examples of the questions
that must inevitably occur when Con-
gress is given contradictory figures on
which it is expected to base practical
judgments. Still another problem oc-
curs when the figures are out of date.
For example, the most recent issue of
the bulletin on Federal funds for edu-
cation listing expenditures by all depart-
ments is bulletin No. 2, published in 1958
and covering the years 1956-57 and 1957—
58. Incidentally, this bulletin shows
that Federal assistance for educational
programs for the 1956-57 school year
totaled. $1,997,825,000 of which $656,-
632,000 was spent on elementary and
secondary education and $1,032,374,000
on higher education. Surely, when ex-
penditures of this magnitude are already
being made for educational purposes, it
would be useful to have more current

information at a time when additional

expenditures are being asked.
We need to know not only how much |
is being spent, but what effect these ex~
penditures are having in meeting the
problems they are intended to alleviate.
We are asked to inaugurate programs
based on projections into the future
without knowing what the present situa-
tion is. The Commissioner and other
witnesses indicated that efforts will be
made to update the statistical gathering
apparatus so that reports and bulletins
will have more than historical interest.
T hope these efforts will be carried on
with the same urgency so often displayed
when some new expansion of authority
of operations is requested. ,
NDBEA FACTS UNAVAILABLE

The problem of obtaining. current
factual information is also illustrated in
our discussion of the administration of
the National Defense Education Act.
Some school administrators have pri-
vately expressed misgivings about act-
ing as collection agencies for the student
7714

loan program. Since collections do not
begin until 1 year after graduation, there
is no way to anticipate the experiences
that lie ahead.

After 2 full years of operation, we
still have no factual reports on the num-
ber. of student borrowers who have
dropped out of school or the collection
problems created by dropouts. We do
know that over 25 percent of the institu-
tions of high learning are not taking
part in this program. Again, however,
we do not know why such a sizable
number has chosen not to take part in
the Federal loan program. Nor do we
know what proportion of the funds are
being used by State universities as com-
pared to private institutions... Nor do
we know the average loan made in either
case,

HOPE FOR EARLY REPORT

Although the program is scheduled to
expire on July 1, 1962, efforts are already
underway to extend it and we have been
told that if the Congress does so, addi-
tional funds will ‘have to be appropri-
ated in a supplemental bill either in this
session or the next.

The Office of Education informs us
that an extensive study of the loan pro-
gram is in progress and that informa-
tion will be fortheoming. I hope that
the Congress will have the report suf-
ficiently early to enable Members to
study the actual operations and effects of
the program during the past 2 years
before we are asked to decide on extend-
ing or expanding it.

NATIONAL DEFENSE FELLOWSHIPS

We do have a little more information
on the fellowship program under title
IV of the act.
ferred to in testimony as the national
defense fellowship program and it is part
of the National Defense Education Act.
Of the 1,000 students participating in
the first year’s program, about 90
dropped out, according to the testimony
we received. No figures were available
for the second year.

The professed purpose of the program
is to upgrade college teachers and there
continues to be confusion about its rela-
tionship to national defense, the pro-
fessed purpose of the act itself. Last
year we had some discussion about the
contribution of fellowships in American
folklore to the Nation’s defense. This
year English folklore has been added to
the list.

RELATION TO NATIONAL DEFENSE?

Other questions have occurred con-
cerning fellowships in contemporary
literature—also medern  literature—
dramatic art, theater. and speech, musi-
cology, sociology of marriage and family
living, and a series of similarly unrelated
subjects. These may be necessary and
worthwhile studies and college teachers
in these areas may need upgrading, but
do they fulfill the intent of Congress in
passing the National Defense Education
Act?

im response to a question on the sub-
ject, Dr. McMurrin said:

I would like to say that. I believe that
sooner or later we are going to have to recog-

This is frequently re- |

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

nize that the real problem of American de=—

fense is tied up with the whole strength of
our culture. Although it is possible for us
to jest a good deal about a thing like Amer-
ican folklore, and this kind of jesting is very
common in the American universities, it is
still true that a genuine grasp and apprecia~
tion of and capacity for critical analysis of
American culture is very considerably
strengthened by studies in American folklore.

QUESTIONS OF STATE PRESSURE?

Questions are arising concerning an-~
other phase of the NDEA program which
provides. grants to States and loans. to
private schools for purposes of elemen-
tary and secondary instruction in sci-
ence, mathematics, and modern foreign
languages. Since grant funds are fun-

‘neled through the States, there is al-

ways danger of State pressure on local
systems to participate beyond their own
desires. :

Although it is true that such pres-
sures are often indirect and therefore
impossible to control from Washington
under the act as written, we ought to

have some idea of what local school.

boards and administrators think of the
program at that level.

In response to a direct question on the
subject, the Office of Education said that
no attempt has been made to determine

local sentiment. Since the ultimate test”

of effectiveness is at the local level, re-
views and consultations with State de-
partments do not necessarily accurately
reflect, opinion at the working level.
IMPRESSIVE WORK FOR RETARDED

During consideration of the Office of
Education budget, we received impressive
testimony on the work being dene with
the $1 million appropriation for training
teachers of mentally retarded children.
We have continued the funds within the
statutory limitation but have suggested
that the legislative committee give con-
sideration to expanding the program to
include teachers of children with speech
and hearing defects.

it is estimated that only one-fourth of
the more than a million retarded chil-
dren are receiving suitable education.
Throughout the years, a major problem
has been the shortage of trained teach-
ers. Grants made to colleges and uni-
versities under this program enable them
to conduct teacher training programs.
State agencies are assisted in preparing
persons to supervise the special educa-
tional programs required in State and
local school systems,

Thus, this modest appropriation is al-
ready showing results that warrant fur-
ther consideration to determine what

action can be usefully taken to strength-

en this important endeavor.
VOCATIONAL EDUCATION NEED

The bill before you continues the voca-
tional education program at its present
level, We discussed the problems arising
from unemployment due to automation
or migration of industries since special
programs are belng inaugurated in these
areas. There is no evidence, however,
that the traditional courses in the dis-
tributive occupations, agriculture, and
practical nursing are less needed, With
our continued population growth, train
ing in these fields continues to enhance

‘grams.

May 17

employment opportunities by upgrading
individuals in their vocational speciai-
ties.

Because the program is national in
scope and application, its purposes are
not limited to specific area, problems
which can-best be met by restricted pro-
This does not discount the iccal
impact of vocational education programs
on improved employment opportunities
and better trained workers. The local
support given the program is the best
testimony we have to its usefulness and
its effectiveness at the community level.

FEDERAL IMPACT ASSISTANCE

Another subject of particular interest
to your committee in studying the budg-
et requests for educational purposes is
Federdl assistance to so-called impacted
areas. Many of us, regardless of. our
position on across-the-board subsidies
for school construction and teachers’
salaries, have supported this program.

Despite some recent press insinuations
to the contrary, there is no inconsisten-
cy in this position. When local school
districts are clearly and presently faced
with an added burden as a direct result
of Federal activity which increases
school population while reducing local
tax income, the Federal Government has
a clear and present responsibility to as-
sist in meeting it. The problem is.
created by the Federal Government and
justice demands that the Federal Gov-
ernment accept responsibility for assist-
ing parents and the local communities
in providing for the education of their
children. Congress recognized this ob-
ligation in making permanent the provi-
sions of Public Law 874 which relates to
children who reside on Federal property
with a parent employed on Federal
property, :

DESERVES SEPARATE CONSIDERATION

The House will be asked to consider
extensions and revisions of these pro-~
grains, presumably in connection with
the general Federal aid bill. This creates
problems for members who believe that
these are two entirely different programs
that deserve to stand on their own
merits. Legislation to extend assistance
to impacted areas includes questions
enough for one gocd debate.

This can be illustrated by taking a look
at the allotments made in the District
of Columbia area under Public Laws 874
and 815: :

Actual and estimated entitlements under
Public Law 874 of school districts in the
Washington, D.C., metropolitan area for
fiscal. years 1960, 1961, and 1962 (as of
Apr. 14, 1961)

 

 

Fiscal | Fiscal
Fiscal | year 1961] year
School district year 1960 (esti- 1962
(actual) | mated) (esti-
mated}
Montgomery County, -
Ma__. .-2----2- eet $2, 272, 000/$2, 489, 000) $15, 119
Prince Georges County,
de eee 1, 967, 082! 2,310,000] 84, 744
Alexandria City, Va_.._.- 626, 726, 649, G00|__.
Arlington County, Va__..] 1, 523, 080] 1, 541,000] 66, 355
Fairfax County, Va_----- 3, 192, 564} 8, 597, 000} 110, 298

 

 

 

Falls Church City, Va-_-| 121,987; 117, 000

 

1 Based on Public Law 874 without extension or
amendment,
1961

Summary of construction aid under Publie
Law 815 of school districts in the Wash-
ington, D.C., metropolitan area for fiseat
years 1960, 1961, and 1962 (as of Apr. 14,
1961)

Fiscal
Fiscal | year 1961
year 1960 (esti-

(actual) | mated)

School district

 

Md_._----------------- $2, 233, 437

Md___---.----=-------- 1, 066, 062
Alexandria City,
‘Arlington County, Va--.-
Fairfax County, Va------
Falls Church City, Va---

a a
1 Based on Public Law 815 without extension or
amendment.

HELP OR HINDRANCE?

These programs have frequently been
justified as providing payments in lieu
of taxes, and rightly so in cases where
Federal installations and jJandholdings
have seriously reduced possible sources
of tax revenue while increasing the
school population through Federal activ~
ity. Do the counties and cities listed
really qualify under this test? /

This is a question frequently discussed
in the Congress but never really re-
solved. Has the employment offered
by the Federal Government been detri-
mental or beneficial to these communi-
ties? Has it decreased or increased the
tax base? I can assure you that there
are many communities in this country
that would welcome the employment op-
portunities at the salary levels avail-
able in this area.

The legislative decisions involved can-
not be made by our appropriations sub-
committee. I think, however, that our
experience with the program and the
testimony we receive indicate that re-
vision of this program properly merits
separate consideration so that its worth-
while achievements are not lost. because
of unrelated controversies.

ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS RISE

One other item in the Office of Edu-
eation budget illustrates the growth of
this agency over a relatively short period
of time. In 1952, we appropriated
$3,447,713 for the salaries atid expenses
of 438 permanent employees. Last year,
we appropriated $13,400,000 for the sal-
aries and expenses of 1,047 employees,
104 of whom are assigned to regional
offices.

The bill before you includes $11,364,000
for salaries and expenses, $2,511,000 less
than was appropriated last year. How-
ever, funds for the Cooperative Research
Program are considered as a separate
appropriation so.this amount is actually
$846,000 more than was available for
similar purposes last year. The commit-
tee did make a reduction of $500,000
from the budget request with the de-
clared intention that it be applied pri-
marily to the additional positions re-
quested.

EXPANSION BEARS WATCHING

With most of the regional representa-
tives meeting in Washington twice a
year and the additional communica-
tions expenses, the operations of the field
offices deserve watching or we will find

No. 82——-14

      
         
   
   
  
 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

the familiar pattern of empire-build-
ing at work. This is not a direct criti-
cism of the Office of Education, but
anyone experienced in the executive and
legislative branches knows too well how
fast these little sovereignties grow into
big kingdoms.

Let me emphasize that these comments
bear no ill will. All of us are anxious
to make the Office of Education as effi-
cient and effective an agency of Gov-
ernment as we possibly can. We wish
the new Commissioner and his staff
“every success in strengthening and im-
proving the services provided by law.

This is a time of new beginnings, and
we want to be helpful in preventing the
kinds of abuses and inadequacies that
can only lead to disillusionment and
bitter criticism later.

SENSITIVITY TO SUGGESTIONS

<~ have always regarded it as an im-
portant responsibility of the legislator
to help administrators anticipate
troubles and correct mistakes when pro-
grams are in the formative stage. Some
officials are needlessly sensitive to sug-
gestions, however constructive and well
intentioned, and refuse to engage in
candid discusions of shortcomings while
there is still time to correct them.

In working with the details of these
programs more intimately than most
committees, we come to recognize pat-
terns that often indicate the success or
failure of programs. My own policy has
been to bring the questions that occur
to the attention of the administrators
concerned in our hearings,. rather than
in press releases casting discredit on an
entire agency or program. Neither false
geniality nor bitter rancor serve the co-
operative effort necessary to achieve our
cormmon goals.

REAL PROGRESS IN REHABILITATION

Yn our hearings on Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare appro-
priations, I never fail to be impressed by
the encouraging results of our vocational
rehabilitation programs. While we can
never be satisfied with the progress in
this important work, we are heartened
by evidence that real progress is being
made.

Few programs receive such, widespread
and deserving support in our committee
and in the Congress. Last year, 88,275
disabled men and women were returned
te a useful working life through this pro~
‘gram. In 1961, an estimated 96,000 will
go on to gainful work, and we hope that
this number will grow to 107,000 in 1962.
Numbers alone, however, do not measure
the full meaning of this program in hu-
man terms.

PROBLEM CONSTANTLY GROWING

Cheered as we are by this progress, the
problem is so immense that we need to
go forward more rapidly only to keep

rom falling farther behind. Those who
are devoting their lives to this work tell
us that ebtween 2.5 and 3 million of our
29 million disabled citizens can be re-
turned to satisfying and gainful employ-
ment. Each year, another 250,000 per-
sons are disabled by injury or disease to
the extent of requiring assistance and
training in order to continue useful oc-
cupations.

7715

“We have included $18,250,000 for re-
search and‘ training in this vital field,
an increase of $2 million over the budget
request and $3,820,060 over last year’s
appropriation. This $2 million increase
jactudes an additional $1 million to ac-
eelerate the training program, and $1
million to establish two regional insti-
tutes of rehabilitation.
: SEVERE SHORTAGE OF SPECIALISTS

One of the major obstacles in provid-
ing rehabilitation services is the. severe
shortage of specialists in physical medi-
cine and rehabilitation—psychiatrists.

Of the more than 250,000 physicians
licensed to practice medicine in this
country, only 369 are certified psychia-
trists.

At this time, only 143 graduate medi-
cal students are trained in this field.

In 1959, only 57 percent of the resi-
Gencies in physical medicine and reha-
bilitation were filled.

Only half of the Nation’s medical

schools have men on their staffs who are .

qualified to teach physical medicine and
rehabilitation.
MANY SKILLS NEEDED

Due to the comprehensive and inten-
sive nature of the treatment necessary
for rehabilitation of the chronically ill
and disabled, the coordinated efforts of
many skilled specialists, in addition to
the psychiatrist, are required. Specially
trained nurses, physical therapists, oc-
cupational therapists, psychologists,
speech therapists, vocational counselors,
and others are essential to a successful
rehabilitation program.

Also, there is a constantly widening
gap between modern procedures in re-
habilitation and the techniques generally
in use in hospitals, nursing homes, and
rehabilitation centers. The availability
of well-trained personnel and greater
emphasis on physical medicine and re-
habilitation at the graduate and under-
graduate levels of our medical schools
would greatly reduce the timelag between
the development of new procedures and
their use in general practice.

NEED NIH-TYPE SUPPORT

Research programs being supported by
the National Institutes of Health have
limited application to physical medicine
and rehabilitation, but the analysis of
the causes of disabling diseases does not
directly benefit such programs. Yet re-
habilitation and physical medicine re~
ceive far less research support, Govern-
ment or voluntary, than any major
health field. .

Research funds alone will not assure
profitable investigations ; they need to be
evaluated and determined by specialists
who know the areas which need study
and ean direct the research toward
rewarding results.

RECOMMEND PILOT PROGRAM

For this reason, your committee rec-
commends the establishment of this pilot
program for two regional institutes to
study the means of developing adequate
facilities for graduate medical education
and research. They should be as com-
prehensive in support of rehabilitation
as the National Institutes of Health are
1716

in their support of categorical medical
research programs.

The program should be comprehensive
enough to afford the medical student the
broadest possible view of the field. It
should be conducted at high level to fa-
miliarize the student with the most ad-
vanced learning in the field and give
him an understanding of the potential it
offers in both treatment and research.
It should provide an opportunity for stu-
dents to come in contact with leaders in
the field, since this is recognized as one
of the most influential factors in the
selection of a specialty.

UTILIZE EXISTING KNOW-HOW

Certainly consideration should be
given to medical schools and research
institutions that are now acknowledged
leaders in this effort. The institutes
should be established in.connection with
medical schools which have -developed
the comprehensive program we have out-
lined.

' The pilot plans should establish formal
arrangements for cooperation with a
voluntary rehabilitation center provid-
ing rehabilitation services on a regional
basis in order to test and demonstrate
how university, State, and voluntary
agencies can cooperate to provide reha-
‘bilitation services.
- MANY PACETS OF PUBLIC HEALTH

Another section of the bill which has
great interest for all of us is that deal-
ing with the activities of the Public
Health Service. It is impossible to dis-
cuss any or all of these items in the
detail they deserve; I can only urge
Members to read the hearings.

Problems unheard of as recently as 10
or 15 years ago give evidence of the
growing complexities of the society in
which we live. Programs dealing with
air pollution control, radiological health,
water pollution control, foreign quaran-
tine activities, and -hospital design rank
with older efforts to control tuberculosis,
venereal diseases, and improve food san-
itation.

REVOLUTIONARY HOSPITAL DESIGN

Particular attention is properly being
paid to hospital design and the construc-
tion of auxiliary facilities for the care
of the chronically ill and aged to relieve
the expense and congestion cf hospital
eare. I am especially interested in the
work of the Public Health Service to im-
prove nursing home care for the aged
since there is evidence that many people
could receive better care in sueh homes
in an environment that would be much
happier than that of our crowded medi-
cal institutions.

The committee is greatly interested in
these developments and we were: im-
pressed by the work being done in hos-
pital design at the Rochester Methodist
Hospital in Rochester, Minn. Revolu-
tionary new designs promise the kind
of economical construction and efficient
operation that are necessary if we are to
provide hospital care at reasonable costs
for our growing population.

GENEROUS SUPPORT OF NIE

Since our chairman has given you a
summary of the efforts and accomplish-
ments of ‘the National Institutes of
Health, I merely: want to make a few

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

observations on some of the practical
considerations that should interest ail
of us. The Congress has generously
supported this unprecedented effort to
conquer disease and we can be proud of
some of the results. Again, we are al.
ways impatient with the progress made
in programs so directly concerned with
human life and human suffering.

Dollars and cents are not an accurate
standard by which such work can be
measured and every breakthrough has
special meaning for each of us. Two
diseases alone, heart ailment and cancer,
touch the lives of almost every family
in the United States. Every new advance
in eliminating or treating them is of im-
measurable worth.

CAN IMPROVE ADMINISTRATION

But, because this work is so important
and of such personal consequence, we
are rightfully concerned that the best
possible use be made of the resources
commitied to it. Appropriations have
increased from $53,386,000 in 1952 to
$560 million this year. The committee is
recommending $641 million for 1962,
which is $58 million more than requested
in the budget and $81 million more than
appropriated for 1961.

The generosity of the American peo-
ple in support of these programs imposes
@ grave obligation to use every dollar
as wisely as possible. I confess to mis-
givings. about some of the fiscal opera-
tions involved in the rapid expansion of
so many research programs. Not be-
cause I. want less done, but because I
want more done with the resources we
have assigned to this great humani-

‘tarian endeavor.

A report of the Committee on Gov-
ernment Operations offers 13 recommen-
dations on improving administrative
practices. Although our committee has
made no recommendations in this re-~
gard, I think it would be wise for the
Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare and the National Institutes of
Health to give earnest study and careful
consideration to these recommendations.

Mr. LAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Horrwan].

(Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan asked
and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks at this point.)

Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Mr.
Chairman, pursuant to the provisions of
the Reorganization Act of 1949, as
amended, President Kennedy proposed
reorganizations of the Securities and Ex-
change Commission, the Federal Com-
munications Commission, the Civil Aero-

‘nautics Board and the Federal Trade

Commission. The plans are numbered,
respectively, 1, 2, 3, and 4.

Hearings on the plans are scheduled
for Thursday, May 18, 1961, in room
1501-B, New House Office Building.

All parties interested should immedi-
ately contact the chairman of the House
Committee on Government Operations,
the Honorable Wituiam L. Dawson,
Democrat, of Illinois, if they wish to ex-
press their views for or against the re~-
organization plans.

Uniess the Senate or the House votes-

its disapproval within a 60-day period
following submission of the plans by the

May 17

President, they will become the law of
the land.

Plan Nos. 1 and 2, on the Securities
and Exchange Commission and the Fed-
eral Communications Commission re-
spectively, were submited April 27. The
60-day period will expire, unless there is
an adjournment, on June 26.

Plan No. 3, affecting the Civil Aero-
nautics Board, was submitted on May 3.
The 60-day period will expire, unless
there is an adjournment, on July 2.

Plan No. 4, affecting the Federal Trade
Commission, was submitted on May 9.
The 60-day period will expire, unless
there is an adjournment, on July 8.

Have always. opposed a delegation of
legislative power to the President as be-
ing unconstitutional. We have given the
President our power to make the laws
unless we interpose a veto.

On May 10, I introduced resolutions
of disapproval for each of the four plans
in order to provide an opportunity for
opponents of the plans to express their
views and for the House of Representa-
tives to express its will.

These resolutions were referred to the
Committee on Government Operations. -
The committee may be discharged from
further consideration of the resolutions
if they have not been reported prior to
May 20. ‘

A motion to discharge the committee
from further consideration of any of
these resolutions may be made by any
member favoring the resolution of dis-
approval.

When the committee has reported or
has been discharged, it shall at any time ~
thereafter be in order to proceed to the
consideration of the resolution.

Members opposed to a reorganization
plan should vote “yes” on the resolution
disapproving the plan.

While having introduced these resolu-
tions of disapproval (H. Res. 285, 286,
287, 288) without regard to the merits -
of the individual plans, permit me to
Point out that each of the plans in-
volves the delegation of important func-
tions of the Commissioners to employees
far removed from the control of the elec-
torate,

It might also be noted that, despite
the fact that the Committee on Govern-
ment Operations, in reporting out the
last extension of the basic enabling leg-
islation—-the Reorganization Act of 1949,
as amended—deplored “a tendency in
recent years for the Executive to submit
plans without the full justification in re-
ducing expenditures and promoting
economy that the bill requires,’ the
President in each of the four plans sub-
mitted thus far, has simply stated:

It is, however, impracticable to itemize at
this time the reductions of expenditures
which it is probable will be brought about by
such taking effect.

Mr. BATES. Mr. Chairman, I have
urged for some time that the Depart-
ment of Health, Education, and Welfare
establish a Public Health Service shell-
fish laboratory in the North Shore area, |
of Massachusetts, and I strongly recom~
mend approval of this project for the
East Coast in order to deal more effec-
tively with the problems facing the in-
dustry and the serious depletion and
1961
pollution which has taken place in past

ears.

The North Shore area of my district
is famous for its clams all over the Na-
tion and beyond, and officials of such
municipalities as Newburyport, Ipswich
and Essex strongly advised me that such
a laboratory would serve a tremendously
useful purpose in increasing clam popu-
lations to their former abundance and
yidding shellfish of undesirable bacteria
resulting from polluted waters. The
North Shore area would be ideal from
every standpoint as 4 site for experi-
mental work on a laboratory scale. |

The city. of Gloucester, Mass., famous
as a fish center, has also expressed a spe-
cial interest in this project. The Fish
and Wildlife Service already maintains”
a biological office there and important
research work is being carried on.

The Public Health Service is well aware
of the seriousness and the urgency asso-
ciated with problems of the shellfish in-
dustry in Massachusetts and other States
along the New England Coast and it is _
considering the New England area as @
possible locale for such a laboratory. It
believes that such a laboratory, if prop-
erly equipped, will assist in increasing
the level of public-health protection. af-
forded by the State shellfish sanitation
programs. Your approval of this project
is strongly urged.

Mr. DOYLE. -Mr. Chairman, I very
cordially concur wih the other Members
of this distinguished body who have al-
ready complimented the distinguished
subcommittee chairman, the gentleman
from Rhode Island [Mr. Focarty], and
every member of his so very important
subcommittee—both majority and mi-
nority members—who have submitted
this down-to-earth authorization bill for
our consideration today. I use the term
“down-to-earth bill” because almost
every one of the items for which this
splendid subcommitice has made study
and recommended approval concerns
millions of human beings who but for
the furtherance of the programs in this
pill might well be daily sufferers of
death-dealing diseases and incurable
maladies.

Fach one-of the past 14 years when
the distinguished gentleman from Rhode
Island on the one hand, and the distin-
guished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Larrpi, and their respective subcommit-
tee members, have brought forth their.
recommendations I have noted with
pleasure that wherever they recom-
mended reductions, they clearly had
good arguments to sustain same.

And, Mr. Chairman, wherever the bill

recommended increases or new depart-
ures and adventures in human welfare,
the bill sponsors always had what ap-
peared to me as crystal clear, valid rea-
sons for same. Not least of all in today’s
pill I note again the repeated emphasis
on research in cancer and research in
the illnesses affecting the aged citizens
of our beloved Nation, especially to-

ether with the repeated emphasis upon
child welfare and education of our
youth.

I pass to the full subcommittee my
sincere compliments on making such
honorable compromises and adjustments

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

petween themselves sufficient in sum and
purpose so that they have brought this
bill to the floor to our attention with
their unanimous report and approval.
Possibly my observation, which I now
make on this point: to-wit, that the oh-
jectives of this bill are so high in pur-
pose and necessity that this fact, to-
gether with other like basic factors, made
it more than usually consistent and
pleasant for all of the subcommittee
members to join in unison in support of
the bill as they have submitted it to us
for approval. I thank them each and
everyone for doing so.

UNANIMOUS REQUEST MADE IN DEBATE ON

APPROPRIATION BILL”

Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Chairman, this is
my first year serving on this particular
subcommittee of the full House Appro-
priations Committee, and I must say that
it has been a real revelation to me. I
want to heartily concur with the
thoughts expressed by our chairman,
the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr.
Focarty] and the ranking Member
on our side, the gentleman from Wiscon-
sin (Mr. Larrp] on the need for train-
ing; retraining, and vocational rehabili-
tation. I feel, as the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Larrp] said, that in the
chronically depressed areas around the
country much more emphasis should
have been placed on training rather than
outright grants for the subsidizing of in-
dustry. Ido not happen to regard auto-
mation as a curse, but rather regard it
as another in a series of steps improving
our way of life. It does call for more
technical training on the part of our
working force, and we are supplying ad-
ditional funds in this bill to provide for
a cooperative research program in the
Office of Education to establish at least
one demonstration project in the field of
training, and of retraining persons dis-
placed in their jobs in industry.

Now when we leave the discussion of
the Department of Labor and move oyer
into the Department of Health, Educa~
tion, and Welfare, we are in an area
which directly and indirectly affects the
lives of practically every living Ameri-
can from the cradle to the grave.
Office of Education there has been a tre-
mendous increase in personnel from 300
in 1952 to about 1,100 today, most of
whom now seem engaged in activities far
removed from what was intended in the
original act setting up the Office. Many
are engaged in promoting methods of
education, recommending school cur-
riculums, selling teaching machines, and
sending agents throughout the Nation
trying to sell school authorities on the
idea that they need and should apply
for Federal aid. ‘Therefore, lam pleased.
that the committee has seen fit to reduce
the budget request for salaries and ex-
penses, and this reduction applies to the
additional positions and related expenses
requested.

I must say, however, that Iam alarmed
over the special report released from
the Office of Education on April 25 from
its Committee on Mission and Organiza-
tion. This report proposes the complete
veorganization of the Office of Education
into a “Federal Education Agency for the
Future.” Coincidentally, S. 1726, intro-

HEW

In the-

TAT

duced on April 27, empowers the Com-
missioner of Education to make drastic
changes in the structure and personnel
of the Office which would implement the
recommendation of his special commit-
tee for an entirely new structure of
pureaus to be established under the new
name of the “U.S. Education Agency.”
We would do. well to watch this reshuf-
fling of the Office of Education closely.
Turning to the field of health and wel-
fare, may I say that it is not easy to sit
across the table from eminent doctors
and medical people who are making a
plea for more and more funds in the field
of cancer research, heart disease, mental
health, blindness, cystic fibrosis, aid to
crippled children’s programs, and not re-
act sympathetically. None of us are -
against doing what we can to wipe out
these killers and disablements; and
members of the subcommittee find them-
selves on many occasions in a real tug of
conscience, trying to strike a happy bal-
ance between what ought to be done and
what we can afford to do with what re-

sources are available.

There has been some concern ex~

‘ pressed here this afternoon that the total ©

amount of funds requested in the pill are
some $48 million over and above the
budget request, but I would point out to
the membership of this House that there
are those on the committee who felt in-
creases to the extent of $200 million were
in-order. I point this out only to illus-
trate that on our subcommittee there
have been some serious differences of
opinion, and we spent portions of 3 days
marking up the bill, which gives indica-
tion that considerable attention was
given to each specific item in the bill.
And while I would like to live within the
budget request, I support this bill, know-
ing that there was a good measure of give
and take by both sides.

The largest item in the bill is the
$2,235,800,000 in grants to the States for
public assistance, and the unfortunate
part about this whole business is that we
can do nothing about cutting this
amount unless we amend the present
jaw: for the States are entitled to what-
ever they are willing to match in this
regard. We can talk all we want to
about local responsibility and States
rights, but here is a program exceeding
$2, billion which should, in my judg-
ment, be carried on by our States and
local communities, and I shudder to
think what the bill will be 10 years from
now if it continues to increase as it has
over the past 10 years.

Mr. Chairman, our distinguished sub-
committee chairman, the gentleman
from Rhode Island [Mr. Focarty], and
our ranking committee member, the gen-
tleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Larrpl,
have in the course of their remarks
itemized all the facets of this appropria-
tion bill, and it is not my intention to
delay reading of the bill or rehashing
points already made so well by those
preceding me, and I yield back the bal-
ance of my time. :

Mr. ALGER. Mr. Chairman, at a time
of national peril involving our defense
of the free world we are spending too
much on health, education, welfare, and

various social programs embraced in:
7718

this appropriation bill for the two de-
partments for 1962.

Indeed, we are increasing our welfare
expenditures in recent years two to one
over our defense expenditures.

Such expenditures are all the more
suspect when we realize this is a period
of déficit financing, accompanied by all
the dangers of inflation which weakens
purchasing power and threatens the very
stability of our currency. Our economy
rests on the soundness of our money.
The free world rests on the military
strength of the United States. The US.
military strength rests on our economy
and the soundness of the dollar. Fi-
nally, our freedom to enjoy life in a free
society rests on the outcome of our chal-
lenge of communism with the degreda-
tion and enslavement that accompanies
it.

For my part, Iam tired of the congres-
sional business as usual which shows
an increase in most items of expense
over last year, although a reduction
from what we might have spent. We get
too interested in the double entry justi-
fication of our action and forget that
what we really should be doing is cutting
expenses below last year. Our national
existence is in‘peril, yet we not only
spend as usual but increase the welfare
as though the cost were not so important,

We should get our priorities straight.
First, and always, a balanced budget—
even reduce debt and taxes-—-then mili-
tary expense appropriation. After this
‘there should be an apportionment of
what remains to the necessary expendi-
tures of Government.

To do less than to be fiscally responsi-
ble in this way is not my definition of a
Congressman’s role. This appropriation
bill should and could be considerably
less. Therefore, I oppose this bill.
MEETING THE NEEDS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE

Mrs, SULLIVAN. Mr. Chairman, once
again, as I have done so often in the
past when this annual appropriation bill
has come before us, I want to express my
personal gratitude to the gentleman
from Rhode Island [Mr. Focarry] for
the magnificent work he has done as
chairman of the subcommittee handling
this legislation which is so vital to every
American. As a result of the work of
the Fogarty subcommittee of the Com-
mittee on Appropriations, the American
people have been living longer, living
better, enjoying better health, better
educational opportunities, improved
health and welfare programs generally,
and are enjoying greater protections

. against nearly all of the hazards of our
fast-paced environment.

And, as usual, the report accompany-
ing this annual appropriation bill con-
stitutes once again one of the most inter-
esting and useful documents to come
before us from any committee of the
House.

There is an important difference about
this appropriation bill this year, how-
ever, which deserves comment, I believe.
For the first time since I came to Con-
gress 8 years ago, I am delighted to find
that the executive department, from the

. President on down, has recognized with-
out apology of any Kind the vital im=
portance of the funds requested for ali

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

of the social welfare programs and con-
sumer protection services covered in this
bill, and this is truly a new atmosphere.
XI remember in 1953, when the appro-
priation for the Food and Drug Admin-
istration, for instance, was slashed to
somewhere in the neighborhood of $5
million; in this bill we are appropriating
the record level of $23,580,000 for FDA.
NEED FOR FAR-REACHING CHANGES IN BASIC
FOOD, DRUG AND COSMETIC ACT OF 1938

A good part of the eredit for the re-

‘yitalization of the Food and Drug Ad-

ministration in recent years must be
ascribed to the effective report filed by
the Citizens Advisory Committee in 1955
which spotlighted so dramatically the
starvation appropriations this agency
had been receiving. Before that,.some
of us had been vigorously, but unsuccess-
fully, trying to call these facts to the
attention of the White House and the
Budget Bureau during the first few years
of the Eisenhower administration, but no
one seemed to be listening.

I note that the committee report on
this bill now suggests the establishment
of a new Citizens Advisory Committee
study to take up where the 1955 report
left off, and to evaluate the work of the
agency and its minimum needs on the
basis of so many developments since
1955 in food, drug, and cosmetic tech-~-
nology. :

To my mind, however, far more urgent
than such a study—which I am sure
would be worthwhile—is the need for a
comprehensive rewriting of the -basic
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938.
In 23 years since that important act
became law, we have had a series of
patchwork improvements added on to it,
but fundamentally the act suffers from
many forms of obsolescence. That is
why TI prepared and introduced on the
first day of this session H.R. 12385 which
is an omnibus bill attempting to close
the more glaring loopholes in the basic
act,

GAPS IN PRESENT LAW WHICH WOULD BE CLOSED
BY H.R. 1235

I am pleased to see that Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare Ribicoff
has recognized the importance of many
of the changes proposed in my bill. In
the hearings of the Fogarty subcommit-
tee, furthermore, Commissioner Larrick
of the FDA has gone through a list of
shortcomings In the powers and author-
ity of his agency, and these coincide to
a great extent with the loopholes which
H.R. 1235 would close. Briefly, some of
them include:

First. The lack of authority to require
pretesting for safety of all ingredients
used in cosmetics, along the lines of the
Food Additives Act of 1958 provisions for
ingredients used in or on foodstuffs.

Second. The lack of an anticancer
provision on cosmetics ingredients equiv-
alent to the Delaney clause in the Food
Additives Act and in the Color Additives
Act of 1960.

Third. The lack of clear-cut authority
for requiring easily readable labeling of
foods, drugs and cosmetics, particularly
as to weights and sizes. /

Fourth. The lack of airtight factory
inspection authority such as would be
necessary to encourage more physicians

May 17

to prescribe medicines by generic terms
rather than by trade names. .

Fifth. The lack of effective regulatory
powers over the sale and distribution
of barbiturates and amphetamines, the
so-called pep pills,

Sixth. The lack of required certifica~-
tion of all antibiotics rather than just
the few covered in the basic act.

Seventh. The lack of authority to re-
quire proof of efficiency as well as of
safety of new drugs.

Eighth. The lack of authority to re-
quire pretesting for safety and for ef-

‘ficacy of therapeutic devices.

TOO MANY LOOPHOLES FOR LEISURELY
PIECEMEAL REPAIRS

Both Secretary Ribicoff and Com-
missioner Larrick have testified to the
importance of such changes in the law.
The Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare has been asked by Chair-
man Oren Harris of the House Commit-
tee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce
to report on H.R. 1235 as a prelude to
scheduling hearings on this legislation,
and I hope that the report when filed
will constitute the overall endorsement
of H.R. 1235 which I anticipate on the
basis of the statements responsible of-
ficials of the Department have been
making. :

I have been told that it is not good
legislative tactics to put. so many con-
troversial provisions into an omnibus
bill which would touch so many un-
related industries, and thus might
organize disparate pressure groups into
a single, organized opposition to the
whole bill. Yet I feel that in 23 years we
have gone much too slowly in closing
loopholes in the basic act as they have
developed or have become glaring. The
process of taking one subject at a. time
every 2 years or so, and closing the loop-
holes in just one area at a time, may
serve to divide the opposition into man-
ageable proportions, but the progress is
much teo slow. And, in the meantime,
as technology changes, gaps in the law
enable new dangers to the consumer to
develop without control until enough
damage has been done to the health or
safety of enough people to warrant
drastic action.

Therefore, I hope we can tackle the
overall problem now with open minds
and a determination to make the Food,
Drug and Cosmetic Act into the con-
sumer protection statute it is supposed
to be and which most Americans trust-
ingly believe it to be.

OTHER IMPORTANT PROGRAMS IN APPROPRIATION
BILL

In the meantime, I applaud the Fo-
garty subcommittee for its action in
this bill not only on the Food and Drug
Administration’s record budget but .on
the tremendous amounts recommended
for the National Institutes of Health
and for other vital programs of the Pub-
lic Health Service, including research
into the major diseases which plague
mankind and into the environmental
factors which present such dangers to
the public. These are among the most
useful dollars spent each year by the
Federal Government. There are so
many other items of importance to the
general public in this appropriation bill,
1961

including programs of the Department
of Labor, that it is impractical for. me
to try to mention them all in these
few minutes.

But I do want to comment on the pro-
posal in the committee report that the
$1 million-a-year program now in opera-
tion for assisting teachers to obtain
training in the skills of teaching the
mentally retarded be expanded to in-
crease the limitation and also to include
teachers of children with speech and
hearing defects. .

I was happy to join with the gentle-
man from Rhode Tsland, the gentleman
from Alabama [My. ELLIOTT] and other
sponsors in the passage of the retarded
children education assistance bill sev-
eral years ago, but T feel that instead
of continuing this limited approach we
should go into the kind of broad overall
program as called for in H.R. 15, which
would establish a T-year program of
fellowships and scholarships for en-
couraging teachers in all fields of excep-
tional children, including the extraordi-
narily gifted.

‘When I introduced the original bill in
the 85th Congress, it was my hope we
could arrange for early hearings in that
Congress on this whole subject of teach-
ers of exceptional children, but no hear-
ings were scheduled then or in the 86th
Congress. I am pleased that the chair-
man of the Special Subcommittee on Ed-
ucation of the House Committee on Edu-

gation and Labor, the gentlewoman from
Oregon [Mrs. GREEN] is now planning
to arrange such hearings for later in the
current session, and I look forward to
a, comprehensive review of the needs in
this field. An extensive research pro-
gram was authorized in this area in the
last Congress and I hope that we now
have sufficient background information
to justify. going ahead with an effective
action program to meet the needs of
exceptional children. *

ALL AREAS OF EXCEPTIONALITY SHOULD BE
INCLUDED

Much as I recognize the need for more
trained teachers for the. mentally re-
tarded, and for children with speech and
hearing defects, as suggested by the
Appropriations Subcommittee in its re-
port, I think we must also open our eyes
to the similar needs of children with
other types of handicaps, including emo-
tional disturbances, heart: disease, the
crippled, and so on. And with the in-
creasing emphasis in our educational

_ system in trying to jocate and identify
the extraordinarily gifted, we cer-
tainly need more teachers esbecially
trained to give these outstanding youns-
sters the best possible guidance and help
in achieving to their full learning poten-
tial. That holds.true also for all of the
exceptional children. /

Mr. Chairman, again I congratulate
the Fogarty subcommittee for an out-
standing legislative accomplisament in
this bill. While not every Member will
be in agreement with every decision
made in the legislation—obviously some
compromises are required in connection
with an appropriation bill aggregating,
as this one does, more than four and a
quarter billions of dollars—the net re-

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.— HOUSE

sult is @ magnificent recognition of the
social welfare needs of our country.

Mr. POWELL. Mr. ‘Chairman, the
fiscal year 1962 appropriation bill for the
Office of Education contemplates several
serious reductions below the budget re-
quest—reductions which will hamper the
new Commissioner of Education in his
effort to assist American education
achieve the level of excellence which the
Nation deserves and needs.

The first reduction involves a eut of

$1 million in the program of graduate
fellowships—-the program of the Na-
tional Defense Education Act which was
designed to improve the quality and
quantity of our college and university
teachers.
. The second cut involves a reduction
of $350,000 in the request for institutes
for guidance and counseling personnel.
This program of the National Defense
Education Act was enacted in order to
improve the quality of guidance given
to our high school students sce that we
would have fewer dropouts and more
capable students would go on to higher
education.

The third serious reduction is in the
appropriation for salaries and expenses.
The reduction of $500,000 would mean

. the elimination of about 40 positions—a

serious handicap to a new Commissioner
of Education. The positions eliminated
would retard the improvement of edu-
cational statistics; would eliminate the
College Information Center, a service
program ‘for high school students and
their parents to assist in the selection
of a proper course of higher education;
and would seriously hamper meeting the
workload increases under the National
Defense Education Act, particularly in
the area of audit of loan, grant, and con-
tract programs with universities and
colleges.

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will

‘read.

The Clerk read as follows:
DEFENSE EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES

For grants, loans, and payments under the
National Defense Education Act of 1958 (72
Stat. 1580-1605) , $210,857,000, of which $75,~
145,000 shall be for capital contributions to
student loan funds and loans for non-Fed-
eral capital contributions to student lean
funds, of which not to exceed $1,300,000
shall be for such loans for non-Federal cap=-
ital contributions; $54,000,000 shall be for
grants to States and loans to nonprofit pri-
vate schools for science, mathematics, or
modern foreign language equipment and
minor remodeling of facilities; $3,750,000
shall be for grants to. States for supervisory
and other services; $12,800,000 shall be for
grants to States for area vocational educa-
tion programs; and $15,000,000 shall be for
grants to States for testing, guidance, and
counseling: Provided, That no part of this
appropriation shall pe available for the pur-
chase of science, mathematics, and modern
language teaching equipment, or equipment
suitable for use for teaching in such fields
of education, which can be identified as
originating in or having been exported from
a Communist country, unless such equip-
ment is unavailable from any other source.

Mr. GROSS. My, Chairman, I offer
an amendment. - :
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Gross: On page
18, line 10, strike out the period and insert:

7719

“Provided further, That no part of the ap-
propriations contained -in this paragraph
shall be available for fellowships in the hu- ~
manities and social sciences field.”

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I offer.
this amendment in order to try to get the
National Defense Education Act back to
where I am sure the Congress intended
it should be; that -is, to provide fellow~
ships for the study of mathematics, phys-
ies, engineering, chemistry, and other
similar sciences as an aid to the national
defense effort of this country. This
thing has gone far astray. We now pro~
vide fellowships for social studies, studies
in humanities, andsoforth. My aimend-
ment simply brings it back to where I
think it should be. I know of no reason
why under the National Defense Educa-
tion Act there should be studies of the
ecology and economics of flowing water,
Enelish folklore, and American folklore.
What is the difference between English
and American folklore? I will be pleased
to have any member of the committee
tell me the difference and why we should
be providing fellowships under the Na~ ~
tional Defense Act to study folklore, jazz,
the theater, and so forth.

Mr. EDMONDSON. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GROSS. I yield to the gentleman
from Oklahoma.

Mr. EDMONDSON. I am inclined to
agree with the gentleman on folklore and
jazz, but we can do a great deal of good
in the economics of flowing water field,
if I understood the term which the gen-
tleman used correctly. The water supply
of our country and of the allied countries
of the world is a vital asset in the cold
war, and a good water supply is neces-
sary.

Mr. GROSS. If this is so imperative
why did you not write something into the
water pollution bill to provide for educa-
tion on this subject?

Mr. EDMONDSON. In this instance -
you have to begin in the schools. You
have to prépare your men and women.

‘Mr. GROSS. These are fellowships.
This does not deal with kindergarten or
elementary schools.

Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?

Mr. GROSS. I yield to the gentie-
man from Tllinois.

Mr. MICHEL. JI am certainly in sym-
pathy with what the gentleman intends
to do. But at our service academies,
whether it be the Army, Navy, or Air
Force, in the curriculum are also studies
in the humanities and social sciences.
Would the gentleman wipe out those
courses of study at our defense acad-
emies?

Mr. GROSS. Those are special anc
particular schools. Cadets do not major,
as the gentleman well knows, in such
subjects as folklore, the theater, an-
thropology, and ballet dancing.

Mr. MICHEL. ‘That is true. By the
wording of the gentleman’s amendment
it covers a rather wide scope.

Mr. GROSS. It just brings it back
to mathematics, physics, engineering,
and chemistry where I think it ought
to be and where I think most Members
of Congress thought it ought. te be when
7729

they voted for the National Defense Edu-
eation Act. If the Members of the House
will turn to page 467 of the hearings,
they will find page after page of grants
to various universities and colleges for
studies in humanities and. social sub-
jects; but when you get to mathematics,
physics, and so forth, the number drops
very materially. .

Mr. EDMONDSON. The gentleman
would not object seriously to a study of
political science that was concentrated
upon some of the political preblems that
are vital to our defense; would he? He
would not contend that would be en-
tirely unrelated to our defense effort;
would he?

Mr. GROSS. Not entirely unrelated,
but political science is being taught in
every university without the necessity
for fellowships that are financed with
millions of dollars in Federal funds.

’ Mr. EDMONDSON. It is very obvious
that the demand for these fellowships
indicates. there is a great deal of interest
in the field. It is a field that our educa-~
tional leaders think relates to defense.

Mr. GROSS. There will always be a
demand for something that is free.

Mr. PELLY. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?

Mr. GROSS. I yield to my friend
from Washington.

Mr. PELLY. I seem to recall, Mr.
Chairman, that when the National De-
fense Education Act was up the state-
ment was made there was not one word
in it that had to do with defense. ‘That
is why I voted against it. I agree with
the gentleman, I do not think this is
any part of defense, and I shall support
the gentleman’s amendment.

Mr. GROSS. I thank the gentleman
from Washington for his pertinent ob-
servation, and urge adoption of the
amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Iowa has expired.

Mr, FOGARTY. Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that all debate on
this amendment and all amendments
thereto close in 5 minutes.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Rhode Island?

There was no objection.

Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Mr.
Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FOGARTY. TI yield to the gentle-~
man from Michigan.

(Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan asked
and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)

(Mr, HOFFMAN of Michigan address
ed the Committee. His remarks will ap-
pear hereafter in the Appendix.]

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Rhode Island
iMr, Fogarty] to close the debate.

Mr. FOGARTY. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr..Chairman, the gentleman from
Iowa, has. offered an amendment to an
appropriation bill which) in effect, is an
amendment. to existing law. He is of-
fering such an amendment today in the
form of a limitation.on funds for this
part of the National Defense Education
Act. When the Congress is considering
extension of the National Defense Edu-

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

cation Act is the time this should be
straightened out, if it needs straighten-
ing out. But the act did not confine
itself strictly to mathematics,
eign languages and science. It went
far beyond that. I do not see why we
should today take over the responsibili-
ties of the proper legislative committee
to amend the National Defense Educa-
tion Act by approving the amendment
of the gentleman from Iowa.

The CHAIRMAN. ‘The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Iowa [Mr. Gross].

The amendment was rejected.

The Clerk read as follows:

Page 18, line 11: Loans and payments
under the National Defense Education Act,
next succeeding fiscal year: For making,
after May 31 of the current fiscal year, loans
and payments under title II of the National
Defense Education Act, for the first quarter
of the next succeeding fiscal year such sums
as may be necessary, the obligations incurred
and the expenditures made.thereunder to be
charged to. the appropriation for the same
purpose for that fiscal year: Provided, That
the payments made pursuant to this para-
graph shall not exceed the amount paid for
the same purposes during the first quarter
of the current fiscal year.

Mr, LATRD. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike out the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I take this time to
comment on some information that has
been supplied to me by Members of the
Efouse with regard to the allocation of
the funds for salaries and expenses of
the Office of Education. The informa-
tion which has been supplied to me on
how the Office plans to allocate the cut
in their request is not in accordance with
the committee report. We would cer-
tainly request that the new Commis-
sioner of Education follow this report,
and give consideration to the desires’of
the committee as expressed in the hear-~
ings. .

it is my understanding that the Of-
fice of Education plans to reduce, by just
a little over one-third, the number of
new positions requested. The commit-

_tee’s report expressly states that the re-

duction is over 50 percent. During the
hearings on this portion of the Office’s
budget, the weaknesses in the area of
statistics was commented on as length
and emphasized not only by committee
members but by the witnesses. I have
been told that the Office of Education
plans to apply a major part of the cut
to their budgeted program to improve
statistics in the field of education. I hope
that the information I have received is
not correct but, if it is, I certainly think
some reprogramming isin order.

The Clerk concluded the reading of
the bill.

Mr. FOGARTY. Mr. Chairman, I
move that the Committee do now rise
and report the bill back to the House,
with the recommendation that the bill
do pass. :

The motion was agreed te.

Accordingly the Committee rose, and
the Speaker having resumed the chair,
Mr. Price, Chairman of the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the
Union, reported that that Committee
having had under consideration the bill
(LR. 7035) making appropriations for

for-"

May 17

the Departments of Labor, and Health,
Education, and Welfare, and related
agencies, for the fiscal year ending June
30, 1962, and for other purposes, had
directed him to report the same back to
the House with the recommendation that
the bill do pass, :

The previous question was ordered.

The SPEAKER. The question is on
the engrossment and third reading of the
bill.

The bill was ordered to be engrosse
and read a third time, and was read the
third time.

VYhe SPEAKER. The question is on
the passage of the bill.

The bill was passed. .

A motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.

 

GENERAL LEAVE TO EXTEND

Mr. FOGARTY. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to
extend their own remarks and include
extraneous matter, and that I may have |
the same privilege.

The SPEAKER,
is so ordered.

There was no objection,

Without objection, it