' 9042

 

LABOR-HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND
WELFARE APPROPRIATIONS, 1966

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 (ELR. 7765) making appro=-
priations for the Department of Labor,
and Health, Education, and Welfare, and
related agencies, for the fiscal year end-
ing June 30, i966, and for other pur-
poses, and pending that motion, Mr.
Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
general debate on the bill be limited to
3 hours, one-half of the time to be con-
trolled by the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr, Laren] and one-half by myself.

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

There was no objection.

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

The motion was agreed to.

IN THE COMMITTES OF THE WHOLE

Accordingly, the House resolved itself
into the Cowamittee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the con-
sideration of the bill H.R. 7765, with Mr.
Tompson of New Jersey in the chair.
‘The Clerk read the title of the bill.

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

The CHAIRMAN. Under the unan-
imous-consent agreement the gentie-
man from Rhode Island [Mr. Focarry]
will be recognized for 144 hours and the

 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr, Lairp]
will be recognized for 114 hours.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Bhode Island [Mr. Focarty].

Mr, FOGARTY. Mr. Chairman, I
yield myself such time as I fay con-
sume.

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

Mr. FOGARTY. Mr. Chairman, I am
pleased to bring to you this afterncon
the annual appropriation bill for the
Departments of Labor, and Health, Edu-
cation, and Welfare, and related agen-
cies. This is the 18th year that I have
served on this committee. I am also
pleased to announce that we have @
unanimous report from our committee.

Mr. Chairman, this year we have had
substantial changes in the makeup of
the membership of the subcommittee.
In fact, we have five new members. We
have some of the older members, the
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Denton],
who has served with great distinction on
this committee for several years and has
been a great supporter of all these pro-
grams. Also this year we have the gen-

May. 4, 1965

tleman from. Pennsylvania [Mr. Fioop],
one of the outstanding members of the
Coramittee on Apropriations, and the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. .Mar-
cHEWwSsI, who has been a Member of the
House for a long. time and has served
with distinction. Then we have on the
committee the gentleman from Oregon
[Mr. Duwcant, who has been invaluable
as a member of this committee. We also
have the gentleman from Michigan [Mr.
Farnum, who has been a really hard-
working new Member.

On the Republican side we have the
gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Suriver],
who is the new committee member on
the minority side who serves with the
old members; the gentleman from Mli-
nois (Mr. Mzcuen.] and the gentleman
from. Wisconsin [Mr. Larrv]. They have
all been very helpful in the work of the
committee. And we have the best clerk,
Robert Moyer, on the committee.

Mr. Chairman, extensive hearings
have been held. We held hearings since
the first week in February and we bring
to you today a unanimous report. I will _
place in the record a summary of the
action on the bill.

 

 

 

Bill compared with—
Appropriation,| Budget esti- | Recommended
Department or agency 1965 mates, 1966 in the bill :
Appropria- Budget esti-
tions, 1965 mates, 1966
Department of Labor_.----------- $668, 316, 500 $588, 144, 000 $537, 460,000 | —$130, 856, 500 | —$50, 684, 000
Department of Health, Educa- : :
tion, and Welfare_-..-- .-| 6, 985, 726, 000 7, 652, 074, 000 7, 378, 020, 000 1-387, 204, 000 | —279, 054, 000

 

Related agencies 48, 352, 500

 

 

53, 526, 000

58,554, 000 +5, 201, 500 —42, 000

 

 

7, 702, 895, 000

8, 293, 814, 000

 

 

 

7, 964, 034, 000 } +281, 639, C00 | —329, 780, 000

 

Mr. Chairman, just about 90 percent
of the bill we bring you today is for
granis-—-grants to State and local gov-
ernments, school and health facilities
eonstruction grants, research grants,
and training grants. With the growing
public acceptance of grants-in-aid as @
means of achieving national goals,
there has been more and more of this
type of legislation passed in recent years
with the result that the Labor, Health,
Education, and Welfare appropriation
bill has increased each year. This year is
no exception. The bill we bring you to-
day totais $7,964,034,000 which is roughiy
$1 billion more than the bili we brought
to this House 1 year ago. The bill is

$261,639,000 over the total appropria~~

tions for fiseal year 1965, which include
rather substantial sums appropriated in
supplemental appropriation acts. How-
ever, the bill is $329,780,000 less than
requested.in the President’s Budget.

As is always the case, this bill is the
result of compromise. My position is

‘well known to the Chairman and the

older Members of this House. There are
several places in this bill where T think
that much more could be efficiently uti-
lized and that the benefits to the Nation
would be more than the cost. However,
taken as a whole, I think this is a good
bill and I am prepared to support it fully
as it stands. While it will do little more
than hold the line with some programs,
the committees has greatly improved the
budget in other areas to provide for
‘some real progress.

Our hearings were quite detailed. The
committee heard 230 Government wit-
nesses and 118 public witnesses and
Members of Congress for a total of 348
witnesses. The hearing record totals
4,697 pages. These hearings have all
been in print for some time and. avail-
able to Members, and our bill and report
have been available for 5 days. In view
of this and the fact that there are over
100 approvriation items in the bill, f
shall not take the time of the committee
to discuss each one in detail.

The 1966 budget for the Department
of Labor had several proposals for re-
organization of activities. It appeared
to the committee that some of these
were good and would result in more effi-
cient program management. These
have been approved in the bill. How-
ever, one of the proposals was to con-
solidate three major parts of the De-
partment—the Bureau of Employment
Security, the Bureau of Apprenticeship
and Training, and the Manpower
Agency—into one huge Office of Man-
power Administrater. This proposal
resulted in many violent protests from
various quarters. The committee could
see many serious disadvantages to this
proposal and very little in the way of
advantages, and has not approved the
consolidation. As in the past, appropri-
ations for these three activities are car-
ried separately in the bill.

The committee has approved the full
amount of the request for manpower
development and training activities—
May 4, 1965

$273,500,000. This was based on the
law as it stood in January when the
budget was submitted to Congress. Since
that time a liberalized program has been
enacted and it is my understanding that
a rather sizable supplemental request is
being drawn up in the executive branch.

A request of $39,280,000 for “Advances
for employment services” was included
in the budget. The purpose of this pro-
posed appropriation from general funds
of the Treasury was to supplement the
appropriation: “Limitation on grants to
States for unemployment compensation
and employment service administration,”
for which funds are transferred from
the unemployment trust fund. The
latter appropriation has a legislative
limitation that is included in the Social
Security Act, as amended. The $39
million proposed appropriation would
be in addition to the funds that could be
used from the trust fund, which. were
budgeted at the maximum authorization.
It appeared to the committee that this
was perhaps technically legal, but for
practical purposes was simply a way of
getting around the legal limitation for
these activities. The request has there-
fore been denied. The bill does include
the full legal limitation for transfer from
the unemployment trust fund. This
araount is $492,100,000.

For unemployment compensation for
Federal employees. and ex-servicemen
the bill includes $131 million which is
a reduction of $16 million from the re-
quest, but simply reflects a downward
trend in payments from this fund that
has occurred since the budget was pre-
pared. /

The bill includes $20,905,000 for the
Wage and Hour Division, an increase of
$500,000 over the request to restore most
of the reduction proposed in the budget
for enforcement activities. All of labor,
organized and unorganized, and all hon-
est businessmen want to see the wage

-and hour laws properly enforced. I can-
not understand the action in reducing
enforcement when there is indisputable
evidence of considerable violation of
these laws.

The bill includes $19,601,000 for the
Bureau of Labor Statistics. This is ap-
proximately $1 million more than the
19865 appropriation and $1 million less
than the 1866 request. The committee
feels certain that this important agency
can continue to do a good job—in fact,
an even better job—with the funds
allowed,

There are several salary and expense
items in the Department of Labor that
i have not mentioned specifically, but
they are all at approximately the cur-
rent level of operation. In fact, in total
there are slightly fewer position provided
for in the bil than are provided for by
the current appropriations.

In the Department of Health, Educa~-

tion, and Welfare, the first item is the

Food and Drug Administration. The
budget request was for $50,352,000 and
this amount is carried in the bill. While
this is almost $10 million above the cur-
rent year’s appropriation, it provides
very little for anything but mandatory

No, 72———11

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

cost increases and the extremely large
load of drug applications that must be
evaluated and acted upon. This is work-
load that is not controllable by the agen-
cy, but has been brought about by re-
cently enacted legislation. No increase
was included in the budget for basic en-
forcement activities even though the
workload in that area is also increasing
somewhat. The Committee reduced the
request for buildings and facilities by
$604,000 accounted for by deferral of ac-
tion on planning funds for additional
laboratory facilities in the Washington,
D.C., area pending a more detailed study
of the possibility of decentralizing such
activities.

In the Office of Education the commit-
tee approved the budget request for the
expanded vocational education program
with the exception of the residential
schools. The budget request included
$5 million for one residential school to be
located in the Washington, D:C., metro-
politan area. The Committee has added
$5 vaillion to provide for two such schools
but has left the location of each open.

The bill includes $641,750,000 for
higher education facilities construction,
which is the amount requested in the
budget. This will provide for the full
amount of construction grants author~
ized by the basic legislation.
request of $55 million for grants for
public Hbraries. Personally, I cannot
understand the action of the Bureau of
the Budget in disallowing $20 million of
the $75 million requested by the Depart-
ment for this program. The great need
for both additional facilities and for ad-

ditional funds for operation and mainte- -

nance of public libraries is obvious to all
who will look. State and local matching
funds are available to much more than
match the $55 million appropriated for
the current fiscal year and most certainly
would be available tec match an. addi-
tional $20 million in 1968.

Fer both payments to school districts
and assistance for school construction in
federally impacted areas, the bill in-
cludes the full amount estimated by the
Office of Education to be necessary to
meet 100 percent of entitlements under
existing law.

The bill includes $412,608,000 for de-
fense educational activities. This is the
amount requested and in most instances
is the full amount authorized for the
various programs that fall under this ap-
propriation. The largest part of the in-
crease over the current fiscal year is for
the student loan program and for grad-
uate fellowships which were increased
$34,306,000 and $25 million, respectively,
over the amount available for fiscal year
i865. This increase brings both of these
programs to the mazimum authorized by
law. :

For educational improvement for the
handicapped, the bill also includes the
amount of the budget request, $21,500,~
000. This is a small amount compared
to the need when one considers that it is
estimated that over 300,006 teachers are
needed for teaching the handicapped

he committee approved the budget.

9043

whereas there are currently only 60,000
in classrooms.

Another extremely popular program is
cooperative research in education. The
full amount of the budget, $25 million, is
carried in the bill. While there were
many that felt this should be at least
$35 million, the majority of the com-
mittee felt that the increase of $9,160,000,
provided in the bill, above the amount
appropriated for the current fiscal year
should be adequate. For educational re-
search using foreign currencies surplus to
the normal needs of the United States,
the committee has approved the budget
request of $1 million. In connection
with all the special foreign currency pro-
grams of the Department, it appears that
considerable progress has been made in
improving procedures so that the pro-
grams can move forward and accomplish
worthwhile results.
that where worthwhile results are dem-
onstrated, even though the project might
be of somewhat lower priority than would
be financed with regular appropriations,
that it is desirable to proceed with them
using foreign currency that would other-
wise riot be needed for normal require-
ments of the U.S. Government.

The request for salaries and expenses
of the Office of Education included funds
to add 151 positions. It is quite obvious
that legislation passed by the last Con-
gress requires considerable additional
work in 1966 as these programs go into
full effect. However, the majority of
the committee felt that an adequate job
could be done with 100 additional em-
ployees, This accounts for the reduc-
tion of $510,000 from the amount of the
request.

The vecational rehabilitation program
continues to be one of the most popular,
one of the mest worthwhile, and one of
the most profitable of the programs car-
ried out by the Federal Government. In
addition to the great and obvious human
benefits, it can be mathematically prov-
en that this program returns to the tax-
payers several times the number of tax
dollars spent on it. The bill includes the
full amount of the request for grants to
States, research and trainine—special
foreign currency program—and salaries
end expenses. The committee has in-
cluded, in connection with the regular
research and training program, $300,000,
not included in the budget, for two spe-
cial centers, one for the mentally re-
tarded and one for the deaf. The com-
mittee also has included $108,600 for a
thorough study of the national needs for
vocational rehabilitation and recom-
mendations as to how these needs can
best be met. The bill includes $200,000
more than the $45,845,000 requested and
will expect that the additional -$200,000
be transferred from other activities f-
nanced by this appropriation.

The main change that the committee
made in the budget for buildings and fa-
cilities of the Public Health Service was
to add $1,670,000 for the Laboratory of
Perinatal Physiology of the National In-
stitutes of Health in Puerto Rico. Under
the budget this total facility would have
been built in two stages. Under the pro-

The committee feels -
$044 —

visions of the bill, it can be built in one
stage which will be cheaper and will pro-
vide the facility at an earlier.date.

For injury control, the bill includes
$4,500,000, an increase of $301,000 over
the budget to restore a small portion of
the $1,900,000 by which the Bureau of
the Budget reduced the Department’s
request.

The bill includes $66,453,000 for
chronic diseases and health of the aged.
This is an increase of $5,250,000 over the
budget, of which $3,250,000 is for work
in the field of mental retardation. In
1964 the Public Health Service estab-
lished an advisory group of experts in
this field from outside the Federal Gov-
ernment. This group recommended a
total of $5,250,000 more than is con-
tained.in the budget. The committee
was surprised that the budget allowed
so little in view of the recommendations
of this distinguished group of experts.
The remaining $2 million of the increase
over the budget is earmarked for work
on kidney disease. It. has been called
to the committee’s attention that the
report appears to limit the use of these
funds to hemodialysis. It was the inten-
tion of the committee that dialysis ac-
tivities be emphasized in connection with
this increase, but it is leaving it-to the
Public Health Service to determine the
precise activities to be carried out with
these funds which will do the most in
meeting the very serious problems of
kidney diseases.

The $8 million reduction recom-
mended below the budget for communi-
cable disease activities represents funds
requested for an expanded vaccination
program which has not yet been author-
ized.

Likewise, the reduction of $3 million
in the budget for community health
practice and research is for the program
of grants for migrant worker health ac-
tivities for which the legislation has not
been extended past 1965.

The bill includes $259,089,000 for hos-
pital construction activities, which is a
reduction of $44,215,900 from the re-
quest. This reduction is brought about
primarily as a result of the committee’s
disallowance of legislative language
which would permit the allocation of a
much larger amount for modernization
than is permitted under the existing law.
The budget included $60 million for mod-
ernization, whereas, if the formula in
existing law were applied to the total re-
quest, only $14,285,000 could be expended
for this purpose. The committee made
the adjustment in funds that corre-
sponded with the disallowance of a
change in the legislation.

The: increase of $1,634,000 over the
budget for air pollution includes $659,000
to provide sufficient funds to finance as
Many new research projects in 1966 as
are being financed in 1965: and $975,000
for demonstration projects in control of
mine waste fires. The later amount was
denied in connection with the Appalach-
jan regional development. program
since the act authorizing that program
did not specifically authorize this activ-
ity, whereas it is clearly authorized
under the Clean Air Act.

The relatively small increases for en-
vironmental engineering and sanitation,

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

occupational health, and radiological
health are all.to provide sufficient funds
to finance as many new research projects
in 1966 as are being financed in 1965.
The committee cannot understand why
the. budget sought to cut these relatively
new and very important research pro-
grams back in the 1966 budget.

The increased recommended by the
committee for water supply and water
pollution control is $3,913,000 over the
budget. The largest item of increase is
$1,800,000 which was requested in con-
nection with the Appalachian develop-
ment program but denied since the legis-
lation authorizing that program did not
Specifically authorize demonstration in
acid mine drainage for which these funds
were requested. In addition to this, the

committee has added $1 million to the.

bill for demonstration grants; $300,000
to permit 75 percent staffing, instead of
55 percent staffing provided in the
budget, for the new regional water pol-
lution control laboratories at Corvallis,
Oreg., Ada, Okla., and Athens, Ga.; and
$813,000 to enable the division to finance
as Many new research projects in. 1966
as are being financed in 1965.

The bill includes $57,710,000, an in-
crease of $864,000, the amount necessary
to keep the Chicago and Memphis hos-
pitals open. The committee would be op-
posed to closing these hospitals on prin-
ciple, even if the costs were slightly more
than the costs of caring for merchant
seamen and other legal beneficiaries on a
contract basis. Any possible doubts were
resolved when the committee found that
it actually would cost the Federal Gov-
ernment $212,000 less in 1966 to keep
these hospitals in operation than it
would te close them.

Except for a small reduction of $80,000
in the request for national health statis-
ties all of the other items in the Public
Health Service, except the National In-
stitutes of Health, are carried in the bill
in the same amounts as requested in the
budget. So unless there are questions
regarding them, I will not take the time
to discuss each individually.

I was not very happy about the budget
for the National Institutes of Health, in
fact, I recommended an increase of $100
million in committee. I have a lot to
say about this so I think I will comment
on the other items in the bill and then
discuss the NIH budget in some detail.

But before I leave the subject of pub-
lic health, I would like to bring to the at-
tention of the Members of the House
something not directly related to this
bill. My good friend, the gentleman
from New York [Mr. Roonry] recently
sent me a new book by Peter Wyden,
“The Overweight Society.’ I was a lit-
tle amused by it at first, and most peo-
ple, I think would react the same way.
But the time I had finished it, however,
I was convinced that this is one of the
real public health problems of this Na-
tion teday. This is a really good book,
in opinion, and I highly recommend it as
“must reading” to anyone with an inter-
est in public healthor, for that matter,
interested in their own health,

To get back to the bill—there is a
relatively small increase for St. Eliza-
beths Hospital which simply will allow
them to keep their positions filled at the

May 4, 1965

normal rate. No additional positions are
provided.

There is a decrease of $3 million or ap-
proximately 1 percent in the request for
the Secial Security Administration. We
believe that they can do an adequate
jcb with the funds allowed.

The largest reduction in the bill is
for grants to States for publie assistance.
The budget request was $3,242,100,000
and the bill includes an even $3 billion.
This is less than 6 percent below the
appropriation for 1965 and as stated
in the report, it would seem that this

“should be a very modest reduction to ex-

pect in view of the expansion of pro-
grams under the Social Security Amend-
ments of 1962, that were aimed at reduc-
ing dependency, and in view of all of the
other programs that are also aimed at
doing this, such as the vocational re-
habilitation program, the antipoverty
program, the Appalachian program, and
so forth.

The committee also made a reduction
in salaries and expenses of the Bureau
of Family Services but has allowed 20
of the 45 new positions requested.

The reduction for juvenile delinquency
and youth offenses represents the dis~
allowance of all of the activities for

. which there is no authorization in 1966,

and limiting funds for the activities that
are authorized to just the amount re-
quired in 1966.

Of the remaining programs under the
Welfare Administration, the committee
is recommending a reduction of $203,000
for the Office of Aging; is recommending
$1,882,000, a reduction of $118,000 from
the request for cooperative research or
demonstration projects; and has disal-
lowed $116,000 requested by the Office
of the Commissioner for the establish-
ment of regional coordinator for wel-~
fare programs and a secretary in each
of seven regional offices. There is no
change from the budget for the other
items.

The bill includes $1 million for the
American Printing House for the Blind
which is sufficient to allow $50 per blind
pupil. This is $91,000 more than the re-
quest but is based on testimony by the
vice president and general manager of
the American Printing House for the
Blind that $50 is the minimum amount
necessary to provide the available edu-
cational materials that these punpiis
should have. The budget request was
approved in each instance for the cther
items appearing under “special institu-
tions.”

For ali items appearing under the
heading, “Office of the Secretary,” the
bill includes $19,969,000 which is.a re-
duction of $3,222,000 below the request.
Most of this reduction is accounted for
by a reduction of $3 million for educa-
tional television facilities. The hear-
ings and material submitted to the com-
mittee indicates that the $8,826,000 in-
cluded for these activities in the bill will
be all that will be required during the
year.

The only change from the budget re-
quest for the related agencies was a. small
reduction of $42,000 for the Federal
Mediation and Conciliation Service.
This leaves that agency $6,610,000 or
May 4, 1965

$276,000 more than the 1965 appropria-
tion.
NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTIZ

As T mentioned earlier, I was most
unhappy with the NIH budget. The es-
timates submitted on behalf of the Na-
tional Institutes of Health were again
totally inadequate this year. There was
no allowance whatever for any new ad-
vances on major disease problems.
There was no allowance for the inten-
sification of any of the existing research
programs—even in areas where both ur-
gent need and challenging opportunity
are clearly evident. There was not even
adequate provision for maintaining the
momentum of present efforts to solve the
fully identified problems whose solution
could save thousands of lives and prevent
uncountable days of pain and misery.

The administration’s request for the
National Institutes of Health was not
even a good hold-the-line budget—and
a hold-the-line budget is simply not
good enough for an agency whose ac-
tivities so vitally affect the future health
and welfare of ali the American people.

I ean wholeheartedly support the
President’s goals for a Great Society but
I cannot understand a pregram for
achieving a Great Society which does
not have as one of its primary aims the
elimination of the scourge of disease, the
tragedy of mental retardation and all
other forms of congenital disabilities,
and the ever-present threat of untimely
death. What can possibly be of more
importance to a.Great Society than the
health of its citizens? What is going
on when the President speaks of a
healthy citizenry as one of. this coun-
try’s foremost goals and the Bureau of
the Budget restricts and reduces the
budget estimates of the agency which is
at the forefront of the toughest battle
we face—the battle to conquer man’s
most ancient, most relentless and most
personal enemy—disease?

The attitude of the Bureau of the
Budget seems doubly capricious because
it flies in the face of its own assessment
of the level of Federal support needed
merely to keep pace with the rising cost
of doing research. It has recently been
well publicized that the Bureau of the
Budget regards an annual increase of
15 percent as the minimum necessary to
keep existing programs going. This fig-
ure is also contained in the report of the
Panel on Basic Research and National
Goals set up by the National Academy
of Sciences at the request of the Con-
gress. -

About 8 percent cf this increase is due
to the normal rise in the cost of doing
business experienced by almost every
flourishing enterprise. It represents in-
creases in salaries, wages, and the price
of supplies. Most of the increased cost
ef ongoing research, however, is due to
the greater complexity of the work being
done—to the higher cost of more effec-
tive and more accurate instruments and
of meeting the more exacting demands
of modern research metnods, .

As the committee’s report on the bill
points out, an electron microscope is 100
times as expensive as an ordinary micro-
scope; electronic devices become more
costly as greater accuracy is demanded

 

 

  

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

from them; the application of computers
to. research problems introduces a new
and significant cost factor; germ-free
animals are a necessary, expensive re-
placement for ordinary mice, rats, and
guinea pigs. The 15-percent figure
adopted by the Bureau of the Budget is
not adequate to take care of all the real
needs of medical research—it is a min-
imum figure which does not pretend to
do more than just keep the present level
of research from slowing down for lack
of funds.

Yet what dees the Bureau of the Budg-
et do when it comes to the estimates for
the National Institutes of Health? Does
it allow the inerease of 15 percent that
it has set as the necessary minimura?
Tt does not. For medical research—
which is of vital concern to every man,
woman, and child and which has the full
support of the American people—the
budget allows only half of this minimum
increase. ‘

There is no justification for the arbi-
trary limitation. imposed on the NIH
budget estimates. The effectiveness of
the NIE programs are universally recog-
nized. Its contributions to the advance-
ment of medicine have been outstand-
ing—not merely through the work sup-
ported by the grant-in-aid programs, but
through the work dene by its own sci-
entists. The dedicated men who work
in Bethesda and in the field stations. of
NIH in various parts of the world have
run up an isapressive score of research
accomplishments ranging from such spe~-

cific achievements as finding a cure for’

Rocky Mountain spotted fever, which
used to be a fast-striking and fatal dis-
ease, to such dramatic breakthroughs
as the cracking of the genetic code
which opens the way to the unraveling
of the causes of a whole host of genetic
diseases,

The record of the scientists whose work
NIE has supported is no less impressive.
There is hardly a majcr advance in med-
jeal researsh—or in the scientific disci-
plines which contribute to the under-
standing of medical problems—that is
not directly or indirectly indebted to the
grant programs of the NIF.

A thorough review of the NIH pro-
grams has just been conducted, at the
request of the President, by a distin-
guished committee, under the chairman-
ship of Dr. Dean Wooldridge. This com-
mittee and its advisory panels—involving
#7 prominent scientists and administra-
tors-_appraised the extramural projects
supported by NIH in 37% universi-
ties, medical schools, hospitals, and re-
search institutions. ‘The group made de-
tailed investigations and evaluations of
some 400 separate activibies supported
by NIE covering each of its major pro-
gram areas. As a result of this exhaus-
tive review, the Weoldridge committee
stated in its report to the President that:

The first and probably most important
general conclusion of the study is that the
activities of the National Institutes of Health
are essentially sound and that its. budget
of approximately $1 billion a year is, on the
whole, belng spent wisely and well in the
public interest.

Wot only did the Wooldridge commit-
tee find that the vast majority of re-

9045

search supported by NIH is of high qual-
ity but it emphasizes that the NIH activi-
ties “have greatly. improved the quality
and quantity of both research and teach-
ing in our biomedical institutions.” I
have been much concerned over this
question of quality for a number of years
but have not found one shred of evidence
to suggest that there has been any de-
cline at.all in the quality of.the research
supported by NIH as its appropriations
grew larger. Iam therefore not at all
surprised but Iam very much heartened
by the statement of the Wooldridge com-
mittee not only that it had found no evi-
dence of a lowering of quality but that
it found “good evidence that the aver-
age quality is. steadily improving.” In
fact, the committee’s report puts it more
strongly than that; it says that usually
“NIH-supported work was found to set
the national or international standard
of excellence in its field.”

In other words, instead of asking how
the NIE programs stack up against other
research programs we might better ask
how other programs stack up against the
high standards set by NTH.

The Wooldridge committee clearly
states its conclusion that the NIH appro-
priations “constitute a.sound investment
for the American people.” I think my
constituents—and taxpayers every~
where—will be glad to hear the final sen-
tence of the report’s section on the quai-~
ity of the NIH activities. The Wooldridge
committee says:

We suspect that there are few, if any,
$1 billion segments. of the Federal budget
that are buying moré valuable services for
the American people than that administered
by the National Institutes of Health.

It would be heltoful if the Bureau of
the Budget would take note of the obser-
vation by this: group of distinguished
citizens that “greater expenditures for
health research are yielding greater
progress in the alleviation of disease”
and its recommendation that new op-
portunities for health research’ should
be exploited with the. enthusiasm and
vigor which has distinguished the NIH
program during the past decade.” If
these words could be posted on.the desks
of. the people who have to approve the
NIE estimates before they are put into
the President’s budget, the Congress
might.get a more realistic and more for-
ward-looking appropriation request for
these important programs.

For nearly 10 years the executive
bravich has been shirking its responsi-
bility for developing a vigorous and for-
ward-moving national health-research
effort. Instead of encouraging and sup-
porting those directly responsibie for the
NIH programs, it has tried to put these
officials. under wraps and to prevent
them from giving ~the Appropriations
Committee straight, unbiased answers
to questions invelving their professional
judement on the proper course for the
development of these programs. As @
result, the Congress has had to take the
initiative. in expanding these programs.
This is recognized by the Wooldridge
eommittee which says in its report:

The Congress in particular deserves con-
siderable credit for its past and continuing
support of this kind of farsighted program.
9046 .

The Congress can—and should—con-
tinue to push and to prod, but it cannot
undertake to make professional scientific
assessments of new research opportuni-
ties; it cannot determine the most desir-
able balance of effort among the many
fields that need further development; it
cannot do the detailed planning of pro-
gram needs that should be reflected in
the budget estimates.

The committee has probed deeply into
the opportunities for carrying forward
the fight against the major crippling
diseases and the leading causes of pre-
mature death in the United States. It
has inquired into the unmet program
needs of the National Institutes of
Health not only as viewed by the capable
officials responsible for these programs
but as seen by many of this country’s
leading medical scientists. The conclu-
sion is inescapable that with the budget
estimates submitted by the executive
branch the NIH could not march for-
ward but would be forced to spend a year
simply marching in place.

In the absence of the forward-look~
ing budget justifications which it has a
right to expect—and which it will cer-
tainly insist upon next year—the com-
mittee has included no general increases
for any of the National Institutes of
Health in the bill. It has, however, pro-
vided specific increases, totaling $11,-
700,000, for six special programs that
are so important to the future health of
the American people that it would be
intolerable to wait another year in the
hope that the Bureau of the Budget
might see fit to include them.

These six programs are described in
some detail in the committee’s report on
the bill but they may be briefly sum-
marized.

The bill includes an increase of $2.5
million for work on the development of
an artificial heart. Such a device will
make possible treatments not possible
with the present heart-lung machine
which is only effective for the relatively
short time required by a single opera-
tion. It is hoped that this program will

ultimately lead to the development of a “

compact and reliable mechanism that
can be used as a permanent replacement
for an incurably damaged heart.

The bill includes an increase of $2
million for perfecting the artificial kid-
ney and bringing it within reach of a
larger number of people who suffer from
kidney failure. Much additional re-
search is also needed on the nature of
kidney failure if the machine is to be
successfully applied to a broader range
of patients than is now possible. Prac-~
tically nothing was included
budget for this important work.

The bill includes an increase of $1,650,-
000 for a task force on breast cancer
which is still the most common form of
cancer in women and for which the mor-
tality figures have not improved over the
last several: years. The committee is
convinced that something can, and must,
be done about this unsatisfactory situa-
tion for which the budget made no ade-
quate provision. . -

. The bill includes an increase of $2,300,~
000 for the second year of the study on
the effect of drugs on coronary throm-

in the.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

bosis. Although the Congress appro-
priated funds last year especially for this
program, the Bureau of the Budget took
it upon itself to withhold these funds
from the Heart Institute until about 6
weeks ago and struck the request for
funds for the second year of this program
from the budget for fiscal 1966. This is
a flagrant example not only of the irre-
sponsibility of the Bureau of the Budget
but of its complete failure to respond to
the determination of the Congress and
of the American people to press the war
on Gisease with all the vigor possible.

The bill also restores $2 million for
the cancer training program which was
gratuitously deleted by the Bureau of
the Budget as an economy measure.
Some major modifications in this pro-
gram have been proposed by the Cancer
Institute to improve its effectiveness in
providing special training in the diag-
nosis and the treatment of cancer. These
plans were seized on by the Bureau of the
Budget as justification for an economy
cut in the estimates. The committee
has heard no evidence—and can hardly
imagine any—that this is the sort of
program on which the American people
want to economize. :

The bill provides an increase of $1,-
250,000 for the Division of Computer Re-
search and Technology which is. being
set up at NIH. The application of ad-
vanced computer techniques to clinical
medicine and to laboratory research
opens up important new avenues for
progress not only in the understanding
of biological processes but in the treat-
ment of patients. The computer is des-
tined to become as important an adjunct
to the operating room as the X-ray ma-
chine. The facilities at NIE and the
broad competence of its staff furnishes
an excellent setting for developmental
work in this very promising new field.

I think it is important to note that
certain of these new programs, for which
the bill makes special provision, refiect
two important trends in the further sci-
entific and technical aspects of NIE pro-
grams.

First, it is now possible to undertake,
with a high degree of confidence, the
pursuit of very specific objectives re-
lating to diagnostic and therapeutic ap-
proaches to disease problems and to
organize for the development of such de-
vices as artificial kidneys and external
support mechanisms for the heart. This
capability results from the ever-increas-
ing body of knowledge concerning life
and disease processes which is flowing
from the broad base of research activi-
ties supported over the past 15 years in
the biomedical sciences. Thus we can
now undertake with the hope of very
practical results the application of this
broad base of knowledge to the solution
of particular disease problems and the
development of specific devices and sys-
tems to support or replace physiological
processes and organs.

Second, we are now witnessing the
growing transfer of the advances in the
physical sciences, and relating engineer-
ing and technical capability, to the field
of medical research and the provision of
heaith services. The current scene in
the biomedical sciences is characterized

May 4, 1965

by an exhilerating interplay between the
technology and concepts of the physical
sciences and the problems of biology and
medicine. New fields of activity are
emerging in such areas as biomedical
engineering, medical electronics, bioin-
strumentation and so forth.

These trends are now being reflected
in the program and budgetary needs of
the National Institutes of Health. These
activities bring with them two new re-
quirements. Conduct of programs of this
character require greater control over the
course of technical activity and access to
new kinds of scientific and technical tal-
ent. As a consequence of these require-
ments the National Institutes of Health
will have to make more extensive use of
the contract as the instrument of choice
in the support of research and will be
engaged on an increasing scale with
private Industry as a source of new Kinds
of scientific engineering and technologi-
eal skills.

These are important developments
into which the committee inquired at
some depth during the course of the
hearings. Pages 822 through 830 of the
hearing volume provides detailed de-
scription of what is taking place in this
area. The Public Health Service, in.
testifying before the committee in con-
nection with these developments, noted
that the administration had submitted
to the Congress legislation to broaden
the authority of the Surgeon General
to enter inte contracts for research and
development activities. ‘This legislation
encompassed in H.R. 2984 has recently
been reported by the House Interstate
and Foreign Commerce Committee.

Tt is a matter of considerable concern
to the Appropriations Committee that
the House Interstate and Foreign Com-
merce Committee has recommended
substantial modifications in the request
of the Public Health Service for contract
authority. The modifications recom-
mended include limiting the use of this
contract authority for a 3-year pe-
riod and establishing an appropria-
tion ceiling of $43 million. While I
understand the interest of the House
Interstate and Foreign Commerce Com-.
mittee to establish clear limits on the
use of authority in this area, I am con-
eerned that the particular actions in this
respect may intervene to prevent the
accomplishment of many of these im-
portant objectives in the field of medi-
cal research. The appropriation limit
of $43 million recommended by the com-
mittee happens to be. the actual level of
obligations for contracts incurred by
the National Institutes of Health in fis-
cal year 1964. The limitation on the
other hand applies to the entire Public
Health Service and seems to take no ac-
count of the fact that the planned ex-
penditures in this area under the Presi-
dent’s budget for fiscal year 1966 would
exceed some $90 million, Thus the
effect of this amendment to H.R. 29384
would be to cut back the Public Health
Service research contract. activities to
well below last year’s level and. effective-
ly stop further development of this pro-
gram.

It also has a further most serious
consequence. It is DHEW policy to re-
May 4, 1965

strict support for research in nonprofit
making organizations to the use of the
contract. Thus the kind of limitation
that is encompassed within the present
amendments to H.R. 2984 has the effect
of barring the field of medical research
to private industry just at the moment
when the development of medical sci-
ences is such that effective use can be
made of great technological capability
and skill now present in the aerospace
industry and other areas of private in-
dustry. This restriction will prevent ac-
cess to this great resource. I hope it is
possible in the coming debate on this
bill to explore this matter in order that
the action of the House will indeed reflect
our concern with the proper use of legis-
lative authority but will not arbitrarily
forestall a course of research develop-
ment in biomedicine of great significance
or deny private industry its appropriate
role in this evolution.

The general provisions of the Bill in-
clude a modification of section 203 pro-
viding for the payment of the indirect
costs of research projects.

The committee believes that the costs
of research legitimately include net only
those costs which are solely attributable
to the research project but also those
general operating and administrative
costs that do not arise from any single
activity but are essential to all the activi-
ties of the institution. The committee
believes that the distinction between di-
rect cost and indirect cost is necessarily
somewhat arbitrary and rather meaning-=
less. It is the Committee’s view that the
so-called indirect costs are part of the
proper and inescapable costs of all of the
institution’s activities, including re-

. search.

The Committee believes that. Federal
research-support funds should be avail-
able for any legitimate expense of eli-
gible research projects and that arbitrary
distinctions between one kind of cost
and another should not enter into the
calculation of the support which the
Federal Government is willing to pro-
vide.

However, we should not lose sight of
the fact that the grant-in-aid concept
assumes that the grantor is assisting the
grantee in the accomplishmet of some
piece of work of mutual interest.. The
principal justification for the grant me-
chanism—and its principal. distinction
from research contracts—is that it deals
wtih research projects which arise from
the professional or institutional inter-
ests of members of the scientific commu-
nity. Federal support is made availabie
to them because—and only to the extent
that—these projects also serve impor-
tant national interests which the Federal
Government is anxious to promote.

In these circumstances, it is not only
fair but proper that the grantee institu-
tion be expected to bear some proportion
of the cost. This principle is, in fact,
included in the enabling legislation for
several grant programs in the Depart-
ment of Health, Education, and Welfare
such as the cooperative research or
demontration projects of the Welfare
Administration, the cooperative research
in education of the Office of Education,
and the grants for special projects of the

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

Educational Rehabilitation Administra-
tion. It is also observed in practice in
the extensive NIH grant programs. With
few exceptions, the NIH grants do not
pay the salary of the principal investi-
gator on the project supported nor do

they normally provide payment for the ©

cost of all the equipment used in carry-
ing out the project.

The provision in the bill thet the funds
appropriated shall not be used to pay the
full cost of grant-supported projects
therefore dees not mark a radical de-
parture from present practice. On the
contrary, the committee hopes that the
abolition of the artificial distinction be-
tween direct and indirect costs will lead
to a simpler and more equitable deter-
mination of the amount which the Fed-
eral Government will contribute to
grant-supported projecis. :

The committee has not sought to es-
tablish any detailed guidelines for the
calculation of the full cost of research
and it has left the door open for deter-
mining the extent of Federal participa-
tion on either a project-by-project or an
institutional basis. ‘The committee is

only concerned, on the one hand, that |

the principle of financial participation
by the grantee in the work supported
should be maintained, and, on the other
hand, that the Federal Government
should minimize the burden on the al-
ready strained resources of most uni-
versities and other research institutions
by providing the maximum proportion
of the total cost of grant-supported re-
search that is justifiable in the particular
circumstances, so long as it involves at
least some participation by the grantee
institution.

Mr. Chairman, those are the high-
lights of the bill and the changes that
have been made in the budget after 3
months work of the committee to deter-
mine what is in the best interest of all
the people of the country.

Mr. Chairman, everything considered,
this is a good bill. If I were writing it
myself there are a great many changes I
would make. But I know compromise is
necessary in practically all legislation.
That this bill represents a good com-
promise is illustrated by the fact that
this bill is unanimously reported. I hope
and trust that the House will adopt it
overwhelmingly.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I shall be glad to
yield to my friend, the gentleman from
Towa [Mr. Gross].

Mr. GROSS. I thank thé gentleman
for yielding.

This bill is almost $8 billion, $7.9-
some-~odd billion.

How much does the gentleman think
his committee can hold this to when they
come around to the supplemental appro-

priations stage later on, some months.

from now?

Mr. FOGARTY. Inthe first place, I
do not know what the supplementals are
going to be. It is the plan of the com-
mittee, as IT understand it at the present
time, to hold hearings about the third
week in May on-an overall supplemental
bill confined to the Departments of
Labor, and Health, Education, and Wel-
fare. This is going to be a sizable sup-
plemental bill.

9047

We hope to have it on the floor about
the middie of June. It is going to be
sizable because of the medical care bill,
the Manpower Development and Train-~
ing Act that was passed, the education
bill which was passed, and four or five
others including the antipoverty pro-
gram. Hearings are going to be held on
all of them during the third of fourth
week of May. :

What the administration is going to
sent up in some of these areas we do not
know.

Mr. GROSS. They are going to get
up some sizable figures. The gentle-
man talked earlier in his presentation,
which was. an excellent presentation,
about the fact we are going to get more
of these items inthe supplemental. . This
bill would be a gocd deal more than $38
billion, would it not?

Mr, FOGARTY. This bill is going to
grow and grow and grow and grow, and
I think it should.

Mr. GROSS. That leads me to ask
this question: What progress has been
made in heart and cancer research and
its affliction for the enormous amount
of money that has been spent for re-
search in this field? .

Mr. FOGARTY. Iam not a physician,
as the gentleman knows. We do have
physicians in the House. In addition we
have listened to hundreds of them in the
past 10 or 15 years, some of the best in
the world, because we think we have some
of the best doctors in the world, many
who are specialists in heart and can-
cer. They tell us that because of the ad-
vances in heart surgery over the last
4 or 5 years untold thousands of people
are walking around today who other-
wise could not have survived their heart
ailments.

In the area of cancer, even though the
numbers dying seem to be increasing, I
think it is estimated that 280,000 will die
this year because of some form of cancer,
the reason for this increase given to us
on the committee, is that the Nation’s
population is increasing by leaps and
bounds every year. One of the reasons
for this increase is that people live longer
now. As a result, the longer people live
the greater the chance that they will
get some form of heart trouble or some -
form of cancer. However, in cancer sub-
stantial progress has been made. As we
understand it, if people would go to their
doctor in time much could be done to
help save lives from cancer today because
of the new knowledge we have. Whereas
20 years ago one out of four was being
saved, or one of five, it is now up to one
out of three. If they went to their own
dector in time perhaps one in two could
be saved. That is, if they went to their
doctor in time, if they heeded the danger
signals that are put out by the Ameri-
can Cancer Society, and by the medical
profession, in this way additional lives
could be saved.

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

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

Mr. DENTON. I want to commend the
gentleman for bringing forth a very gocd
bill. I believe every Member of the
House Knows the interest and the work
9048

that the chairman has engaged in in
connection with public health, medical
research, care for the aged, retarded
children, and education and welfare gen-~
erally. The bill does not appropriate as
much money as the chairman thinks it
should, or as much as I think it should
but it is a good bill and we are support~
ing it. I want to thank him again for
this fine bill.

Mr. FOUNTAIN.
the gentleman yield?

Mr. FOGARTY. I yield to the gentle-
man from North Carolina.

Mr. FOUNTAIN. Tread the discussion
on the general provisions involving the
indirect cost of research projects appear-
ing on page 54. I would like to ask the
gentleman a question concerning section
203 of the general provisions of the Ap-
propriations Act. As I understand it, the
committee is removing the 20-percent
limitation on indirect costs with the con-~
dition that grantee institutions must
share in the full costs, both direct and
indirect, of supported research. Is that
correct?

Mr. FOGARTY. That is correct up to
maybe an average of 5 percent.

Mr, FOUNTAIN. It is also the com-
mittee’s expectation that the Bureau of
the Budget, In promulgating regulations
for appropriate levels of financial par-
ticipation for guarantees, will be guided
by the principle that an institution

Mr. Chairman, will

should share in supported research costs .

in proportion to the degree to which the
institution is benefited locally in its
teaching, research and other institutional
responsibilities.

Mr. FOGARTY. We are going to leave
that us to the Bureau of the Budget. We
are lumping, as the gentleman so well
knows, the indirect costs and training
costs, and we expect the Bureau of the
Budget to come up with a formula so
that all of these grantees would be par-
ticipating to the extent of perhaps an
average of 5 percent. -

And I understand the national groups
are supporting this provision in the bill,
The Daddario committee, for one, has
looked into it, and I think the commit-
tee of the gentleman from North Caro-
lina [Mr. Fouwratn] has looked into it,
too, and the Ellictt committee—and
they have made similar recommenda-
tions,

I cannot mention the Daddario com-
mittee without a comment about its great
chairman. He is one of the most able
Members of this House and did a magnif-
icent job as chairman of that committee.

We have come up with this proposal
with the understanding that. it is also
going to be in the independent offices bill
and in the Department of Defense ap-
propriation bill. These are the three
large bills where most of the research
grant funds are carried.

But it is my understanding that these
institutions are happy and satisfied with
this proposal as it is now written.

Mr. FOUNTAIN. But it is the commit-
tee’s feeling that these institutions should
share in the support of research costs in
_proportion to the degree te which the
institutions are benefited locally in these
various areas?

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

Mr. FOGARTY. Yes, if it is feasible.

Mr. FOUNTAIN. I want to commend
the gentleman and his subcommitiece as
well as the full committee for what I
believe is a sound approach to this prob-
lem.

The impression has been created in
some quarters that university research
costs automatically become a responsibil~
ity of the Federal Government when the
Gevernment contributes to their suppert.
Fortunately, this misleading notion has
been challenged by eminent bodies in the
educational field, such as the Carnegie
Foundation for the Advancement of
Teaching, which recognize that scholar-
ly work of a professor’s own choosing is
as much @ part of his institutional duties
as his teaching.

I think it should recognize, at. the same
time, that there are some federaily-sup-
ported research projects administered by
certain universities and other institu-
tions which are truly national in char-
acter. I believe provision shouid be made
in these special cases for full Federal
funding, particularly when the research
projects are very costly undertakings.

* Mr. FOGARTY. I thank the gentle-
men for his contripution.

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

Mr, FOGARTY. T yield te the gentle-
man from California.

Mr. SISK. I want to congratulate
and compliment the gentleman and his
committee on the great job they have
done. I, too, agree with the gentleman
that some of these figures, in my opinion,
should be higher because I think we
need to be spending more money par-
ticularly in the health field.

I want to. ask briefly a question with

‘reference to his comments regarding the

educational TV facilities program. It
is my understanding, and I am not tak-
ing this time to be critical, that the $3
million that was cut from the request
was because the indications were that
the States would not be in a position to
use the money; is that correct?

Mr. FOGARTY. That is correct.

Mr. SISK. I bring this up because I

_have been very much interested in this

education TV program.

Mr. FOGARTY. We think it is a good
program but the funds are not being
used this year and my own State, I
might say, has not taken advantage of
this.

Mr, SISK. That was the point I
wanted to briefiy touch upon. My own
State has @ number of applications
pending. In fact, my own hometown has
one ready to go and there is a shortage
of funds. It. is my understanding that
under the law there was a limit beyond
which any State could ga. Tassume that
is the gentleman’s interpretation?

Mr. FOGARTY. That is right.

Mr.. SISK. Mr. Chairman, while I
hope and expect that this House will ap-
prove the committee’s recommendation
for an appropriation of $8,826,000 to con~
tinue financing our national education

television program, I consider it deplor- |

able and an evidence of a technical defect
in the authorizing legislation that we
are uot considering instead’ the full

May 4, 1965

$11,826,000 recommended by the Presi-
dent for this vital educational service.

It is evident that the only reason the
committee cannot justify the larger.
amount Hes in the State allocation pro-
visions of the authorizing legislation.
This means that many gualified appli-
cants will be denied matching grants, not
on the merits of their applications or
the need for their educational services,
but only because they are in States which

_ already have utilized the amounts allo-

cated to that State.

Por example, in my State of California,
there are at least five qualified educa-
tional television groups prepared to serve
major segments of our school population,
but California’s share of Federal funds
is nearing exhaustion. and cannot pos-
sibly provide matching grants for these
enterprises, into which local citizens are
prepared to put substantial sums.

Edo not want to deprive any State of
@ full opportunity to participate in this
program, They should be encouraged
te do so. But if any State cannot use-
fully spend its entire allocation within
a, reascnable period of time, I firmly be-
lieve the remaining sum should revert
for reallocation to those States having
qualified applicants whose needs cannot
be funded under the original allocation.
If this were now. the law, the entire
$11,826,000 would be urgently needed
and could be fully justified.

E have talked with the chairman of the
Enterstate and Foreign Commerce Com-
mittee about the possibility of hearings
to explore how this educational televi-
sion program is progressing. Tam hope-
ful the committee will get into this
important subject, and if it does so, I
shall certainly strongly urge a revision
of the authorization along the lines I
have discussed.

Mr. EDMONDSON. Mr.
will the gentleman yield

Mr. FOGARTY. [yield to the gentie-
man from Oklahoma.

Mr. EDMONDSON. I think it is the
general consensus in this body that the
gentleman from Rhode Island is one of
the great legislators of the House of Rep-
resentatives and certainly one of the best
informed men in the United States on
health education. It is always a pleas-
ure to hear him bring this bill to the floor
of the House.

Mr. Chairman, I want particularly to
compliment him and all who share re-
sponsibility for the decision, as reflected
by the terms of this bill, tc provide the
funds to begin implementation of section
14 in Public Law 88-210—the section
wisely enacted by the 88th Congress to
provide Federal assistance in the estab-
lishment of residential vocational train-
ing schools. to meet a very urgent need
for such facilities across the Nation.

Chairman Focarry and the members
of his subcommittee, backed by the full
committee, have recommended that
funds be provided to assure at least two
pilot institutions in this field—a field in
which the Congress has already author-
ized five pilot institutions. _

I believe the committee’s recommenda-~
tion should have the full support of this
body, and. there should be no further de-
lay in the program.

Chairman,

 
May 4, 1965

I also hope and trust that the com-~
mittee’s recommendations will be heard
on the subject of where and how this
great program can best be initiated.

No witness appearing before the com-
mittee was more effective in presenting
the case for residential vocational edu-
cation than the able director of the Okla-
homa State Technical School at Okmul-
gee, Okla., Wayne W. Miller.

Mr. Miller has been associated with the
Okmulgee school for 12 years, and his
experience ranges from department head
to director.

His testimony appears in the hearings
on this legislation, and I commend its
reading to you.

The unvarnished, undeniable truth is
that residential vocational training is the
proven road to reduction of unemploy-
ment and welfare burdens for the Na-
tion, and every dollar invested in it will
return many dollars in the future. The
dollars returned will not only be in tax
payments from persons who have been
tax loads for the community—but also in
many other ways which appear in Mr.
Miller’s experience and are covered in his
testimony. Residential vocational educa~-
tion is the proven road to enrichment of
the family, the community, and the Na-
tion.

Oklahoma State University’s School of
Technical Training, popularly known as
Oklahoma State Tech, was established
at Okmulgee following World War I,
utilizing the facilities of a surplus army

» hospital to meet a great postwar need
for vocational education.

It has. steadily grown through the
years, and has more than 1,200 students
residing in school housing at this time.

More than 20,000 former students are ~

today in productive employment at good
wages as a result of this school’s work,
and its dedicated faculty of 105, teaching
33 vocations, provide perhaps this Na~
tion’s finest corps of vocational instruc-
tors.

The city of Okmulgee, once the capitol
of the Creek Nation in Indian territory
-days, today provides an ideal site for
the school, the people of the community
have given it their enthusiastic, whole-
hearted support through the years.

Okmulgee is centrally. located to. serve
the major population concentration of
Indians in our country, and Indians from
virtually every State have come to Ok-
mulgee to benefit from the program of
Oklahoma State Tech.

The remarkable achievements of the
adult vocational training program for
Indians, as reported by Area Director
Virgil Harrington of the Bureau of In-
dian Affairs, have been realized in large
part through utilization of the Oklaho-
ma State Tech facilities.

Director Harringeton’s figures indicate
that 92 percent of the Indians receiving
training at Oklahoma State Tech—re-
gardless of whether they completed their
training course or not—have been given
job opportunities through their training.
Every graduate of the training program
was placed in his field of training or a re-
lated field. This isa remarkable rec-
ord, in a group of our people with an un-
usually high dropout rate in school and
unusually high incidence of unemploy~
ment and economic distress.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

In one demonstration of what could
be done, seven Indian mothers who were
heads of families and receiving aid for
dependent children were enrolled as vo-
cational students at Oklahoma State
Tech. ;

On completion of training, all but two
were able to be self-sufficient. Within 5
years, the savings in aid for dependent
children payments will more than pay
the cost of training for all seven of these
Indian mothers.

The Bureau of Indian Affairs at
Muskogee has indicated it could refer
“a minimum of 1,000 Indians” to receive
yocational training at Okmulgee, from
the several States which make up the
Muskogee area alone, if funds and facil-
ities were available.

Additional thousands of Indians could
be expected to take advantage of the pro-
gram, from other areas of the south~
west, midwest and north, if a pilot school
were established at Ckmulgee in accord-
ance with this legislation.

in no sense of the word, however, is the
Oklahoma school a school for Indians
alone.

On the contrary, Indian students have
always been in the minority, and stu-
dents of all races are included in the
present enrollment. There are 28 States
represented by students at Okmulgee to-

day, and 8 foreign countries have sent _

students to take advantage of the insti-
tution’s program.

In the Nation today; no other location
has more to offer as a site for a pilot
residential vocational education pro-
gram than Okmulgee, Okla.

I believe this fact is recognized by the
professional leaders of vocational edu-
cation, both.in the Department and
across the country. I am highly pleased
that members of the subcommittee which
heard testimony on this matter have
frankly expressed their conviction that
Okmulgee is an ideal location fer this
program. I hope and trust the funds
will be approved and a pilot program. will
soon be underway at Oklahoma State
Tech. /

(My. EDMONDSON asked and was
given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)

(Mr. ALBERT (at the request of Mr.
EDMONDSON) was granted permission to
extend his remarks at this point in the
RECORD).

Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Chairman, it is a
pleasure to join with the gentleman
from Oklehoma, Congressman EpmMonp-
son, and other members of the Okia-
homa delegation in supporting the estab-
lishment of a pilot residential vocational
school under Public Law 88-210 at Okla-
homa State Tech in Okmulgee. .

With more than 100 experienced in-
structors on its campus, the Okmulgee
school is in a splendid position to utilize
an additional Federal investment wisely.
Figures supplied to me indicate that
more than 1,200 students are already
living in campus housing at Okmulgee.

The student body at Okmulgee State
Tech already represents a cross section

of the American people with students -

from 28 of the States in the Union and
8 foreign countries. They are enrolled
in 40 vocational-technical courses rang-

9049

ing from the skilled crafts to highly com-
plex courses in modern electronics.

Within our State, as well.as in the
Nation, this school has been meeting a
widespread need for residential voca-
tional training.

Seventy-six of Oklahoma’s seventy-
seven counties are represented by stu-
dents at Oklahoma State Tech, and the
school is highly respected by employers
throughout the State for the quality of
its student product.

T hope the funds provided in this bill
will be approved and the Oklahoma
State Tech facilities and faculty can be
a part of our growing effort to prepare
our high school dropouts and unskilled
young people for the difficult task of
making a living in today’s complex so-
ciety.

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

Mr. FOGARTY. I yield to the gentle-
man from Missouri. °

Mr. HALL. I wish to join the compli-
ments on this 18th presentation of this
budget by the gentleman from Rhode is-
land on the various agencies, particularly
of the Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare, and the National Institutes
of Health.

I rise to associate myself with the re-
marks of the chairman, as well as those
made by the gentleman from North
Carolina [Mr. Fountain].

In that connection I note with partic~-
ular interest—because this is a field in
which I used to work—the addition to
the budget, along with other judicious
paring, for the National Institutes of
Health, especially the Heart Institute, for
breakthroughs in the work on the arti-
ficial heart, kidney, and such areas as
recycling of foods and water in space; by
private industry.

As a result of being on the research
and development subcommittee of the
Armed Services Coramittee, and of being
one of the three physicians in the Con-
gress, I have had unusual knowledge of
the heart boosters, as well as the arti-
ficial heart, to say nothing about the
heart-lung bypass systems, in private life,
because of work in a foundation which
we established before I came to the
Congress.

With. the research and development
features—-new sensors and pulsors and

- devices now available to the engineers

as well as to those who do basic and
allied research—there has been a distinct
breakthrough. This has happened in
private business and industry, as. the
gentleman so well said in his opening
statement.

As to manned space flight, bioastro-
nauties, and other activities, this is an
area to which the Government should
give support. We should not. limit our-
selves to what I think of as the vertical
research, which refers back to the re-

marks of the gentleman from North

Carolina [Mr. Fountain] in which we
necessarily duplicate and must build on
the building blocks: basic, then applied
research, then developmental engineer-
ing, design, prototype, et cetera. We
should work simultaneously on these in
the area of horizontal research and de-
velopment since the applied researcher
raust have the engineer design the gadget
$050

for him, anyway. “We should develop all
this simultaneously, and then make the
horizontal breakthrough needed, whether
it be on cancer research, heart research,
or whatnot. That will come, because
the breakthrough cannot be found alone
with money and additional personnel.
We ave more liable to find the answer to
cancer in clinical and/or bedside re-
search than in the ivory towers of the
vertical approach.
I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Myr. FOGARTY. I thank the gentie-_

man for his remarks.

Mr, JOHNSON of Oklahoma. Mr.
Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. JOHNSON of Oklahoma. Mr.
Chairman, I should like to join my dis-
tinguished colleague from Oklahoma
iMr. Enwonpsonw] in commending the
chairman of the subcommittee and the
Appropriations Committee.

Ask any vocational educator where
Ckmulgee, Okla., is, and he will tell you.
He will also tell you of the outstanding
vocational school there, Oklahoma State
Tech, which is the vocational-technical
branch of Oklahoma State University.

The success of this school is a tribute
to its founders and its leadership. Since
it was established 18 years ago, it has
never lost sight of its principal purpose
for being—to turn out skilled craftsmen
and technicians. Because it has held to
this purpose, the school has compiled an
outstanding record. It has taken young
Indians from reservations and taught
thera skills, and it has taught them to
live and work in society. Its record in
vocational rehabilitation of the handi-
eapped is one of the best anywhere. It
has done equally well with high school
dropouts, and with ordinary young people
seeking training to enable them to work
for a good living.

For these and many other reasons, I
urge that section 14 of Public Law 88-218
be funded, and that Okishoma State
"Tach be designated as a pilot residential
vocational school under provisions of the
act. , .

(Mr. JOHNSON of Cklahoma asked
and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)

My. STEED. Mr. Chairman, Okla-
homa State Tech, at Okmulgee, Okla.,
ig the vocational-technical branch of
Okishoma State University.

The outstanding job already being
done by this technical school has been.
recognized by the State board for voca-
tional education, the Oklahoma Voca-
tional. Association, and the American
Vocational Association.

The work already being done at Ok-
miulgee is one of the best arguments E
know for funding section 14 of Public
Law 88-210. Thousands of successful
graduates of this school can testify to
the job which its able faculty is capa-
ble of doing, and we know that the school
has helped to reduce the welfare load in
every county of our State, by making
taxpaying citizens out of welfare cases
who had no vocational skilis.

We believe this school can do an even
greater job for the Nation if the money
provided by this bill is wisely invested

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

in additional facilities, equipment and
faculty at Oklahoma State Tech. We
urge this course of action. :

Mr. BELCHER. -Mr, Chairman, on a
small campus in Okmulgee, Okla., in
buildings which once housed a World
War II military hospital, one of the finest
vocational education schools in the Na~
tion has been turning out skilled crafts-

amen and technicians for 18 years.

The school, Oklahoma State Tech, is a
branch of Oklahoma State University at
Stillwater. Tech was created to serve the
needs of veterans returning from World
War TI, and it served them well. Now it
trains other Oklahomans—-and, indeed,
many from other States and foreign
countries—and its reputation for turning
out skilled and willing workers soreads
wherever these young people go.

Oklahoma State Tech is a residential
school, where students from all walks of
life come to live together and work to-
gether and learn together. The school is
doing an outstanding job, and a look at
its record is a convincing argument for
funding section 14 of Public Law 388-210
which provides for establishment of pilot
residential vocational training schocls.
And Oklshoma State Tech would be an
ideal location for such a pilot school. Ib
is in operation, it is successful, and the
return on investment in this school would
be high and satisfying. It is a pleasure
to join with my colleagues in urging
establishment of a pilot school under
Public Law 88-210 in Okmulgee.

Mr. JARMAN. Mr. Chairman, every
Oklahoman is proud of the job which
has been done during the past 18 years
by. Oklahoma State Tech at Okmulgee.
This fine scheol is a branch of Oklahoma
State University at Stillwater, and was
established inibially to serve the needs
of World War II veterans. The out-
standing job which ij has done as @ re-
gional training center for vocational re-
habilitation students, and its effective
trade and vocational educational pro-
grams for both men and women, have al-
ready won for it nationwide recognition.

Vocational educators from all over the
country and Indeed from foreign coun-
tries come to Ckmuligee to study the
operation of this great institution.

At no other location in the country
could the Government invest funds for
@ pilot residential vocational program
with greater economy of initial Invest-
ment, and with a higher assurance of re-
turn on the investment than at Okla-
homa State Tech. I am pleased to join
other members of the Oklahoma delegca-
tion in urging that funds be approved
for the establishment of a pilot train-
ing instittuion under the Vocational Hdu-
eation Act at Ckmulgee.

Mr. DADDARIO. Mr. Chairman, it is
my privilege to support this bill which
is being so ably handled by our colleague
from Rhode Isiand.

Tar particularly interested In the fact
that the committee this year has elimi-
nated the percentage celling on reim-
bursable overhead costs relative to Fed-
eral research grants which has been car-
ried in prior appropriations bills.

In my judgment this makes a good deal
of sense. :

The committee has, on the other hand,

 

 
 

May 4, 1965

inserted a requirement in section 203
that at least some of the costs of the
research projects involved in Federal
grants be borne by the grantee institu-
tions. While I do not feel competent at
this point to say whether the method
adopted by the commilttee is the best one,
it does appear to me to be a move in the
Jogical direction.

In fact, both actions taken by the Ap-
propriations Committee in this bill are
similar to the conclusions reached by
the Committee on Science and Astro-
nautics and its Subcommittee on Sci-
ence, Research, and Development, which
I have the honor to chair. In House Re-
port No. 144, issued by our committee

‘earlier this year, and following exten~

sive hearings by the subcommittee last
summer, recommendations were made
that first, percentage limitations on in-
direct costs be removed, and second, that
beginning efforts be made to establish
criteria for cost sharing based on the
mutual interests of institutional grantees
and Federal grantor agencies.

I am pleased and impressed to find
the approach in the bill before us today
indicating that the Appropriations Com-
mittee, quite independently, has reached
conclusions not greatly different.

We are all, I think, striving toward the
same goals. In essence, they are as
quoted by the report on this bill—worth-
while research, adequately supervised
and economically conducted. One could
hardly find a more succinct summariza-
tion of that which we seek in making
Federal grants for scientific research.

Mr. Chairman, the net effect of this
language in the bill will be te make the
Budget Bureau’s directive-—Circular
A-2i—on the assessment of reimbursable
overhead apply to HEW research grants.
This directive has been carefully worked
out over a number of years and seeks to
gafeguard the fiscal interests of both the
Government and the grantee institu-
tions. Simultancously, it will mean that
some thought will be given to the equities
involved in cost sharing-——but as @ sep-
arate issue and not as a complicating
offshoot of the overhead problem.

In my opinion this is as it should %e.

EL should like to thank the committee
and. its chairman for giving their
thoughtful attention to a complex and
important problem.

_Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, IT am
gratified that the report on the appro-
priations bill for the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare recog-
nizes two matters of importance to both
Chicago and the Nation. The first per-
tains to water pollution control studies.
The second insures the continued acces-
sibility of Public Health Service hospital
facilities,

In discussing the Federal Water Qual-
ity Act of 1995, I noted that there is
nothing more local than a drop of water
and nothing more national than what we
do with it. Slowly but surely we are
learning what to do with water, our
most important natural resource. We
are learning to conserve it, te purify it,
to reuse it, to control it. The demon-
stration grants provided under the water
supply and water pollution control ap-
propriation give us an opportunity to
May 4, 1965

jearn more in the vital areas of water
reuse, drainage, pollution, and flood con-
trol.

The Bureau of the Budget asked that
only $1,165,000 be spent for such projects
in 1966. That would be only enough to
finance 25 projects already underway,
and would not allow funds for any new
projects. Fortunately, the subcommittee
recognized the benefits to be realized in
such programs and added $1 million to
the bill for demonstration grants. This
means that many more projects, some of
them already approved, can get under-
way this year, and the country will be
better for it.

One of these new projects represents
an imaginative new approach to water
pollution, flood control, and sanitation,
It is proposed for a 25-square-mile area
on the South Side of Chicago. [If it is
found workable, it could provide a good

_answer to water pollution caused by
storms in urban areas throughout the
United States. Specifically, this project
calls for a $125,000 feasibility study of a
storm drainage system incorporating a
network of huge underground tunnels.
Engineers suggest that such an approach
could eliminate storm water overflows
into Lake Michigan, keep polluted storm
flows from the Chicago River and drain-
age canals, eliminate basement flooding
and provide flood control benefits to the
Des Plaines, Kankakee, and ITlinois
Rivers. It is estimated that such an
underground system could provide 20
times the amount of protection offered
by an improved conventional sewer sys-
tem in Chicago.

This approach is dramatic and revolu-
tionary. It calls for intercepting the
existing network of sewers with vertical
shafts, extending 600 or more feet under-
ground. The shafts would lead to exca~

vated galleries, which would fiow into a

tunnel leading away from the city. A
pump-turbine plant at the tunnel outlet
would use the stored water to generate
electric power. Allowing for revenues
from the sale of this power, the esti-
mated cost of the new system would be
about the same as the cost of expanding
the present conventional drainage sys-
tem, and the protection from pollution
and floods would be far greater .

Mr, Chairman, we have for too many
years paid inadequate attention to our
priceless water. We are now paying the
penalty for our neglect, reaping a whirl-

_ pool of pollution, To correct the corrup-
tion of our water supplies, we require
research, experimentation, and demon-
stration. These few projects represent a
worthy step in that direction.

Iam hopeful that the treatment of
the pollution problem contemplated by
the Chicago feasibility study will pro-
vide great benefits to every metropolitan
area, plagued with inadequate drainage
and sewage systems. I am gratified that
our distinguished colleague from Rhode
Island [Mr. Fosarty] and the members
of this committee have had the foresight
te include extra funds for these demon=
stratich grants.

I- would also like to address myself
briefiy to another matter contained in

No. 79———12

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD —- HOUSE

this bill—the retention of operating funds

during the next year for Public Health
Service hospitals.

The Department of Health, Hduca-.

tion, and Welfare proposed to close seven
such hospitals over the next 4years. One
of the reasons given for this decision
was a claim that it would save the Fed-
eral Government $1 million. I did not
analyze the cost-saving ratio for all seven
institutions, but I did carefully study
the alleged savings that would have been
made by closing the U.S. Merchant Ma-
rine Hospital in Chicago. The figures
showed that 2 shutdown would cost the
Government more money than it would
save.

The first two hospitals scheduled to
be closed were in Chicage and Memphis.
The committee discovered that the cost
of caring for patients from these hos-
Pitals, in cross-servicing and contract-
ing, would exceed the savings realized
from closing them. The committee
found that in 1966 alone the costs of
caring for patients from the two hos-
pitals would exceed the savings by $212,-
000. ‘Thus these closings would have
produced a false and shortsighted econ-~
omy.

Indeed, Mr. Chairman, the closing of
the Marine Hospital would have multi-
plied those costs greatly. About 10 per-
cent of the patients there would no long-
er be treated in a Federal hospital, and
the costs of their treatment would preb-
ably have to be charged to the social se-
curity medical insurance fund, in the
amount of $164,000 a year. It. would
have taken another $7,000 a year to
eare for the remaining 90 percent of the
patients sent to other Federal hospitals.
Thus the total annual operating cost
would have been $171,000.

The Public Health Service estimated it
would save $515,000 by investing in new
Veterans’ Administration construction
instead of spending the $1,200,000 it said
was required to modernize the Marine
Hospital. It would take but 3 years for
the annual operating expense of $171,000
to exceed the one-time savings in capital
investment of $515,000. Thereafter, the
Government would have lost $171,000 a
year.

It is clear that the closing could not
be justified on economic grounds. Nor
could it be justified on the grounds of
better service. This 138-bed hospital has
served Great Lakes seamen, as well as
active and retired service personnel and
their dependents, for 92 years. Remove
that hospital, Mr. Chairman, and you
are left with only one other Merchant
Marine hospital on the Great. Lakes—at
Detroit—and that hospital was sched-
uled to close, too. Take away the Mem-
phis hospital, and merchant seamen
would have no facilities in the éntire
Mississippi River north of New Orleans.

Harly in our history President John
Adams took special interest in the health
care of merchant seamen and Inaugu-
rated this hospital system. Only 2 years
ago President Kennedy said he wanted
the Public Health Service to present a
plan to provide more accessible care for
seamen. What happened? The Public

$051

Health Service decided to close the few
hospitals it had in this area, reducing
accessibility to treatment instead of in-
creasing it.

I am grateful that the committee
closely scrutinized these operations, Mr.
Chairman. It was important that un-
founded claims of this economy be ex-
posed. It is more important that satis-
factory and accessible care remain avail-
aloie to seamen.

Mr. ICHORD. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in support of H.R. 7765 with special at-
tention directed toward title TZ. It is
felt there is little need to go into great
detail justifying your support of the bill
now before us as the committee and sub-
committees have done a tremendous job
in serutinizing every detail.

I do, however, feel a need to express
my deep and profound regret that 2
$200,000 planning fund for a field lab-
oratory for water pollution control was
not included in the final bill submitted
to this body. I am confident these funds
were omitted in the interest. of budg-
etary considerations and not due to 2
failure to recognize the pressing need for
continued advancement in programs of
this nature. The importance of water
and the increasing dangers of its pol-
lution to public health and safety is a
matter of which we are all aware. . The
need for action has been established.

Cbvicusly the seriousness of water pol-
lution varies depending on the region in
question. I believe there is a pressing
need for an additional laboratory in the
Missouri River Basin. This basin covers
approximately 20 percent of the land
mass of the country and serves the vast-
ness of the midwestern agricultural areas
and several tremendous metropolitan
areas such as St. Louis, Kansas City, and
Omaha. At present the closest field lab-
oratory is located at Ann Arbor, Mich.
Even the most bright-eyed optimists
would not dare hope that the Midwest
could be served by this laboratory alone
due to the complexity of the Great Lakes
pollution problems.

Therefore, how do we best serve the
millions of people affected by Missouri
River Basin pollution? It is imperative
that we locate a laboratory in the basin
and that we do it soon, while a solution
is still within our grasp. Pollution in
this basin should be the concern of every
citizen who uses the products supplied. by
this area. And it concerns each person
in the land for you all know of mid-
western and industrial production. I
again express my regret on this matter
and vow that I will continue to. press for
the needed planning funds until the lab-
oratory is built and we are on our way
te the consumption and use of clean and
safe water.

Task that all of you consider the grav-
ity of the problem and join me in the
attainment of necessary appropriations
when we next take this problem under
consideration. ‘

Mr. VIVIAN. Mr. Chairman, I also
wish to coramend the chairman and the
members of the Committee on Appro-
priations for wisely revising section 203
of this bill. As has already been stated,
$052

in the past an inflexible statutory limi-
tation has been imposed on the amount
of indirect costs which were permitted
to be reimbursed by the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare, to in-
stitutions receiving research granis; in
the future, however, assuming this re-
vised section is adopted, the Bureau of
the Budget instead will establish fiexible
administrative regulations authorizing
amounts.more closely approaching. the
true costs incurred by the institutions
receiving grants. .In so doing, the com-
mittee will relieve many universities and
research institutes_throughout the Na-
tion from a troublesome financial bur-
den.

In my own district alone, for example,
the University of Michigan in recent
years has suffered a deficit in recovery
of indirect costs which. has amounted
to over $2 million each year. This
amount, a significant element in the
yearly overall budget of the university,
has had to be withdrawn in part from
funds otherwise available for student in-
struction.

If section 503 as proposed here is
adopted, the deficit incurred should be
far less, permitting more productive use
of the funds available to the university.

I am further pleased te hear the chair-
man. state that a similar provision will
be included in the appropriations bills
for all other pertinent agencies, so that
the policy established here will prevail
uniformly.

Mr. FARNUM. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in support of House bill 7765. As a new
Member of Congress it was my good
fortune to be accorded the privilege of
serving on the Committee on Appropria-
tions and also my good fortune to be
selected to serve on the Subcommittee on

Labor and Health, Education, and Wel--

fare.

During the course of the hearings on-

this bill I was granted all the courtesies
extended to senior members of the com-
mittee by that great gentleman from
Rhode Island, the chairman of our com-
mittee, the Honorable Jonn Fogarty.

Having had considerable experience
in the administrative branch of Govern-
ment, I concerned myself during the
committee hearings and also outside of
the committee chiefly with investiga-
tions of the administrative practices used
by the various agencies represented be-~
fore our committee.

This does not mean that I did not also
concern myself with other details of the
programs of the agencies included in
this bill, for like all committee members
I spent many hours weighing whether or
not justifications warranted the appro-
priation requests that were being made.
I would at this time, however, like to
concern myself only with agency man-
agement practices.

In the expenditure of public funds, the
first thing that each of us should be con-
cerned with is that every dollar appro-
priated be used for the purposes
indicated.

Our second concern should be that
agency administrative procedures and
internal procedures be conducted with
the kind of efficiency that guarantees
the best possible use of the dollar.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

Prior to my coming to the Congress,
and since I have been here, President
Johnson has issued executive directives
asking that-agencies take cold, hard looks
at their administrative procedures and
that they eliminate those procedures and
practices that contribute unnecessary ef-
fort to the administrative operation while
devising new methods and systems that
will suarantee maximum economical use
of public funds.

The question then is: Has there been
demonstrated an intent on the part of
the administrative agencies to comply?

In the limited amount of time that
has been available to me to talk to the
heads of agencies, to ask questions at
hearings, and to make on-the-job visits
with employees performing all kinds of
work, my general impression is that the
attitude of the employees, of the heads
of departments, and of the Bureau of the
Budget personnel is to see to it that we
do attain maximum efficiency in the per-
formance of governmental functions.

Followup procedures have been es-
tablished that, in my opinion, stimulate
any who might be reluctant to embrace
positive action.

Mr. Chairman, there are two kinds of
economy—false economy, and the real
kind.

False economy more often than not is
the product of executives who feel that
the prestige of their positions depends on
the number of file cabinets they can
proudly display.

The enemies of false economy are
methods and systems that, requiring a
minimum expenditure of effort, result in
maximum control in managing public
funds. /

True economy results when responsible
people provide good management prac-~-
tices. Or, as I have said on another oc-
casion, when they adopt the “work
smarter, not harder” concept of fulfill-
ing administrative function.

In the light of the. great burdens pres-
ently placed upon Government adminis-
trators, true economy in 1965 necessitates
the use of automatic data-processing
equipment. But equipment alone is not
enough. Good procedures demand that
before we can use profitably this kind of
equipment, it is necessary to devise effi-
cient administrative procedure for its
eperation.

In a word, we must “systemate” before
we can automate.

The application of such equipment to
governmental processes. has long con-
cerned me. I am convinced that the
contribution this mechanized equipment
can make to the handling of many of the
clerical governmental procedures can re-
sult in a great saving of public funds.

An example of this may be seen in the
social security department. Had not
such equipment been used in the last sev-
eral years, the status quo cost of opera-
tions of this department alone would
have been some $80 million more than it
is today.

The fact is that without the use of
computers it would have been almost
physically impossible to process the
claims of those senior citizens who have
already retired.

Considered, then, the condition when

May 4, 1965
the extra burden results that will be
placed on this department as a result
of the passage of medicare. We could
go on and on citing more and more
examples.

The opportunity that has been ac-~-
corded me as a result of the privilege of
serving on this committee has made me
increasingly aware of the powerful con-
tribution which computers have made to
the progress of medical research.

Today they are becoming an integral
part of the research laboratory. Beyond
the laboratory, in the operating rooms of
our leading research hospitals, surgeons
are planning to use computers to measure
and record continuous changes in the
body before, during, and after surgery.

Vast amounts of data have been cap-
tured by automatic instruments, and the
analysis of the data should provide an
unusually rich opportunity for physi-
cians, mathematicians, and engineers,
working together, to identify some of the
basic patterns of disturbance in normal
function in heart disease, cancer, and
other serious illnesses.

A large portion of the financial sup-
port necessary to establish computers in
medical research laboratories and hos-
Pitals has come from the Federal Gov-
ernment, through the National Institutes
of Health. Moreover, the NIH. has pio-
neered the use of computers in its own
laboratories and in the operating rooms
of the Clinical Center.

There, for example, patients in critical
need of heart surgery receive the most
advanced medical care while, at the same
time, they provide through the computer
and other automatic instruments vital
data which can help to save countless
other hearts in the years ahead.

The modern-day computer in medical
research is much more than a set of boxes
with complicated wiring such as we are
accustomed to see in business offices to-
day. The human or animal heart in ac-
tion does not produce a set of numbers.
Tis movement must first be sensed as a
change in blood pressure within the heart
or along the blood vessels. These pres-
sure changes must be converted to con-
tinuous electrical signals which can be
captured by tape-recording. equipment.
The information must then be displayed
visually on.a television screen to provide
immediate vital intelligence to the sur-
geon on the condition of his patient, or
to the researcher on the progress of his
experiment.

An impressive array of equipment is
required to perform these tasks, particu-
larly if many variables are to be studied
at the same time. To carry out mathe-~
matical analysis of the data requires still
more electronic equipment to select those
portions of the continuous record which
require further study, and to convert the
electrical signals te numbers. Only then
can one begin to use the vast power of
the digital computer with which most of
us have become familiar.

To bring the full power of this com-
puter complex to the service of medical
research and patient care requires two
essential commodities: first, large
amounts of money for expensive equip-
ment; second, and much more difficult
to come by, topnotch mathematical and
May 4, 1965

enginesring talent. Imaginative mathe-
maticians with a strong interest in biol-
ogy are needed to translate medical and
biological. problems into mathematical
models, without which comprehensive
analysis and interpretation of large
amounts of data cannot proceed. Highly
ereative computer and instrument engi-
neers are fully as necessary in the bio-
medical research laboratory and in the
modern research hospital as they are in
the design. and control of our space
rockets.

Recognizing the need to provide these
resources for its research scientists and
administrators, the National Institutes
of. Health have established a new Divi-
sion of Computer Research and Tech-
nology, whose mathematicians and
computer experts will work side by side
with NIH’s medical scientists in labora-
tory and hospital.

-The Division will undertake profes-
sional research in the relevant aspects
of advanced mathematics and computer
theory. In addition, it will operate a
large-scale central computer te which
scientists throughout the NIA campus
could even be connected by data trans-
mission stations in their own laboratories
and offices, if such should prove to be
desirable.

These computer resources will be avail-
able not only to the research scientist
and hospital clinicians at NIH, but to
the administrative and management
staff as well. The new Division will as-
sist grants administrators in the devel-
opment of an integrated computer sys-
tem for processing grants information.
This will permit a more continuous eval-
uation of the progress of grant supported
research, It will provide immediate in-
formation on the geographic distribu-
tion of grants, on the relative concen-
tration by area of study, by size of uni-
versity or college, and by other factors
important to scientists and administra-
tors participating in the allocation of
grant funds.

Equally important will be the savings
in time and money to the overall man-
agement of NIH activities. The re-
sources of the new division will enable
NIH central management to set up a
eomputer-oriented system of regular in-
formation reports needed for decision.

Even more vital to effective and eco-
nomical management, these resources
will permit the immediate retrieval of
detailed data by direct hookup to files
stored in the central computer. For the
first time, NIET management will be able
to assemble rapidly, with a minimum of
clerical personnel, the ~ information
needed to answer special requests and
te carry cut special studies on which
management decisions may be based.

Tam frankly excited over the stimulat-
ing opportunities which this new division
of Coraputer Research and Technology
offers to the NIH scientific research com-
munity, to the medical care capabilities
of the Clinical Center, and to the man-
agement of programs entrusted to NIH
administrators.

This is 4 dynamic new activity whose
benefits to medical research—and to all
of us whose lives are enriched by the re-

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD —- HOUSE

sults of such research—can far exceed
the money spent to support it. More
funds are needed to implement the work
of this new division than are provided in
the current budget request for fiscal year
1966. Even more important, no arbit-

rary grade restrictions should be per-.

mitted to undermine the ability of this
Division to attract the first-rate mathe-
maticians and computer experts needed
to do the job.

I suppose there are some who might
say this device offers just another method
to get more funds, Those who think so
forget that often it is necessary to spend
in order to provide the method or pro-
cedure best fitted to guarantee maximum
economy and efficiency.

To illustrate, les me give you an ex-
ample. In a National Institute of
Health project, a.researcher in carrying
on an experiment for many years has
been burdened with the laborious task
of having to spend the large share of his
time recording data gained from: his
experiment.

T has been necessary that he com-
pute it, analyze it, compare it with pre-
vious data and perform many other sim-
ilar functions, thereby limiting himself
to a very few hours to be spent in pure
research alone.

At NIH many scientists now can look
forward to spending the big share of
their valuable time in basic research ex-
periments because they have been able
to collaborate with mathematicians and
engineers in an application of the physi-
cal sclences to the biomédical sciences.
Mechanized equipment that has been
made available—and that- will be made
available in the future as a result of these
appropriations—has the job of recording
permanently, of analyzing, of computing,
of comparing, and of giving the result to
persons engaged in pure research on a
full-time basis.

Yes, today’s research scientist and
tomorrow’s can look forward to many,
many extra hours made available
through such means. IT am as sure as
are all of the rest of my colleagues here

-that the result of this extra time made

available to these humanitarians will be
to cause the progress in the future in
the medical and life sciences to be fan-
tastic by any standards we now know.

‘This, then, is an expenditure that will

provide better procedural practices while.

saving many man-hours of research tal-
ent.

But, above and beyond that, it is logi-
cal to predict that it will provide a day,
a month, or maybe many years of extra
life to human beings. I am sure none
of my colleagues would value this in
terms of dollars.

I wish at this time, Mr. Chairman, to
commend the
Health for the leadership they have
shown in this field. I trust the Con-

gress will continue its generous support.

of these efforts.

And once again I wish to thank the
chairman of our committee, and the in-
dividual members, for the patience they
have shown me as a new Member of this
Congress and for the opportunities for
service they have afforded me in my few
months here.

National Institutes of '

9053

GENERAL LEAVE TO EXTEND :

Mr. FOGARTY. Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that all Members
may have permission to extend their
own remarks at this point.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection,
it is so ordered.

There was no cbjection.

Mr. LAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I. yield
myself such time as I may consume.

CALL OF THE. HOUSE

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I make the
point of order that a quorum is not pres~
ent.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will
count. Sixty-four Members are present,
nota quorum.

The Clerk will call the roll..

The Clerk called the roli, and the fol-
lowing Members failed to answer to their
names:

[Roll No. 89]

Ashley Halleck Maitliard
Ayres Hanna Mathias
Bandstra Hansen, Wash. Milis
Blatnik Hardy Morrison
Brademas Hays Powell
Broyhill, Va. Holifield Redliin™
Cahill Holland Resnick
Clevenger Hosmer Senner
Conyers Huct Smith, Iowa
Curtis Trwin Stephens
Dickinson Jones, Mo. Taylor
Diges Krebs Teague, Tex.
Ford, Latta Thomson, Wis.
Gerald R. Leggett Toll
Giaimo McDowell Whitten
Goodell MacGregor Wilson, Bob
Hagen, Calif. Mackie Young

Accordingly, the Committee rose; and
the Speaker having resumed the chair,
Mr. TrHompson of New Jersey, Chairman
of the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under con-
sideration the bill H.R. 7765, and find-
ing itself without a quorum, he had di-
rected the roll to be called, when 3383
Members responded to their names, a
quorum, and he submitted herewith the
names of the absentees to be spread
upon the Journal. .

The Committee resumed its sitting.

The CHAIRMAN, The Committee will
rise informally to receive a message.

The SPEAKER. The Chair will re«
ceive a message from the President of
the United States.

MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT

A message in writing from the Presi~
dent of the United States was communi-
cated to the House by Mr, Ratchford,
one of his secretaries.

LABOR-HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND
WELFARE APPROPRIATIONS, 1966

The SPEAKER. The Committee will
resume its sitting.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentieman
from: Wisconsin [Mr. Lartrp] is recog-
nized.

Mr. LAIRD. Mr. Chairman, the HEW
and Labor appropriations bill for fiscal
1966 is a bill which I support. IT am not
going to brag about the bill because I
am not particularly proud of all of it.
But I defend and support this bill be-
cause I am a realist, and under the cir-

 

 

 

 
9054 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

cumstances, it is not a bad bill. As the
gentleman from Rhode Island has indi-
eated in his remarks earlier today, our
committee worked long and hard.on this
bill and conducted hearings over a period
of several months.. In marking up this
bill, being a member of the minority
party, understanding fully the organiza-
tion of this House with its two to one
Democratic majority, I worked with the
members of this committee to arrive at
the best bill that could be presented on
the floor of the House today.

We have heard some talk about the
cost of the Department of Health, Edu-
cation, and Welfare, and how costs have
been on the rise each of the past few
years. I have served on this committee
for some 13 years. I remember when we
considered the first bill from this Depart-
ment: It was a little more than a billion
dollars.

The bill before the House today covers
about $8 billion in general revenues and
some $24 billion in trust funds. It is the
second largest appropriation bill which
will be considered by this Congress.

IE should like to remind my friends in
the House today that within the next 6
weeks we will add to this bill, in supple-
mental appropriations, more than $3 bil-
lion. We will add that $3 billion because
of action which has been taken on the
floor of the House in new authorizations,
for new programs. I refer to the medi-
care bill. There. are vast amounts au-
thorized from general funds, as well as
trust funds. The total trust fund and
general fund amount authorized in that
bill will be $7 billion in the first full
fiscal year of operation.

In addition to that extra burden, so far
as the trust funds and the general fund
of the Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare appropriation in fiscal year
1966 are concerned, we have also added,
by a vote of this House, a new authoriza-
tion in the area of education, of more
than a billion dollars.

Today, after this bill is acted upon,
we will pass two bills which will add to
the expenditures: in fiscal year 1966
many millions more. There will not be
a single vote against those bills, which
have been reported unanimously from
the Committee on Interstate and For-
eign Commerce, when the roll is called
a little later this afternoon.

This bill will be bigger than the De-
partment of Defense appropriation bill,
if this trend continues, by the year 1970.

This bill as it stands today carries
$7,964 million in appropriations, over
$1 billion more than the bill we brought
to you a year ago, but it is $329 million
less than the President requested in his
budget. Furthermore, the party of the
Great—and very expensive—Society has
a majority of 2 to 1 on our subcommittee
and on the full Committee on Appropri-
ations. There are. some features and
some dollar amounts, that had we had
the votes, we would have altered... But
realism dictates that when you are weak,
you negotiate. So, under the circum-
stances, this is. a good bill.

As the gentleman from Rhode Island,
the chairman of our subcommittee, has
pointed out, this bill is a result of com-
promise. Under the circumstances I

have just outlined I feel that we on the
minority side should be reasonably satis-
fied with the results.

Another factor that one must consider
in making a realistic appraisal of this bill
is the fact. that the last Congress passed
@ very considerable amount of new legis-
lation that is requiring increasingly
large sums of money to carry out. In
most cases this new legislation passed
the Congress by very large majorities.
I am sure if it were coming up new in
this Congress this legislation would pass
by even larger majorities. The major-
ity of Congress has expressed its will in
no uncertain terms so it. would be com-
pletely unrealistic to attempt to with-
hold the funds.

I will give you a few specific examples.
Last year’s bill included $183 million for
the vocational education program; this
year’s bill, under the expanded authori-
zation, carries $262 million. Last year’s
bill carried $463 million for higher edu-
eation facilities construction; this year
itis $641 million. Last year’s bill for de-
fense educational activities carried $287
million; under the expanded authoriza-
tion it is $412 million in this year’s bill.
There are several others.

If it were not for the increases in the
bill to carry out the further expansion of
these programs that was authorized by
the last Congress, this bill would actual-
ly be just about the sarne size.as the bill
we brought you last year.

Now no one should be misled into
thinking that this is the full bill for the
Departments of Labor, and Health, Edu-
eation, and Welfare, and related agen-
cies for-the fiscal year 1966. This is just
part 1. Part 2 of the Labor HEW bill is
going to be coming before this House
likely during the last half of June. Part
2 will include some more extremely ex-
pensive Great Society programs under
legislation being enacted by the current
Congress. /

Programs that will likely be carried in
part 2 of the Labor-HEW bill will be the
poverty program for which the adminis-
tration is requesting authorization for
$144 billion. It will undoubtedly include
funds for the recently enacted Elemen-
tary and Secondary Education Act of
1965—-we. already have a budget request
of $1,345 million for that program. Of
course no one knows at this point how
much may be requested to carry out the
recommendations of the President’s
Commission on Heart Disease, Cancer,
and Stroke, but we already have a re-
quest for $44 million and the administra-
tion has requested additional legislation,
the cost of which not even the adminis-
tration knows. It. will undoubtedly in-
clude funds for the expanded Manpower
Development and Training Act that
passed last month. It will undoubtedly
include funds for the medicare program,
if the Senate passes this before part 2 is
considered. And there are many others
that are well within the realm of prob-
ability for inclusion. There is the arts
and humanities bill, water pollution con-~
trol amendments, the health research
facilities bill, the new air. pollution bill,
the Community Health Services Exten-
sion Amendments of 1965, a new Com-~
munity Mental Health Centers Act, a

May 4, 1965

new juvenile delinquency program, and
there are several more.

Mr. Chairman, it looks like the budget
requests for part 2 will total about $5
billion. So, just in funds appropriated
out of the general funds of the Treasury,
the Labor-HEW bill—including both
part 1 and part 2—may well be over $13
billion for the next fiscal year. The
amazing growth of these programs, as
measured by their cost is illustrated by
comparing this figure with the total of
the Department of Labor and Health,
Education and Welfare, and Related
Agencies Appropriation Act for fiscal
year 1956. That act totaled exactly
$2,373,516,500. In just 10 years the cost
of these activities has increased over 5
times.

Mr. Chairman, even this does not tell
the whole story. In addition to the funds
that we are appropriating out.of general
funds of the Treasury for these two de-
partments and related agencies, the
American public is called woon to finance
several trust funds to carry out such pro-
grams as old-age and survivors insur-
ance, unemployment compensation, rail-
road retirement, and so forth. The taxes
paid to support these activities are just
as real as the taxes paid into general
funds of the Treasury. It is estimated
that these trust funds will cost the tax-
payers $24,385 million in fiscal year 1966.
If we accept the logical conclusion that
funds out of the Treasury will total $13
billion for 1966, we arrive at a total of
over $37 billion for the Departments of
Labor, and Health, Education, and Wel-
fare, and related agencies.

Mr. Chairman, this is already the larg~
est appropriation bill that comes before
this House with the single exception of
the defense appropriation bill, and I pre-
dict that within the next 10 years it will
be the largest “period.”

Mr, Chairman, the gentleman from
Rhode Island has done his usual good job
of explaining the important details con-
cerning appropriations recommended in
the bill and I shall not take the time of
the Committee to cover the same ground
again, but I would like to take 2 or 3 min-
utes to speak about one of the general
provisions cf the bill.

For several years this bill has carried
a general provision that restricted to a
certain percentage the amount of money
that could be paid to a research grantee
for indirect costs of his research project.
This built up from the early years of the
National Institutes of Health. At first
they allowed nothing for indirect costs.
Then this policy was changed and for
some years they allowed 8 percent of the
direct costs as an allowance for part of
the indirect costs. Then the NIH in-
creased this allowance to 15 percent.
When they proposed to further liberalize
the allowance for indirect costs, Congress
placed a limitation of 15 percent in the
appropriation bill. In the 1963 bill, this
was increased to 20 percent, which has
been the percentage since.

There is no doubt that these research
grants are of benefit to the schools and
other institutions receiving them. For

this reason, and to further assure that -

these funds will be efficiently and éco-
nomically used, the committee is includ-
ing in this bill a requirement for finan-
May 4, 1965

cial participation on the part of grant-
ees. It has become increasingly evident
to the committee, however, that tying
financial participation to indirect costs
‘results in considerable mequity. For
some projects, especially these involving
a considerable amount of equipment pur-
chases, indirect costs may actually be be-
low 20 percent of the direct costs and
thus, under the old provision, the grantee
would receive 100 percent of all costs.
Other projects. have indirect costs run-
ning as high as 50 percent and, thus, the
grantee is bearing a substantial percent-
age of total costs.

Another factor was brought out in the
recent study of the National Institutes of
Health conducted by the Wooldridge
Committee. Its report stated:

We believe that steps should be taken to
make it easier for all involved—scientists,
administrators, and Government representa-
tives—to obtain a clear picture of all the
costs legitimately associated with each NIH-
supported project. Reliance upon an arbi-
trary indirect cost percentage should be
abandoned. Instead, each institution should
be encouraged to present a complete account-
ing of all the costs of “doing business” that
it can support as chargeable or allocable to
the project in question, with a minimum of
emphasis on formal direct/indirect distinc-
tions.

Section 203 of the bill follows this
principle. It simply will require that
each grantee must bear a portion of the
total cost of the project. In order that
this provision may be administered in
the most equitable way, the committee
has not laid down any arbitrary formula,
but will expect that the Bureau of the
Budget make a very detailed and thor-
ough study to determine how best to cal-
culate this division of costs. It may well
be. that this will have to be a variable
formula in order to be equitable for dif-
ferent types of projects and different
types of institutions.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from
Rhode Island in his remarks said he
would have liked to have added $100 mil-
lion for the National Institutes of Health
in fiscal year 1966.. He proposed that in
our subcommittee. I proposed that we
support President Johnson on his figure
for this particular item.in the budget.
As @ great. supporter of the President,
I add that this figure was not agreed to
in our particular committee. But we

compromised between President John- .

son’s figure and the figure advocated by
the gentleman from Rhode Island, and
there is $11.7 million in this bill for the
National Institutes of Health. That is
almost entirely in the area of heart, kid-
ney, and drug research, and the under-
graduate program so far as the National
Cancer Institute is concerned. These are
very strategic areas. I support the ac-
- tion of the committee in encouraging
these programs; particularly in the area
of the artificial heart, in the area of the
new drug research, and also in the area
of the new kidney dialysis program.
Mr. Chairman, the appropriations for
the National Institutes of Health include
no general, across-the-board increases.
Ample evidence was presented to the
.committee that every one of the In-
stitutes is faced with important problems
demanding research for which funds are

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

not aavilable. The catalog of diseases
and human afflictions is long. The na-
tional rescurces devoted to medical re-
search have been dramatically expanded
during the past 10 years but the trained
men, the laboratories, the clinical re-
search facilities, and the funds available
are still far from enough to cover the en-
tire frontier along which man is waging
his age-old battle against disease.

For example, I have just obtained a
tabulation from the National Institutes
of Health which shows that their current
appropriations fall more than $40 million
short of the sum that would be needed
to make awards to all the. grant appli-
cants whose projects have been reviewed
and found -worthy of support—noi only
for their scientific merit but for their
direct relevance to the health research
mission of the National Institutes of
Health.

The 1966 budget estimates make no
allowance for these unfunded projects
nor do they make any allowance for a
similar number of highly worthwhile
projects for which support will almost
certainly have to be refused next year.

Despite these demonstrated general
needs of the NIH programs, the commit-
tee has taken a very conservative ap-
proach in its action on the NIH. budget.
The appropriations contained in the bill
will make a very substantial contribution
te but will not fully meet the total legiti-
mate needs of medical research and re-
search training in this country.

The committee has, in fact, confined
itself to providing for the NIH a few
selected increases for programs which
are so important and which hold cut so
great a promise of benefit for the people
of this country that any delay in getting
them underway would be indefensible.

An example of one such area is the
work that needs to be done to develop an
artificial heart. Heart failure of one
kind or another is now the leading killer
in this country. Many of its victims
could be saved and restored to useful life
if some longer term assistance than is
now available could be given to the heart
while it recuperates. The present heart-
lung machines have made possible the
modern miracles of heart surgery but
they can only take the place of a normal
heart for a matter of hours—long enough
to. give time for an operation but not
nearly long enough to sustain. life for
miore protracted periods of therapy or to
give nature time to repair heart damage.

Thousands of lives will be saved when
a device is developed which can take over
the duties of the heart not for a matter
of hours but. for days or for weeks.
Scientists are agreed that. such a device
is well within the realm of possibility but
many unresolved problems stand in the
way and a major developmental program
is needed to bring it into being.

/ This country has not hesitated to pour
hundreds of millions of doliars into. the
developmental research needed to put a
naan into orbit: I see no reason why so
important a project as the development
of an artificial heart should not be ap-
proached with the same vigor and deter-
mination. Despite the great complexi-
ties of the problem, the amount of money
needed will be considerably less and the

9055

benefits to the individual citizen—and,
I suspect, to the Nation—will be very -
much greater.

The development of an artificial heart
which can be implanted in the body to
take the place of a natural heart whose
function can not be restored is the ulti-
mate goal but presents much greater
difficulties. The achievement of this goal
will necessarily lie much further in the
future. But its achievement can he
speeded up by decades if we make it
possible for scientists to tackle that
problem with the same determination
with which they have so successfully
tackled equaliy difficult. problems in
nuclear and space research.

The possibility of developing a replace-
ment for the heart has been regarded as
a feasible research objective for more
than 7 years. Little support has been
available during this period for research
in this field but individual investigators
have worked on it as best they could and
have at least demonstrated the project’s
feasibility. About 20 experimental blood
pumps have already been tested on
animals with varying degrees of success. -

Mr. Chairman, success in so complex a
venture requires a sustained and coordi-
nated attack. Plans for such an attack
have been drawn up by the National
Heart Institute with the advice of a
distinguished group of specialists. These
plans include the establishment of multi-
disciplinary research groups which will
devote themselves to an intensive study
of the problems in this area. These
groups will draw heavily on our national
engineering capability and will need to
make contractual arrangements with
industrial firms having competence and
experience in such fields as miniaturiza-
tion, plastics, and electronics to develop
or produce experimental devices to ex-
plore new approaches to the problem.

The increase of $2.5 million in the ap-
propriation for the National Heart In-
stitute will make it possible te get this
work underway. /

The. development of an artificial kid-
ney presents a similar opportunity for a
lifesaving advance against a group of
diseases that each year claim thousands
of lives.

The artificial kidney device now avail-
able is a complex laboratory model.. Very
few exist and their duplication is limited
by the searcity of the highly trained
technical personnel needed to operate
them. The process is very expensive—
it costs about $10,000 a year for a single
patient—and the patient must go to the
hospital at frequent, intervals to have his
blood purified by this artificial kidney.

The feasibility of an external device
that will do the work of the kidneys has,
however, been clearly demonstrated.
What is needed now is a major effort to
solve the problems standing in the way of
the development of a machine that will
ke easier to operate and that can be made
available to the victims of kidney failure
at a more reasonable cost.

Not all illness involving kidney failure
can be successfully treated by the use of
an artificial kidney. It has, however,
been estimated that, if artificial kidneys
were generally available today, several
thousand new Cases could be treated each
9056

year. Ina few years the number of peo-
ple whose lives will be sustained by these
devices, would number in the tens of
thousands.

The increase of $2 million included in
the bill for the National Institute of
Arthritis and Metabolic Diseases for this
project is a very small investment when
measured in terms of the number of lives
it may save.

Lshall single out only one more example
of the special purposes served by the in-
creases recommended by the committee.

This is the increase of $1,250,000 for
the Division of Computer Research and
Technology at NIH. This is a new Divi-
sion which is being set up to exploit the
tremendous capabilities of computers
both for biomedical research and for the
treatment of patients.

Computers are already being used for a
variety of purposes in the treatment of
patients—such as, for example, in. the
more accurate determination and con-
trol of exposure to radiation for cancer
patients. Computers are also extensively
used in drug-screening programs and
some progress has been made in using
computers to select the most effective
drug for a given patient.

The full range of the application of
computers to medical problems, however,
remains to be. explored. The division
will work on such projects as the applica-
tion of computers to the rapid interpre-
tation of X-ray photographs and elec-

_trocardiograms, the automatic analysis
of laboratory specimens, the testing of
bicod samples, the retrieval and correla-
tion of laboratory data, and the buiiding

of mathematical modeis of . biological

processes which will make possible close=
ly controlled studies that cannot be car-
ried out by ordinary laboratory or clin-
ical procedures.

The application of computer technol-
ogy to biomedical problems is in its in-
fancy. Many of the basic problems of
transplanting biological information into
computer language remain to be solved—
one of the most difficult communication
problems in the life sciences is the com-
munication between man and machine.
The new division will undertake intensive
work in this area. It will also provide
training not only for. young scientists
who want to make a career in the prom-
ising new field of biomathematics but
for other scientists in order to help them
to take advantage of computers as @
powerful tocol for their on-going research.

The committee is particularly im-
pressed by the opportunities for new
approaches to health research problems
that will result from the harnessing of
computer capabilities to the more tra-
ditional biomedical research procedures.
Ié should like to see this field developed
as rapidly as possible so that its potential
penefits to the improvernent of the diag-
nosis and treatment of disease will not
be unnecessarily delayed. :

I am convinced that the increases for
the National Institutes of Health recom~
mended by the committee are a sound
and wise expenditure of public funds. I
cannot think of a more worthwhile con-
tribution ‘that the Federal Government
can: make to the national welfare than
the continuing and energetic support of
work that so directly affects the well-
being of every citizen.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

In the area of hospital construction
last year we increased the authorizations
under the Hill-Burton Act. The bill we
bring before you today is $100 million
below the authorizations. It is below the
President’s figure by about. $40 million
because of the formula which was in-
volved in marking up this particular bill.

I do not believe for a minute that the
other body will not add some authoriza-
tions, but to me authorizations are not
sacred cows. It is my hope that we can
keep this. seending level somewhere in
line, because there are many other hos-
pital construction programs which are
in being at the present time, such as un-
der the Appalachia program. In Jane
ary we will have the Great Lakes pro~
gram. We will now go forward with a
new accelerated public works program
and a depressed areas aid program, ali in
the area of hospital construction.

So I think the recommendation of this
committee is just and fair in this area.

Mr. Chairman, there is one other area
that I would like to discuss. It concerns
an amendment enacted in the 2d session
of the 88th Congress and deals with the
vocational rehabilitation portion of the
HEW appropriaticn bill.

During the course of the 88th Con-
gress, certain facts had come to my at-
tention which, on examination, com-
pelled me to offer an amendment to
Public Law 565 to make possible the use
of funds of private nonprofit agencies to
serve as the State’s share in the match-

‘ing of Federal money for construction of

rehabilitation facilities and workshops.
This amendment was accepted by the
committee and by. the Congress and came
to be known as the Laird amendment.

For a few brief moments, Mr. Chair-
man, I would like to discuss, for the rec-
ord, the background of the Laird amend-
ment.

In 1954 Public Law 565 was hailed in
Wisconsin and other States as a historic
milestone in rehabilitation history. Lit-
tle was it dreamed at the time that with-
in a few years this monumental legisla-
tion would pose a threat to the very
functioning of the State of Wisconsin
Rehabilitation Division because of a legal
technicality. In 1961 the State agency
was faced with potential audit exceptions
in excess of $560,000, when Federal audi-
tors determined that the law’s fund
matching procedures had not been fol-
lowed properly in the case of the Racine
Curative Workshop and a similar Madi~-
son project.

Wisconsin had amended its State plan
in 1956 as a means of improving re-
habilitation facilities in the State. The
amendment reads in part:

The State funds required for the establish=-
ment of rehabilitation facilities will be ob-
tained frorn contributions made by private
organizations and /or individuals which will
be deposited in the State revolving fund,

The regional office of the Office of
Vocational Rehabilitation—now Voca-
tional Rehabilitation Administration—
indicated OVR approval of the amend-
ment,.and the Wisconsin agency pro-

‘ eeeded under the extension and improve-
“ment sections of Public Law 565 in the

telief that its operations were fully
within the law. Arrangements were
made in 1958 for construction of badly

May 4, 1965

needed sheltered workshop facilities in
the Racine area, and expansion of 2
Madison rehabilitation center was un-
dertaken. Private organizations had
donated money to the State agency for

expansion of rehabilitation facilities in

Wisconsin, and these funds served as the
State’s share of the State-Federal
matching agreement.

This seemed natural enough. Under
Hill-Burton Hospital Construction Act,
this procedure was followed in hospital
construction, communities providing
matching funds. It was not until 1861
that Wisconsin learned the Department
of Health, Education, and ‘Welfare
treated matching funds in two distinct
ways. For hospitais under Hill-Burton,
community participation was fine. For
workshops and rehabilitation centers
under Public Law 565, community. par-
ticioation was illegal. And just why the
difference? Certain wording in Public
Law 565 did lend itself te that rigid
interpretation. and the first State to feel
the bite was Wisconsin.

If the Racine project had been de-~
veloped under Hill-Burton principies, the
financial participation of the ecmmunity
would have been encouraged and ac~
cepted without question. This meant
that two policies in basic opposition to
each other existed in one Federal agency,
and the resulting confusion was bound
to result in a slowing down cf the reha-~
bilitation exnansion intended by Public
Law 565. For Wisconsin, a law that
was desiened to aid the disabled almost
resulted in drastic curtailment of serv-
ices to. the disabled. The $500,000 audit
exceptions would have seriously impaired
the Rehabilitation Division’s functisning
for many years.

In addition to sharply reducing case
service, this interpretation of Public Law
565 would have dealt a damaging blow to
the further development of sheltered
workshops and rehabilitation centers in
Wisconsin. The State
pressed at every turn for departmental
budget increases, has been unable to
allocate the money necessary to match
all available Federal funds. ‘The State
funds appropriated: must be used pri-
marily in regular agency ‘operation.
This leaves the State in the ironic posi~
tion of rejecting Federal funds as un-
matchable, while at the same time re-
jecting requests for aid in establishing
the sheltered workshops for which the
Federal funds were earmarked. Com-
munities requesting these facilities indi-
cated substantial amounts were avail-
able to the State for matching Federal
money. The local groups were amazed
and confused to. learn that though they
built a general hospital on that basis,
they could not establish or expand a
sheltered workshop. This went against
the grain of Wisconsin’s philosophy of
government which has always stressed
the importance of cooperation at all
levels between the statutory bodies and
taxpaying public.

One of the pioneers in vocational
rehabilitation, Wisconsin was a leader
in expanding services into the more
difficult disability areas prior to Public
Law 565, And even greater expansion
was planned under the 1954 law, par-
ticularly in the development of sheltered
workshops and rehabilitation centers

legislature, -

 
May 4, 1965

which are at the heart of modern
‘rehabilitation programs.

Such development threatened te come
te a halt as the result of the 1961 inter-
pretations of Public Law 565, This
would have been a tragedy of the first
order for the disabled and was averted
only by the Laird amendment of Public
Law 565. Now it is not only possible
te match the funds of the private non-
profit agencies but the validity of the
practice has been made retroactive to
1958, thus giving congressional endorse-
ment to the procedures used in Wiscon-
sin since that time.

Mr. Chairman, it should be realized
that vocational rehabilitation service in
any State is not complete with adequate
sheltered workshops and medically ori-
ented rehabilitation facilities. Certain
categories of handicapped people can
never be expected to enter and succeed
in competitive employment. For this
group, work opportunities must be pro-
vided that are compatible with the skills,
aptitudes and capacities of the individ-
ual.

Sheltered workshops provide a satis-
factory solution te this problem, as they.
enable the worker to be profitably em-
ployed in a less demanding. situation
than. would ordinarily be found in pri-
vate industry. Another large group of
handicapped people are unemployable
because they have been hospitalized for
varying lengths of time in mental hospi-
tals and colonies for the mentally re-
tarded. In many instances a short pe-
riod of personal adjustment is all that
is necessary to develop suitable attitudes
and behavior patterns leading to compet-
itive employment.. These basic truths
of rehabilitation were put forth in Pub-
lic Law 565.

If workshop services are not available,
over half of the handicapped population
cannot enter proper rehabilitation pro-
grams. This problem has long been rec-
ognized by professional rehabilitation
workers, but in the absence of a State
and Federal subsidy to lend impetus, the
establishment of workshops has come
slowly since it is entirely a local com-
munity responsibility. Unless an ageres-
sive, energetic local group took the initi-
ative, they were not developed.

Only 16 workshops are in operation in
Wisconsin at present, together serving
an average of about 1,000 persons daily,
or just a small portion of the total in
need- of sheltered workshop services.
With the exception of Racine, all of
these enterprises have been established
without the aid of Federal or State
funds. They are doing an excellent job,
to be sure, but they are really only
touching the surface. At least triple the
present number should. be. enrolled in
workshop activity and would.be if the
service was available.

The following Wisconsin groups have
indicated iramediate interest in taking
advantage of the matching provisions
, Made possible by the Laird amendment:
Curative Workshop of Milwaukee, Cura-
tive Workshop of Racine, and Curative
Workshop of Green Bay, and Brown
County Sheltered Workshop, all combi-
nation workshops and: rehabilitation
facilities; Fox River Valley Sheltered

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

Workshop, Appleton: Holiday House,
Manitowoc; Work Adjustment Services,
Neenah; Opportunity Center, Sheboy-
gan; Goodwill Industries, Milwaukee:
Opportunity Center, Madison: Rock
County Sheltered Workshop, Janesville:
Christian League for the Handicapped,
Walworth; Jewish Vocational Service,
Milwaukee; DePaul Rehabilitation Cen-
ter, Milwaukee, combination workshop
and rehabilitation. facility; Waukesha
Training Center; Shelter for Handi-
capped, Eau Claire; St. John’s School for
the Deaf, Milwaukee: St. Mary’s Hospital
of Wausau, St. Camillus of Milwaukee,
St. Luke’s of Milwaukee, Mount Sinai of
Milwaukee, and University Hospitals,
Madison, all medically oriented rehabili-
tation facilities.

In response to a recent questionnaire,
the above facilities indicated that ap-
proximately $500,000 in’ local funds
would be available during the fiscal year
beginning July 1, 1965, if they could util-
ize Federal matching in an approximate
ratio of 40 percent local to 60 percent
Federal. This would mean 2 total ex-
pansion program of $1,250,000, a tre-
mendous boost to Wisconsin rehabilita-
tion.

Indications are that the need for medi-
cally oriented rehabilitation facilities is
not as acute in Wisconsin as in some
areas. Many hospitals have developed
adequate departments of physical medi-
cine and rehabilitation which are doing
an excellent job of meeting the medical
rehabilitation needs of Wisconsin’s
handicapped. Rehabilitation authorities
stress that what is needed the most is a
comprehensive center which could offer
both complete medical and vocational
services. .

Mr. Chairman, as I said earlier, the
Laird amendment now makes possible
the matching, under the vocational re-
habilitation grants to States program, of
sontributed funds earmarked by the
donor for the establishment of rehabili-

tation facilities and workshops. It opens’

up an important avenue for the support
and development of rehabilitation facil-
ities and workshops under private
auspices. ‘

Traditionally, most rehabilitation fa-
cilities and workshops have been started
and operated under private auspices.
We expect this practice to continue in
the future. Consequently, this new re-
source for assisting in expanding re-
habilitation facilities and workshops
under private auspices will make a very
real contribution toward increasing the
resources needed for the rehabilitation
of the disabled.

For a number of years, we have recog-
nized joint public and private financing
of the establishment of facilities as being
one of. the great untapped resources for
developing better rehabilitation services
for the disabled. This was recognized
when authority to include rehabilitation
facilities was added to the Hill-Burton
Act in 1954. The proposed legislative
program of the Vocational Rehabilita-
tion Administration took this into ac-
count last year, but no final action on
these proposals was taken in the last
session of the Congress. Consequently,
this amendment to the Health, Educa-

9057

tion, and Welfare Appropriation Act
passed last summer, makes ‘it possible
to use both public and private resources
far more speedily and effectively than
would otherwise be the case.

A number of States, particularly those
with insufficient public State funds to
match all of the Federal funds allotted
to them, will find the “Laird amend-
ment” a good way to increase rehabilita~
tion facilities and workshops in the
State, at the same time appropriations
are being raised by State legislatures,
and thereby have the services available
when money to purchase them is at
hand. :

Projects that could use somewhere
around $20 million in Federal funds next
year have been identified by State re-
habilitation agencies. These projects
range from small additions to commun-
ity workshops to extensive remodeling
and expansion of comprehensive rehabil-
itation centers. The estimates range
from no additional funds in eight States
to $1,140,000 in Ohio and $1,340,000 in
Washington. .

Various kinds of projects are included
in State estimates. For example, about
20 percent of the funds would come from
Goodwill Industries for the expansion
and improvement of sheltered work-
shops, including rehabilitation- facility
pregrams located in such workshops.
About 6 percent of the funds would be
for facilities focusing on the needs of
the mentally retarded and about 10
percent would be Iccated in schools and
universities.

Care must be taken to insure orderly
development of the expansion of re-
sources through the establishment of re-
habilitation facilities and workshops
made possible by this new source of fi-

hnancing. It is also important that the
continuance of gcod standards be
assured.

What can be done effectively next year
should be in keeping. with the total in-
vestment for establishing rehabilitation
facilities and workshops in the total
State program and assurance of com-
munity and State support for the people
served should be forthcoming.

It is expected that under the Laird
amendment new rehabilitation facilities
will help fill the wide gaps now existing
in services for the handicapped, not just
in Wisconsin but throughout the Na-
tion. New hope for the disabled grew out
of Public Law 565. Now, as amended,
the law provides still greater hope. :

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from
Rhode island, with whom I have worked
long and hard and for whom I have great
respect, has stated that this bill was
worked out in a spirit of compromises
within our committee. Realizing full
well the makeup of this Congress, I cer-
tainly believe that we have come out
with the best kind of a compromise pos-
sible. I am proud of my support of the
President of the United States in the
committee on these appropriation items.
I feel that this support can be evidenced
in many other ways. At the present time
down in the Department of Defense there
is a new request being set up for some
$700: million of spending, on which re-
quest we are now holding hearings down-
$058

stairs in the committee room. I had
hoped that we could delay action on this
Labor-HEW bill until we could be down
there and listen to the testimony of the
Secretary of Defense on this very impor=
tant appropriation request.

During the quorum call period I went
down to the subcommittee room and was
disappointed to learn that there are no
justifications for this particular request

and that they will probably not be ready.

for a week or 10 days. After I found
that out I realized that the place for me
to be was here on the floor of this House,
because I do not like to be any part of an
appropriation hearing when there are no
justifications available to consider.

Mr. Chairman, let me say that this
particular bill is a bill which I believe
every Member of this House of Repre-
sentatives can support and, Mr. Chair-
man, Iam sure they will support it when
the roll is called later on this afternoon.

Mr, LAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I yield
5 minutes to the gentleman from Tilincis
[Mr. Micurn].

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

Mr. MICHEL Mr, Chairman, you
have heard a very able presentation,
pretty much on a line item basis, by our
good chairman, the gentleman from
Bhode Island [Mr. Focarty]. Some of
the concern that we have on the mi-
nority side has been very ably expressed
in the remarks of the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Larro}. I think it should
be pointed out, as many of you are aware,
that this is really the fastest growing
Department of the Government today,
namely, the Department of Health, Hdu-
cation, and Welfare. The biggest in-
creases in appropriations over the past
few years, with the possible exception of
our space activities, have been in this
area of health, education, and welfare.
The bill here is for all practical pur-
poses, an $8 billion bill, or $1 billion over
the bill that we had before us last
year. Our good chairman, Congressman
Fogarty, made mention of fact that it
is $329 million under the budget request,
and he did make the point that $242
nillion of it is involved in grants to the
States for public assistance. Personally
I think this is a phony cut, because you
recall several weeks age, when we had
the supplemental appropriation bill be-
fore the House we anted up $407 million
for additions in grants to the States in
this public assistance area. So IT suspect
that notwithstanding all we have been
doing in this general area through this
legislation that we will still be coming
jack fer supplementals, because many
States have not taken appropriate action
to clean up thelr programs, as was dis-
cussed by our good chairman, the gentle~-
man-from Rhode Island [Mr. Focarty],

Mr. GROSS of Iowa raised the ques-
tion as to what would be involved in sup-
plemental requests, and as the gentleman
from Wisconsin [Mr. Larrp] so well
phrased it, it is somewhere in the neigh-
borhood of $3 billlon. I suspect that by
the time we end up this fiscal year, 1966,
we will have appropriations aggregating
$11 billion for HEW. :

_ Drug Administration, for example,

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD —~ HOUSE

This does raise some concern, particu-
larly to those of us who heard the Presi-
dent this morning in his personal appeal
for the urgency of a $700 million request
to take care—and mind you, that is sup-
posedly only for this current fiscal year—
te take care of what is going on in South
Vietnam. I could not help thinking this
morning that maybe if the urgency is
what the President declared it to be, we
ought to be giving a lot more considera-
tion and attention to these new programs
we are enacting into law here, author-
izing additional expenditures in this area
of health, education, and welfare.

I think some of these programs are
very fine, indeed. The chairman of our
committee, I am sure, would support
them to the ultimate, with the excep-
tion, possibly, of a time of openly declared
war. ButIam really concerned about it,
because if it is $700 million for South
Vietnam for 2 months, May and June,
it is auite conceivable that it will be $5
billion for the next fiscal year if things
do not get any better, and they look to
be getting worse rather than better.

This is going to bring about a larger
deficit; then we are going to have infla-
tion, and several of us on the way back
from the White House this morning felt
that possibly we ought to mortgage
everything and buy something in real
property, so that we can hedge against
the inflation that surely is in store for us.

Mr. LATRD. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman vield?

Mr. MICHEL. Iam delighted to yield
to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. LATRD. Mr. Chairman, I would
like te state this to the gentleman. I
believe the $700 million special defense
figure which was referred to and that the
President spoke of this morning, when
he said that this amount would be ex-
pended by June 30, I believe that is not
the case. I just developed this point at
some length with the Secretary of De-
fense. I think that there was an error
in the President’s remarks. This error
has new been corrected in the hearing
‘eefore the House Defense Appropriations
Committee.

Mr, MICHEL. I am glad te have that
correction for the record. There is no
question, as you read our report and
read the Hine items, you will find re-
search-—research—research, Tt seems to
be the sacrosanct area, ever since the
launching of sputnik. We have been de-
voting more and more time to education
and research and I think to justify these
increased amounts many of these agen-
eles are coming up each year with re-
quests simply for research and more
research.

I want to point out for the Food and
we
have $56 million in the bill. Do you know
that that is an increase from $14 million
just 5 years ago, in 1960? Another sub-
committee on which I serve, the Subcom-~
mittee for Agriculture, we deal with pes-
ticides and research in that area. On
the other side of the coin we find Food

  

 

and Drug Administration. There is an -

amount of $5.8 million for research, eval-
uation, and enforcement of pesticide con-
trol. So on one hand we appropriate for

May 4, 1968

reséarch on more and better pesticides
in agriculture and through HEW we ap-
propriate for research to control pesti-
cides.

In the vocational education item we
have $262 million, an increase of $104
million over last year. Some of us are
of the opinion that maybe we are mov-
ing a little bit too fast in this area.
Frankly, with all the attention that has
been given to education and rehabilita-
tion, the Job Corps and one thing and
another, we hope this money will be
spent wisely in this area.

In the area of higher education, facil-
ities construction, we have no alternative.
We have authorized the legislation, and
now we have to ante up the money. This
will show as an increase of $178 million
over last year and will provide full fund-
ing or a total of $641,750,000.

In vocational rehabilitation we have
an item of $124 million which repre-
sents practically a $24 million increase
over last year.

Research and training in this item
totals $46 million. :

. Mr. Chairman, I am reminded of a
call which I received on yesterday, a
frantic call, from a mother of a i4-year-
old girl who suffers from bulbar polic.
She has been down at the Warm Springs
Foundation for several months in each

of the last 3 years and has been advised —
that they are strapped for money and
this 14-year-girl may be foreclosed from
further help and assistance this year.

Mr. Chairman, this young lady is at
that age, however, where she can apply
for assistance through our vocational
rehabilitation program. In Peoria, for
example, we have one of the finest reha-
bilitation centers for the physically
handicapped. Of course, here is one of
those areas where we have Federal granis
again to the States for a very lmportant
and vital program.

Mr. Chairman, our distinguished
chairman of the subcommittee pointed
out so well that most of this bill em-
bodies simply grants-in-aid to the States
and we are bound by certain formulas
which, of course, we prescribe by legis-
lative action here in the House of Rep-
resentatives.

Personally, Mr. Chairman, IT wish we
could have cut some items and held
others to a more reasonable figure, but as
the gentieman from Wisconsin [Mr.
Larrp} pointed out so well, we had to
compromise and it is in this spirit of
compromise, that we come to you today
with this bill and I stand by commitment
te support it when it comes to a vote:

Mr. LATRD. Mr, Chairman, I yield 5
minutes to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Bow]. .

(Mix, BOW asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)

Mr. BOW. Mr. Chairman, I do not
believe there is any Member of this House
who owes more to scientific research and
research in medicine and the develon-
ment of modern medicine than I do.

Mr. Chairman, some of my colleagues
will remember not many years ago I was
paralyzed and came onto this floor for
many months in a wheelchair, and then
May 4, 1965

on crutches. A few years after that, I
had a coronary from which I have re-
eovered and I feel I could challenge most
anyone in this House in an athletic con-
test today.

But, Mr. Chairman, I owe much of this
to the development of our health stand-
ards.

The gentleman from Rhode Island
'Mr. Focarty] has made great contribu-
tions to these developments, as has the
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Larrp]
and their subcommittee. Those of us
who have been beneficiaries of these de-
velopments owe much to their..

So, Mr. Chairman, it is a little difficult
for me to stand here today in somewhat
of 2 critical way of this bill. However,
this has gotten to be something Hke the
defense appropriation bill used to be, you
just do not talk againstitany more. But
it seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that it is
necessary for us to begin to look where
we are going and what we are doing.

Mr. Chairman, the advocates of econ-
omy have been very quiet both in the
public and the private sectors. People
do not seem to care much any more about
where we are going on this road of spend-
ing. ,

But, Mr. Chairman, this is an $8 bil-
lion bill, $8 billion, and as the gentleman
from Wisconsin has said within a few
weeks it will be much more. Before too
long we are going te have a bill here al-
most as high as the bill for the Depart-
ment of Defense.

Mr. Chairman, this bil was reported
by the House Appropriations Committice
and it has been publicized as cutting the
budget by $329 million, $274 million in
the. Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare and $50.7 million in the De-
partment of Labor.

Of the $275 million cut in the Depart-
ment of Health, Education, and Welfare,
$242.1 million is in the appropriation for
grants to States for public assistance.

We are again In an annual situation.
The oudget request for public assistance
comes to the Congress from the adminis-~
tration too low. Then Congress cuts it
further to make its own record of cuts
look good, then a supplemental budget
estimate comes up from the Department
of Health, Education, and Welfare the
following year to provide the money that
should have been appropriated in the
first place.

Last week we approved the conference

report on the second supplemental ap-
propriation bill, 1965, that provides
$407.9 million for public assistance. It
was nob in the regular annual appro-
priation bill last year for two reasons.
The administration did not ask for
enough money. Their estimate was
short by just over $200 million. The
balance—the other $200 million—was
needed because of the congressional cut
in the bill. So, when you look at this
$242 million reduction in this bill, I can
say to you you are going to get it back
in a supplemental, so this. $242 million,
in my estimation, is not a true cut.

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

Mr. BOW. I yield to the gentleman
from Wisconsin.

No. 79-——-13

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

‘Mr. LAIRD. I would like to join with
the gentleman in his sentiment that this
public welfare assistance program be
reviewed. Personally, I believe this could

be substantiated fully if the program was -

administered in all of the 50 States in
accordance. with many of the practices
that are presently being followed. A
very good staff of experts looked over this
program some time ago, There was also
a review here in the District of Columbia.
They found in each case that the per-~
centage of Hlegal payments or payments
made to people who were not eligible in
some jurisdictions was running as high
as 30 percent. It would seem to me if
the legislative committee does not go into
this thoroughly and follow through with
an investigation on the use of these wel-
fare funds, and if they come back for
more funds next year, I would hope that
the Appropriations Committee would in-
sist upon a full investigation of the use
of these particular funds.

Mr.BOW. I agree with the gentleman,
and ~£ thank him for his contribution.
We have been making investigations
upon investigations on how these funds
are being used, and we still have the
practice of not appropriating enough,
then they have to come back in a sup~
plemental if it is a grant-in-aid, or
matching funds, and what can we do
about. it? It seems to be the committees
should get down and take a real hard
look at it, or we are going to run into
a difficult situation. ,

I have before me a report on why this
was made, and if they follow through in
this it will be fine. If we had an in-
vestigation to find out how this grant-
in-aid money is used, it seems to me, for
public assistance, we could get some
place, but bear in mind this appropria-
tion. now calls for $3 billion in grants-in-
aid and public assistance compared with
$2,037 million in 1966. Think where we
are going. .

I recognize this. commmittee has very
little to do with it. The authorizing com-
mittees bring it in, and the gentleman
says we will have more. The Public
Health Service total in 1960 was $841,-
263,000 grants for indirect health activi-
ties, yet this bill leaves $796,018,000,
which compares with $2.047 billion in
this bill for 1866. The increase since
1966 has been $1.251 billion.

I can remember, Mr. Chairman, and
I am sure many of you remember, Bob
Rich, who used to stand on this floor
every day and ask “Where are you going
to get the money? Where is the money
coming from?” But nokody seems to
care any more. There are a few, I admit.

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

Mr. BOW. I yield to the gentleman
from Towa.

Mr. GROSS. I thank the gentleman
for yielding. A member of the Subcom-
mittee on Appropriations on the oor
only a few moments ago, I believe, said
that in 1954 the House spent a couple or
3 days in the consideration of this bill
at that time holding it to slightly under
approximately $2 billion. . Today it is
$8 billion. That represents the srowth
of the Health, Education, and Welfare

$059

Department bill. I join with the gen-
tleman in saying, “Where is: the money
going to come from to pay the bills that
are accruing against the taxpayers of
this country today”’—all of them? Tam
glad the gentleman mentioned the $242
million. I tried to get an answer to that
a while ago. is this coming back to us
in a few weeks cr in a month or two?
Will it come back to us again in a defi-
elency appropriation bill?

Mr. BOW. This has become an an-
nual practice and I expect to see it again
next year. I think we ought to be rais-
ing this. question and talk about it and
try to find out how we can find some way
te eut down on the expenses of the
grants-in-aid to the States. Bus instead
of that we are authorizing more money
all the time.

Mr. GROSS. One further question,
if the gentleman will yield.

Is there any recognition in this bill in
any way as to the money that was con-
tained in the second supplemental ap-
propriation bill? Does this bill give any
recognition to the money that was ap-
propriated in the second supplemental
appropriation bill? .

Mr. BOW. I do not recall that there
Wes.

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

Mr. BOW. I yield to the gentleman
from Wisconsin.

Mr. LAIRD. Yes, it dces, may I say in
answer to the gentleman from Iowa. But
that is all for the fiscal year 1965. I
would like to point out one further thing
though as part of the colloquy between
the gentleman from Iowa and the distin-
guished ranking minority member of the
Committee on Appropriations, the gen-
tleman from Ohio (Mr. Bow], and that
is this. The medicare bill which passed
this House the other day adds $800 mil-
lion to this very item that the gentleman
is talking about. That medicare bill
which was passed here adds in the area
of child welfare and it adds in the area
of maternal benefits—maternal and chiid
welfare benefits. It changes the match-
ing program under the Kerr-Milis bill
through the incorporation of elder care
provisions raising that matching amount
so that there will be a supplemental re-
quest as soon as the other body acts, and
instead of adding $3 dolllion in this area
as.scon as the medicare bill passes the
other body in general revenue, this figure
will be immediately increased in the fiscal
year 1967.

Mr. BOW. The gentleman is abso-
lutely correct. ‘There is no question
about ib.

Mr. LATRD. But the important thing
is that those are the votes that count.
That is where the increases are made.

Mr. BOW. It is the authorization that
counts. I know exactly what the gentle-
man is suggesting with his questions and
answers.

Now let us go back to this bill again.
This bill takes eredit for a cut of $44 mil-
lion in hospital construction activity from
the $303.4 million requested to $259 mil-
lion—$13.2 million more than was ap-
propriated for 1965.
9060

Now the authorizing legislation for
1965 had a formula in it as to how much
could be used for new construction and
what could be used for remodeling. If
the budget figure had been used, it would
have been subject to a point of order.
Therefore, it was cut down. But your ac-
tual cost of construction on this has not
been reduced at all.

Now there has been some language on
other Federal funds, but I shall not go
into that, but we are getting to the point
where we are losing control of matching
funds. New formulas are being adopted.

This is exactly opposite to the views
of the HEW budget officer on the re-
quirement for matching of Federal funds
by the States. During the hearings this
year he said:

It seems to me that we depend upon a
great number of things for protection’ and
matching is one of them. If people put up a
substantial part of their own funds, it gives
the Federal Government some degree of pro-
tection that they are going to use their
funds wisely. Therefore, if you are not put-
ting up total funds, if half of the funds
belong in the sponsoring agency, he is likely
to have used a judgment that will keep it
from being an extravagance.

That is in the record. I agree with the
budget officer of the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare. In the
House we are beginning to get away from
matching funds, to get away from con-
trol. It seems to me we must take a
closer look at this.

Since time is going on, I shall have to
turn to some other matters.

Let me point out that in this bill there
are increases over the budget estimates.

For the Bureau of Labor Standards,
salaries and expenses, the amount is
$48,000.

For the Wage and Hour Division it is
$500,000.

For the Bureau of Employees Compen-
sation, salaries and expenses, it - is
$184,000.

These are all figures higher than the
budget estimates.

For the Office of Education it is. $5
million.

For the Vocational Rehabilitation Ad-
ministration it is $200,000.

For the Public Health Service, build-
ings and facilities, it is $1,650,000 higher
than the budget estimates.

For injury control it is $301,000 more
than the budget estimates.

For chronic diseases and health of the
aged the figure is $5,250,000 more than
the budget estimates.

For hospital construction activities it
is $1.5 million more than the budget
estimates.

For air pollution it is $1,634,000 more
than the budget estimates.

For environmental engineering and
sanitation it is $549,000 more than the
budget estimates.

For occupational health it is $140,000
more than the budget estimates.

For radiological health the figure is
$226,000 more than the budget estimates.

For water supply and water pollution
control it ‘is $3,913,000 more than the
budget estimates.

The figure, for that particular one, is
$40,601,000, yet this is $3,913,000 more
than the budget estimates.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

For hospitals and medical care it. is
$864,000 over the budget estimates, and
that is a figure of $56,846,000.

For the National Institutes of Health,
general services and research, it is $1,-
250,000 over the budget estimates. That
particular one involves $58,719,000.

For the National Cancer Institute the
figure is $3,650,000 higher than the
budget estimates, and that is $149,968,-
600:

For the National Institute of Arthritis
and Metabolic Diseases it is $2 million
over the budget estimates of $119,203,000.

For St. Elizabeths Hospital, salaries

‘and expenses, indefinite, it is $133,600

over the budget estimates, and that fig-
ure is $29,753,000.

For the American Printing House for
the Blind it is $91,000, and the budget
estimate was $909,000.

These are all items which have great
appeal. They are gooditems. But when
we look at the items in the budget. and
see the millions and millions of dollars,
there is a question, “Why go over the
budget estimates?”

Study of these items has been made by
the Bureau of the Budget. Requests
have been made by these divisions.

This gives me great concern.

Let us take a look at the last monthly
statement of receipts and expenditures
of the U.S. Government for the period
from July 1, 1964, to March 31, 1965.

This reveais that the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare is
spending at a rate of $36,591,000 faster
than in the same period in fiscal year
1964. This applies only to the admin-
istrative budget. So far this year the De-
partment of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare has spent $4,117,655,000 compared
with $4,081,064,0C0 in last year. This
item is going up.
creasing.

They are doing great things in this di-
vision, but all of it cannot be done with
money. It requires brains. It requires
manpower. People must be hired. One
cannot. move too fast.

It seems to me this could have been
cut down.

I am not going to offer amendments
today teo.make reductions, but I would
hope that in the future we could keep

closer to the budget estimates, because

this will get completely out of hand if we
keep giving them money of this kind.

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

Mr. BOW. I yield to the gentleman
from Tlinois.

Mr. MICHEL. I believe it would be ap~
propriate at this point to say that though
I do not have all the figures for increased
personnel for the entire bill, in one of-
fice, the Office of Education, this bill
calls for more than 1,600 employees for
the coming fiscal year, as compared to
1,165 in 1964. That is for the Office of

‘Education.

Mr. BOW. I. thank the gentleman
for his contribution.

Mr. HARVEY of Indiana. Mr. Chair~-
man, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BOW. I yield to the gentleman
from Indiana.

Mr. HARVEY of Indiana. Mr. Chair-

man, I want to congratulate the gentle--

man on his very thoughtful presentation.

It is constantly in- ,

May 4, 1965

I know. he has long given earnest and
very fair and unbiased consideration to
this problem. One of the problems we
are facing throughout the country is the
inability to keep our medical graduates
from our various schools of medicine in
the local areas. I am sure that the gen-
tleman is finding in Ohio the same prob-
lem that we are finding in my own State
of Indiana.

Mr.BOoW. That is right. .

Mr. HARVEY of Indiana. And in the
course of a discussion of this subject not
very long ago with some of the authori-
ties from the State of Indiana the state-
ment was made that the Federal Govern-
ment in its various activities is preempt-
ing so many of our medical graduates for
one type of effort or another that they
are not leaving enough of these qualified
men who would otherwise become local
practitioners in Indiana or in the gen-
tleman’s State of Ohio. I wonder if the
gentleman would care to comment on
that.

Mr. BOW. I-think the gentleman is
absolutely right. The Government is
moving into this field and, it is true, in
all areas of education. There are so
many Government contracts being made
with colleges and universities for every-
thing that we are doing that you have
the professors from the universities
working on theses and under contract for
making reports to the Government and
have students teaching now in the col-
leges and universities. The professors
are doing this Government work on con-
tract and are leaving the teaching to
students. When the time comes I be-
lieve that we have to have a discussion
about this at some time, because instead
of having these employees of the Gov-
ernment do the job for us, all of this work
is going out to the colleges. I have been
utterly amazed at the increase in this
sort of thing over the last 5 years, as
shown by the studies being made now.
In commerce alone it has gone up about
fivefold. They are doing more and more
of it, and they have gotten so busy now
in the colleges and universities of this
country, being paid by taxpayers’ dol-
lars to make reports to the U.S. Govern-
ment, that the professors just do not.
have time to teach our childern any more.

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

Mr. LAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I yield
the gentleman 2 additional minutes. :

Mr. HARVEY of Indiana. Wil the
gentleman yield to me further?

Mr. BOW. I yield to the gentleman

Mr. HARVEY of Indiana. In con-
nection with his observations, I want to
mention a fact that came to my aiten-
tion recently with regard to the diver~-
sion of talents and efforts in our edu-
cational institutions in areas that are
not considered normally to be their
proper function as educational institu-
tions. The figure was quoted to me that
Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
which I think is usuaily regarded as one
of the outstanding engineering institu~
tions in the country, today ccunts more
than 80 percent of its total budget in
terms of receipts from the Federal Gov-
ernment. ,

Mr, BOW. I agree with the gentle-
man. One thing I was going to say about:
May 4, 1965

some of these things going on at NIA
is that I was particularly impressed by
the one of the scientists going down now
to South America and getting frogs and
whistling te them and chucking them
under the chin in order to get some
serum or something from them by that
process. I do not know whether it is
necessary to teach our scientists to
whistie to frogs and chuck them under
the chin in order to attain some results.

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

Mr, BOW. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr, COLMER,. The gentleman made
some reference to an appropriation in
excess of the budget request here.

Mr. BOW. Yes, I did.

Mr, COLMER. Can the gentleman
tell us what the net result is in the en-
tire bill? :

Mr. BOW. My recollection is, on the
items which I called to your attention,
about $34 million.

Mr. COLMER. I was wondering what
the net difference is between the budget
recommendations in the overall bill and
the amount appropriated here.

Mr. BOW. Of course, the bill shows
a reduction of about $242 million, but
I may say to the gentleman that I do
not think it is.a real reduction, because
that comprises the contribution to the
States and, as has happened every year,
they will be back up here with a sup-
plemental te pick that wp. So I think
it is actually $34 million.

Mr. HARVEY of Indiana.
gentleman.

Mr. LAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 7
minutes to the gentleman from Kansas
(Mr. SHRIVER].

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

Mr. SHRIVER. Mr. Chairman, as a
member of the subcommittee I rise in
support of H.R..7765 which provides ap-
propriations for the Departments of La-
bor, and Health, Education, and Welfare,
and related agencies, for the 1966 fiscal
year.

In this bill we are providing nearly $8
billion for the operations of these de-
partments with over $7.3 billion budg~
eted for the Department of Health, Edu-
cation, and Welfare. The Committee on
Appropriations has reduced the spending
requests of the various departments by
nearly $330 million; but this bill provides
$261 million more than was appropriated
for the 1965 fiscal year.

The departmental requests were tho-
roughly considered and reviewed by the
committee. Sur subcommittee con-
ducted hearings from early February un-
til the latter part of March. More than
4,000 pages of testimony is included in
the printed hearings. I commend the
Chairman for his thoroughness, his
energy and his dedication.

There is a candid discussion in the
committee report on a. number of the
weaknesses and shortcomings relating
te the budget activities of certain bu-
reaus and agencies.

The bill includes $3 billion for public
assistance. grants to States by the Wel-
fare Administration. This.is a reduction
of 6 percent below the appropriation for

I thank the

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -—- HOUSE

1965 and has-been said before over $242
million less than requested in the ad-
ministration’s budget.

This represents a modest decrease
when we consider the expansion of pro-
graims under the social security program
in 1962 which were aimed at reducing
dependency; expansion of vocational re-
habilitation programs designed to take
people off welfare rolis; and in view of
the massive spending acvocated in the
antipoverty programs.

The coramittee has made several sig~-
nificant restorations and additions in
this appropriations measure. In the
light of what appears to be a deemphasis
of certain veterans programs by the ad-
ministration, the comrnittee has recom-
mended restoration of a proposed $42%,-
500 cut in the funds of the Veterans Hm-
ployment Service in. the Labor Depart-
ment budget. No new funds, however,
are required. The Department will ab-
sorb this restoration.

The committee, and many of us in the
Congress, are committed to those health
programs that will lead us to new ad-
vances in the attack on major disease
problems. Following testimony of medi-

cal.and research authorities and by in-

terested citizens and organizations across
the Nation, the committee added funds
over the budget request for the National

, Heart Institute to launch an artificial

heart development program: an increase
for the Institute of Arthritis and Meta-
polic Diseases to accelerate its research
on various aspects of kidney disease; an
increase for an intensified program. of
research on breast cancer by the Na-
tional Cancer Institute; and restored $2
million in the appropriation to continue
the important undergraduate training
program in medical and dental schools
to advance the treatment of cancer.

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

Mr, SHRIVER. f yield to the gentle-
man, .

Mr. REINECKE. I am interested in
some of these health research grants.
From the testimony before the commit-
tee, is the committee basing these addi-
tional apvropriations on results of past
work or is this just a continuation of
programs in the past? Do we have an
effective evaluation method to know that
we are getting something for these hun-
dreds of millions of dollars that we are
spending?

Mr. SHRIVER. Mr. Chairman, I
think if the gentleman has carefully read
the hearings he will find that we have
both.

Mr, REINECKE: Of course, I did not
have a chance to read 4,706 pages of tes~
timony, as the gentleman can well un-
derstand.

Mr. SHRIVER. Iunderstand.

Mr. REINECEE. It is the gentleman’s
opinion that we are getting full value
for the money that is being expended?

Mr. SHRIVER. Yes. Many of the
advances that have: been made in the
area of health have been fully substan~
tiated by appropriations made by the
Congress in past years. The subcom-

mittee felt definitely that we were get- |

ting value for the research that was being
done.

$061

One. of the problems that I thought
needed consideration was the dissemina-
tion of research information out over the
country of research gains that have been
made through the Department and the
National Institutes of Health.

Mr. REINECKE. Do we have any
agency that evaluates the effects of this
research? :

Mr. SHRIVER. Perhaps the. chair-
man will answer that.

Mr. FOGARTY. Well, the Institutes
of Health, they have the General. Ac-
counting Office, they have two congres-
sional committees looking over their
shoulders out there all the time, and
their activities are reported to the Con-
gress.

They had a blue-ribbon committee ap-
pointed which has just made a report.

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

Mr. FOGARTY. Mr. . Chairman, I
yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes.

Mr. SHRIVER. I thank the gentle-
man from Rhode Island.

Mer. FOGARTY. If the gentleman
will yield further, they have a special
committee that Just reported to the Con-
gress 4 or 5 weeks ago. They. have the
President’s Committee on Science and
Technology. They have about six or
seven groups looking over their shoulders
all the time and everyone has given the

‘Institutes a clean bill of health.

Mr. REINECKE. Are these adminis-
trative committees or technical com-
mittees?

Mr. FOGARTY. They are both ad-
yiinistrative committees and technical
committees as well as task force commit-
tees set uo by the President of the
United States. :

Mr. REINECKE. I thank the gentie~-
man from Kansas for yielding.

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

Mr. SHRIVER. I yield to the gentle-
man from Maryland. .

Mr. MORTON. Could the gentleman
tell me cut of $160,000 of research grant
money that is to be appropriated within
this bill for these specific research pro-
grams what portion of that money is
overhead and what portion of it actually
is used by technical people engaged in
the research projects involved?

Mr. SHRIVER. I do not recall that
we had it broken down in proportions,
unless the chairman recalls the specific
testimony.

Mr. FOGARTY. If the gentleman
will yield further, all of the medical
schools in the country have reached an
agreement that they spend an average
of 86 percent for overhead. ‘The Defense
Department’s expense for cverhead runs
up to something like 40 percent or 45
percent. This is a very small amount.

Mr. MORTON. I thank the gentle-
man for yielding.

Mr. SHRIVER. Throughout the com-
mittee hearings it was particularly grat-
ifying to me to hear various witnesses
point up the leadership of my own State,
the State of Kansas, particularly in the
fields of mental health and education.
Ié is always good to hear good reports
concerning our own areas.

Mr. Chairman, we are asked to appro-
priate substantial moneys here today.
9062

And there is heavy emphasis upon exist-
ing health and education programs.
However, there are many new programs
which have -been authorized.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of
gentleman has again expired.

Mr. FOGARTY. Mr. Chairman, I
yield the gentleman 2 additional min-
utes. : .

Mr. SHRIVER. I thank the gentle-
man from Rhode Island. As I stated,
Mr. Chairman, there are many new pro-
grams which have been authorized and
others awaiting action which will have
even a greater impact upon the Federal
Treasury.

The administration has requested a
substantial increase of $1.3 billion in
spending next year for the poverty pro-
gram, ‘While the much-heralded. eco-
nomic development program for Appala-
chia is not yet off the ground, plans are
under way to initiate similar regional
programs in other areas throughout the
Nation. .

The impact of new social security legis-
lation, including the medicare program,
is not yet reflected in the trust fund ap-
propriation of the Social Security Ad-
ministration. However the expenditures
from the Federal old-age and survivors
insurance trust. fund will increase by
nearly $1.4 billion next year.

It has been stated many times before,
but as we consider this appropriation
measure it bears repeating: it is difficult

the

to hold the line on spending after a pro-~--

gram has been authorized by the Con-
gress. We have a responsibility to the
taxpayers of the Nation to effect mean-
ingful economies at the time authoriza-

tion legislation is considered in the
House.
Mr. Chairman, the Appropriations

Committee has done its best to seek fuil
justification for the budget requests
which are subject to House action today.

Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield
3 minutes to the gentleman from Massa-
chusetts [Mr. Conte].

Mr. CONTE. Mr. Chairman and mem-
pers of the Committee, at the outset I
want to take this opportunity to con-
gratulate the chairman and. the sub-
committee for the fine work they have
done in bringing forth this bill to the
House. ;

I would like to ask the Chairman, how-
ever, about the item with regard to the
public library grant program for fiscal
year 1966.

It was my feeling that Mr. Keppel

of the Department of Health, Education, |
and Welfare had asked for $75 million °

in order to carry out this program.

Mr. FOGARTY. If the gentleman will
yield, the Department of Education
asked for $75 million and the Budg-
et Bureau cut this request by $20 mil-
lion. We gave the full amount that
was authorized by the Bureau of the
Budget. :

Mr. CONTE. One other question. As
I understand it from reading the hear-~
ings, the chairman felt that the library
programs ought to reach $155 million.
The committee report indicates an esti-
mated need of $400 million just to build
the needed public library space.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

Mr. FOGARTY... There are some very
high figures involved, but I do not re-
member that one. I. might have said
twice as much. I had in mind they had
$140 million worth of applications for
construction of libraries that.could be
used out of the appropriated funds.

Mr: CONTE. I agree with the chair-
man, and I realize that $155 million
would be a barebone figure to carry out
this program. I think it is a lot more

‘important to build our libraries and teach

our children rather than spending mon-
ey in other ways around the country.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to express
a word of regret and dismay over the
decision of the administration to short
change the vital public library program
contained in this appropriation bill. I
think we have here another classic ex-
ample of the fundamental inconsistency
between. the thrilling rhetoric we get
from the White House and the true mood
and attitude of the President toward the
honest needs of the Nation.

I feel strongly enough about this li-
brary matter that I would like te at least
spell out the facts for the taxpayers—
the same taxpayers, I might add, who
are being asked to pay for such activities
as a colossal. gardening program in
Washington and the most stupendous
sectional “pork barrel windfall of all
time, the Appalachia program, which, I
must confess, I am still at something of
a loss to explain to my constituents.

I will not burden this body or waste
its time with a harangue on the virtues
of education and the merits of the
broadest possible free library facility. I
will rely on the good judgment and sin-
cere concern for the Nation’s welfare,
which I am certain each of us feels in
full measure. But I would like to call
attention to some of the facts and fig-
ures in regard to the library appropri-
ation.

The Office of Education framed a re-
quest for $75 million for its public li-
brary grant program in fiscal 1966. The
request was the distillation of, first, the
fact that State and local funds available
under the matching provisions of this
program, at present far exceed the Fed-
eral Government’s available funds.
Further, the indications are that even
more matching funds at the State and
local level will be available in fiscal 1966.
Thirdly, we have the estimate that some
$400 million is presently needed for con-
struction alone, which does not include
books, staff, maintenance, and upkeep
merely to meet our present require-
ments. .

These facts notwithstanding, the Bu-
reau of the Budget chopped the amount
requested for public library grants to $55
million.

I am disappointed to note that the
Appropriations Committee upheld this
cut and has reported out an appropria-
tion of only $55 million for this impor-
tant program. I am disappointed, be-
cause I have read the testimony and the
statements, and I have noted the sym-
pathy for this program on the part of
the members of the subcommittee and
its fine chairman, the distinguished gen-
tleman from Rhode Island I[Mr.
Fogarty].

May 4, 1965

During the hearings, the gentleman
expressed amazement over the fact
that $20 million had been scrubbed out
of the library. program by the adminis-
tration. I echo his amazement.

IL might also point out that the gentle-
man expressed the feeling during his
hearing on this matter that the appro-
priation ought to be $155 million instead
of $55 million. I can echo his sentiments
on this point too, and I am delighted to
note his enthusiasm for this vital ac-
tivity. /

Mr. Chairman, it is a matter of legis-
lative record that this library grant pro-
gram has been among the most popular
programs of its kind in each of the
States. It has been popular because it
is an honest, effective, worthwhile pro-
gram which has yielded tangible bene-
fits. I agree with the distinguished
gentleman from Rhode Island that it is
wrong to cut this program.

What is the use of creating such pro-
grams if they are not to be supported?
The library program was extended last
year by act of this Congress in re-
sponse to a request from the administra-
tion. The administration was happy
enough to take credit for it, as was right
and proper. But I wonder how happy
the administration is to assume the
blame for betraying the promise it
makes on the one hand by sapping the
strength to fulfill it on the other.

I think what we have here is another
example of this administration’s manip-
ulation of the books in an effort to work
miracles for us while still keeping the
budget under that mystical $100 billion
ceiling.

The administration is juggling the
books and the victims are the taxpayers.
Let us not kid ourselves and let us not
kid the taxpayers. Let us not be de-
luded by the promise that the Great
Society is going te cleanse us of igno-
rance and poverty completely free of
charge. It cannot be done. We get
only what we pay for. What we are un-
willing to pay for, we are going to have
to do without. I submit that this public
library program is something we can ill
afford to sacrifice on the altar of false
economy.

I think it is high time we applied a
little practical commonsense to some of
these proposals. I am all in favor of
green grass and pretty flowers—I have
spent enough time in my own backyard
trying to get these things to grow—but
I wonder, on the balance, whether these
are important enough to warrant the
administration’s austerity posture on
such vital issues as support for the Na-
tion’s free public libraries.

Mr, MICHEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield
such time as she may desire to the
gentlewoman from Ohio [Mrs. Bo.ron].

Mrs. BOLTON. Mr. Chairman, I am
very anxious to ask a question or two,.
and am glad of this opportunity to do so.

in the matter of mental health: I won-
der if this committee has made any
study at all of the rather extraordinary
work that is being done in Princeton in
psychiatry in the building of the hospi-
tals for the mentally ill, and in the
treatment of the mentally ill?
May 4, 1965

“Mr. FOGARTY. We do not have all
specific projects brought to our atten-
tion, because we do not pass on specific
projects. These are funded after appli-
eations from the universities are sub-
mitted and approved and unless funds
are earmarked in. this appropriation bill
we do not always hear about the work
that is being carried on in the many
different institutions under thousands
of different grants. .

Mrs. BOLTON. I have been living
under a delusion. I thought your com-
mittee was one having oversight over
these various studies and various
methods of going forward with them.

Mr. FOGARTY. No. They have the
best people in the country operating the
National Institutes of Health.

Mrs. BOLTON. Who does the gentle-
man mean by “they”?

Mr, FOGARTY. The Government.
The Science Foundation, the Defense
Department, and almost every other
agency in Government with a large re-

search grant program has followed the’

formula established by the National
Institutes of Health because that has
been determined by people in this area
to be the best form up to this point. —

Mrs. BOLTON. Then the National
Institutes of Health is responsible?

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

Mrs. BOLTON. I yield to the gentie-
man from Wisconsin.

Mr.LAIRD. I would like to add to the
comments made by the chairman of the
subcommittee. This program at Prince-
ton is financed through grants from the
National Institute of Mental Health.

vinceton is taking part in this program
and I expect they will continue in 1966.
I have not reviewed the Princeton proj-
ect thoroughly. It is my understanding
they will be funded further in the fiscal
year 1966.

Mrs. BOLTON. Only through 1966?
If one wants to find-out, one should go
to the NIH, or where?

Mr. LAIRD. I can say to the gentle-
woman this approval would be by the
Council.

Mrs. BOLTON. What council?

Mr. LAIRD. The National Advisory
Council on Mental Health is the council
that reviews these applications, and the
continuation of this program is decided
by the Council. I can assure the gentle-
woman from Ohio this is in the approved
category, as I understand it. I will
eheck on this so that we have the correct
information, but I can assure the gentle-
woman there are funds in the bill for
this program if the Council approves it.

Mrs. BOLTON. I was wondering who
passes on them?

Mr. LATRD. The Council which is ap-
pointed by the Surgeon General of the
Public Health Service, Dr. Luther Terry.
These councils are recommended by the
Director of the National Institute of
Mental Heaith and submitted to the Di-
rector of the National Institutes of
Health, Dr. Shannon, and finally ap-
pointments are made by the Surgeon
General of the United States with the
approval of the Secretary of HEW.
These. are all eminent, well-qualified
people in the various areas. The Coun-

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

cil on Mental Health passes on all of
these particular applications and I shall
place in the Recorp at this point the
names of members of the Council.

NarIoNAL ADVISORY MENTAL HEALTH COUNCIL

Dr. Jack R. Ewalt (65), professor of
psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, Boston,
Mass.

Dr. Louis S. Goodman (66), professor and
head, Department of Pharmacology, Uni-
versity College of Medicine, Salt Lake City,
Utah.

Mr. Mike Gorman (65), executive director,
National Committee Against Mental Tlness,
1028 Connecticut Avenue NW., Washington,
D.C.

Dr. George C. Ham (65), professor of
psychiatry, University of North Carolina,
Chapel Hill, N.C.

Mrs. Geraldine Joseph (67), 5 Red Cedar
Lane, Minneapolis, Minn.

Dr. Paul V. Lemkau (68), professor of men-
tal hygiene, School of Hygiene and Public
Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore,
Ma.

Mr. J. Quigg Newton, Jr., (68), president,
Commonwealth Fund, 1 East 75th Street,
New York, N.Y.

Dr. Charles R. Strother (67), professor of
psychology and director, Pilot School, Uni-
versity of Washington, Seattle, Wash.

Senator Robert D. Williams (66), the sen-
ate, California Legislature, State Capitol,
Sacramento, Calif.

Dr. Robin M. Williams, Jr. (67), professor.

of sociology, Department of Sociology, Cornell
University, Ithaca, N.Y.

Dr. Cecil L. Wittson (66), dean, College of
Medicine, University of Nebraska, Omaha,
Nebr.

EX OFFICIO MEMBERS

Dr. Luther L. Terry (Chairman), Surgeon
General, Public Health Service, Washington,
D.C.

Dr. John J. Blasko, Director, Psychiatry,
Neurology, and Psychology Service, Veterans’
Administration, Washington, D.C.

Capt. Ralph L. Christy, Medical Corps, U.S.
Navy, Head, Neuropsychiatry Branch, Bu-
yeau. of Medicine and Surgery, Navy Depart-
ment, Washington, D.C.

Mrs. BOLTON. I thank the distin-
guished gentleman. very much as well as
the chairman of the committee, the
gentleman from Rhode fsland [{Mr.
Focarty!. .

Mr. FOGARTY. Mr. Chairman, I
yield 5 minutes to the very distinguished

member of our subcommittee, Mr.
Martuzws, from the great State of
Florida.

Mr. MATTHEWS. Mr. Chairman, I
want to congratulate the distinguished
chairman of our subcommittee for the

meenificent work he has done and to say.

how much I have enjoyed working with

the Members on both'sides of the aisle on

this particular aporopriation bill.
Mr. Chairman, when I first assumed
my duties on this subcommittee dealing

cwith the medical sciences after having

served 106 years with the Committee on
Agriculture, T told the distinguished doc~
ters who were visiting us one day that I
felt like the gentleman of whom my col-
league from Florida [Mr. Rocrrs] told
about one day some years ago.

This gentleman was a porter in a drug-
store and all in the world he had to do
was to sweep the ficor. He never asked
any questions. He never answered any
questions. All he did was. sweep the
floor. But on this particular occasion,
the owner of the drugstore had to leave
a little bit earlier so he called the porter

   
 

9063

and ‘he said, “Now, John, all you have to
do is close the door when you get through
sweeping. Do you understand?” The
porter said, “Yes, sir.’ The owner closed
the door and left. The telephone rang.
The porter went to the telephone and he
said, “Hello.” A voice on the other end
of the wire said, ‘Do you have Aureo-
mycin, streptomycin—penicillin?”’ The
porter said, “Hello.” and the voice at
the other end of the wire repeated, “Do
you have Aureomycin, streptomycin—
penicillin?” The porter said, “Boss,
when I told you ‘hello,’ I told you every-
thing I know.”

So I had somewhat that fecling about
these medical terms when I first began to
discuss this important bill. But it was not
long before it made sense tome. Ihave
thoroughly enjoyed my association with
this great committee.

Mr. Chairman, I want to call partic-
ular attention to page 11 of the commit-
tee report to a statement concerning
compliance with the Civil Rights Act. I
guote from the report of the committee:

The committee recommends that there be
developed, at the Washington level, a more
expenditious way of processing applications
which have been forwarded by local, State,
and district school boards signifying. com-
pliance with the Civil Rights Act. The com-
mittee has received information indicating
that there have been undue delays in proc-~
essing these applications.

I have had extensive conversations
with our State superintendent of public
instruction in Florida, Hon. Thomas D.
Balley, about this problem.

Superintendent Bailey has reported to
me. that our county school boards and
superintendents have faced the matter
of complying with the Civil Rights Act
with a high degree of responsibility.
They have endeavored to follow the law
and the directives of the U.S. Office of
Education to the best of their ability.
In spite of some disagreement with the
Civil Rights Act, their morale has been
high and their approach to solving the
problems promises to be effective. How-
ever, the patience of our people has its
limits, and the morale in complying with
the Civil Rights Act is likely to be com-
pletely destroyed, owing to the fact that
it seems to be impossible to get action,
decisions, and information from the 0.8.
Office of Education.

After many, many days and weeks of
effort, the statement of compliance by
the Florida State Board of Education
was finally approved by the Commis-
sioner of Education on Wednesday, April
14 thus enabling Florida to channel cer-
tain Federal funds to eligible county
school systems and to secure approval of
State plans for vocational education and
other programs. We, of course, are
grateful to Commissioner Keppel and his
assistants for this favorable action, but
it is Just one little step forward.. While
we take this one little step forward, we
take, I am afraid, two steps back, be-
cause we have not solved the problem
of getting approvals for channeling Fed-
eral funds and federally subsidized serv-
ices to our county school systems and
our other educational institutions.

We in Plorida have three principal
problems.

 
3064

First, our public junior colleges and
two of our county school systems, Dade
and Charlotte, sisned HEW form No. 441,

assurance of compliance with the Civil -

Rights Act of 1964. Under advice from
the US. Office of Education personnel
that there was no alternative for them
to sign form Mo. 441 and also on the
assurance that it was proper for them
to do so, our junior colleges executed this
form. Dade and Charictte County
school boards executed the form on the
basis that they were in good faith de-
segregated. According to regulations
and instructions sent owt. by the U.S.
Office of Education, county school sys-
tems and institutions which have prop-
erly executed form No. 441 are eligible
to participate in federally subsidized ed-
ucational programs without restriction
or question. However, it is my under-
standing that Superintendent Bailey has
been advised by telephone from the U.S.
Office of Education that Florida should
not channel funds and services to these
institutions and. counties until further
notice from the U.S. Office of Educa-
tion. Now, these counties and colleges
apparently have complied with all re-
quirements of law and regulations, and I
think they should be advised that they
are in order, or notified specifically that
they are not and why they are not so
they can plan accordingly.

Let me soint out another problem fac-
ing us in Florida. School districts which
are not fully desegregated or under court
order for desegregation are permitted
under U.S. Office of Education regula~
tions to submit plans of compliance lead-
ing to desegregation. Such plans have
been submitted by 52 of the 67 counties,
the earliest under date of February 5 and
the latest on March 12. Approval of
these plans by the U.S. Office of Fduca-
tion is necessary if these counties are to
continue to participate in Federal funds.
As of the last time I talked with Super-
intendent Bailey-—I emphasize, this was
on April 19, and there may have been
some changes since, but I doubt it—
Florida had received no official notice
whatsoever concerning the acceptability
or nonacceptability of any of these 52
plans of compliance. Our neople have
been told informally by telephone that
two plans have been found aecentable,
and two have been found unacceptable,
but no officiel word has been received
about any plan. Thus, our county school
boards are left in the position of not
knowing which way to turn. They can-
not work on revisi
are not In good o
not been notified ¢
able. Most of these plans provide for
notices to parents and pupils before the
end of the present school year. With
the approach of the clesing of schools,
time is running out to implement these
plans this year, even if they are found to
be acceptable. This is developing into
an impossible situation for our county
school boards in Florida. An early de-
cision on these 52 plans, one way or the

‘other, is imperative,

Let me emphasize now, the third prob-
jem. We in Florida are asking the U.S.
Commission of Education for a favorable
ruling that expenditures will be valid

 

 

 
  
 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

for National Defense Education Act au-
dit and matching purposes, provided
they are made subsequent to the submis-
sion of plans for compliance to the State
Department of Education for transmis-
sion to the U.S. Office of Education, even
though this date may precede the date
when final approval of the plan for com-
pliance is given by the U.S. Office of
Education. If a favorable ruling on this
is not received, our county schoo! sys~
tems and other institutions will lose very
large amounts of Federal money for edu-
cation, and their educational programs
willbe damaged. Let me emphasize that
students of all races, colors and creeds
will suffer. Our people in Florida have
been advised by personnel in the Office
of Education who are responsible for ad-
ministering the Civil Rights Act that this
proposal does not affect the civil rights
aspect of their pregram, but relates only
to the accountability for the funds.

I think, then, Mr. Chairman, that the
statement of the committee is certainly
an understatement of fact.
need at the Washington level a more ex-
pediticus way of processing applications
which have been forwarded by local,
State and district school boards signify-
ing compliance with the Civil Rights Act,
I hope the appropriate authorities will
take this suggestion of the committee to
heart and will give people all over Amer-
ica much prompter action in this impor-
tant matter.

Mr. GROSS.
gentieman yield?

Mr. MATTHEWS. 1 will be delighted
to yield to the gentleman from Towa.

Mr. GROSS. I do not understand the
use of the word “applications” in this
connection, because libraries in my dis-
trict have been served with notice that
they must sign not applications but an
“assurance of cormpliance.” They are not
called applications. The title of the form,
as issued by the Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare, is “Assurance of
Compliance.” I do not understand where
the committee in its report on page 11
gets the word “applications.”

Mr. MATTHEWS. Let me point out
the action of the committee was directed
toward the Office of Education. What
the gentleman is talking about is con-
nected with the Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare.

Mr. GROSS. That is correct.

Mr. MATTHEWS. And that problem
was not called to our attention.

Mr. LAIRD. Mr. Chairrean, I yield 5
minutes to the gentleman from Wash-
ington [Mr. Peruy].

(Mr. PELLY asked and was given per-

Mr. Chairman, will the

mission to revise and extend his re-:

marks.) .

Mr. PELLY. Mr. Chairman, I have
noted with approval the statement con-
tained in the committee report, on page
28, Which points wo that the Congress
has a right to expect the executive
branch to present a forward-locking
budget. This report points up further
that such a budget should provide for the
srowing capability cf science, as well as
the increasing cost and sophistication of
our scientific effort. This report goes on
to state that in the absence of adequate
budget estimates, it is necessary for the

Surely we.

May 4, 1965

committee to examine the real needs of
the programs.

I do not think, Mr. Chairman, that
anyone familiar with my voting record
will accuse me of being overliberal
when it comes to appropriations; but I
want to state here and now that I fully
support the committee statement with
regard to adequate budget estimates, and
feel that, while Congress should cut out
waste, it has an equal responsibility to
add funds for necessary programs.

Yn this connection, I want to say that
i note with approval that the committee
has added funds not reguested in the
budget for several new programs having
to do with the health needs cf cur time
and our country. I refer, for. example,
to the fact that the committee has in-
cluded $244 million over the budget re-
guest for the National Heart Institute,
to launch an artificial heart develop~
ment program. In other words, Mr.
Chairman, I believe there is an immedi-
ale need for an artificial heart device
which can be safely used, and that in
spite of the fact that the budget request
failed to ask for funds for developing
some hew equipment along this line,
funds should be provided, and I am glad
they are provided in this legislation for
this purpose. ‘

Likewise, Mr. Chairman, I fully sup-
port the inclusion of $2 million in this
bill, over the budget request, for the In-
stitute of Arthritis and Metabolic Dis-
eases, to accelerate research on hemodi-
alysis and related methods of blood and
lymph purification, and for studies on
the uremic syndrome. The testimony
fully supports the need and desirability
of funds for developing new methods in
connection with kidney failure. :

Mr. Chairman, I have observed first-
hend these methods developed in recent
years which permit the saving of lives of
patients who have suffered the loss of
kidney function, through the repeated
use of the kidney machine. This tech~
nique, while expensive and limited in its
capacity, is available at the University
of Washington Medical Center, and
likewise, at the Swedish Hospital in my
congressional district in Seattle. The
equipment and artificial kidney facili-
ties are constructed in my district: in
fact originally pioneered in Seattle and
i know firsthand that. pecple are being
kept alive and leading normal lives who
ctherwise, because they have lost the wu:
of their kidneys, could not survive.

So, as I say, in spite of the fact
these new programs
budget, I

 

 

cific new programs.
ii is as simaple as this, Mr. Chai

 

¥
citizens to live useful and purposeful
lives; failure to provide these increases
will, in effect, condemn a number cf
afflicted people to death. So, as I say,
I express my appreciation te the com-
mittee for providing these funds, even
though the President had not requested
thera,

The CHAIRMAN. There being no fur-
ther requests for time, the Clerk will read
the bill for amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

m

Ny

 
May 4, 1965

Page i, line 22: /
BUREAU OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY,
SALARIES AND EXPENSES

For expenses necessary for the general ad-
ministration of the employments service and
unemployment compensation programs; per-
forming functions under the Manpower
Development and Training Act of 1962, as
amended; and administration of the Farm
Labor Contractor Registration Act of 1963;
$2,160,000, together with not to exceed $15,-
434,000 which may be expended from the
employment security administration account
in the Unemployment trust fund, of which
$1,708,000 shall be for carrying into effect
the provisions of title IV (except section
602) of the Servicemen’s. Readjustment Act
of 1944,

Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Mr. Chair-
man, I move to strike out the requisite
number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to ask a question
of the chairman of the committee. I see
that on page 5 the committee put in a
statement in its report concerning the
domestic farm labor program. We in
Florida have had great difficulty, par-
ticularly now and in the preceding days,
during the current harvest. I have
found that the Bureau of Employment

. Security is a very difficult agency to deal

with. They have been most unrealistic
and most unhelpful in trying to handle
adequate farm labor for Florida. Every-
one agrees domestic labor ought to be
hired first if available, but after that
there is a law which the Congress passed
and which is now on the books, Public
Law 414; which says that if domestic
labor is not available, then the Secre-
tary may administer this with the At-
torney Generali. I want to ask the chair-
man if this was the understanding of
the committee as to the intent of
Congress.

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

Mr. ROGERS of. Florida.
the chairman.

Mr. FOGARTY. That is the under-
standing of the committee, I might say,
and that is why we put this language in
the report that if domestic labor is not
available for perishable fruits to he
picked, which have to be picked in a 2-
or 3-week period, let us say, then we
expect to make some exceptions along
this. line and I understand that this sit-
uation has been in effect in three or
four States during the past 3 or 4 weeks.

Mr. ROGERS of Florida. I thank
the gentleman. I would like to bring to
the attention of the Secretary of Labor
who, I hope, will read this Recorp, that
we do néed some help in the celery crop
and the sweet corn crop in Florida.
For the Secretary’s benefit I want to
quote the committee:

The committee agrees that foreign labor
should not be imported if there is capable
domestic labor available to do the job.
However, the timely availability of labor for
the harvesting of perishable agricultural
products is essential. Lack of it can mean
bankruptcy for individual farmers. and
shortages and higher prices for consumers.
Timely availability of labor under current
circumstances cannot be assured with the
domestic farm labor programs we have had
in the past.

I agree completely with the statement
the committee has made in its report. I

L yield to

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

hope the Secretary of Labor will act now
before it is too late toe do something
about getting the proper kind of labor
to these farmers who have the crops
ready to harvest. I hope this will spur
the. Secretary to some action.

Mr. MATTHEWS. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike out the requisite number
of words.

Mr. Chairman, I want to apologize to
the Committee for rising so soon after I
have already. spoken just a few minutes
ago. But I want to take this opportu-
nity te thank the chairman of our sub-
committee, the gentleman from Rhode
Island [Mr. Focarty], for the amount of
time that he gave us to discuss this par~
ticular problem in our subcommittee.

I want to say to my colleague from
Florida [Mr. Roczrs]—and I notice here
the gentleman from Florida [Mr. HaLzy]
and others of us from Florida who are
particularly interested in this problem of
adequate farm labor that we interrogated
Secre.ary Wirtz at great length. Of

‘course, this is a very serious problem.

We all know that. There are good. men
on both sides of this issue, but I said to
Mr. Wirtz that- we in Florida feel that
we simply cannot get enough domestic
labor to harvest our crops. I pleaded
with him to help us in every way he pos-
sibly could to see that we got enough
domestic labor and if we could not get
enough domestic labor, not to close the
door to offshore labor.

The committee included all of the

funds that we felt Secretary Wirtz needed _

to try to recruit ample domestic labor. I
am very grateful for that fact. But I
want to say very frankly, and just as
forcefully as I can, Mr. Chairman, that
I just do not believe that this problem is
going to be solved by domestic labor
alone. That is my own personal opin~
jon. And I think that is the opinion of
the majority of our farm producers in
the State of Florida.

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

Mr. MATTHEWS. I yield to my col-
league from Florida.

Mr. HALEY. Mr. Chairman, may I
say to my good friend from Florida that
this is a serious problem not only in the
State of Florida but in many other parts
of the Nation. Many States are having
the same problem. We must have a
practical understanding of what is in-
volved here. At certain times of the
year in the gathering of perishable crops
it is necessary to have a tremendous
amount of labor, and unless you have it
at the particular time you can lose a
whole season’s work. I, tec, hope that
the Secretary will be practical about this
matter and not only give some relief to
Florida but to our great sister State of
California and to many other parts of
our great Nation.

Mr. MATTHEWS.
tleman.

Mr. TEAGUE of California. Mr.
Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MATTHEWS. I .am. glad to yield
to the gentleman from California.

Mr. TEAGUE of California. I thank
the gentleman from Florida and all of
the gentlemen from Florida for having
prought this problem once more to the

I thank the gen-

$065

attention of the membership of the
House of Representatives.

I have spoken often here and made
this same point many, many times.

I have just returned from California
and I would like to relate this situation
to the Members of the House. As I pre-
dicted and said so often, the press and
people who say that imported labor is
brought here as slave labor and labor
only for the use and the interest and
profit of large corporate farmers, are en-
tirely wrong. The large corporate
farmers in California at least are doing
pretty well. They are outbidding the
little farmers in piece rates and they can
afford to mechanize. They are and have
been for some time providing adequate
housing and they are fairly well.

However, it is the little farmer, the
family farmer, and the people we have
been bleeding for for so long in this
House, at least in California, who are
going to suffer and suffer very, very
heavily this year and for several years to
come. .

Mr. Chairman, I repeat, it is not the
big farmers that are hurting. It is the
little farmers.

Mr. MATTHEWS. I thank the gen-
tleman for his observation,

Mr. DON H. CLAUSEN. Mr. Chair-
man, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MATTHEWS. I am delighted to

ield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. DON H. CLAUSEN. After the ap-
pearance of the Secretary, Mr. Wirtz, be-
fore your committee, did you arrive at
any conclusions or did he give you any-
thing in the way of encouragement with
reference tc this problem? I would like
to have a response from the gentleman
as to how Secretary Wirtz responded to
the gentlernan’s inquiry.

Mr. MATTHEWS. -I must say that he
felt that in the near future we could do
without any labor other than domestic
labor. But I will say that he assured us
that he would approach this matter with
fairness. Since that time, of course, he
las been to our own State of Florida,
but it is Secretary Wirtz’ belief I believe
that in the very near future we are not
going to need any labor other than do-
mestic labor, and it is on that issue that
I disagree with him.

Mr. DUNCAN of Oregon. Mr. Chair-
man, I move to strike the requisite num-
ber of words.

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say

on this issue that there are a number of

Members who are concerned with this
problem. However, I believe we can as-
sure the membership that this subcom-
mittee has fulfilled its responsibilities
fully in this field of farm labor. I be-
lieve we have given each dollar that was
requested by the Secretary in order to
earry out his domestic recruitment pro-
gram. :

The gentleman from Florida and my-
self and cther Members, as well as the
chairman of the full committee, the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Maron], are
vitally interested in this and we ex-
pressed our opinion to the Secretary that
while we were not confident that he
would be able to fully meet the needs
of agricultural labor from domestic
sources, if he were unable to do so, we
9066

did not want it to be because this sub-
committee had denied to him $1 of the
funds which he said were necessary.

We urged him, and I think the Secre-
tary is well aware of the extreme impor-
tance of agricultural labor in gathering
the crops off the trees, as in the case of
my State, or gathering the crops off
the plants as is the case in the other
States at the time they are at their
maximum -peak for harvesting.

Mr. Chairman, there are many more
jobs invelved in this problem than just
the jobs of people who harvest the crops.
There are transportation jobs and jobs
in the canneries and there are. distribu-
tion jobs and indeed the whole field of
consumer relations is involved.

I believe we can assure this House that,
this committee has fully fulfilled its re-
sponsibilities.

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

Mr. DUNCAN of Oregon.
the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. CEDERBERG. I agree with the
gentleman and share the gentleman’s
concern about what is happening in this
particular area. We in the State of
Michigan are concerned particularly
with the pickle growers. It is not a big
commodity but it is one of concern in
our area. The pickle farmers are un-
able to get the people necessary to handle
this crop, and unless something is done
there is going to be a tremendous loss.
As the gentleman pointed out, there are
people who work in canneries that are
involved, So, unless the Secretary of
Labor makes some change in his present
attisude, I feel we are going to have a
real economic loss to many farmers in
the State of Michigan and the stcop
Jabor just is not available to do the job.

As far as we are concerned, if the Sec-
retary of Labor can find them, we would
be glad to have them to do the job.

Mr. DUNCAN of Oregon. I think
everyane in this room will agree that the
jobs cught to be performed by American
jabor if American labor can be found to
do the job. It is the purpose of these
approvristions under discussion at the
present time to assist the Secretary in
locating and bringing to the field the
necessary domestic labor. If it is avail-
able I am certain the Secretary will ful-
fill his responsibility to see that the crops
are harvested.

Mr. BYRNES of Wisconsin. Mr.
Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.

Mr. Chairman, = would like to make
inquiry about the funds and the distri-
bution of funds for manpower develop-
ment and training activities. It seems
to me this is one of the programs that
we have that has great potential for
good in operating and increasing the
training of our people. Yet, I under-
stand there are some complaints about
the question of whether these funds are
being distriouted to the States on the
basis of the formula that was contem-~-
plated by the original substantive legis-
jation. ZI see where we are appropriating
in this bill $273,590,000 for this pur-
pose. I am wondering how this is to be
allocated between the States, and
whether it is being allocated in accord-
ance with the fundamental formula that

I yield to

 

. they are based on the old law.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

was anticipated in the substantive legis-
lation. :
Mr, FOGARTY. I may say briefly that
these funds are distributed on a formula
basis, mainly on population. If some of
the States do not take advantage of
these funds then the Secretary can dis~

tribute them to other States that have .

applications pending. As I understand

it, this redistribution is made almost au- _

tomatically. The gentleman from Wis-
consin [Mr. Larp] has made a thorough
study of this and knows more about it
than I do. Maybe he can give you 4
better answer.

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

Mr. BYRNES of Wisconsin. I yield to
the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. LAIRD. I appreciate the compli-
ment of the gentleman, but I assure the
House that the gentleman from Rhode
Island does Know more. No one knows
as much about this as he does.

As far as the distribution formula is
concerned, there have been amendments
made to this distribution formula. It
provides no allocation can be made until
after the first two quarters of the fiscal
year. The Department of Labor has not
followed through on its commitment to
the Committee on Education and Labor
in this area. This year they went anead
and made distributions by which at least
one State received 560 percent of its al-
location under the law, while there were
applications pending in other States that
had not received even 50 percent. In the
testimony before the Committee on Hdu-
cation and Labor a record was made last
year that this would not happen. We
bave admonished the Department of
Labor not to follow this practice again,
and I would hope no allocation or redis-
tribution is made until after the third
quarter of the fiscal year 1966. The gen-
tleman from Wisconsin is entirely right,
this allocation formula has not been fol-
lowed properly by the Labor Department.
‘Tam sure, in view of the interest we have
expressed in this whole program, that
they will not follow this procedure again.

EL would like to include at this point the

‘allocation that will be made for the fiscal

year 1966 on the basis of the appropri-
ations in this bill. Of course, these fig-
ures are pretty much illustrative since
We will
get revised figures when we have hear-
ings on the supplemental in a few weeks.
Estimated distribution of junds for training
and allowances under title II of the Man~
power Development and Training Act for
fiseal year 1966 (based upon one-third
State maiching of institutional training
costs and trainee allowances)
{In thousands of dollars]

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

Total Esti- Esti-
State esti- inated mated
mated. | Federal State
funds 1 funds funds
U.S. total___.-- _| 340,195 | 245, 861 94, 334
Alabama 4,729 3,417 4,311
Alaska. -- - 680 492, 189
Arizona._ i, 905 1,377 528
Arkansas - 2, 585 1, 869 TAT
California 41,640 | — 30,.093 14, 546
Colerado--_. 3, 538 2, 557 98:
Connecticut. 4, 967 3, 590 1,377
Delaware. wee 782 565 217
District of Columbia. .- 1,361 983 377
Florida_.-.-.--.-------- 6, 736 4, 868 1, 868

Estimated distribution of funds for training
and allowances under title II of the Man-
power Development and Training Act for
fiscal. year 1966 (based upon one-third
State matching of institutional training
costs and trainee allowances)—Continued

{in thousands of dollars]

 

 

 

 

  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
  
  
  
  
 
  

   
   
    
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
   
   
 
 

 

Total Esti- Esti-
State esti- mated mated
mated | Federal State
funds ! funds funds

Georgia. 5, 545 4, 008 1, 538
Guam_ 68 49 19
Hawaili_- 1, 08 787 - 302
idaho_ 1, 895 1, 008 387
Hlinois__ 19, 187 18, 867 5, 320
Indiana- 6, 668 4,819 1, 848
Iowa... 4, 354 3, 147 1,207
Kansas __ 3, 742 2, 704 1, 088
Kentucky- 5, 545 4, 008 1, 538
Louisiana. 5, 069 3, 663 1, 408
Maine... 1,327 959 368
Maryland _--._- 4, 286 3, 098 1, 189
Massachusetts. . -| 12,218 8, 826 3, 387
Michigan _..... -| 18,870 9, 662 3, 707
Minnesota - 6, 226 4, 499 1, 726
Mississippi - - 3, 368 2, 484 934
Missouri. - 7, 926 5, 729 2, 198
Montana --- - 1, 089 787 302
Nebraska _ _ - 2,279 1, 647 682

7 714 516 198

- 987 713 274

-| . 14,696 10, 621 4, 075
New Mexico__ - 1, 225 88! 340
New York... -| 88, 918 28, 127 10, 792
North Carolina. - 6, 226 4, 499 1, 726
North Dakota_. - 1, 259 910 349
Ohio---.-.- -| 19, 085 18, 793 5, 292
Oklahoma._ - 3, 334 2, 409 924
Oregon..__- » 3, 470 2, 508 962
Pennsylvania -| 28, 848 17, 235 6, 613
Puerto Rico__ - 3, 096 2, 237 858
Rhode Island 7 1, 633 1, 180 453
South Carolina - 38, 470 2, 508 962
South Dakota. - 1,191 861 330
Tennessee. _ - 5, 443 3, 984 1, 509

-| 18,642 9, 859 3, 783

- 1, 667 1, 205 462

- 782 565 217

- 4, 525 3, 270 1, 255
Virgin Islands- - 68 49 19
Washington__ - 5, 851 4, 229 1, 623
West Virginia - 2, 722 1, 967 755
Wisconsin. . - 7, 858 5, 679 2,179
Wyoming... 816 590 226

 

 

 

 

i Based upon fiscal year 1965 apportionment factors.
Public Law 84415, sec. 310, requires annual redetermina-
tion of State apportionment factors.

Mr. BYRNES of Wisconsin. The gen-~
tleman does feel that the committee has
assurances that at least in the coming
fiscal year the allocation of this $273 mil-
lion appropriated here will be in accord
with the formula, and that there will not
be this distribution to States that al-
ready have had their fair share until all
of the applications have been processed.

Mr. LAIRD. I believe the Department
of Labor will follow that procedure, and
we urge them to do that.

Mr. BYRNES of Wisconsin. I thank
the gentleman. ~ .

The Clerk read as follows:

BUREAU OF INTERNATIONAL LABOR AFFAIRS

Salaries and expenses

For expenses necessary for the conduct of

international labor affairs, $1,204,000.

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

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

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I should
like to ask a question or two concerning
the subiect of the Bureau of Interna-
tional Labor Affairs. How is this money
expended? Is this in connection with
the International Labor Organization?

Mr. FOGARTY. Itis. Imight say to
the gentieman, this appropriation car-
ries fewer positions in 1966 than they
had in 1965. This is one area where we
May 4, 1965

have a reduction in the number of posi-
tions.

Mr. GROSS. This then is the money
that is used to finance U.S. participation
in the International Labor Organization?

Mr. FOGARTY. It dces not finance
the participation; no. But it backs up
the international labor movement.

Mr. GROSS. Then there is money in
another bill for that purpose?

Mr. FOGARTY. Yes, in the State
Department.

Mr. GROSS. Isee. A subcommittce
of which I am a member held some hear-
ings early this year or late last year in
connection with the International Labor
Organization and it appeared then that
the U.S. representation was quite dis-
satisfied with. what is happening in re-
cent international conferences.

Mr, FOGARTY. That is in the State
Department appropriation bill.

Mr. GROSS. I suppose the gentleman
is acquainted with the dissatisfaction on
the part of the American representatives
in that. they are having trouble with
delegates of the Communist-dominated
countries and with sympathizers of
communism from other countries? I
would hope that this committee would
keep a close check with a view toward
cutting this appropriation further if this
situation continues to get worse. __

While I have the ficor, I would like to
ask the gentleman a question concern-
ing, I believe it is, the Office of Equal
Opportunity and the medical examina-
tions of the individuals applying for
training under this new setup. Is there
any money in this bill for these physical
examinations or is that to be found in
some other. bill?

Mr. FOGARTY. No; you are talking
about the Office of Economic Opportun-
ity—-the anti-poverty program?

Mr.GROSS. Yes.

Mr. FOGARTY. There is no money
here for those purposes and we expect
them to ask for any funds they need for
personnel and any other services when
they come before our committee in
May—if the program is extended.

Mr. GROSS. I will say to the gentle-
man that I asked the question because

I was armazed to learn the other day that
where there is no veterans’ facility or ne
USPHS facility to provide for Federal
examination of applicants that local of-
ficials are authorized to pay as much as
$80 per person for examinations by pri-
vate physicians.

Mr. FOGARTY. If they do that, it
comes out of their appropriations and
not out of this appropriation.

Mr. GROSS. But there is no money
in this bill for that?

Mr. FOGARTY. No, there is no
money In this bill for that purpose.

Mr. GROSS. I thank the gentleman.

The CHAIRMAN, The Clerk will read.

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 it do pass.

‘The motion was agreed to.

No. 79-14

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

Accordingly, the Committee rose; and
the Sneaker having resumed-the chair,
Mr. Trompson of New Jersey, Chairman
of the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under cone
sideration the bill (ELR. 7765) making
appropriations for the Departments of
Labor, and Health, Education, and Wel-
fare, and related agencies, for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1966, and for other
purposes, had directed him to report the
bill back to the House with the recom-~
mendation that the bill do pass.

Mr, FOGARTY. Mr. Speaker, I move
the previous question on the bill te final
passage.

The previous question was ordered.

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

The bill was ordered te be engrossed
and read a third time and was read the
third time.

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

The bill was passed.

A motion to reecnsider was laid on the
table.

GENERAL LEAVE TO ERTIND

Mr. FOGARTY. Mr. Speaker, I ask

‘unanimous consent that all Members

have 5 legislative days in which to extend
their remarks on the bill just passed.

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

There was no objection.

Mr. FOGARTY. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that I have permis-
sion to extend my own remarks and to
include extraneous matter and tables.

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

There was ne objection.

 

ENR olamarme