7584

 

DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, AND
HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WEL-
FARE AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATION BILL, 1965

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, H.R. 10809, making appro-
priations for the Departments of Labor,
and Health, Education, and Welfare, and
related agencies, for the fiscal year end-
ing June 30, 1965, and for other purposes;
and pending that motion, Mr. Speaker, I
ask unanimous consent that general de-
bate be limited to not to exceed 3 hours,
one-half of the time to be controlled
by the gentlemen from Wisconsin [Mr.
Lamp] and one-half of the time to be
controlled by me.

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

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

There was no objection.

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

The motion was agreed to.

IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

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. 10809, with Mr.
THompson of New Jersey 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. POGARTY. Mr. Chairman, I
yield myself 10 minutes.

Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee, I am pleased to be able to
bring this appropriation bill to you for
your consideration today. This is the
14th year out of 18, that I have served
on this committee, that I have had the
privilege of offering this appropriation
bill to the House.

First I wish to thank all the mem-
bers of the subcommittee for their at-
tendance at all the hearings and their
hard work on this bill.

This year, because of the insistence—
and I believe rightly so—by our chair-
man, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr.
Cannon], that we get our bills reported

April 4

earlier, it was necessary to work tong
hours, to keep on schedule, and on many
nights we worked until 6 o’clock.

I wish to express my appreciation to
the gentleman from Indiana [Mr.
Denton], and the gentleman from Mich-
igan (Mr. Lzesrmnsxi] on the Democratic

side, and to the gentleman from Wis-

consin {Mr. Latrp], and to the gentle-
man from Tllinois [Mr. MicHe.] on the
Republican side, for their attention and
cooperation.

As I have said before, no committee
can work its will or do a decent job un-
less it has a good clerk. I believe we
have one of the best clerks on appropri-
ations in Mr. Moyer who serves our com-
mittee.

There is nothing startling in the pill
today. Some increases are provided
over the amounts for last year, and there
are some decreases. The only signifi-
cant changes in the bill result because
of legislation passed by the last session
of the Congress. Those were in areas
dealing with health and education.

Mr. Chairman, I will insert in the
RecorpD a table showing in summary, the
committee’s recommendations included
in the bill compared with the budget re-
quests and the appropriations for fiscal
year 1964.

Summary of estimates and apprépriations

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

Bill compared with—
Budget esti-
Appropria- | mates, 1965 Recom-
Department or agency tion, 1964 |{asamended),; mended in Budget esti-
and 1964 sup- the bill Appropriations,| mates, 1965
plementals 1964 (including 1964
supplementals)
Department of Labor.....--..---.---- $392, 508, 000 | $725, 510, 000 |. $585, 954, 000 |. +-$193, 446, 000 | ~-$139, 556, 000
Department of Health, Education,
5, 372, 823, 500 |6, 788, 238, 000 |6, 276, 200,000 | +903, 376,500 | +513, 099, 000
2, 460, 000 250, 000 4, 000, 000 ++1, 540, 000 1, 250, 000
National Mediation Board.... 1, 950, 000 0 970, 000 1, 970, 006 20, 000 [-..------- eee
Railroad Retirement Board:
Limitation on salaries and ex- :
PCNSCS_..--- += en nee nen n eee ee (11, 065, 000)| (10, 500, 000)| (10, 500, 000) (—565, 000)](-------.------ )
Payment for military service
eredits..-..---~--.---- won| eww cennencnnee 18, 824, 000 18, 834, 000 4-13, 834, 000 |_--..--.-..-----
Federal Mediation and Co .
Service..._...---- 2-2 2--- enw eens 5, 690, 000 6, 100, 000 6, 100, 000 4-410, 000 |... 2222-2 ee
Interstate Commission on the Po- .
tomac River Basin._......-----.--- 5, 000 5, 000 5,000 |.-.-.----------- |. -n eee e eee
U.S. Soldiers’ Home... (6, 622, 000)| (6, 888, 000) (6, 888, 000) (+266, 000)|(----..-------- )
Total. --- eee eee een ee eee 5, 795, 436, 500 |7, 561, 968, 000 (6, 908, 063, 000 |-+-1, 112, 626, 500 |. —-653, 905, 000
Consisting of-— :
Related to 1964 supple-
mental appropriations_|..-....--..-.- 457, 186, 000 |.----.-------- |-------a-e enn eee — 457, 186, 000
Related to 1965 appro-
priations.__......-.-- 5, 795, 436, 600 |7, 104, 782, 000 |6, 908, 063, 000 j-+-1, 112, 626, 500 | —196, 719, 000

 

 

 

 

As will be noted from the above table
the committee considered requests total-
ing, in round figures, $7.56 billion and
recommends appropriation totaling $6.91
billion, or a reduction of $0.65 billion.

The committee considered both 1965
estimates for these two departments and
related agencies and the pending re-
quests for supplemental appropriations
for 1964 for the same departments and
agencies. The committee carefully con-
sidered each individual supplemental re-
quest for 1964 but in view of the prospec-
tive timing for the final enactment of
this appropriation bill, the committee
has denied all of them. In all instances
where a new program is involved the
committee has included language in the
bill to make the 1965. appropriation for
these programs available immediately
upon enactment of the bill. Thus, if

the bill should become law before the
end of the fiscal year, these important
programs could be started.

The disallowance of requests for sup-
plemental appropriations accounts for
70 percent of the total reduction recom-
mended by the committee. In most part,
the reductions recommended in the 1965
budget are only token reductions. There
is a reduction of $100 million in the ap-
propriation “Grants to States for public
assistance” which is an administratively
uncontrollable item and if the commit-
tees’ estimate proves to be too low, it
will have to be made up in a supple-
mental appropriation.

The other large reduction is $83,094,-
000 in the request for ‘(Manpower devel-
opment and training activities.’ This
is a very important program and as the
committee’s report points out, this re-
1964

duction in no way reflects a lack of ap-
preciation of the importance of this pro-
gram to the national economy, nor is it
made with a view to reducing the num-
ber of training programs or the num-
ber of people who may receive training.
In other words, if the committee’s esti-
mate of the speed with which this pro-
gram can expand is too low, the Depart-
ment almost has an invitation to come
back with a request for a supplemental
appropriation.

Thus, if one takes out of consideration
the requests for supplemental appropria-
tions, and the two items mentioned
above, action on the remainder of the
budget requests represents a net decrease
of less than $14 million which, percent-
agewise, is almost infinitesimal.

On the surface, this may appear to
reflect an unusually liberal attitude on
the part of the committee. When one
analyzes the character of the 1965 budget
for the Departments of Labor and Health,
Education, and Welfare, one gains a
somewhat different perspective. The ac-
tion of the committe does not so much
reflect a liberal attitude as it does a
recognition that the 1965 budget was one
of the most conservative that has been
submitted to Congress in recent years.
The only significant increases. were in
connection with new legislation that
made increases close to mandatory.
Increases in this category include in
round figures; $300 million for the man-
power development and training pro-
gram, $150 million for vocational edu-
eation, $464 million for higher education
facilities construction, $37 million for
defense educational activities, $85 mil-
lion for health professions educational
assistance, and $35 million for construc-
tion of community mental health cen-
ters. With the exception of these pro-
grams, there were no significant in-
creases in the budget for either Depart-
ment. It was a hold-the-line budget,
even in highly important fields like the
Public Health Service, and, in many
eases, even. cut back from the level of
operation provided for by the 1964 ap-
propriations.

While the original 1965 budget was
certainly conservative, it was made even
more so by a budget amendment sub-
mitted to Congress on March 9, 1964.
This budget amendment reduced the re=
quests for the Department of Health,
Education and Welfare by some $4 mil-
Hon and 640 positions.

It was in view of the type of budget
before it, that the committee made very
few substantial reductions in the 1965
budget, and everi increased a few appro-
priations above the amount requested.

For the Department of Labor the bill
includes $585,954,000, which is $193,446,
000 more than was appropriated for 1964
and is a. reduction of $139,556,000 from
the amount requested. . There is very lit-
tle change in the Department of Labor’s
appropriations except for the manpower
development and training activities for
which $327,906,000 is included in the bill.
This represents an increase of $217,906,-
000 over the amount appropriated for
1964. Thus this one item accounts for

more than the total increase in the De-

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

partment of Labor. The. reduction
which the committee recommends in the
budget request for this program, includ-
ing the supplemental request, totals
$138,094,000, or approximately the total
amount of the reduction in the whole
Department. As I mentioned earlier in
my remarks, this reduction in no way
reflects a lack of appreciation of the im-
portance of this program, nor is it In-
tended that the committee’s action re-
sult in any reduction in the number of
people who. could otherwise be trained.
It simply. represents the committee’s best
estimate of what the Department will be
able to accomplish under this program
during the next 15 months. '

The first item’ under the Department
of Health, Education, and Welfare is the
very important “Food and Drug Admin-~
istration.’ The committee has approved
the full budget request which repre-
sents an Increase of $3,395,000 over the
amount appropriated for 1964, however,
two-thirds of this increase is necessary
to cover mandatory costs most of which
is the amount necessary to annualize
new positions allowed for part of the fis-
cal year 1964. The rest of the increase
is mostly for the partial implementation
of the recommendations of the Presi-
dent’s Advisory Science Committee on
the Use of Pesticides, and to carry out
the Kefauver-Harris drug amendments
of 1962. .

OFFICE OF EDUCATION

The committee considered two very
important new programs in the Office of
Education, “Expansion and improve-
ment of vocational education” and
“Higher education facilities construc-
tion.” In both instances there was a
request for a supplemental appropria-
tion which the committee has not ale
lowed. This disallowance in no way re-
flects a desire on the part of the com-
mittee to hamper the progress of these
programs in any way. Both of these
programs represent most significant ad-
vances in the field of education, and it
is certainly my desire and I believe the
desire of the committee that progress be
made as rapidly as possible. The prac-
ticalities of the situation, which are dis-
eussed in more detail in the committee
report, are that it would be practically
impossible for any significant program
progress to be made before the end of
this fiscal year under the most optimistic
outlook with regard to the final passage
of this bill.

The committee has allowed the. full
1865 budget request for the vocational
education program, which was $183,296,-
000, and allowed $463,150,000 for the
higher education facilities construction
program. The reduction of $850,000
made in the request for the latter pro-
gram is from the $1,750,000 which was
budgeted for technical services to be
rendered by the Housing and Home Fi-
nance Agency. This estimate was based
on the program starting in fiscal year
1964 and being in full operation during
fiscal year 1965. It is now obvious that
there will be very little need for these
technical services until well into fiscal
year 1965. The committee’s action al-
lows the full amount requested for con-
struction grants and loans.

7385
HIGHER EDUCATION FACILITIES ACT ,
':- Mr, Chairman, on December 16, 1963,
President Johnson signed the Higher
Education Facilities. Act of 1963. The
statesmanlike action of the Congress in
approving the bill, H.R. 6148, was lauded
by the President in remarks he made
upon signing the new law. On that his-
toric occasion, Mr. Johnson paid great
tribute to the Congress when he said:
This new law is the most significant edu-
eation bill passed by the Congress in the
history of the Republic. In fact, this ses-

sion of the Congress will go down in history
as the education Congress of 1963.

Significant as was the enactment of
this extremely important measure, ap-

. proval of the bill represents the accom-

plishment of only one of the major steps
required to implement fully this ur-

‘gently needed program.

The measure upon which we deliber-
ate today provides the funds necessary
for meeting the objectives of the law.

Mr. Chairman, the objectives of this
law were thoroughiy and admirably pre-
sented and explained to the House by
distinguished members of both parties.
Surely, the vote by which we approved
this act is testimony to the overwhelm-
ing agreement on the urgent need for
the assistance it provides. I remind my
distinguished colleagues that the vote _
was 258 to 92 in favor of the measure.
Further evidence of the wide support for
the act is the action of the other body
approving the bill by a two to one
majority. .

It appears abundantly clear that the
House must translate its awareness of
one of the most serious problems facing
higher education into appropriate ac-
tion, if this act is to provide the prop-
erly trained present and future genera- —
tions upon whom the very security and
welfare of the United States depend.

Perhaps the strongest argument for |
the speedy adoption of this appropria-
tion is the tremendous work already ace
complished by State and institution of-
ficials and by the U.S. Office of Educa-
tion. The response of the States to the
mew program serves to underscore their
readiness to assume their responsibili-
ties under the act. To date, 34 States
have designated commissions to par-
ticipate in the administration of the
grant program. Final action by five
other States is imminent. :

Mail arriving in the Office of Educa-
tion from college and university officials
indicates their advanced state of pre-
paredness to use the Federal funds as
soon as they are available. In view of.
the matching requirement included in
the grant program, we may conclude,
with justification, that the program has
provided, in a few months, the kind of
impetus to individual institution effort
which was predicted during House de-
bate. This is rather remarkable when
one realizes that the matching require-
ments in the case of 4-year colleges is
two-thirds of the construction project
cost. This remarkable degree of pre-
paredness on the part of States and
institutions, even before appropriation
approval augers well for the success of
this milestone legislation.
1586

During the. period December 18,
1963, to April 9, 1964, the Commissioner’s
office has. received 750 letters from State
officials and school administrators rela-
tive to some part of the act. Many
of the letters informed the Commis-
sioner of institution readiness to partic-
ipate in the program. Others asked

. how soon Federal funds would be avail-
able. Virtually all of the letters -em-
phasized the importance of implement-
ing the law at the earliest possible date.

I wish to call to the attention of my
colleagues that the excellent work of
the colleges and universities cannot pro-
ceed until this appropriation is approved.
State commissions cannot function un-
til the appropriation sets in motion the
machinery for processing applications.
And, in fact, many planned construction
projects for which grant money may be
available are being held up until the
school officials know that applications
may be submitted.

U.S. Office of Education officials have
met and will continue to meet with rep-
resentatives of colleges and universities
to discuss procedures involved in admin-
istering grants for construction projects.
Daylong meetings have been. scheduled
for Atlanta, April 15; New York, April
16; Chicago, April 22; and Denver, April
93. Attending these meetings will be
members of State commissions and other

_ State officials involved in the adminis-
tration of the act.

Preparation of the regulations gov-
erning the act has been one of the major
efforts of the task force. The regula-
tions, applications, and supporting docu-
ments are in final draft form and await
only the appropriation approval before
they are printed and distributed to the
colleges and universities of the Nation.

I am sure my colleagues would agree

- that all parties involved in the adminis-.

tration of the act have been proceeding
admirably under rather serious limita-
tions. Further progress awaits our ac-
tion here today. Only by approving this
appropriation measure will we make it
possible for the program to be adminis-
tered effectively,

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues
to be guided by the unquestioned need for
appropriate action on the measure before
us and respectively request that we
join in the same bipartisan effort which
marked our approval of the bill. Let
us move quickly to approve this appro-
priation.

VOCATIONAL EDUCATION

Reports from all of the States indicate
that plans have been underway for some-
time to enable them to implement the
provisions of the Vocational Education
Act of 1963 promptly upon the avail-
ability of funds. It is known, for ex-
ampie, that all States have undertaken
preparatory steps in.the preparation of
new State plans which would incorporate
amendments to the Smith-Hughes and
George-Barden Acts as well as in provid-
ing for operations under the new act.
The States have made an analysis_of
their present State plans in relation to

the act, as they would interpret it and .

thus have.been preparing themselves
‘with understandings which would make

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

possible more rapid preparation for im-
plementation of the program.

The provision of authority for expend-
itures for the construction of area, voca-
tional education school facilities has
been of considerable interest to the
States. In the fiscal. year 1963 it was
reported that 71 new area vocational
technical schools. were opened and. put
into operation; 37 new area vocational
technical schools were under construc-
tion; 69 were in the planning stages; and
53 schools were planning to expand their
offerings in technologies this year. It
is known that the States have plans for
continued expansion of this activity and
would, be aided materially in the accom-
plishment of this objective by funds if
appropriated by the Congress for this
purpose.

In addition to the regular biennial ses-
sions of most State legislatures, 1964 ses-
sions are meeting in 22 States and many
of these are being asked to consider leg-
jslation in behalf of vocational education.

- Activity has been reported by the

States both in the matter substantive
legislation regarding the establishment
and operation of area vocational school
facilities and in sizeable appropriations
to implement plans for these new fa-
cilities. For example, in Kansas, the leg-
islature appropriated $700,000 to aid in
the implementation of such plans and
local communities have been given tax-
ing power and authority to issue bonds
which they are doing for new construc-
tion purposes, as in Emporia, in the
amount of $606,000, just recently. In
Rhode Island, the legislature appropri-
ated $2 million for the development of
regional vocational technical schools of
a secondary school nature. The State
Board has already asked the Office of
Education for professional help in de-
veloping programs for these schools. In
New Hampshire appropriations have to-
taled $7 million for the construction of a
central technical institute of post-sec-
ondary level plus two other area. voca-
tional technical centers and including
the planning for three more of these.
In West Virginia a fund of $500,000 was
made available to continue area voca-
tional education programs. In Arkansas,
a special session of the legislature will
consider supplementary budget requests
for participation in the program author-
ized by the Vocational Education Act of
1963. Visits with State boards for voca-
tional education and legislative commit-
tees reveal interest in gearing up State
staff activities in anticipation of greatly
improved authority for programs of vo-
cational education.

An example of the States need for as-
sistance is revealed by a survey of an 84-
percent sample of high school students

‘in one State... Twelve thousand students

responded that they would attend a voca-
tional technical school if such an oppor-
tunity were available. It was estimated
that upon employment a total earning

capacity of more than $5 million in the.

first year would have been gained by
these youth. In that same State the
unemployment of vocational school grad-
uates was only 5 percent while 15 per-
cent of the other high school graduates
were unemployed.

April 14.

More than 50 expressions. of interest
have been received regarding the estab-
lishment of residential vocational educa-
tion. schools. These have come from
wide geographical areas around the
country.

Considerable interest has been ex-
pressed regarding the establishment of
vocational education programs in busi-
ness and office occupations: 18. States
have indicated a desire to add a super-
visor in this field to the staff of the State
education department; numerous meet-
ings at least one in almost every Staite
have been held by professional groups
having concern for business and office
education.

In the matter of replacement of voca-
tional school equipment, about. which
there has been national notice regarding
the need, many of the States have re-
ported their intention to modernize their
provisions for improved learning oppor-
tunities for students preparing for gain-
ful employment.

Representatives of State boards for
vocational education in all States have
reported greatly increased interest in the
program of vocational education as this
would contribute to the solution of some
grave social and economic problems
affecting the lives of youth and adults in
all parts of the country.

LIBRARY SERVICES

This bill does not include a budget
item for Public Law 88-269, the Library
Services and Construction Act.. I would
like to comment on this omission on be-
half of the committee. Despite repeated
inquiries by the committee, no budget
request for this program was transmitted
to Congress until 5 days after the hear-

- ings had been closed, obviously too late to

be considered. .

The Library Services and Construction
Act was approved by the President on
February 11, 1964. When he signed the
bill the President noted that:

Books and ideas are the most effective
weapons against intolerance and ignorance.
Anything that we can do to enlarge the num-
per and the quality of libraries is, I think,
an act of national achievement.

The States and communities are ready
and eager to participate in the expanded
library services program. Since 1961, ev-
ery eligible State and territory has been
participating in the Library Services Act
of 1956 which was limited to rural areas
and did not allow the use of funds for
the construction of - public llbraries.
Even under that limited program, State
and local appropriations for rural library
services increased 180 percent. Now that
benefits under the law have been ex-
tended to urban areas, greater and more
rapid achievements can be predicted.

Library facilities are generally inade-
quate and obsolete throughout the coun-
try. Only 4 percent of the lbraries now
in use were built within the past 40 years.
Urban areas are greatly in need of the
increased library services they can re<
ceive under the new act if funds are ap~-
propriated; 60 percent of our population
live in areas covered by the expanded
Jaw. :

The States report that $25 million can
be fully matched and effectively used in
1964

1965 for the development of public library
services in urban and rural areas. They
also report that $30 million can be far
overmatched and fully used in 1965 for
public library construction. Many com-
munities have been planning new build-
ings and are now waiting for Federal
matching funds to move ahead.

Public Law 88-269 passed the House
on January 21, 1964, by a vote of 254 to
107. ‘This fact indicates our commit-
ment to the importance of good public
library service for.every American citi-
zen,

My own State is intensely interested
in the potential progress which this pro-
gram will make possible. Rhode Island
has drafted a statewide plan for better
libraries which can be put into immedi-
ate operation when funds become avail~
able. Never-have I seen interest in
libraries and determination to improve
libraries so great as it is in my State
today.

Across the Nation there are same 16
million- persons without any public li-
brary. Another 110 million people have
inadequate libraries, many of which are
poorly housed and understaffed, with
book collections which are limited and
obsolete. As our population changes
and grows, many social and economic
problems confront. our cities and towns:
illiteracy, unemployment, delinquency
and deprivation, These are all prob-
lems that a good library can help to
solve.. Free to all, the public library
meets the user on his own terms, pro<
vides materials at his level of develop-
ment, and allows him to proceed at his
own pace. Those. adults who have just
begun to read English, those unem-
ployed whose jobs have been automated,
those youths whose training has not
fitted them for productive work—all
these and more may turn to the public
Hbrary for free, unbiased, and reliable
information.

_ I know that good libraries cost money.
We have all seen the excellent return
on our modest investment in the rural
library program. I believe that the Ped-
eral Government has a definite respon-
sibility toward the support of good li-
braries.
funded, has, great promise in making
good library service a reality for all our
citizens.

The vocational rehabilitation pro-
gram continues to be one of the best, if
not the best, moneymaking programs
of the Federal Government. A conserv-~
ative estimate is that for every dollar
spent $7 comes back in Federal taxes
alone. When other benefits are in-
cluded the results are at least 10 to 1.
Of course the human benefits are im-
measurable in dollars and cents. The
committee has included the full amount
of the budget requests for all appropri-
ations under the Vocational Rehabilita-
tion Administration with the exception
of $55,000 which was budgeted for in-
creasing the overhead allowance on re-
search grant projects... The budget was
prepared on the basis of increasing the
amount to be allowed for this purpose
from 20 to 25 percent of the direct cost.
The committee has retained the 20. per-
cent limitation and so has reduced all
amounts budgeted for more than that.

Public Law 88-269, if properly:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

The first item under the Public Health
Service, is “Buildings and Facilities.”
The committee allowed the full amount
of the request for $21,512,000 but made
internal adjustments to disallow funds
requested for the Environmental Health
Center, for which $1,500,000 was re-
quested; add $2,500,000 for the Midwest
Water Pollution Control] Laboratory at
Ann Arbor, Michigan; and reduce re-
maining projects by $1 million.

The committee was unable to find any
good reason for the reduction recom-
mended in the budget for accident pre-
vention activities. The appropriation
for fiscal year 1964 was $4,163,000 and
the budget request for 1965 was for
$3,823,000. Certainly a reduction in
these activities is no economy measure
for the Nation’s economy is saved many
times the cost of this program by the re-
sults it obtains. The committee hear-
ings on this subject revealed very con-
clusive evidence of this. The committee
has therefore restored the reduction and
has included $4,163,000 in the bill.

Much the same situation prevails with
regard.to control of tuberculosis. The
1964 appropriation was $6,828,000 and
the budget reduced this to $6,364,000. If
there was any doubt whatsoever that a
reduction in this appropriation is being
penny wise and pound foolish, it was dis-
pelled by the reporé by the task force
established by the Surgeon General at
the request of the Committee on Appro-
priation. This report recommends a, 10-
year program to reduce the very signifi-~
eant health problem of tuberculosis to
the point approaching insignificance.

It pointed out that if such a program”

were followed, it would, during this 10-
year period, save $1,250 million in hos-
pital costs alone. The committee felt
that not to invest the funds necessary to
carry out this program would be the
essence of false economy. The commit<
tee has therefore recommended in the
bill an appropriation of $10,364,000 or an
increase of $4 million over the amount
recommended in the budget. Of this
$4 million, $1 million would be for for-
mula grants to the States, and $3 million
would be for project grants.

Another recommendation in the budg-
et which suprised and disappointed the
committee was in connection with con-
trol of venereal diseases. In its report
3 years ago the committee directed the
Public Health Service to make a
thorough restudy of this program and be
prepared with recommendations for a
program that would result in the eradi-
cation of syphilis. A task force was se-
lected to make this study under the
chairmanship of Dr. Leona Baum-
gartner, commissioner of health, city of
New York. There was practically uni-
versal agreement among experts in this
field that the task force submitted an
excellent report and recommendations.
The committee added $1 million over the
budget request for fiscal year 1963 in
order to get started on this program.
The budget for 1964 continued the pro-
gram, and the committee is at a complete
loss to. understand why the budget for
1965 cuts back from the task force rec-
ommendations, just at the time when the
program is beginning to be effective in

7587

reversing trends of recent years toward
every increasing incidence of this disease.
The recommendation of the committee
to increase the budget request by $314,000
is simply to restore this reduction.

Mr. Chairman, I am disappointed that
the budget provides so inadequately for
research training in the field of com-
munity health. We were led to believe,
a year ago, that a real program was to
be started but the budget provides for
almost nothing compared to the need:
I certainly hope that more attention is
given the important activity in the
future.

The health professions educational as-
sistance program is another new pro-
gram for which both a request for a sup-
plemental appropriation for 1964 and a
considerably increased appropriation for
1965. were requested. As in other similar
programs, the committee has recom-
mended no.funds for 1964 solely on the
basis that time will not permit any sub-
stantial activity under the program this
fiscal year under the most optimistic pre~
dictions for final passage of the bill.
However, in recognition of the fact that
this is one of the most important new
programs in the field of public health,
the committee has allowed the full
amount of $85,782,000 requested in the
budget for 1965. Asin other similar pro-
grams, the committee has also included
jlanguage in the bill which will make
these funds available immediately upon
enactment .in case the bill should be
enacted before July 1, 1964.

NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH

Mr. Chairman, we take up next the
appropriations for the National Insti-
tutes of Health.

Through these programs we invest
approximately a billion dollars a year in
health research and training—represent-
ing our main national effort in the na-
tional attack upon the health problems
of the people: What do we look to these
programs for? For today and tomorrow,
we invest for healthier and fuller lives
for ourselves and for our children; for
the future—andé I say this without sense
of overstatement—we look to individuals
bred to a new splendor and fulfillment.
Let me preface my summary of this part
of the bill with a comment that I feel
can not be restated too often—-though
doubtless you will find it self-evident.
That comment is this: There is no hu-
man need more basic to any of us than
good health. "

Mr. Chairman, esteemed Members of
this House, I am sure that each of us
can testify—on the basis of his own ex-
perience-—the fear, unhappiness,.and dis-
tress that results when we, or our family,
or our closest friends pass from health to
serious illness.

I think none of us has been so fortu-
nate that he cannot testify to this.

I ask also: As we know the world, from
having lived in it awhile—is there an-
other good that stands equally with
health in making a difference to every-
thing we do—especially in making it pos-
sible to enjoy every other good or bless-
ing that comes our way?-I think not.

I ask these questions. But do not
really doubt your answers: For a num-
ber of years now, congressional consen-
7588

sus on the primacy to be given to meet-
ing health needs—and to support for the
health research programs that are the
key to. accomplishing that purpose—has
been clear, enthusiastic, and nonparti-
san.

With this as background, you will be
able to appreciate my disappointment at
the inadequate budget request. we re-
ceived this year for these programs of
the National Institutes of Health. Iam
particularly concerned at the lack of
leadership shown by. the executive de-
partment in presenting so conservative
and unimaginative an assessment of na-
tional health needs. Last year’s rela-
tively progressive budget, you will recall,
gave up hope that a new era of budgetary
realism had begun.

I have been intimately involved in the
development of these health research
programs over the years. And time and
again—and more often than it should
have been necessary—I have seen the
Congress stepping in—because in good
conscience it could not do otherwise—to
assure the funds to seize present oppor-
tunities—as identified by our science
leaders—to meet the most urgent of
these health needs. Largely because the
Congress has had the foresight and good
sense to take bold action—these health
related programs have flourished. Their
effectiveness and high reputation
throughout the world are unequalled in
the seience area. All of us—each day—
count increasing benefits from these
programs. I reiterate my conviction
that what has been wrought in this post~
war effort in medical research will
emerge as the most significant Federal
action of our era.

To judge the adequacy of program
totals in the 1965 request for NIH, the
committee listened with interest to of-

ficial and outside witnesses, describing.

the present state of knowledge, recent
gains and further needs and opportuni-
ties In each research area. I think you
will find the record of these hearings—
some 650 pages in all—completely reas-
suring on the benefits derived from our
expenditures. Let me cite just a very
few of the significant research gains
which these programs contributed to in
the past year:

Remission rate for children with
childhood leukemia increased to about
90 percent, with increases also in the
periods of remission and number of 5-
year survivals.

A 2.1 percent decline in the average
population of State and. county mental
hospitals during 1963-—-the eighth year in
a row that there has been a decline. The
1963 drop represents an annual savings
to taxpayers of about $12 million.

Increasing evidence of viral causation
of cancer-—with at least the possibility,
therefore, of eventual control through
vaccines.

Promise of new. understanding - of
aging phenomena and associated disease
processes—including possibly cancer-—
through studies. of growth promoter—
“promine”’—and growth retarder—“re-
tine’—found in the thymus gland by
Nobel Prize winner Albert Sazent Gyorgyi.

Undefined but obviously tremendous
research potential through synthesis of.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

the benzene molecule—nature’s most
common organic. building block—long
considered an impossible chemical
achievement. Synthesis of a biologi-
cally active, artificial insulin molecule,
that should prove an invaluable tool for
studying insulin action in diabetes.

Rapidly intensifying research in mo-
lecular biology—quite possibly the most
active and exciting research area in all
science today—with many contributions
to knowledge of fundamental life proc-
esses, including the way characteristics
are passed from generation to genera-
tion.

These hearings are also most Instruc-
tive on the inadequacies of the present
budget submission.

Let me cite a few of the inadequacies:
As you know, two new National Insti-
tutes—child health and human develop-
ment -and general medical sciences—
were esbablished at NIH about 1 year
ago. Would not any reasonable person
expect a strong buildup of essential pro-
gram staff, and presentation of a series
of definite and clearly formulated pro-
gram proposals in these new areas?
The committee anticipated this, but un-
fortunately these matters were not at
all clear

Two of the Institutes received a net
reduction in comparison with 1964 pro-
gram levels. Oddly enough, these were
the National Heart Institute and Na-~
tional Cancer Institute—which are re~
sponsible for research on respectively
the Nation’s largest and next largest
killer diseases.

In the training area, the request simply
is not consistent with the well publi-
cized and generally accepted goal of
doubling biomedical research manpower
during the decade of the 1960’s. For ex-
ample, take fellowships: Appropriation
requests for five out of ‘nine institutes
show an actual reduction in number of
fellowships, relative to 1964 support
levels. For three of the remaining four
institutes, the 1964 level is maintained in
1965; and. the final institute shows a
small increase in number of fellowships,
but the same funding level.

Also, there are no significant increases
for the research resource programs of the
Division of Research Facilities and Re-
sources. Since there is abundant testi-
mony that these resources are the key
to further progress in a number of re-
search areas, the committee found it hard
to understand the neglect of this pro-
gram in the 1965 request. Balance-of-
payment fiscal policies have been applied
uncritically to: the small but vital inter-
national research programs of NIH.
The evident consequence—unless the
executive department specifically ex-
empts these programs—is that these pro-
grams will be sacrificed; without any
real gain to our balances problems.

In summary: Though these programs
are the key to health gains-—-and thus to
health savings and increased citizen pro-
ductivity—they appear to have received
no special recognition whatever in the
budget formulation for 1965.

These are the actions taken by the
committee with respect to the 1965 re-
quest for NIH:

For the 10 operating appropriations of
NIH, plus health research facilities con-

April 14

struction, the bill recommends a 1965
total of $1,045,242,000. This represents
an increase of $70.788 million over the
1964 appropriation level—or an increase
of about 7.3 percent. It represents a
reduction of $4.25 million from the 1965
request.

For regular research grants program,
appropriations will go up approximately
$36.5 million. However, money for com-
pletely new grants remains at the 1964
level—with one exception noted below.
This increase is needed to pay the higher
cost and greater number. of research
projects active now, for which support
will be continued in fiscal year 1965.

Among special research grants pro-
grams, the bill provides an additional $5
million for general research support
grants, bringing that program total to
$40 million. Testimony strongly backs
up the value of this institutional support
program. It permits certain grantee in-
stitutions active in health research a
greater measure of flexible control over
their own research activities. Another

‘increase: Mental Health Institute pro-

gram of hospital improvement grants is
doubled by the addition of $6 million.
Minor increases include $1.3 million for
stepped-up operating levels on primate
centers; and the general and categorical
clinical research centers—taken togeth-
er—will receive about $800,000 more,
largely to consolidate the present level
of the program.

The bill provides an additional $8 mil-
lion in training funds to the Mental
Health Institute. This will help meet
acute shortages of mental health per-
sonnel—_mainly service personnel for the
new cormmunity mental health centers
program approved by Public Law 88-164. -
General medical sciences also receives
an -inerease for training grants—$1.2
million. However, this will go for higher
costs and increased number of grants
active now that will be continued in
1965. Fellowship programs are held at
the 1964 level, except for increased sti-
pend costs estimated at $735,000, and go-
ing mainly to NIMH and NIGMS.

The health research facilities appro-
priation is increased by $2 million, as
authorized in Public Law 88-164, for
construction of mental retardation cen-
ters.

The bill allows an additional $7.2 mil-
lion for direct operations. This will
make possible about a 3.7-percent rise in
intramural research and roughly a 4.7-
percent increase for collaborative
studies.

One significant decrease was proposed
in the budget request for 1965 and is re-
fiected in the bill: $4.2 million for State
control programs of the Mental Health
Institute, representing the completion of
NIMH State planning grants for com-
munity mental health centers.

The bill now before the House contains
one very important increase over the 1965
budget request: The committee received
such conclusive testimony as to the
urgent need for stepped up fundamental
research In problems of immunology,
that $2 million was added for this pur-
pose to the research grants total for the

Allergy and Infectious Diseases Institute.

Over the past year or so, I am sure you
have all read many reports of extraordi-
1964
nary organ transplant operations, in
which diseased kidneys, lungs, livers—
and even hearts—of fatally ill patients
that have been replaced by well organs,
with potentially lifesaving effects. These
operations represent triumphs in terms
of surgical techniques. Understandably,
there has been growing public excitement
at the. possibilities in this area. .Unfor-
tunately, however, the lifesaving poten-
tial of these operations is almost never
achieved on a permanent basis: the
patient dies—in a few weeks or a few
months—for one of two reasons: Either
because the body’s immunologic de-
fense—a _ little-understood mechanism
that repels all foreign proteins in the
body-——eventually. rejects the foreign or-~
gan; or because attempts to suppress this
basic defense reacticn of the body per-
mits some other disease to attack with
fatal effect. .What is lacking in this area
is fundamental knowledge of how the im-
munological defense mechanism works,
whether—and how—it can be modified
to tolerate vital organ transplants, or
can be suppressed without fatal risks.
It is felt that by concentrating funds for
this effort in one Institute—NIAID—
there is best assurance of prompt and
purposeful development of research ef-
forts in this vital area. The committee
took note of a second research area
where the need for increased effort—and
the promise of research gains.<—was
highly visible, though ignored by the
executive branch. This. is in drug
therapy—including use of hormonal
substances-—for the control of coronary
heart disease. The committee, there-
fore proposes earmarking of $850,000 in
1965 research grant funds to get. this
program started. The need identified to
the committee was for a tightly con-~
trolled cooperative study, utilizing engi-
neered approaches, including carefully
drawn research protocols. It is recog-
nized that a substantially increased ef-
fort—trising to $2 or $3 million annually—
will be required in subsequent years; and
that an addition to funding—rather than
earmarking or regular grants funds—
should be requested, with backup based
on specific program plans.

In connection with the Social Security
Administration, the committee is very
pleased to see that they are finally plan-
ning @ program to construct many of
their own office buildings rather than
rent. This is not only going to result
in much more satisfactory space ar-
rangements in many cases, but will re~
sult in saving millions of dollars just on
the small start that is now planned and
should result in savings of many tens
of millions if it is expanded in the future
as seems logical and feasible.

Harly in January, before this budget
was submitted, the gentleman from Wis-
consin (Mr. Lairp] and I made a trip to
the Southwest for the primary purpose
of a firsthand review of the Mexican
farm labor program. While we were
there we also visited other activities of
the Departments of Labor and Health,
Education, and Welfare in this area.
Among these was the Social Security Ad-
ministration’s payment center in San

No. 71——3

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

Francisco. We were surprised to find
this operation located in the high rent
district of San Francisco whereas their
operations require only a simple build-
ing which could be located anyplace
where good transportation is available
for employees. We mentioned to the
chairman of the Committee on Appro-
priations in our report that it appeared
that many millions of dollars could be
saved by construction of their own build-
ings rather than by renting. So the
committee is pleased to see that they
budgeted $5,750,000 to begin a construc-
tion program. The committee has ap-
proved the full amount.

Under the Welfare Administration,
the committee has recommended a re-
duction of $160 million from the amount
of $2,980 million requested for grants to
States for public assistance. The com-
mittee cannot see why the cost of this
program needs to continue going up, es-
pecially in view of the 1962 amendments
which were supposed to reduce these
costs, and in view of the increase in
economic activity estimated to result
from the tax cut, and the inroads to
be made by the war on poverty program.

The committee reduced the amount of
the request for “Salaries and expenses,
Bureau of Family Services” by $264,000
which will allow them approximately
one-half of the additional positions re-
quested.

The bill also includes a reduction of
$2.million from the request of $131,-
830,000 for “Grants for maternal and
child welfare.” This results from the
committee’s action to provide an increase
of $2 million rather than $4 million for
day care centers. For fiscal year 1964
this activity has $4 million.

There are no particularly significant
changes in the special institutions or in
the Office of the Secretary. Perhaps the
most significant in the latter category is
that the committee allowed $13 million
for the relatively new program “Educa-
tional television facilities,’ which is $6,-
500,000 more than the appropriation for
1964, the first full year of operation, and
a reduction of $2,300,000 from the re-
quest.

The only change which the committee
made in the budget requests for the re-
lated agencies was in connection with
the National Labor Relations Board.
The bill includes $24 million, which is a
reduction of $1,250,000 from the request,
but an. increase of $1,540,000 over the
amount appropriated fer the current
fiscal year. There appears to be no doubt

that workload will increase somewhat in’

1965. The amount in the bill will cover
all mandatory increases in costs and over
$600,000 for additional personnel to
handle the increased workload.

This is an overall summary of the bill
and certainly does not cover all impor-
tant activities that it provides for. How-
ever, I have taken a considerable amount
of time and will not take more unless
Members have questions.

Mrs. GREEN of Oregon. Mr. Chair-
man, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FOGARTY. Tyield.

Mrs. GREEN of Oregon. I have two
questions to ask. One is on a point that

7589

the gentleman discussed, the Higher
Education Facilities Act. I notice that
the supplemental for $266 million for
this year. was not allowed. There is a
provision for a carryover in the bill. Is
there any chance that later in this year
there will be a supplemental appropria-
tion which would allow this $266 million,
or that it would be approved next year in
addition to the full amount that has been
authorized for the following year?

Mr. FOGARTY. I do not know
whether I can give a direct answer to
that question. I do not know whether
there will be a supplemental appropria-
tion bill this session. But under the law,
the additional money could be added to
the appropriation bill next year and it
will not be lost.

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

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

Mr. GROSS. If the authorization for
Hill-Burton is passed. this will call for
some few hundred million more dollars
than is contained in this bill; is that cor-
rect? .

Mr. FOGARTY. If Hill-Burton is
passed retroactively as is, it would add
about $220 million more than is in this
pill. They could use $400 or $500 million
instead of $200 million from the requests
that they have had.

Mr. GROSS. That would still be $220
_ million which would be added to the $1.1
billion above last year’s spending; is that
correct?

Mr. FOGARTY. That is right.

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

Mr. FOGARTY. I yield to the gentle-
man. :

Mr, LAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I think
it should be pointed out to the gentle-
man from Iowa that the Hill-Burton .
authorization currently before the legis-
lative committee, calls for an increase in
the program. It is not just a continua-
tion of the present program.

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

Mr. FOGARTY. Iyield.

Mr. GROSS. Then is it $220 million
or $400 million, or what that is being
asked? :

Mr. FOGARTY. All I know is that
if the act is just extended it would be
about $220 million. But if they modify
it as the gentleman from Wisconsin just
stated I do net know what that request
would amount to. We have no control
over that at all. The House would have
to work its will if and when the com-
mittee reports that legislation to. the
House...

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

Mr. FOGARTY. I am glad to yield
to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. DENTON. Mr. Chairman, I want
to commend the chairman of the sub-
committee for the work that he has done
on this subcommittee.

As a member of the committee I know
how much time, work and study has gone
into this bill. The chairman of the sub-
committee has pointed out that because
of the necessity of getting the appropria~
7590

tion bills passed before the first of the
fiscal year, we worked long hours on
this bill. We started early and worked
late.
for the past 14 years has worked hard
and has been able to do a great deal for
labor and for projects in the fields of
health, welfare, and education.

Mr. Chairman, I could mention many
things in addition which the gentleman
from Rhode Island has accomplished.
But I refer to those in particular. I
would like to mention also his very effec-
tive and prominent work in the field of
retarded children, and the tremendous
amount of work he has done in the field
of medical research.

Mr, Chairman, I believe this is the
tightest budget we have had during the
14 years I have served on this subcom-
mittee. It does not provide as much for
some of the programs as I would like.
However, I feel, as the chairman of the
subcommittee has pointed out, it is a
compromise bili and it is the best. bill
we could get under the circumstances.

Mr. Chairman, again, I want to com-
mend the chairman of the subcommit-
tee, the gentleman from Rhode Island
(Mr. Focarry] for the effective work
which he has done on this committee.

Mr. FOGARTY. I thank the gentle-
man from Indiana for his kind remarks.

Mrs. GREEN of Oregon. Myr. Chair-
man, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FOGARTY. Iyield to the gentle-
woman from Oregon. :

Mrs. GREEN of Oregon. As I men-
tioned earlier, I had two questions. At
this point I will direct my second ques-
tion.

I know of no committee in the House.

that does a more conscientious job than
the committee chaired by the. distin-
guished gentleman from Rhode Isiand.
I must say I am sure not only the mem-
bers of the Education Committee, be-
cause many of them have strongly
supported this proposition, but counte-
less other people will be disappointed
also, that there is nothing in this appro-
priation bill for carrying out the Library
Services Act, for basic to any educa-
tional program certainly there is the
necessity for having Nbraries and books.

Does the gentleman think there would
be any possibility of having legislation
yet this year which would enable funds
to go to the libraries across the country?

Mr. FOGARTY. Of course, this bill
goes to the Senate. The Senate will
work its will. We will then go to con-
ference. I have stated my position. I
am for the full amount, and will de
everything I can to see that the full
amount is appropriated for the fiscal
year 1965.

Mrs. GREEN of Oregon. The gentle-
man is- saying it might be added by the
Senate or through a supplemental?

‘Mr. FOGARTY. The authorizing
legislation passed the Senate by an over-
whelming vote. It passed the House by
more than two to one, and I would as-
sume that the committees considering
this: appropriation Will take into con-
sideration this action of both Houses,
and do something about it.

Mrs. GREEN of Oregon. I am not
critical of. the committees, but I would
join with the gentleman in his general
ideas along this line.

The chairman of this committee.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

Mr. FOGARTY. As far as I am cone
cerned, if the budget had been. before
us we would have had $55 million in the
bill for Worary services.

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

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

Mr. LAIRD. I should like to point out
that on the day the President signed this
bill the Bureau of the Budget had a
letter of transmittal to the Congress re-
questing these funds typed and ready for
his signature. That was not signed by
the President until] more than 2 months
later.

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

Mr. FOGARTY. I yield to the gen-
tleman from New Jersey. :

Mr. JOELSON. I share the gentie-
man’s disappointment that there are no
funds for the extended library services,
but I am encouraged by the gentleman’s
statement and position and support of
this general appropriation and ‘hope
something will be done about it. I also
want to add my voice to those that have
been raised in admiration of the chair-
man. He has done a splendid job, and
IT want to express my personal gratitude.

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

Mr. FOGARTY. Mr. Chairman, I
yield myself 3 additional minutes.

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

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

Mr. PEREINS. Mr. Chairman, I cer-
tainly wish to compliment the distin-
guished gentleman from Rhode Island
(Mr. Focarty] for such an excellent job.
I too share the disappointment of the
chairman of the subcommittee concern-
ing the lack of library funds in the bill
for this fiscal year.

The gentleman is certainly to be com-
mended in seeing that these other pro-
grams such as the National Defense Edu-

cation Act and vocational education, are |

being adequately financed.

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

Mr. FOGARTY. TI-yield to the gentle-
man from Arkansas.

Mr. HARRIS. I observe that in con-
nection with the hospital construction
activities there is included $23,346,000,
much of which is for the mental re-
tardation program, and $45 million to
assist in the construction of new teach-=
ing facilities under the Health Profes-
sions Educational Assistance Act we
passed last year. The gentleman may
have mentioned it in his discussion here-
tofore, but I do not observe that there
are any funds for what is considered to
be the regular Hill-Burton construction

. program.

Mr, FOGARTY. No, there are no
funds for what we know as the Hill-Bur-
ton construction program, because the
act expired and I believe the gentleman’s
committee is holding hearings now on.a
new bill.

Mr. HARRIS. That is what I wanted
to make clear in the Recorp. The com-
mittee has concluded hearings, We are
now meeting in executive session. We
are endeavoring to get the schedule of

April 14

the committee rearranged. We had.
hoped to get the bill out already. 1% will
probably be next week before we can con-
elude the consideration of it, though we
are going to try to tomorrow. Does the
gentleman have any information as to
whether or not a supplemental appro-
priation would very likely be forthcom-
ing should we get the authorization ex-
tension? .

Mr. FOGARTY. Ido not know of any
plans for any supplemental bills this
year.

Mr. HARRIS. There is in the budget
a certain amount of funds for hospital
construction, is there not?

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

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

Mr. LAIRD. On this point I think it
might be pointed out that it is our hope
that legislative action will be completed
on the authorization in time for the Hill-
Burten authorization to be included in
the regular bill in the Senate. The ques-
tion of a supplemental would then be a
moot question.

Mr. HARRIS. I want to thank the
gentleman for his suggestion. I was en-
deavoring to make the record here for
the benefit of the members of our own
coramittee and the States who are inter-
ested in the continuation of the program
and those who are interested in the proj-
ects with reference to the appropriations
for the next fiscal year, 1965. It would
also be my hope that we could expedite
the consideration of the authorization
for this in time for it to be included in
this bill.

Mr. FOGARTY... I know of no plan for
a supplemental, As the gentleman from
Wisconsin said, if the legislation is
passed before the Senate considers this
appropriation bill, of course it could be
taken care of.

Mr. HARRIS. It will be my purpose,
in order to do our job, to get it through
so that can be done. —

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman
from Rhode Island has consumed 28
minutes.

Mr. LAIRD. Myr. Chairman, I yield
myself 10 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, this is a subcommittee
that works hard and long and accumu-
lates more testimony than any other
subcommittee of the Committee on Ap-
propriations. In reading over this re-
port I have but one disagreement with
my colleague, the gentleman from
Rhode Island and our committee report.
What I quarrel somewhat with is the
use of the term “conservative” in this
report. The gentleman from Rhode Is-
land. insists on the use of the word
“conservative” as the hallmark of the
report which we have before us today.
I do not know what a liberal report
would be in view of the fact that this
bill contains $1,112 million more than
the Departments of Health, Education,
and Welfare and Labor appropriations
for fiscal year 1964. Under the defini-
tion of the word “conservative,” I would
say that this report falls short of that.
particular label. But labels sometimes
do hot mean very much and, insofar as
this report is concerned, I think it is
better if we do not try to use a label but
just say that there is an increase of
1964

$1,112 million in the 1965 budget for
the Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare and the Department of
Labor and a decrease of some $650 mil-
lion from the President’s budget.

It is only fair, I think, to point out
that about $1 billion of the increase in
this 1965 bill is a result of the enact-
ment by the Congress last year of four
programs. Those four programs are the
Health Professions Assistance Act, the
Vocational Education Expansion Act, the
Higher Education Facilities. Act and
amendments to the Manpower Training
Act. President Johnson asked for a total
of $1,554 million to finance these four
new programs for fiscal years 1964 and
1965. The committee has reduced the
Johnson request for 1964 and 1965 for
these four programs by a total of $500.-
million. We have included a total of
$1,058 million to finance these four pro-
grams as compared with President John-
son’s request of $1,554 million for these
programs,

Here is how the reductions were made.
In the Health Professions Assistance Act,
the budget asked for $115 million for
fiscal years 1964 and 1965 to finance this
program, The committee has combined
1964 and 1965 and made available upon
the passage of this bill, whether it be
next week, next month, or June, a total
of $85 million or a reduction of $30
million from the budget request.

In vocational education, the commit-
tee was asked to provide $243 million in
the budget submission. The committee
has made available $183 million for fiscal
years 1964 and 1965 or a reduction of $60
million in the budget. .

In the area of higher education facili-
ties, the budget documents requested
$730 million for fiscal years 1964 and 1965
and the committee has made available
$463 million for 1964 and 1965.

For manpower training the commit-
tee was asked to provide, for fiscal years
1964 and 1965, a total of $466 million.
The committee has recommended for fis-
cal years 1964 and 1965, $327.9 million,
or @ reduction of some $138 million on
this particular program.

The bill is a difficult bill on which to
make reductions, particularly when deal-
ing with the new programs. I add that
there are before the Congress at the pres~
ent time requests for new authorizations
for new programs to be administered by
the Departments of Health, Education,
and Welfare, and Labor which total $1.5
billion, in addition to the programs
funded in this particular bill.

It is impossible to predict with cer-
tainty what action the Congress will take
on the new program requests for these
two departmenis, but I predict that we
shall have not heard the end of appro-
priations for these two departments when
we act upon the bill today, because all of
the increased poverty program spending,
hospital construction spending, and
spending for many other new programs
presently pending before legislative com-
mittees will be considered at some fu-
ture time in connection with requests
which undoubtedly will be transmitted
by the administration when these new
programs are enacted.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

I should like to call attention to two
deletions which were made in the budget
by the committee in the area of con-
struction.

The committee deleted funds for the
planning of new Food and Drug buildings
in the Washington, D.C., area. It also
deleted the funds for the establishment
of the environmental health center in
the Washington, D.C., area.

My vote was cast to delete those funds
because of the heavy concentration of re-
search activities and bureaucracy in gen-
eral in this particular section of the
United States. :

Other committees of the Congress at
this time are receiving recommendations
from the Department of Defense and
from the civil defense planning group
of the Department of Defense for great-
er dispersal of these activities, so that
they will not be concentrated in one area
of the United States.

We had before us the broad budget
covering all departments, and learned
that President Johnson, in submitting
his recommendations to the Congress
this year, provided that 74 percent of all
the construction money for new research
faciilties be concentrated in the coastal
States. We have seen this trend de-
veloping for the past 10—yes, 15 years.
There has been a concentration in space,
military, health, atomic energy, and all
the large research installations, in the
coastal areas of the United States. This

has had a tremendous effect upon the.

Midwestern region of the United States.
I refer particularily to the Big Ten
schools, and include with the Big Ten
schools the University of Notre Dame
and also the University of Chicago. This
complex of graduate schools in the Mid-
western section of the United States is
supplying the greatest number of ad-
vanced degrees, on a percentage basis to
enrollment, of any educational institu-
tions in the United States.

My own University. of Wisconsin has a
higher number of Ph. D.’s working for
the Federal Government here in Wash-
ington, D.C., than any other institution
of higher learning in the country.

What is the reason.for the exodus of
advanced degree personnel from the Mid-
western area of the United States to the
coastal areas of the United States? The
reason is simple to explain. Eighty-four
percent of all of the basic research work
being done in the United States today is
being done with Federal tax dollars.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman has expired.

Mr. LAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I yield
myself 10 additional minutes.

The concentration of research facili-
ties is in the coastal States. The only
place that these people can receive the
employment and the compensation they
should, and pursue the work which they
have trained for with their advanved de-
grees is in these coastal States where the
Federal financing of these research proj-
ects has been concentrated for the past
few years. This is going to be more and
more of a problem, and unless we in the
Congress are willing to face up to it
and are willing to look at this problem of
the disbursement of our research dol-

91

lar on a fair and. equitable basis, we will
be creating in the great midwestern sec-
tion of the United States an economic
wasteland. I say this because whether
it be inthe area of health research,
atomic energy research, space research,
or defense research, we find that the.
procurement dollars follow the location
of the reséarch dollars to a very marked
degree. It should be pointed out that
research contracts are not awarded on a
competitive bid basis bub are awarded
on an assignment basis. This is. some-
thing that I think we should call.to the
attention of legislative committees as
well as all Members of the House of
Representatives so that we can have a
better development of the Nation as a
whole, which development.is being re-
tarded in certain sections. through the
manner in which these research dollars
are disbursed. In these hearings we
developed some very interesting points
and I would like to call the attention of
the committee to the discussion, con-
cerning the Food and Drug Administra-
tion, which we had with the Secretary of
ealth, Education, and Welfare. This
begins on page 1312 of our hearings. I
have been alarmed as I have watched
the growth of the Food and Drug Ad-
ministration, during the period of 12 |
years that I have served on this subcom-

mittee on appropriations, at the large

number of Food and Drug Administra-

tion people who are hired from this

agency who go to work for concerns that

are regulated by the Food and Drug Ad-

ministration. I am not so concerned

with the fact that these employees from

the Food and Drug Administration come

back and testify publicly before hearings

that the Food and Drug Administration

conducts on the use of this or that drug,

or on the use of this or that additive in

food, and so forth, because these are

public hearings and the record is open

for anyone to see. I am, however, con-

cerned about another phase of this.

We found on the first survey, that dur-
ing the last 5-year period 83 former
Food and Drug Administration em-
ployees had gone to work for regulated
concerns and we found some 96 former
employees that are still to be reported
on. ‘

f believe you will find a major portion
of these 96 former Food and Drug Ad-
ministration employees are working for
regulated concerns.

Here is what happens. A concern
makes a breakthrough with some drug
or with some other product that is reg-

- ulated by the agency. It has spent, in

many cases, hundreds of thousands of
dollars in the development of this prod-~
uct through research. They have pro-
prietary rights to these products. The
employee of the Food and Drug Ad-
ministration is. given all of the in-
formation as to the ingredients, the
formula, the manner in which this or
that product was manufactured. This
has to be. This information should be
made available to the Food and Drug
Administration. But immediately. that
particular employee of the Food and
Drug Administration becomes a very
7592
valuable asset to a. competing concern.
His knowledge could be valued in some
cases in the millions of dollars.

These particular concerns that are in
competition go out and try to outbid one
enother for the services of the evaiuator
that had access to all of this confidential
information on the development of this
or that product and that particular per-
son can command a tremendous salary
in private industry because of the
knowledge that he was able to gain
through the study and through the
analysis of that product.

I was shocked to find in answer to my
question in a very minor survey of 4 or
5 weéks that some 83 individual em-
ployees of the Food and Drug Adminis-
tration had moved in this direction.
There are some 96 on whom we are still
checking. It seems to me that the
legislative committees of the Congress as
well as the Appropriations Committee,
should give serious thought and con-

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

sideration to this, a new conflict-of-
interest problem which is going. to be
with us to a much largér extend as we
face the next 10 or 15 years when more
and more regulations in the field of food,
drugs, cosmetics and many of the other
new types of products will be issued by
the Food and Drug Administration.

This is one of the areas that both we
in the Congress and the executive branch
of our Government must take more in=
terest in. If the executive branch will
not police itself in this area, then it is
our responsibility to investigate thor-
oughly. We started this year, through
the development of this record, to go
into an area which needs to be examined
to a much larger extent in our hearings
next year. :

Mr. Chairman, before I complete my
remarks, I will place in the Recorp mate-
rial showing some pertinent comparisons
with regard to Federal employment pro-~
vided by funds in the bill.

Comparison of estimated number of permanent positions provided in the bill with the number
authorized for 1964 and number requested for 1965

 

 

 

 

- Bill compared with—
Original | Revised .
1964 1965 1965 Bill
budget | budget Original | Revised
1964 1965 1965

budget | budget
I) ee 8, 452 8, 542 8, 542 8, 346 —106 —196 =~ 196
Health, Education, and Welfare_.....-- 97, 058 79, 421 78, 811 78,328 |. +1,270 | 1,093 483,
TOP een eee ee eee neaneanenreceawconen 4, 788 4,994 4, 984. 4, 840 +52 154 144
Total . 2 cccoaceccuncenanneccweee= 90, 298 92, 957 92, 337 91,514 | +1,216 | —1,443 823

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mr. Chairman, I intend to support this
bill. I believe the committee was wise
in combining the supplemental appro-
priation requests with the 1965 budget
request for health professions educa-
tional assistance, for vocational educa~
tion, for higher education facilities, and
for the manpower training program.
We have made a reduction of $500 mil-
lion in these four programs from the re-
quests of the President but I am sure
that the funding levels which we have
provided will be adequate to carry on
these programs to a high degree of
efficiency. The funds for these pro-
grams will be made immediately avail-
able upon the passage of the act.

I am supporting this bill and I hope
that we will have a strong. vote in sup-
port by Members on both sides of the
aisle for this compromise which has been
worked out by your subcommittee.

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

Mr. LAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I yield
such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Tllinois [Mr. MucHen],

‘Mr. MICHEL asked and was given

ermission to revise and extend his re-
marks.) -

Mr, MICHEL. Mr. Chairman, I want
to say that I fully embrace the remarks
‘of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.
Larrp] and would underscore what he
has said relative to the “conservative”
nature of this 1965 budget for the De-
partment of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare, The position of Mr. Focarty, the
distinguished. chairman of the subcom-
mittee, has been known throughout the
years. We do not see eye to eye on @

number of items in this bill, but I will
say this for him, he is always consid-
erate of the minority’s view and gives
us ample opportunity to develop our own
line of questioning and present our case.
What he believes to be conservative to~
day is something altogether different
from what I believe to be conservative.
The facts are, the total amount of direct
appropriations for both the Department
of Labor and the Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare, and their re~
lated agencies comes to $6,908,063,000
for the fiscal year 1965, as against a total
of $5,795,436,000 for the current fiscal
year, or an increase of better than $1.1
billion.

It is true that the big increases in
this bill are a result of new legislation
that. in effect made some of these in-
creases mandatory—which all goes back
to the old story that we cannot cut back
on the level of Federal expenditures if
the Congress itself, at the prodding of
the President and his administration,
continue to enact new authorizing leg-
islation. We on the Appropriations
Committee are foreclosed from “legis-
lating on an appropriations bill” and our
only recourse is the imposition of limi-
tations and guidelines by report lan-
guage.

I believe the subcommittee took the
proper course in eliminating supple-
mental requests for the balance of this
fiscal year, tying them together with the
requests for the coming year, 1965, with
the authority to begin spending as soon
as this bill is enacted, This action might
very well spur. the other body to move

April 14

more expeditiously on this, and other
appropriation bills.

This bill includes $327,906,000 for man- -
power development and training activi-
ties, which is a booming increase of
nearly $218 million over 1964.

The bill also includes $455,076,000 in
grants to the States for unemployment
compensation and employment security
administration. This is an increase in
this area of over $30 million, The com-
mittee report states that “priority in use
of these funds for employment services
must be for the placement of the unem-
ployed,” and I would add to that, from a
personal point of view, that emphasis
should be given to those unemployed who
do not have the education and ability to
express themselves, rather than putting
so much emphasis on the college gradu- |
ate. It would seem to me that those
with the highly technical skills also have
the capacity for securing jobs on their
own. Iam reminded of a publication of
the Illinois State employment service for
February 1964, which lists a public rela-
tions man at a salary of $10,000, an ad-
vertising manager at $10,000, an adver-
tisine production manager, $10,000, a

copywriter at a salary of $21,000, an in-

dustrial relations manager, $10,000, a
sopy supervisor with a range of $20,000 to
$25,000, a copy group head at $20,000, a
general accountant at $10,000, merchan-
dising manager at $10,000, account exec-
utive, $12,000, and a host of others.

This, to my mind, is just nonsense and
is taking the U.S. Employment Service
far afield from its original intent and
purpose. There are private employment
agencies throughout the United States
adequately equipped and fitted to per-
form this function and the practice of
eoncentrating on the placement of exec-
utives, highly skilléd and well educated
is not, in my opinion, a primary function
of the U.S. Employment Service. It was
designed primarily to help those who.
really need some form of assistance in
finding a job.

The Food and Drug Administration ap-
propriation is now up to $39,200,000, an
increase of $3,395,000 over 1964. Except
for the mandatory pay costs, the increase
is for partial implementation of the
recommendations of the President’s.Ad-
visory Science Committee on the use of .
pesticides and to carry out the Kefauver-
Harris Drug Amendments of 1962,

I am glad the committee has seen fit
to disaliow any. funds for planning for
the development of a building site in the
Beltsville area. I have been one of those
who have severely criticized this concen-
tration of further Federal facilities in
the Washington area.

In the area of education, it is very
significant that the bill includes $183,-
296,000 for. the coming fiscal year in ex-
pansion and improvement of vocational
education. Thisis over $148 million more
than was appropriated for the current
fiscal. year.

At the beginning of my remarks, f
made mention of the additional legisla-
tive enactments of the Congress which
were responsible in large measure for up=
ping the figures in this bill. Not the
Jeast of these is the higher education
facilities construction portion of the bill
1964
which comes to $463,150,000, and we
have included nearly $12 million, the
same as appropriated for the year 1964,
for further endowment of colleges of
agriculture and the mechanic arts.

There is also included in this bill $287,-

853,000 for Defense educational activities
which includes, of course, the contribu-
tions to student loan funds. The com-
mittee has also been very generous in
allocation of funds for the education of
the handicapped and cooperative re-
search. I should point out that the U.S.
Office of Education is growing by leaps
and bounds. As I recall, back in 1958
_there were some 500 employees in the
U.S. Office of Education and the request
for the coming fiscal year was for 3
times that number, to something in the
neighborhood of 1,500, but I would go
back once again to what I said in my
initial remarks—that we cannot Keep
this level of Federal employment in check
if we continue to authorize new spending
programs.

On page 2 of the report, the chairman
refers to a “hold the line budget, even in
highly important fields like the Public
Health Service,” but I would point out
that we are spending considerable sums
in this area. .

This bill calls for expenditures as fol-
lows for the Public Health Service:

Building and facilities..__.....-. $21, 512,000
Accident prevention__....--.-.-.. 4, 163, 000
Chronic diseases and health of

the aged_..___-.._....------- 53, 722, 000
Communicable disease activi~-

ties... -------- ene 29, 828, 000
Community health practice and

research..--__-.--..------= 22, 575, 000
Control of tuberculosis._..-... 10, 364, 000
Control of venereal diseases_... 10, 030, 000
Dental services and resources... 6,651, 000
Nursing services and resources. 4, 031, 000
Hospital construction activi- .

ties... -- + ene 28, 346, 000
Health professions educational

assistance.._...--.-.--.--++- 85, 782, 000
Health professions educational .

assistance (1964 supplemental

estimate) _...--------.-----. ---L nse
George Washington University :

Hospital construction....... --~----a--9«
Environmental health sciences. 9,350, 000
Environmental health sciences

(1964 suppiemental estimate) .-...--.---
Air pollution.....--.......--.. 20, 930, 000
Air pollution (1964 supplemen-

tal estimate) ..-..------ ae cee
Environmental engineering and

sanitation......----..-.-.---< 9,117, 000
Occupational health...i...--.- 5, 168, 000
Radiological health_.....-.-... 19,598, 000
Water supply and water poilu~

tion control.....00.--.---.. 34, 239, 000
Grants for waste ~ treatment

works construction..-..-.... 96, 006, 000
Hospitals and medical care__.. 52, 710, 000
Foreign quarantine activities... 6, 851, 000

Now, in addition, Mr: Chairman, for
the National Institutes of Health, there
is over $1 billion in this bill, as follows:

General research and services. $162, 959, 000
Biologics standards........--.- 4, 969, 000

National Institute of Child

health and Human Develop-

ment_.....- poe e eee aeens 42, 696, 000
National Cancer Institute... 140, 011, 000
National Institute of Mental

Health.._....-.----------u~ 187, 932,000
Construction of community

mental health centers.....__. 35, 000, 000

National Heart Institute-_..- 124, 174, 000

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

National Institute of Dental
Research.._.__..-.----~---=-=

$19, 983, 000
National Institute of Arthritis :

and Metabolic Diseases_.... 112, 050, 000
National’ Institute of Allergy :
and Infectious Diseases..... 69, 847, 000

National Institute of Neuro-
logical Diseases and Blind-

NESS___ tee 87, 621, 000
Grants for construction of
health research facilities.... 58, 000,600

This brings the total figure for Public
Health Service to $1,582,154,000.

Mr, Chairman, in conclusion, I want to
say that last year I was opposed to our
embarking upon a big construction pro-
gram for an Environmental Health Cen-
ter for this project would ultimately cost
some $50 million or more and that, in
my opinion, adequate work was currently
peing done at the Taft-Center in Cincin-
nati. Now I am net so sure that in the
future we will not have to proceed with
something better, but I for one shall
never give in to the establishment of this
Center here in the Washington area.
There is absolutely no reason in the
world why we have got to have such a
concentration of Federal facilities here
in the Washington area and some of us
out in the Midwest particularly are
going to have to join forces on both sides
of the aisle in opposition to this concen-
tration if that is what is necessary to
convince any administration in power
that there ought to be a more equitable
distribution of these Federal facilities.
I can guarantee that if there were an
establishment of this kind in my home
State of Illinois, we would not be peti-
tioning the Federal Government for spe=
cial grants for school construction under
the federally impacted school bill, as is
the case here in the neighboring States
of Maryland and Virginia. Federal em-
ployees with long tenure at a given in-
stallation ought to be treated like ordi-
nary citizens and they should pay local
taxes to support the education of their
children, just like everyone else has te do.
The only justification in my opinion for
the granting of this assistance is in truly
defense establishment areas where there
are great influxes of transient Defense
Department personnel.

Mr. LAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I yield
5 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Ohio [Mrs. Frances P. Bou.ron].

(Mrs. FRANCES P. BOLTON asked
and was given permission to revise and
extend her remarks.)

Mrs. FRANCES P. BOLTON. Mr.
Chairman, I very much appréciate the
opportunity of speaking on this bill. I
had very much hoped that before this
time I would have been able to submit
a bill somewhat similar to the one which
the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr.
Harris] has submitted to the committee
of which he is chairman. Mine would

_ have been on the matter of training bed-

side nurses.

Mr. Chairman, this bill has to do only
with the appropriation of money for the
purpose of teaching chiefs, but not In-
dians. They are all to be degree nurses
of some kind. Of course, there are not
enough of these, that I grant. ‘There is
a tragic lack of nursing care for the
sick in this country. There is a ter-
rific gap between these top degree

7393

nurses and the practical nurses who do
what they are trained to do exceedingly
well, but at most their training is for but
1 year. It is quite true, Mr. Chairman,
that the care of the sick has become
much more complex, just as medicine
has become more complex. No one
knows better than the practical nurse
herself that 1 year does not give one
what one needs to take full care of a
sick person. I am very enthusiastic over

‘the practical nurse and am doing all I

can to bring high standards into her
legitimate field but the great lack at the
bedside is not being filled.

Mr. Chairman, back in 1956, I sub-
mitted a bill to the committee which
had for its purpose the setting up of what
I hoped would be the last research group. .
Since then we have had one research
group after another doing one research
project after another gathering dust on
the shelves. But there has been no ac-
tion.

Mr. Chairman, I have worked’ with
the nursing profession longer than
many. I have considered it one of the
ereat privileges that has beer mine to be
close to the heart of the care of the sick.

I know very poignantly that our great
need is nurses who will nurse at the bed-
side. We need at least 50,000 of them.
We are closing wards and at the same
time building new hospitals. But who is
going to staff those hospitals? How are
we going to take care of the sick in those
new hospitals when we shut wards in the
old hospitals?

‘Yes; we need to renew and repair the
old ones. We need to do better work in
them. We need reorganization of the
methods employed in them, of the divi-
sion of labor so to speak. But how are
we going to get that unless there is a real
recognition on the part of the nursing
profession itself that there is this huge
gap between our degree nurses and the
practical nurse? I agree that the prac-
tical nurse is a marvelous addition to the
forces that take care of the sick in this
country. But she is not sufficiently
trained to assume the heavy responsi-
bilities of a professional nurse.

If we are really going to do a job, Mr.
Chairman, we need very definitely such
a bill, with certain additions, as the gen-
tleman from Arkansas [Mr. Harris] has
submitted. I did not know it existed
until today, and I have not had time to
go over it to know what is in it; but I am
sure he and I could sit down together
and get somewhere in this whole matter.

What we need is nurses at the bedside.
Yes, we need administrators. Yes, we
need teachers. We cannot add to the
number of the rank and file unless we
have more teachers. But that is all this
House has been doing—giving millions of
dollars to increase the number of teach-
ers. That is fine, but let us not forget
that there are sick people in bed and
they need care. They need far more
care than hospitals today—with a very
few exceptions—are able to give them.
I cannot urge you too strongly to con- .
sider this matter.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentlewoman from Ohio has expired.

Mr, LAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I yield
the gentlewoman 5 additional ,minutes.
7394

Mrs. FRANCES P. BOLTON. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman, we have had the
Surgeon, General’s consulting group on
nurses. They issued a report. It is

bright green, and it is very good as far as —

it goes. It calls for quality in nursing,
the need, and so forth.

We also had a second group on evalua~
tion of the professional nurses’ trainee-
ship program. It talks about nurses for
leadership. Yes—so do I—but, Mr.
Chairman, we must have the nurses who
are going to take care of patients in the
bed, both in the hospitals and at home,
if they need it.

I think we have been really unfortu-
nate in our lack of understanding of this
whole problem, which is really serious.
Mrs, Scott in her statement before the
committee speaks of the shortage of
nurses, of course, she is aware of the
lack even as Iam aware of the changes
that must be met in nursing procedures.
The need is for much more than greater
and broader education. The need, to
my mind, is for vastly more fundamental
training in the actual care of the sick.

There are two very critical problems.
One is the continuation of the effort to
supply top nurses. This committee is do-
ing a great deal for this and women
everywhere, people everywhere, are espe~
cially grateful to this Congress for its
efforts. The increased complexity in the
whole nursing field makes a very differ-
ent problem from what it was.

In 1941 the Congress was good enough
te listen to my request for additional
money to be given for nurse training to
the Public Health Department. They
did such a beautiful job in increasing the
students in the big schools that when I
again came before the Congress for more
money in order to meet the even greater
need through the war we established the

U.S. Cadet Corps, That corps graduated.

125,000 nurses. But we have not begun to
touch the need of today.

We have to have teachers, yes, but we
do have to attract the girls who are long-
ing to care for the sick.

I am told that one reason why there
are not more girls going into nursing is
that they want college, they want to say,
“T have been to college.’ All right.
Two-year colleges are being established
all over the country with 2-year nursing
eourses. There are more than 40 in
California alone. Tam told thatin every
one of those schools, when those girls go
to take their State license examinations,
they all pass. I would like to know what
the license examination contains to find
out what they are examined in, because
IT have been told that there is very little
clinical experience in those 2 years. I
want thousands and thousands and
thousands who have had clinical expe-
rience, who know what it is to take care
of a person in bed. Many-of us know
what it means to lie in bed for months
on end. Have you? I have, and I hap-
pen to have a son who has been there,
toc. I happen to know a good deal about
what.it means to be in a hospital or sick
.at home, and so forth. I think it should
be a requirement for most people.

I hope very much that this fine com-
mittee will have opportunity to give
study to our need for adequate care for
the sick of this country and in the worid.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

Mr. LAIRD. Mr, Chairman, I yield 5
minutes to the gentleman from Tlinois
[Mr. McCrory].

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

Mr. McCLORY. Mr. Chairman, I
have asked for this time in order that I
might make a few comments and per-
haps address a few inquiries to the com-~-
mittee. I certainly want to join the oth-
ers who have paid high compliments to
the chairman and members of the sub-
committee who have worked with the
extremely difficult problem of this
budget.

I have had the opportunity to serve
during the past year as a member of
what we call the Jones committee, a
subcommittee of the House Committee
on Government Operations headed by
the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Ros-
ert E. Jowrs, investigating primarily
the subject. of water pollution. In the
course of our investigations we have had
occasion to consider the subject of the
expenditures of the Public Health Serv-
ice and other agencies which are con-
cerned with water pollution and water
pollution control and, may I say, re-
search in these areas.

It has come to my attention that there
is a great deal of overlapping on re-
search and investigation in the areas
primarily of water pollution and water
pollution control. I notice that on page
424 of the budget, for the first time, the
Bureau of the Budget has undertaken to
identify water pollution research as a
specific item, to correct the former prac~
tice of spreading it throughout the entire
budget.

I do notice, too, that the budget of the
Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare is up almost $1 billion, almost
20 percent, and that in the areas of wa-
ter pollution control I think the increase
was between $5 and $6 million, which is
again about a 20-percent increase over
what it was in the prior year.

In connection with one of the hear-
ings of the Jones committee, I inquired
as to research activities planned to be
carried on at a research laboratory down
in Georgia, and was informed that a
principal subject was to be a study of the
adverse effect of pesticides on water
conditions. Yet, I find that subject is
also being investigated by the Depart-
ment of the Interior and by the Depart-
ment of Agriculture and under a special
grant from the Public Health Service to
Rutgers University.

Now, these multiple research programs
have been explained to me as being com-
plementary programs, but I am still im-
pressed by the fact there is a great deal
of overlapping and a great deal of dupli-
cation.

With regard to the Public Health Serv~
ice research programs in the area of
water, I have had presented to me a
document which indicates there are as
many.as eight other departments and
agencies that are working in the same
areas and on the same subjects. I want
to call this to the attention of the Com-
mittee on Appropriations.

I also want to make a comment about
the subject of the proposed acid mine
drainage investigation for which an ap-

April 14

propriation is included in this bill of
more than $1,500,000. Here is an area
where several departments have assured
our committee and the Committee on
Appropriations that. there would be co-
operation and coordination. Yet, I am
informed that the Public Health Service
has unilaterally undertaken to decide
where this research project is going to
be and has placed it in West Virginia
where they have two old deep mines that
are no longer used. However, in order
to do a competent job on the subject of
acid mine drainage, it is going to be
necessary to perform a pilot project not
only with regard to deep mines but also
with regard to strip mines. The pilot
project should be carried on with regard
to usable mines where people are work-
ing and where there are employees.
That is something in which this Congress
has an interest and ought to have am
interest. I feel that the Public Health
Service has departed from the admoni-
tion of the Jones committee and from
what your committee expects will be
undertaken. ,

I have correspondence between the De-
partment of the Interior and the Public
Health Service which I will be happy to
aad to the Members if they care to see
it. -

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

Mr. McCLORY. I yield to the gentle-

man, :
Mr. LAIRD. I would like to point out
to the gentleman on page 19 of the re-
port we go into this very point that the
gentleman is making. We made a re.
duction in the funds available for the
administration of acid mine drainage
control and. abatement. It is true that
we are still providing a substantial
amount for this work, but we have made
@ substantial reduction in the budget
request for this type of pollution -re-
search work..

Mr. McCLORY. I commend the com-
mittee for that. But I do want to call
to the attention of the committee a let-
ter from the Secretary of the Inte-
rior to the Secretary of Health, Edu-
cation, and Welfare of March 5 which
calls attention to the fact that the Sec-
retary of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare has acted unilaterally without the
kind of coordination that he assured
the Congress there would be. :

The letter referred to is as follows:

Although we are pleased with some as-
pects of the. progress made at these meet-
ings, we have some concern over develop-
ments which seem to indicate that the Bu-
reau of the Budget requirement for joint
HEW-Interior agreement has not been fully
achieved. We refer specifically to insist-
ence of the Public Health Service that a
demonstration site be selected by February
28, despite the indicated and admitted need
for at least' another 6 weeks to 2 months
of field examination to compile requisite
data, such as aerial photographs and water
quality measurements. In our opinion the
necessity for a sound engineering and sci-
entific approach to site selection demands
these additional data. Despite our repeated
urging to this effect at the Morgantown mect-
ing, we have now been notified informally
that a site has been selected by PHS without
our concurrence.

Another matter of concern relates to the
decision of the Public Health Service to em-
1964

ploy aquatic biologists for this program
rather than to call upon specialists of this
Department’s Bureau of Sport Fisheries and
Wildlife. As recognized in your February 5
letter the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and
Wildlife has a significant role in research on
acid mine water pollution. As we under-
stand the proposed program to be funded
through appropriations to HEW, fish and
wildlife interests have not been clearly iden~
‘tified and there is no intent to transfer.
funds to that Bureau for participation in
field studies. This is a serious omission
of use of established scientific competency
and recognition of agency mission.

Mr, Chairman, I am not satisfied with
the appropriations recommended in this
bill (ALR. 10809). I feel the amounts
appropriated for-the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare in the
areas to which I have referred, and else-
where, are excessive. These amounts
should be reviewed further by the Com-
mittee. ,

Mr. ICHORD. Mr. Chairman, title If
of H.R. 10809, allowing for implement-
ing provisions of Public Law 88-204, the
Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963,
is of extreme significance because it-re-
sponds to the urgent need to help higher
educational institutions plan for the in-
creased enrollments ahead which are
estimated to double in the next 10 years.

The institutions themselves do not
have the ready resources to make avail-
able the academic facilities which are
anticipated to be very necessary if they
are to Keep pace with that enrollment.
And keep pace with that enroliment, we
must—at almost any cost.

Until adequate college facilities. are:

available and within reach of all our
able young people, time is wasting away
and we are depriving cur Nation of its
greatest natural resource in failing to
develop the unlimited potentials at our
disposal and command.

The loan and grant provisions of Pub-
lic Law 88-204, according te college and
university officials all over the country,
ave the ohly hope to meet the foreseeable
needs in education. The obsolete struc-
tures must be modernized to conform to
progress; new facilities must be con-
structed where needed; engineering,
medical, scientific and other technical
fields must be expanded and new grad-
uate facilities developed if we are te
produce a sufficient supply of qualified
personnel needed by industry and Gov-
ernment and for research and teaching.
It is the responsibility and duty of this
body to see that opportunities for higher
education are not denied to any of our
young people “because there is no room.”
The burden rests on us today to provide
for the expansion of high quality educa-
tion and research in the technical fields
which are so essential to national de-
fense and security and ‘continued eco-
nomic growth.

There was lethargy and complacency
in America before October 4, 1957, when
@ spacecraft called sputnik challenged
our claim of world leadership. We were
rudely awakened to the importance of
the prerequisite of education and train=
ing our young people. We were awak-
ened, sure enough, but not enough has
been done to make up for the time we
lost prior to 1957.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

We cannot recall the lost time, and we
cannot dwell on post mortems for lost
opportunities, but we can establish an
accelerated program of education in
1964. We have no choice—we not only
can, we must.

. Public Law 88-204 provides for a pro-
gram of matching grants for assistance
to junior colleges and technical insti-
tutes and for the establishment of srad-
uate schools or graduate centers created
by the mergence and cooperative efforts
of two or more institutions in providing
research projects. Both of the programs
are designed to strengthen our educa-
tional system. ‘The junior colleges will
help alleviate the overcrowded conditions
at the 4-year colleges and the univer-
sities, and the establishment of the grad-
uate centers will promote a wider dis-
tribution of graduate facilities. The co-
operative endeavors of educational insti-
tutions will, without doubt, provide for
the advancement of knowledge and the

strengthening and effectiveness of re--

search,

The libraries, laboratories, and the
classrooms provided by Public Law 88-
204 are urgently needed—the classrooms
to house the expanded enrollment, and
the laboratories and libraries to accom-
modate the ever-growing volume of re~
search knowledge.

. Fhe $463,150,000 proposed for 1965,
although not sufficient In comparison to
the need and urgency, is a trend in the
right direction. I urge the passage of
E.R. 10809.

Mr. CONTE. Mr. Chairman, I am
dismayed by the fact that we are not
able to pass appropriations for the Li-
brary Services Act this afternoon.

Certainly, as the subcommittee made
clear to the full Appropriations Com-
mittee last Friday, there is no good rea-
son why the administration failed to

‘deliver the necessary reports so that the

appropriations could be enacted at this
time.

In fact, I attended the White House
signing on February 11, and cannot im-
agine why this feature of the HEW
appropriations was not dispatched in
the normal course of events.

Surely, as the President indicated at
the White House signing, this is a sig-
nificant piece of legisiation in that it
expands the historic Library Services
Act of 1956 to include communities with
over 10,000 population.

During the floor debate on this legis-
lation, Mr, Chairman, I made the point

that the importance of this program and -

the necessity for its expansion was mani-
fest because of the great nationwide in-
terest in reading, and the importance of
outstanding libraries in every community
of the Nation.

The outstanding western Massachu-
setts Hbraries in my district are in im~-
mediate need of the matching grant
money allotted under the terms of the
Library Services Act, which is now public
law of the land. ‘

I understand that it was 5 days after
hearings closed on the HEW appropria-~
tions that the administration followed
through with the necessary reports.

All teld, it has been pending since
January when the legislation cleared the
House of Representatives.

7595

Tt seems to me imperative that im-
mediate action be taken on the library
services legislation. I plan to watch this
very closely in the Senate, and I hope
their deliberation will expedite the act.

I sincerely hope and trust that they-
will, because the strength of our coun-
try may very well turn upon the continu-
ity and strength of our libraries and the
ability of our citizens to have access to
the information available at libraries
throughout the land.

And finally, what is discouraging about
this whole situation is the fact that this
is National Library Week, and it would
have been an ideal time to start circu-
lating the funds that have been granted
to the libraries. Instead we have to wait
and give token praise to these institu-
tions during their week in 1964,

Mr. LINDSAY. Mr. Chairman, there
is one aspect of this bill that troubles
me greatly. The full Commitiee on Ap-
propriations has cut the appropriations
for day care centers by $2 million. Why?

This Nation is engaged, theoretically,
in an effort. to overcome abject poverty.
Of all the problems that arise out. of
broken homes or “parti time’ homes in
the cities of this country, the worst is
the infection of the little ones. If the
young children are brought up in an
uneared for, hostile, tension-ridden en~
vironment they cannot be expected to
become responsible adults. The conse-
quences are school dropouts, narcotics
addiction, crime, and all of the other sad
and sick results that in turn contribute
to the further illness of the neighbor-
hood. :

The day care center program was de-
signed to rescue the little ones before
this could happen. The day care center
program is designed to give children the
right start in life so that we legislators
will not be required to enact crash pro-
grams for the adults when it is too late.
Day care centers have proven themselves
in New York City. In thousands of cases
where the mother works to round out the
family income, or, as is often the case,
the family is without a father, day care
centers have saved the children.

Every cent that has been asked for in
the daycare cénters is money well spent
and an investment with high return to
the citizens and the taxpayers.

I know from past history that an effort
to restore $2 million by amendment on
the floor of the House would not be im-
mediately successful, because of the
unanimous committee position on the
subject. However, I do hope that the
other body will make the restoration,
strengthen this part of the bill, and give
us a chance to strengthen our daycare
centers in our cities. If there ever was a
program that had a minimum of red tape,
@ maximum of highly dedicated people
connected with it, and a maximum of re-
turn to the taxpayers, it is the daycare
program. If we wish to avoid higher ap-
propriations in the future for crash pro~
grams for the relief and rehabilitation
of the adult world, a more significant in-
vestment in the children’s world in this
area, is one way to deo it.

Finally, I should like to add that even-
tually separate and special legislation is
required in this area. The daycare cen-
ter program has been given such wide
7596

recognition for excellence that. it needs
separate handling and substantial au-
thorizations and appropriations. The
amount provided in this bill is a begin-
ning, but it is far less than what is
needed. a

Mr. O'HARA of Tilinois.. Mr. Chair-
man, I am happily enthusiastic in my
support of H.R. 10809 as I have been of
all the measures from the.subcommittee
chaired by the distinguished gentleman
from Rhode Island (Mr. Focarry], whom
IT regard as one of the great Americans
of this generation, certainly in the field
of education and health. Mr. Focarry,
as is well and accurately known, refused
a seat in the U.S. Senate offered him on
a silver platter, in order that he might
continue to serve the cause of health,
labor, and education from the vantage
position of chairman of this most im-
portant subcommittee of the Committee
on Appropriations.

Under date of April 10, 1964, President
George W. Beadle, of the University of
Chicago, wrote me:

The University of Chicago has been anx-
iously awaiting the time when Congress will
provide the necessary appropriations to im-
plement the Higher Education Facilities Act
of 1963. We have three projects on the
drawing boards at the present time for which
we would like to apply for the maximum loan
and grant amounts and proceed with the
construction involved. You may be inter-
ested in the nature of these facilities: (1)
Renovation of Cobb Hall, approximately
66,300 square feet, at a cost of $2 million.
This building will provide usable classroom
space after renovation. (2) A new chemistry
building, approximately 87,000 square feet,
at a cost of $4,500,000 to provide additional
Jaboratory and research facilities for our
rapidly increasing enrollments in this dis-
cipline. (3) A new $12 million library.

The first project is ready for the taking
of bids, and the second will be in the same
situation in 3 months. Prompt action by the
Congress would make it possible for us to
expand our facilities within a short period of
time. IT hope you will support the appropria-
tion measure.

Sincerely yours,
‘ GEORGE W. BrapLe.

Iam informed that the bill now before
us provides ample funds for the first two
projects listed by President Beadle,
which of course are subject to selection
on a State level. Only a modest sum,
however, is available for library pur-
poses; but this, I am informed, is a tem-
porary condition due to the failure of the
Bureau of the Budget. to act prior to the
closing of the hearings of the Fogarty
subcommittee on March 18, 1964.

Public Law 269 cleared Congress in
late January of this year by an over-
whelming majority. It provided for a
greatly expanded library construction as
well as library services program. The
bill was approved by the President on
February 11, 1964, and immediately
thereafter the Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare made. request
of the Bureau of the Budget for approval
of funds with which to carry out the pro-
gram. This approval, however, did not
come until after the House subcommittee
had completed its hearings, and it is my
understanding that the House conferees
will not offer objection if, when this bill
reaches the other body, it is amended to
provide funds for the implementing of

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

Public Law 269 and I hope the construce
tion of the new $12 million library at the
University of Chicago.

Again, Mr. Chairman, I commend the
gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr.
Fogarty] and the members of his creat
subcommittee on both sides of the polit-
ical fence for a good job magnificently
executed.

Mr. SICKLES. Mr. Chairman, I would
like to make three comments on the ap-
propriations bill we aré considering
today.

First, I am extremely pleased to see
that the subcommittee has acted to fund
the important education - programs
passed by the 1963 “education” Congress.
In particular I am pleased that money
has been made available to implement

the higher education facilities construc-.

tion legislation which it was my pleasure
to work on in the Education and Labor
Committee last year. The substantive
work of our legislative committee in de-
veloping programs such as this means
nothing unless it is subsequently backed
up by the necessary appropriations.

Second, I am pleased to note that the
committee has fully funded the admin-
istration’s request for 33 additional se-
curity guards at the St. Elizabeths Hos-
pital although somewhat distressed that
the Bureau of the Budget severely cut
the original request of 98 additional se-
curity personnel made by the hospital
staff. In the hearings before the House
Education and Labor Committee’s ad
hoc subcommittee on St. Elizabeths
Hospital chaired by the Honorable Mr.
Daniels the need for additional security
personnel was fully apparent. You may
recall that the subcommittee was estab-
lished because of the serious problem
that had developed regarding the serious
crimes committed by escaped “prisoner
patients.”

Unfortunately, the hospital staff did
not act to secure funds to implement the
subcommittee’s suggestion that a sub-
campus be developed specifically for
“prisoner patients.” It is my understand-
ing that funds for this purpose will be
requested in the 1966 budget. In my view
this represents an undue delay on the
part of the hospital staff in resolving one
aspect of the serious problem that the
hospital has had in dealing with its con-
tingent of “prisoner patients.”

Third, it is disturbing te me that funds
have not been allocated in this budget
for the planning of the proposed En-
vironmental Health Center. The com~<
mittee report notes that the committee
was presented with. “a considerable
amount of confused and indecisive in-
formation” on this project.

Mr: Chairman, this project has been
delayed for at least 3.years and during
this period the eventual consolidation of
various related environmental research
activities has also been delayed. This
is not a healthy situation. It is my hope
that the Appropriations Committee will
be furnished ail the information it needs
to act on this important project at some
point in the legislative process and that
the executive branch of government will
“speak with one voice’ to the Congress
on this matter.

‘For the Recorp, Mr. Chairman, T would

April 14

like to submit the text of testimony sub-
mitted by Secretary Celebrezze favoring
the location of the bulk of this important
project in Beltsville, Md.

Contrary to what some of my col-
leagues may assume, I do not believe that
every Government installation should be
located in the- Washington metropolitan
area or in the State of Maryland. I do
believe, however, that the principles of
economy, efficiency and good manage-
ment require that 2 rational determina-
tion be made in each case regarding
whether the proposed function can best
be accomplished here at the seat of our
national Government. I do not believe
that the location or expansion of facil-
ities in this area is bad per se anymore
than I believe that the operations of our
Federal Government should be decen-
tralized to provide every community in
the United States with some type of in-
stallation.

In this regard, I would like to submit
for the Recorp a memorandum prepared
by the Bureau of the Budget that ad-
dresses itself to the question of whether
Federal facilities should be located within
or outside of the Washington area. Each
of us is concerned with the cost of Gov-~-
ernment and orderly development of
Federal activities and consequently I am
sure we will give these points full con-
sideration.

ENVIRONMENTAL FIpaLTH CENTER

Secretary CeLeprezze. I would like at this
time, Mr. Chairman, to add a brief statement
concerning the request for planning funds
for environmental health facilities.

Mr. Focartry. All right.

Secretary CeLesrezze. The budget contains
$1,500,000 for-1965, to be added to $785,000
previously appropriated, for the preparation
of plans and specifications for urgently need-
ed facilities to house the expanding staffs of
the environmental health programs of the
Public Health Service. The budget did not
state where the facilities were to be located.

LOCATION OF FACILITY

Since the Congress disallowed a similar re-
quest last year involving a plan to build an
environmental health center at Beltsville,
Md., we have given careful thought to the
objections which were voiced at that time to
the further concentration of research and
research-related activities in the Washington
metropolitan area.. It is not our purpose te
locate activities here which could be per-
formed as effectively or almost as effectively,
elsewhere. Only when the advantages of lo~
eating research facilities are very strong
would we recommend further concentration
of activities in this area.

The result of. our further review is to
conclude that, although there are certain ap-
plied research and training activities which
could be performed elsewhere without serious
detriment to the program, the basic activities”
envisioned for our environmental health cen-
ter are so interrelated with other activities
located in the Washington area that we
cannot see how these activities could be ef-
fectively and efficiently conducted elsewhere.

ADVANTAGES OF BELTSVILLE LOCATION

The environmental health sciences are
concerned with the chemistry and physics of
our environment, the effects of environment
on man, and methods of control which might
reduce pollution or its harmful effect upon
man. Such work involves many scientific
disciplines including chemistry, physics,
physiology, biology, toxicology, and pharma-
cology, as well as @ variety of engineering
specialties. The Public Health Service needs
to have a group of competent scientists in
1964

these disciplines, working with scientists in
other departments and agencies of the Gov-
ernment on many types of problems, but
particularly on the much-neglected area of
the effects on man of long-term low dosages
of various toxic chemicals in our environ-
ment. Recent emphasis on the adverse
effects of pesticides and the extremely large
and growing number of pesticides used both
on food crops and for many urban and
household purposes, has brought out how
little we know about the long-term effects of
very small dosages of numerous powerful
chemical agents and poisons.

The Food and Drug Administration is like-
wise concerned with these problems and is
planning to construct a new laboratory at
Beltsville, Md., to work on these and other
problems. The Department of Agriculture
already has its pesticides research work cen~-
tered at Beltsville. Each of these agencies
has an important role related to its prin-
cipal mission. Fundamental research, which
will underlie the applied research of the
other agencies will be conducted by the Pub-
lic Health Service. In working on problems
of this kind, the advantages of close prox-
imity to the related research activities of the
Food and Drug Administration, the Depart-
ment of Agriculture, the National Institutes
of Health, and the Fish and Wildlife Service
of the Department of the Interior are obvi-
ously great.

I have used the illustration of research
in the toxicology of pesticides as an example
of the need for coordination with other agen-
cies and great advantages of locating at
Beltsville the basic research in the environ-
mental health sciences which underlies spe-
cific research on pesticides. In using this
illustration, I do not wish te convey the im-
pression that it is our intention to conduct
all research on subjects of this type in Fed-
eral laboratories with Federal employees.
On the contrary, we intend to make appro-
priate use of grants to obtain the support of
universities and other nonprofit research in-
stitutions to perform as much of this type of
research as possible. It may also prove de-
sirable and even necessary to use the con-
tract device to enlist the special competence
of industry to conduct some aspects of our
research programs in areas such as these.

Heretofore, there has not been nearly as
intense interest on the part of the scientific
community in this Kind of research as in -the
search for causes and cures of dread diseases.
For this reason, it is especially important in
this area of scientific work to develop the
capability in our own laboratories to perform
those aspects of research which do not lend
themselves to being worked on elsewhere. |

It is our plan to house at Beltsville, in ad-
dition to personnel who will be directly en-
gaged in basic and certain long-term applied
research in the environmental . health
sciences, the scientific review staff and the
administrative staff needed to conduct the
extramural grant and contract programs in
the same and related areas. It seems seif-
evidently desirable to coordinate research
performed through grants and contracts with
related research done directly in Government
laboratories by seeing that those responsible
for both are housed together and work to-
gether. These personnel will also be within
easy traveling distance of the NIH and other
units of the Public Health Service with whom
they will need to work in administering the
research grant and training programs,

Another important function which can be
performed far more effectively and efficiently
in the Washington area than elsewhere is the
conduct of our research responsibilities in
respect to the long-range biological effects
of radiation on man. Such research and the
operation of our national surveillance center
to keep constant check on radiation condi-
tions of the atmosphere and the effects of

No. 71—_4

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

“fallout,” can be far better performed in the
Washington area than elsewhere because of
the need to maintain close working relation-
ships with the Atomic Energy Commission,
the Bureau of Standards, the NIH, and the
Food and Drug Administration, all of whom
have related responsibilities in this subject-
matter area.

These functions, together with certain
related training and technical assistance ac-
tivities, would be grouped together to form
the core of an environmental health center
devoted to developing one of the most neg-
lected fields related to the health of man.
The most appropriate, effective, and efficient
location of a center to carry forward these
purposes is, in our judgment, the site recom~-
mended last year at Beltsville, Md., on land
earmarked for transfer to the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare from the De-
partment of Agriculture, which now owns it.
It is part of the Beltsville Agricultural Ex-
periment Station.

Location of the center in the Washington
area was originally recommended by a panel
of ‘distinguished scientific consultants
headed by Dr. Paul Gross, of Duke Univer~
sity, immediate past president of the Ameri-
can Association for the Advancement of
Science. It was subsequently reaffirmed by
@ special panel of the President’s Science

. Advisory Committee.

The size of the facility recommended last
year was such as to house approximately 1,600
persons, with an estimated cost of about $34
million. It was to be located on a large
enough piece of land and so designed that it
could be enlarged if it was found later to be
necessary or desirable.

LOCATION OF ONE-FOURTH PERSONNEL OUTSIDE
WASHINGTON AREA

We are currently reviewing functions
which might be performed elsewhere. Our
preliminary conclusion is that approximate-
ly a fourth of the persons who were sched-
uled to work in this facility could be located
outside the Washington metropolitan area.
Certain types of applied research and train-
ing are more separable than other elements.
Thus, the conclusion is that we should pro-
ceed with a basic center at Beltsville of ap-
proximately 300,000 square feet, to provide
facilities for approximately 1,200 people. We
will also pursue rapidly to a conclusion the
most approriate location for the other applied
research and training functions. We urge
that you provide the full amount of the
planning funds requested with the under~-
standing that approximately three-fourths of
the total facilities requested will be located
at Beltsville and that the remaining portion
is to be located if feasible at an appropriate
site outside the immediate Washington area.

We shall undertake to inform your com-
mittee at the earliest possible time of the de-
cision on the location of the functions for
which we are now seeking an appropriate lo-
cation outside the Washington area,

This concludes my formal statement, Mr.
Chairman.

Again I want to say I regret the length of
time that I have taken but sometimes when
I present my programs I wonder if there, are
any other departments in the Government.

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE
PRESIDENT, BUREAU OF THE BUDGET,
Washington, D.O., July 18, 1963.

To: The heads of executive departments and
establishments. ,

Subject: Critera for decentralizing Federal
activities from the National Capital
region,

1. Purpose: Section 3(d) of Executive
Order No. 11035 of July 9, 1962, directs agen-
cies to “review continuously their needs for
space in and near the District of Columbia,
taking into account the feasibility of de-

7597

centralizing services or activities which can
be carried on elsewhere without excessive
costs or significant loss of efficiency.” This
circular establishes general criteria to assist
Federal departments and agencies in deter-
mining the desirability of decentralizing
agencies or agency activities from the Na-
tional Capital region.

2. Background: In a memorandum of No-
vember 27, 1962, to the heads of executive
departments and establishments and to the
Commissioners of the District of Columbia,
the President set forth development policies
to serve as guidelines for the agencies of the
executive branch in fulfilling the objectives
of the year 2000 plan developed by the Na-
tional Capital Planning Commission and the
National Capital Regional Planning Council.
The plan projected a total regional popula~
tion of 5 million by the year 2000. Among
the assumptions on which that projection
was based were that Federal employment in
the region would not exceed 450,000 and,
secondly, that. Federal activities not essen-
tial to the seat of Government would be lo-
cated outside of the National Capital region.

The President’s ad hoc Committee on Fed-
eral Office Space initially proposed criteria
for decentralization of activities from the
National Capital region. These criteria are
refined and clarified in this circular.

The criteria are designed to provide prac-
tical tests for determining whether agen-
cies, new or expanding activities, or existing
activities should be located in the National
Capital region or located outside of the re-
gion through decentralization or delegation
of responsibility to existing field facilities.
The National Capital region includes the
District of Columbia, Montgomery, and
Prince Georges Counties in Maryland, and
Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun, and Prince
William Counties in Virginia; the cities of
Alexandria and Falls Church in Virginia;
and all cities now or hereafter existing in
Maryland or Virginia within the geographic
area bounded by outer boundaries of the
combined area of aforesaid counties.

Development of a well-informed judgment
on the most desirable location of an agency
or activity under review will require bal-
anced consideration of ali applicable cri-~
teria; no one criterion can be considered
conclusive. In such an evaluation, consid- -
eration must be given to the needs of the
Government as a whole, the relation of the
work of the agency to other agency head-
quarters, and the needs of persons served or
affected by the agency or activity.

3. Criteria for location of agencies or ac-
tivities: In formulating and applying cri-
teria regarding the proper location of an
agency or an activity, consideration must
be given to its major purpose, its principal’
working relationships with other govern-
mental and nongovernmental activities, and
to costs and special requirements. .

(a) An agency or an agency activity is
generally susceptible to location outside of
the National Capital region when—

(1) It performs functions or provides serv-
ices to clientele in a particular region of the
country other than Washington.

(2) It is engaged in operations to carry
out well-defined policies and programs which
require only limited day-to-day headquar-
ters supervision.

(3) It is a regional, district or other field
office (unless it can be demonstrated that
the workload of the office is predominantly
concerned with the National Capital region).

(4) It provides large-scale supporting serv-
ices of a relatively repetitive or routine na-
ture, such as records maintenance; procure-
ment and inventory control; training, in-
eluding the operation of schools; admin-
istration of real property and related en
gineering services; manufacturing; financial
accounting and disbursing activities; or
7598

statistics and data collection, and related
fact-gathering and processing operations.

(5) It is a review function or administra~
tive service activity which could be per-
formed equally well by field offices exercis~-
ing general supervision over operating offices.

(6) It operates in a relatively self-suf-
ficient manner, which does not require it
to have close intra-agency or interagency
working relationships. :

(7) It requires close coordination with
other governmental (Federal, State and lo-
cal) and nongovernmental activities or in-
dividuals within a given geographical area
other than the National Capital region.

(8) It requires close coordination or work-
ing relationships with other Federal activi-
ties which are also susceptible to decentral-
ization or delegation to a. common new lo-
cation or to existing field offices in a com-
mon location outside the National Capital
region.

(9) Small liaison, offices in Washington
could effectively meet headquarters needs.

(10). Increased administrative economies,
such as in travel, communications, rental,
and recruiting, and improved efficiency, as
im speed of decisionmaking or better service
to the public, can be achieved. through relo-
cation and its initial costs can be justified
accordingly. .

_ - (@). An agency or agency activity is gen-
erally not susceptible to location outside the
National Capital region when—

(1) It-is directed to meeting the needs

of the President, the Congress, or agency

- heads for continuing consultation, direc-
tion, and fixing of responsibility for gov-
ernmental action.

(2) It is concerned with establishing na-
tional policies or developing broad princi-
ples and programs for nationwide applica-
tion.

(3) It involves exercising general super-
vision over agency operations throughout the
country to assure that those operations are
‘in accord with. general national policies.

{4) It is an activity conducted by per-
sons who require close working relation-
ships with those who make or direct major
agency policy and who themselves must be
located in the National Capital region.

(5) It requires close coordination or work-
ing relationships or continual communica~-
tion, with other headquarters agencies, the
Congress, or nongovernmental organizations
or individuals located in the National Capital
region.

'(6} The costs of decentralization (includ-
ing replacement of specialized physical fa-
cilities, loss of personnel with specialized
skills, special training, relocation, travel,
communications, and disruption of current
operations) would outweigh benefits to be
gained.

(71) Workload would not justify develop-
ment of additional specialized staffs solely

in order to achieve decentralization or dele- |

gation. :

4. Responsibility for implementation: Re-
sponsibility for implementing the provisions
of this circular is assigned as follows:

(a) Department and agency heads: Depart-
ment and agency heads will utilize the cri-
teria contained in paragraph 3 in continu-
ously reviewing their needs for space in and
near the District of Columbia, as required

by section @(d) of Executive Order No,

11035, and in determining and justifying re-
quests for additional space.

Whenever it is determined that decen-
tralization of an agency or segments of an
agency is desirable, but not permissible un-
der existing laws, the department or agency
head will request such amendments to these
laws as may be required to carry out this
objective. Department and agency heads (in
coordination with the General Services Ad-
ministration when appropriate) will also take
such steps as may be required by applicable

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

statutes and regulations to secure authoriza-
tions and appropriations for land acquisi-
tion, construction, alteration, or leasing of
facilities.

(ob) The General Services Administration:
The General Services Administration will
utilize the criteria contained in paragraph 3
in its continuing investigation and survey
of public building needs in the National
Capital region under the Public Buildings
Act of 1959 and Executive Order No. 11085
and in reviewing the requests of each agency
for new space or faclilties in the region.

Whenever decentralization of an agency or
activity has been determined to be desirable,
the General Services Administration, in co-
ordination with the agency concerned, will
take such steps as may be required by ap-
plicable statutes and regulations to secure
authorizations and appropriations for land
acquisition, construction, alteration, or leas-
ing of. facilities.

(c) The Bureau of the Budget: The Bureau
of the Budget will provide assistance to agen~
cies, upon request, in utilizing the criteria
established by. this circular and will further
refine and clarify these criteria as necessary.
It will take into account these criteria in
reviewing agency reorganization proposals
and in reviewing agency requests for funds
for new space. or facilities in the National
Capital region.

(ad). Consultation with other agencies:
Agencies considering decentralization of one
or more of their activities will consult with
the Area Redevelopment Administration (De-
partment of Commerce), the Civil Service
Commission and the Office of Emergency
Planning, on matters affecting. the responsi-
bilities of these agencies. Agencies con-
sidering relocation of existing activities in-
volving the construction of public works or
the location of new activities in the National
Capital region will consult with the National
Capital Planning Commission on matters af-
fecting its responsibilities. The Bureau of
the Budget and the General Services Admin-
istration will similarly consult with these
agencies in reviewing agency proposals for
decentralization.

5. Report to the Bureau of the Budget:
Each department and agency head will advise
the Bureau of the Budget not later than
September 9, 1963, of the procedural arrange-
ments (including assignments of responsi-
bility) that he has made for the systematic
utilization of these criteria in reviewing and
determining his organization’s space require-
ments in the National Capital region.

ExurmMir GORDON,
Director.

Mr. FOGARTY. Mr. Chairman, does
the gentleman from Wisconsin desire to
yield any more time?

Mr. LATRD. I have no further re-
quests for time, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. FOGARTY. Mr. Chairman, I have
no further requests for time and I ask
that the Clerk read.

The Clerk read. as follows:

EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH (SPECIAL FOREIGN

CURRENCY PROGRAM)

For payments in foreign currencies which
the Treasury Department determines to be
excess to the normal requirements of the
United States, for necessary expenses of the
Office of Education, as authorized by law,
$500,000, to remain available until expended:
Provided, That this appropriation shail be
available, in addition to other appropriations
to such agency, for payments in the fore-
going currencies.

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike the last two words.

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

to finance the Hill-Burton Act.

April i

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, this bill
calls for the spending of nearly $7 billion.
It is $1.1 billion above spending for the
same general purposes as last year.

I note in the report that this is called
one of the most conservative bills that
has been submitted to the Congress in
recent years. I wonder if I ar mistaken
about the meaning of the word “con-
servative.”

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

Mr.GROSS. Iyield. /

Mr. FOGARTY. That is my opinion.
I am merely expressing my opinion that
it is one of the most conservative budgets
submitted to the Congress. In many
areas we should be spending much more
money than the bill calls for. That is
why I call it conservative.

Mr. GROSS. If an authorization bill
is passed, wemay reasonably expect from
$200 to $400 million more will be needed
If the
Department of Poverty is established, do
I correctly understand that that will
come under the Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare appropriation?

Mr. FOGARTY. Iam not sure where
that is going. That would involve ap-
proximately another billion dollars, I
have heard.

There is $55 million for. the Library
Services Act which I had hoped would
be in this bill, but it is not.

Mr. GROSS. The gentleman hopes
there will be another $55 million put in
the bill today?

Mr. FOGARTY. That is why I he-
lieve it is a conservative bill.

Mr. GROSS. If the $55 million is put
in, the gentleman would still say it is
conservative?

Mr. FOGARTY. I am not talking
about action by the House today on the
$55 million. I hoped the budget re-
quest would have been submitted in time
for the committee to put it in the bill.

Mr. GROSS. I see.

I note that the distinguished gentle-
man from Arkansas [Mr. Mis], chair-
man of the Ways and Means Committee,
is on the House floor. I seem to recall
that when the $11.5 billion tax reduction
bill was before the House he told us that
we could take one of two roads—that
it would be the road toward economy,
if we were to have tax reduction, or we
would run the risk of doing grave damage
to the finances and economy of the coun-
try if we took the spending road. In
view of the fact that this bill, as it now
stands, calls for $1.1 billion above the
spending for last year, I wonder which
road we will be taking today if we vote
for it?

Mr. FOGARTY. The gentleman would
have to answer that question for himself.
The gentieman from Iowa knows my
position on these matters. I get very
impatient with the slowness with which
we approach some of these problems.

Mr.GROSS, Iknow.

Mr. FOGARTY. I believe we ought
to move faster; to build more buildings
and train more personnel and do more
research. .

Mr. GROSS. I notice that in the
hearings the distinguished gentleman
from Rhode Island said:
1964

But. to put it bluntly, this is the most
conservative budget since Mrs. Hobby, was
Secretary. I do not say it is worse, but I
say it is almost as bad.

Mr. FOGARTY. Isaid it. That is in
the Recorp. I cannot take it back.

Mr. GROSS. The bill is $600 million
some ‘below the budget estimates.

Mr. FOGARTY. Four hundred and
fifty-seven million dollars of that was in
the supplementals for fiscal year 1964.

Mr. GROSS. It is some $600 million
below the budget estimates, but still $1.1
billion above the spending for last year
and still it is called conservative.

Mr. FOGARTY. That is correct.

Mr. GROSS. Do. I correctly under-
stand that the State of Louisiana owes
the Federal Government a million dol-
lars in connection with some welfare
program to which it failed to contribute?
Is there any hope of collecting that mil-
lion dollars from the State of Louisiana,
does the gentleman believe?

Mr. FOGARTY. We did not get a
very satisfactory answer on that. That
was alleged by. the General Accounting
Office: that $1 million was owed. Lou-
isiana is still in this program, but there
is another program the State is not taking
part in.

Mr. GROSS. But funds were not cut
off on the basis of no reimbursement to
the Federal Government. Is that cor-
rect?

Mr. FOGARTY... The gentleman is
correct.

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

Mr. GROSS. Yes. I will be glad to
yield to the gentleman.

Mr. WAGGONNER,. I think the pro-
gram to which the gentleman alludes,
referring to Louisiana, is. the fact that
Louisiana does not participate. in the
Manpower Development Training Act
program.

Mr, FOGARTY. That is the one that
I was thinking of. But the gentleman
from Iowa is right and this is in our
hearings.

Mr. GROSS. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I regret that I cannot
vote for this appropriation bill for it has
a number of provisions which I approve.
But here is a bill calling for the spend-~
ing of $7 billion in the next fiscal year—
an increase of more than $1.1 billion in
expenditure for the same general pur-
poses as in the present fiscal year.

Additionally, we have been told this
afternoon that pending legislation may
well add another $1 billion during this
session of Congress. Instead of reducing
expenditures or even holding the line
we have here still another bill that means
the borrowing of more money, increasing
the deficit and promoting inflation. This
is a strange procedure in view of the
$11.5 billion tax reduction—a huge cut
in revenue—and the dire need for a bal-
ance of spending and income.

No matter how worthy some of the pro-
grams contained in this bill, I am com-
pelled to vote against it. in the interest
of fiscal sanity.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman has expired.

The Clerk will read.

The Clerk read as follows:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

CONSTRUCTION OF COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH
CENTERS

For grants pursuant to the Community
Mental Health Centers Act, $35,000,000:
Provided, That there may be transferred to
this appropriation from “Hospital construc-
tion activities” an amount not to exceed the
sum of the allotment adjustments made by
the Secretary pursuant. to section 132(c). of
the Mental Retardation Facilities Construc-
tion Act.

Mr. LAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I move

to strike out the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I take this time to
point out to Members who have con-
tacted us regarding the General Ac-
counting Office decision on the payment
of grants to universities and college, the
action the committee has taken on this.
Since the inception of the National In-
stitutes of Health, grants have been made
to colleges and universities, particularly
medical schools, for research activities.
These grants are paid in a lump sum at
the start of the project for a given year.
Under the: present procedures, for the
first time, letters. of credit will be issued
to these universities and colleges. The
universities will be able to draw down
from their local bank on these letters
of credit. Prior to this time the uni-
versities would deposit these funds, and
many universities invested them and
drew interest. This was wise manage-
ment on the part of these universities
and colleges. They are now being re-
quired, under.this GAO ruling, to reim-
burse the Federal Treasury for all of
the interest that they drew on the ad-
vance payments of these grants.

Our committee does not feel that this

_isfair. The schools that did invest these

funds were engaged in proper manage-
ment and should not be penalized., Lan-
guage is written into this bill to protect
those universities and colleges. which
carried out good management of these
funds and they will not be required to
reimburse the Federal Treasury for these
interest payments. This amendment
and this language was agreed upon
unanimously by our committee and I
think it is a step in the right direction.

I think it is only fair to point out that
by using the letter-of-credit technique
for the first time in this budget, we are
using what some people refer to as gim-
mickry in the expenditure level for 1965.
By issuing letters of credit instead of is-
suing checks we will show a reduction in
the expenditure budget for 1965 of about
$1 billion. ‘We are, however, not re-
ducing eventual expenditures in this
amount. The expenditure budget can
show this reduction, but our commit-
ment is still just as large as it was under
the old system. The expenditure budget
figure is changed for 1965 but this spend-
ing will be reflected in the budget in
the fiscal year 1966.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want anyone
to be misled by this change in the ex-
penditure level which has been pointed
to by some as a Saving. ‘This, of course,
is not the case. This is a bookkeeping de-
vice which, if taken for the Government
as a whole has the effect of an apparent
reduction of $1 billion which is not a
reduction of our commitment in any
way.

7599

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

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

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, do I
understand the gentleman to say that
by a provision in this bill-the Congress
is foregoing interest on loans to certain
educational institutions for certain pur-
poses?

Mr. LATRD. I would like to explain
this to the gentleman; and perhaps it
would be best to use an example. Col-
lege A and college B have been handling .
research grants over along period. Col-
lege A when it receives its research grant
money would take it to a bank and in-
vest it in short-term securities and re-
ceive interest on this grant until the
grant was actually drawn down. by the
researcher. This practice was in fact
good management on the part of college
A. College B would take the money and
just deposit it in a checking account at
the bank and would not receive any
interest. I do not believe college B used
good Management practices.

‘ Under the new Federal procedure, the
suggestions made by my colleague, the
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.
Byrnes] at the time of the hearings on
the debt limitation before the Commit-
tee on Ways and Means are being imple-
mented in this year’s budget. This
shows a reduction in expenditures for
only 1 year. The expenditure level will
be much higher next year as a result.

But as far-as the interest is concerned
we are not requiring those colleges that,
during the last 6 years have received
interest, to reimburse the Federal Gov-
ernment because they had used good,
sound, financial arrangements as far as
their school was concerned.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Larrp]
has expired.

(Mr. LAIRD (at the request of Mr.
Gross) was given permission to proceed
for 2 additional minutes.)

Mr. GROSS. I assume the gentleman
from Wisconsin is aware that only about
2 weeks ago the Federal Government
borrowed some $2 billion, paying an in-
terest rate of 3% percent and selling the
notes at less than par, which means that
the real interest rate on the $2 billion
borrowing will amount to something like
a 4.15 percent?

Mr. LAIRD. I well understand the
point which the gentleman makes.
However, I would like to state that in
this budget we are not advancing re-
search funds to the universities and col-
leges. ‘This is not only in the Depart-
ment of Health, Education, and Welfare
programs but. also in the Department of
Defense, the AEC, and other programs.
Letters of credit will be issued and this
will not represent a charge against the
Government until the college, the uni-
versity, or the research establishment ,
actually goes to the bank to draw down
on the letter of credit which is issued
by the Government agency.

This reflects a reduction in the ex-
penditure level for fiscal year 1965.
This, in effect, when compared with the
1964 budget is a misleading expenditure
7600

reduction because the commitment is
still the same commitment.

Mr. GROSS. I thank the gentleman
for his explanation. :

My point is that there is no such thing
as interest free money that the Govern=
ment borrows insofar as the taxpayers
of this country are concerned. There
is no such money available when the
Federal Government is now paying more
than 4 percent interest on its borrow-
ings. :

Mr, LAIRD. -These are grants about
which I am talking.

Mr. GROSS. I understand.

Myr. LAIRD. They have nothing to do
with loans. These are outright grants
made by the AEC, the Department of
Defense, the Department of Health, Edu-
cation, and Welfare, and many other
agencies. These are grant funds and
not loan funds that I am discussing.

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk _ will
read.

The Clerk read as follows:

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF NEUROLOGICAL DISEASES
AND BLINDNESS

For expenses necessary to carry out. the
purposes of the Act relating to neurology
and blindness, $87,621,000.

Mr. CONTE. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike out the last word, ;

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

Mr. CONTE. Mr. Chairman, I want
to take this opportunity to congratulate
the chairman of the subcommittee and
the minority members of the subcommit-
tee, as well as the entire Committee on
Appropriations for imserting certain
money in this bill, the necessary funds,
to carry out the programs to control
tuberculosis and venereal disease.

It is my understanding that the ad-
ministration requested more money from
the Congress for the purpose of con-
trolling bangs disease in cattle than it
did. for both of these items. The com-
mittee in its wisdom, however, restored
$4 million for the control of tuberculosis
and $314,000 for the control of venereal
disease, which disease is running ram-
pant especially here in the District of
Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, this represented a case
where the administration tried to send
up to the Congress a balanced budget by
cuttine out programs that are very, very
popular with the Congress and with the
people of the United States. This is par-
ticularly true in the case of the control
of tuberculosis. This control involves a
5-year program, and at a time when we
are almost on the verge of a break-
through in this program, we find the
administration cutting needed funds.

Mr. Chairman, I might say that I am
disappointed that no money is contained
in this bill for the purpose of carrying
out the provisions of the Library Serv-
ices Act. However, I certainly have high
hopes that this money will be inserted
in the new budget for the purpose of
carrying out our commitment under the
authorization bill for this most’ worth-
while project and that the Senate will
restore these funds. I also hope that we

can have these funds agreed to by the
committee when it goes to conferenge.

Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the
committee for the outstanding job it has
done, especially the chairman of the sub-
committee, the gentleman from Rhode
Island [Mr. Focarry], who has been a
dedicated public servant in the field of
public health. ,

The CHAIRMAN.
read.

The Clerk read as follows:

ASSISTANCE FOR REPATRIATED UNITED STATES
NATIONALS -

For necessary expenses of carrying out the
provisions of the Act of July 5, 1960 (74
Stat. 308), and for care and treatment in
accordance with the Acts of March 2, 1929,
and October 29, 1941, as amended (24 U.S.C.
191a, 196a), $310,000.

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike out the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the
distinguished chairman of the subcom-
mittee a question: What are repatriated
nationals—U.S..citizens who are brought
back to this country?

Mr. FOGARTY. Any American citi-
zen who has been overseas and who
comes back here with a disabling iliness
and is destitute, will be taken care of.

Mr. GROSS. That is the meaning of
this particular provision of the bill?

Mr. FOGARTY. Yes.

Mr. GROSS. I thank the gentleman.

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 to.

Accordingly, the Committee rose; and
the Speaker having resumed the chair,
Mr. Tuomerson of New Jersey, Chairman
of the Committee on the Whole House
of the state of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under con-
sideration the bill, H.R. 10809, making
appropriations for the Departments of
Labor, and Health, Education, and Wel-
fare, and related agencies, for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1965, and for other
purposes, had directed him to report the
bill back to the House, with the recom-
mendation that the bill do pass.

The SPEAKER. Without objection,
the previous question is ordered.

There was no objection.

The SPEAKER. The question is on
the engrossment and third reading of
the bill.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed
and read a third time, and was read the

The Clerk will

. the third time.

The SPEAKER. The question is on
the passage of the bill.

The question was taken; and the
Speaker announced that the ayes ap-
peared to have it.

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, I object to
the vote on the ground that a quorum is
not present and make the point of order
that a quorum is not present.

The SPEAKER. Evidently a4 quorum
is not present.

The Doorkeeper will ¢lose the doors,
the Sergeant at Arms will notify absent
Members, and the Clerk will call the roll.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

April 14

The question was taken: and there
were—yeas 344, nays 21, not voting 69,

as follows:

Abbitt

‘Abernethy

Adair
Albert
Andrews, Ala.
Andrews,

WN. Dak.
Arends
Ashley
Ashmore
Aspinall
Auchincloss
AYPES
Baker
Baidwin
Baring
Barrett
Barry
Bates
Becker
Beckworth
Belcher
Bell
Bennett, Mich.
Berry
Betts
Boges
Bolton,

Frances P.
Bo'ton,

Oliver P.
Bonner
Bow
Brademas
Bray
Bromwell
Brooks
Broomfield
Brotzman
Brown, Calif.
Brown, Chio
Broyhill, N.C.
Bruce
Burke
Burkhalter
Burton, Calif.
Burton, Utah
Byrne, Pa.
Byrnes, Wis.
Cahill
Cameron
Cannon
Carey
Casey
Cederberg
Celler
Chamberlain
Chenoweth
Clancy
Clark
Clausen,

Don H.
Clawson, Del
Cleveland
Cohelan
Colmer
Conte
Corbett
Corman
Cramer
Cunningham
Curtin
Dague
Daniels
Davis, Ga.
Davis, Tenn.
Delaney
Dent
Denton
Derounian
Devine
Diges
Dingell
Bole
Donohue
Dorn
Downing
Dulski
Dwyer
Edmondson
Edwards
Elsworth
Everett
Evins
Fascell
Feighan
Findley
Fino

[Roll No. 111]

YEAS—344

Fisher
Fiood
Fogarty
Ford
Forrester
Fountain
Fraser
Frelinghuysen
Friedel
Fulton, Tenn.
Fuqua
Gallagher
Garmatz
Gary
Gathings
Gibbons
Giibert
Gill

Glenn
Goodling
Grabowski
Grant
Gray
Griffin
Griffiths
Grover
Gubser
Gurney
Hagan, Ga.
Hagen, Calif.
Haley
Halleck
Harding
Hardy
Harris
Harrison,
Harsha,
Harvey, Ind.
Harvey, Mich.
Hawkins
Hays
Healey.
Hébert
Hechler
Hemphill
Henderson
Herlong
Hoeven
Holifiela
Holland
Horan
Horton
Bull
ichord
Jarman
Jennings
Jensen
Joelson
Johnson, Calif.
Johnson, Wis,
Jonas
Jones, Mo.
Karsten
Barth
Kastenmeier
Keith
Kelly
Keogh
King, Calif.
Mirwan
Enox
Eornegay
Kunkel
Kyl

Laird
Landrum
Langen
Lankford
Latta
Leggett
Lennon
Lesinski
Libonati
Lindsay
Lipscomb
Lloyd ,
Long, La.
Long, Md.
McCulloch
McDade
McDowell
McFall
MctIntire
McMillan
Macdonald
MacGregor
Madden
Mahon

Mailliard
Marsh
Martin, Calif.
Martin, Nebr.
Mathias
Matthews
May

Meader
Miller, Calif.
Milliken
Milis

Minish
Minshail
Monagan
Montoya
Moore
Moorhead
Morgan
Morris
Morse
Morton
Mosher
Moss

Multer .
Murphy, N.Y.
Murray
Natcher
Nedzi
Nelsen

Nix

Norblad
O’Brien, N.Y.
O’Hara, Tl.
O’Konski
Olsen, Mont.
Olson, Minn.
O'Neill
Ostertag
Passman
Patman
Patten

Pelly
Perkins
Philbin
Pickle

Pike

Pillion
Pirnie .
Poage

Poft

Pool

Powell

Price
Purcell

Quie

Rains
Randall
Reid, Ti.
Reid, N.Y.
Reifel

Reuss
Rhodes, Pa.
Rich
Rielhman
Rivers, Alaska
Rivers, S.C.
Roberts, Ala.
Roberts, Tex.
Robison
Rodino
Rogers, Colo.
Rogers, Fla.
Rogers, Tex.
Rooney, N.Y,
Rooney, Pa.
Roosevelt
Rosenthal
Roudebush
Roush
Roybal
Ryan, Mich.
Ryan, N.Y.
St. George
St Germain
St. Onge
Saylor
Schadeberg
Schenck
Schneebeli
Schweiker
Schwengel
Secrest
Selden
Senner
Sheppard
Shriver
Sibal

; Sickles
1964 : CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

Sikes Thompson, Tex. Whalley
Skubitz Thomson, Wis. Wharton
Slack Toll White
Smith, Va. Tollefson Whitener
Springer Trimble Whitten
Staebier Tuck Widnall
Stafford Tupper Williams
Staggers Tuten Wilson, Bob
Stephens Udall Wilson,
Stinson Uliman Charles H.
Stratton Van Deerlin Wilson, Ind.
Stubblefield Vanik - Winstead
Sullivan Van Pelt Wydier
Taft Vinson Wyman
Taylor Wallhauser © Young
Teague, Calif. .Watson Younger
Teague, Tex. Watts Zablocki
Thomas Weaver
Thompson, N.J. Weltner
NAYS—al

Abele Foreman King, N.Y.
Alger Goodell _ McClory
Ashbrook Gross Quillen
Beermann Hall Short
Bennett, Fla. Hutchinson Smaith, Calif.
Brock Johansen. Snyder
Curtis Kilburn Waggonner

NOT VOTING—69
Addabbo Flynt O’Brien, Ill.
Anderson Fulton, Pa. O'Hara, Mich.
Avery Giaimo Osmers
Bass . Gonzalez Pepper
Battin Green, Oreg. Pilcher
Blatnik Halpern Pucinski
Boland Hanns Rhodes, Ariz.
Bolling Hansen Rostenkowski
Broyhill, Va. Hoffman Rumsfeld
Buckley Hosmer Scott
Burleson Huddleston Shipley
Chelf Johnson, Pa. Siler
Collier Jones, Ala. Sisk
Cooley Kee Smith, Iowa
Daddario Kilgore Steed
Dawson Kluczynski Talcott
Derwinski McLoskey Thompson, La.
Dowdy Martin, Mass. Utt
Duncan Matsunaga Westland
Elliott Michel Wickersham
Fallon Miller, N.Y. Willis
Farbstein Morrison Wright
Finnegan Murphy, Ti.

So the bill was passed.

The Clerk announced the following
pairs:

Mr. Addabbo.with Mr. Johnson of Penn-
sylvania.

Mr. Falion with Mr. Broyhill of Virginia,

Mr. Buckley with Mr. Fulton of Penn-
sylvania.

Mr. Wickersham with Mr. Battin.

Mr. Thompson of Louisiana with Mr.
Avery.

Mr. Blatnik with Mr. Hosmer.

Mr, Pepper with Mr, Siler,

Mr, Dowdy with Mr. Hoffman.

Mr. Matsunaga with Mr. Miller of New
York,

Mr. Steed with Mr. Utt.

Mr. Duncan with Mr. Talcott.

Mr. Willis with Mr. Martin of Massa-
chusetts.

Mr. O’Hara of Michigan with Mr. Osmers.

Mr. Farbstein with Mr. Halpern.

Mr. Sisk with Mr. Rhodes of Arizona.

Mr. Rostenkowski with Mr. Derwinski.

Mr. Pucinski with Mr. Rumsfeld.

Mr. Daddario with Mr. Anderson,

Mr. Giaimo with Mr. McLoskey.

Mr, Morrison- with Mr. Collier.

Mr. Kluczynski with Mr. Michel.

Mr. Jones of Alabama with Mrs. Kee.

Mr. Elliott with Mr. Gonzalez.

Mr. Hanna with Mrs. Hansen.

Mr. Huddleston with Mrs. Green of Oregon.

Mr. Cooley with Mr. Finnegan,

Mr. Wright with Mr. Bass.

Mr. Chelf with Mr. Boland.

Mr. Shipley with Mr. Dawson.

Mr. Murphy of INinois with Mr. Smith of
Iowa. .

Mr. Flynt with Mr. Kilgore.

Mr, Scott with Mr. Pilcher.

Messrs. SNYDER and BROCK
changed their votes from “yea” to “nay.”

The result of the vote was announced
as above recorded.

The doors were opened. .

A motion to reconsider was laid on th
table.

 

7601