SUPPLEMENTAL, APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 1972--CONFERENCE REPORT

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP73B00296R000500050025-4
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 34
• Document Creation Date: December 20, 2016
• Document Release Date: November 14, 2005
• Sequence Number: 25
• Publication Date: December 10, 1972
• Content Type: OPEN

? Approved For Rele.ce "n7 I
ell6NWa1614 A El kEEEE_7.3B0029_6Raa10500050025-4
S 11214 Itll SEN A"JI. December 10, 1971
breakdown in our system of criminal Jus-
tice. Our courts are clogged with untried
criminal cases. Months, often years, lapse
between the day of arrest and the time of
trial. Defendants are either put back on
the streets or sent to jail because they
cannot make bail ...
The fact is we are paying a high price
for overloading our criminal courts. And I
think it's high time we had a new national
commitment to revive our system of criminal
justice?starting with the goal of making
our courts work.
By insisting on prompt trial of criminal
cases, we can force an overhaul of our courts
and criminal justice procedures. The re-
quirement of a speedy trial can be an action-
forcing device that will make states and
cities take a fresh look at what's wrong
with the system. It may be a question of
more grand juries or better court admin-
istration. It may be a need for public
defenders. It may be the need for new ap-
proaches to handle some of the routine
cases?like prostitution and drunkenness?
that burden the courts.
I believe that the states should be re-
quired to submit detailed programs for
achieving trial of criminal cases within sixty
to ninety days of arrest. And Federal funds
must be made available to make these pro-
grams work. If a state is not making honest
efforts towards the prompt trial objective,
it should not qualify for continued Federal
support.?from Remarks to Queens Chamber
of Commerce, December 8, 1971
Today in America the stability of our
democratic system is threatened by the
tyranny of a small minority that is sys-
tematically disrupting our society while too
many Americans sit complacently on the
sidelines . . .
As far as these militants are concerned,
the rights of the majority do not exist. The
right of people to travel a highway, of a
storekeeper to be free from terroristic at-
tacks, of a speaker to be heard or a student
to attend class, these kinds of rights have
no place in the world of these revolution-
aries .. ,
The American people have a sense of fair
play and they will tolerate a good deal in
the name of dissent. But they are no longer
willing to tolerate the violence and civil
disorder or the intolerance of this new brand
of American extremists .
. . . beyond the problem of punishing the
lawbreakers, is the challenge to all men of
moderation to reject, visibly and vocally, the
forces of extremism. For the stable, sensible
majority, the spectators's role is no longer
enough. It is time that we stood up for the
democratic process and asserted our faith in
the capacity of our system to grow and change
without resort to violence.?From statement
issued June, 1970
At the very root of the rule of law which
we honor today lies the concept of the one-
ness of the law?one law, one standard, one
justice for all. Yet we are increasingly aware
that this fundamental concept is honored
more in the breach than in the observance,
that the principle is?all too often?lost in
the practice.
We are tolerating not only one law for the
poor and one law for the rich. We are, as well,
accepting submissively one law for the young
and one for their elders; one law for the dis-
sident and one law for the conformist; one
law for the man in uniform and one law for
the civilian; one law for the uneducated and
one law for the college graduate; one law for
the small tax-payer and one law for the large
tax-avoider; one law for the ordinary voter
and one law for the big contributor; one law
for the buyer and one law for the seller; one
law for the borrower and one law for the
lender.
This is wrong. We know it is wrong. Yet
among those who have chosen, by their pro-
fession, to serve as custodians of the law,
there remains all too often a curious passivity
toward these wrongs. It is not enough for af-
fluent practitioners, able professors or active
public servants to sit in the sanctuaries of the
law factories, or in the quiet of academic
halls, or in the spotlight of daily affairs talk-
ing about equal rights and legal remedies.
We must not only talk the law, we must
live it.
The alternative seems clear: a steady de-
cline in respect for the law, a steady decline
in the effectiveness of law as a balancing
force in our society.?From speech to Wayne
State University Law School, April 17, 1971.
QUORUM CALL
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk
will call the roll.
The second assistant legislative clerk
proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
TAFT) . Without objection, it is so or-
dered.
SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS
BILL, 1972?CONFERENCE REPORT
Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, under
the previous order, I submit a report of
the committee of conference on the dis-
agreeing votes of the two Houses on the
amendments of the Senate to the bill
(H.R. 11955) making supplemental ap-
propriations for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1972, and for other purposes.
The Senate proceeded to consider the
report.
(The conference report is printed in
the House proceedings of the CONGRES-
SIONAL RECORD of December 9, 1971, at
pages H12138-H12141.)
Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, the
supplemental appropriations bill, 1972,
passed the House of Representatives on
December 2. It passed the Senate on De-
cember 3, with 75 amendments. The con-
ferees were in session all day on Decem-
ber 7 and met again, and completed ac-
tion on the amendments in conference,
on December 9. The conference report is
available to all Members.
The bill as it passed the Senate ap-
proved appropriations in the amount of
$3,998,045,371. The increase in the bill
over the House of Representatives
amounted to $3,211,762,717. There is a
good reason for the large increase which
was made by the Senate in this bill. It
related to the Office of Economic Oppor-
tunity appropriations which were not
considered by the House because the au-
thorizing bill had not progressed suffi-
ciently by the time the House considered
the supplemental appropriations big.
Some of the large increases over the
House bill effected by the Senate were:
$817,597,000 for "Manpower training
services"; $707,157,000 for "Health man-
power"; $265 million for "School assist-
ance in federallr affected areas"; $376,-
817,000 for Project Headstart; and
$780,400,000 for the Office of Economic
Opportunity.
The amount of the bill as finally agreed
to in conference is $3,406,385,371. This is
an increase of $2,620,102,717 over the
House bill and it is a decrease under the
Senate-passed bill of $591,660,000.
As I mentioned previously, there were
75 amendments in disagreement and it
was necessary to compromise all of our
differences.
One of the largest single increases the
Senate had effected was $817,597,000 rec-
ommended for "Manpower training serv-
ices." In conference, the conferees agreed
to recommend an appropriation of $776,-
717,000. The authorizing legislation for
this program is contained in the proposed
amendments to the Office of Economic
Opportunity Act; and in view of the fact
that at the time of the conference, there
was some discussion that this bill, which
had been sent to the President, might be
vetoed, the proviso making the appro-
priation contingent upon enactment into
law of the authorizing legislation was
deleted by the conferees. The 0E0 au-
thorizing bill was later vetoed.
The Senate bill contained $265,000,000
for "School assistance in federally af-
fected areas." This particular amend-
ment consumed a great deal of time dur-
ing the discussions, and it was not pos-
sible for us to prevail and to secure any
part of this appropriation.
Another large increase approved by
the Senate was for "Health manpower."
Under Senate amendment numbered 28,
an appropriation of $707,157,000 was
made for this purpose. This is another
item which consumed a great deal of
time in the conference. As a matter of
fact, it had to be passed over and placed
at the end of the discussions because it
was so highly controversial with the
House conferees. However, we were final-
ly able to agree to an appropriation for
this item of $492,980,000.
For the Office of Economic Opportu-
nity, the Senate bill contained $780,400,-
000. In conference, the figure of $741,-
380,000 was agreed upon. As the bill
passed the Senate, the language for this
program contained a proviso making the
appropriation contingent upon enact-
ment of the authorizing legislation. In
view of the discussions concerning a pos-
sible veto of the 0E0 authorization bill,
the conferees have deleted the proviso.
The House, of course, agreed to all of
the Senate amendments relating to the
Senate. Again this year, the House was
adamant, and the Senate receded, on
the proposal to restore the Old Senate
Chamber and the Old Supreme Court
Chamber in the Capitol.
The Senate bill contained the sum of
$102,400,000 for "Construction, Corps of
? Engineers," and the House agreed to this
entire amount.
The Senate bill also contained author?
-
ity to utilize not to exceed $20,153,000 of
previously appropriated funds for the
"Economic stabilization activities" in-
augurated recently by the President, and
the House conferees agreed to go along
with the Senate amendment.
I will be glad to answer any questions
any Members may have with respect to
the bill. In addition, the chairmen of the
various subcommittees are available to
participate in the discussions.
Approved For Release 2007/01/18: CIA-RDP73B00296R000500050025-4
Approved For Release 2007/01/18: CIA-RDP73B00296R000500050025-4
-eslber 10, 1971 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ?SENA FE S 21213
'eork, lin, us do it. 11 it demands the crea-
:.wn of tiew regional governments with juris-
.1iction io deal with problems as a whole, let
do P.--From remarks to the Greater De-
Ci amber of Commerce. June 3, 1971
ORE
'if7an farmers are growing more anti
?.rMng leas. they reel threatened by low
,erni pieces. the growth of corporate giants is
rain tre and a national Administration
s i as failed to develop a constructive
-eosin pie ley.
ahgre is nothing. in the background or
iielosoonv of Earl Butz to reassure the
iimusands of farmers who look to the See-
gilary Agriculture to represent their in-
Mrests, they have already experienced hit
; the Department of Agriculture---
.l it eaten; a pleasant experience_ And they
iioriv It Mr. Butz has shown little concern
ci the independent farmers working out-
do realms of the corporate food pro-
d deers Aran wnom he has been so closely
teithieb.
tin.t event, Inc fact that farmers lack
ceal cotaidence in Mr. Butz foredooms any
, Mince for reburming this Administration's
Farm pr igrains. Without broad support in the
twit, Mr. Butz cannot hope to build a
sonsecisas for progres.sive farm policies. Un-
these circumstances, and particularly in
ught, tit Monday's vote in the Senate Agri-
tail:ore Committee. the President should
hdraty this nomination?From statement
;saint-are November 24, 1971
Mit ti an as fewer and fewer farmers were,
educeig more and more on less acreage,
gie ret t ru on their time and labor and in-
Amer, t remains far less than what It
sliould lie. The fact is that farmers are still
:eat get, lug a fair share of the consumer's
altar. !'rices received by farmers in 1970
on,y 3 percent above those received dur-
, the 1947-1949 base period. The farmer's
terecre o: the retail food dollar was 47 cents
9.50 end 29 cents last year!
aut yo z well know. the heart of the farmer's
iesadenua hes in the marketing area. Con-
this when it passed the
,-kerictil, end Pair Practices Act five year;
can 'crc lc, s Act was an important
aret Sle _I but experience has shown that we
telli hate not achieved a proper balance be-
, economic power of the buyers and
lags of latrin products. It is particu-
g itn,tortant that this balance be achieved
at anon: and more farm products are sold
ater in eduction and marketing contracts,
glue s ivantacue of contracting are obvious.
elle 'mg Cr has an assured supply at a known
? N, farmer has an assured market at a
!leaning price._ tnir goal must be to see that
I' alse a fair price.
view. tinning sensible ways to
s,reagiaciu the farmer's position at the bar-
1 ne tahie a priority item on the Con-
els-sea-gm l agenda.----From remarks to Florida
us S:roan Pecieration, October 29, 1971.
kirION
eicreascs made by Congres;
geart ei difference between mediocrity and
es,aillet au in many school districts through-
-at the (a-in./tare For some students, these
eitlet mean the difference between a
rce'occhlooe education or none at all ...
-tam estrninistration argues that the larger
ropr-ations voted by Congress are infla-
irmary. My response is that the children in
ticilL:ofs arid the students in our college;
..t1,itid rot he the victims of the Adminis-
ion- tal jure to come to grips with infla-
The cl IS ii, cc. ,,,dinois need more. not
Iron) Wallington. They have suf
fi, M Hems, costs and declining tat
is:yenta,. The impact of high interest rates--
the highest since the Civil War?has severely
restricted school construction and moderni-
zation. The cost of eclucatir g each child
lumps about 10 percent a year?and average
spending per public school pupil is estimated
:Au have risen to 5717 in 1970 from $454 only
tive years ago. But more than half of public
achool revenues are still being provided by
local taxpayers. No wonder that local school
taxes nay, risen more unari 140 percent in
the last di tide!
There is a arnit to the burden that can be
unposed se the local level. Considering the
demanda on the local tax dollar and the
broacier teacn of the Federal taxing power,
the Federai contribution to local school costs
falls far start. The Federal government, re-
ceiving true-thirds of all tax revenues, must
foot a larger share of the education bill.?
From remalks on Aid to Education Septem-
ber 11, 1970i
I oppose massive busing of children solely
for the purse of satisfying some arbitrary
mix of studdnts tin the basis of race or re-
ligion 01' heritage.
That's not hthe issue. The tissue is how to
assure a quality education for every child in
America, retratdless of the circumstances in,to
which he or she is born.
Uneuestie,nably, some students must be
bused to sehohl if they are to reach school
at all. In our preoccupation with busing we
are forgetting that a bus ride to a poor school
Is a bus ride do nowhere. It's high time we
moved beyond the b-using controversy to the
challenge of educational quality.
erhe prr'-reml facing the country is that
poor neighbor orxis generally have poor
schools. It is nct fair to a six-year old child?
black, wi-ne c brown?to condemn that
child to an infe tor education simply because
his or her narelt.s are poor. Anil it is also not
fair to foree ild to be bused from a good
.sugh riol to rum in ftrior Scheol.
would. rail go in the direction of the
California Stat Supreme Court decision
which says in effect, that the wealth of a
school district thould not be permitted to
determine 'he quality of educ ation. U that
decision were iMpleMented at the state and
federal levies, len no child c:Aild he bused
g o
to an infer se oal or he forced to attend an
inferier
Wh 17,i, easeprately need 1s not massive
busing, big s m*sive commitment of talent
and reuoirrees tohachieve equality of educa-
tion obportrinityie-Frora statement issued
Novemher 1971.
iitALIC HEALTH
What this Acimipistration has done in the
health fieM speaks far louder than what it
has said. And what it has done is little or
nothing to improve the quality, cost or ac-
cessibility t1 healtd care for those Americans
Who need i t most 1 .
An essential firsth step towards that end is
a drastic -reorganization of the way we man-
age Federal health programs in Washington,
13.0. At a niitiimumj we should divide H.E.W.
into two cahinet departments, ':ieparating out
edunai functlions and retaining in one
department the closely related health-wel-
gee prtigiiittn:i.
A10/17 V,"iih reorganizalion mast go a man-
date for ac ion whidh expand:, the scope of
public health far beyond the narrow limits
of its traditional cbncerris. This new man-
elate trust With the high cost of health
care, the tieing ticii of drug abuse and alco-
holism, and the wiaste of resources in the
health field . . .
Let me ire frank; to say that the time for
laissez-faire in out health care system has
long Sinee massed. I'We cannot afford it And
health care instittitions should be on notice
to put the r heusa in order or risk forms of
regulation they may not like
The shortage and maldistribution of our
medical manpower is a serious national prob-
lem which clearly requires national solu-
1Lons. It deserves as much priority attentieta
as proposals for national health insurance.
The only sure way to free every American
-om the burden of staggering medical bills
s some form of national health insurance,
i believe we must start now building a sys-
;em of comprehensive health insurance, be-
inning with two great unmet needs: cover-
tite for the poor who do not have and call-
:tit afford insurance and, second, coyerase
all against catastrophic illness . .
the Federal Government must encourage
, oovative approaches to provide more health
cofessionals. We must be prepared to put
u-decal prestige and dollars behind programs
, increase the output of doctors and nurses
i.d make better use of their skills. We must
be tied to traditional or bound by the
ci ways of doing things .
We have work to do. As long as the right
, good health and decent medical care is
mated for any reason to any American, our
is unfinished_ Good medical care is no
. ager the privilege of the rich?or the
eite--or the lucky. Decent health care is a
iLSIC right for all Americans.?From speech
itublic Health Association, October 12.
OLDER AMERICANS
I do not subscribe to the 'out of sight.
et of mind' philosophy. One of this coun-
- foremost responsibilities is to see that
aging are free from hunger and poverty.
It is a sad commentary that nearly one-
' dird of those over 65 are living in poverty.
I,i fact, this is the only group in which
iyerty is increasing. We must improve our
enal security and tax laws to assist those on
I -ted incomes to cope with rising costs.
While Medicare has provided some needed
ssaistance, the hard fact is that less than half
the health costs of the aging are covered
'ar Medicare. We must expand this cover-
We need more than pre-arranged confer-
rices by an unresponsive administration.
'Vhat we need is a new philosophy and a new
rategy. We need a philosophy which does
t forget the older American; a new philos-
elly which does not perceive the aging as
sedge and happy to merely exist on social
r ^unity,
and we need a new strategy. A strategy
t !rich identities the aging as an important
'reel a strategy which embraces reforms in
eiome maintenance, and health care and
iiplyoment Such a new strategy would
!Inge the great potential which you have
0 the great contribution you can make:
contribution which doesn't end at some
sitrary age level of 62 or 65 or 70.?From
'marks to Conference of National Retired
,saehers Association-National Association of
tired Persons November 11. 1971
,7r. 'need to flet, now. We must help the
,ratless older neople holed up in rooming
rises and apartments worrying about
ealth bills that Medicare won't cover,
atehing their savings being eaten away by
-tilition and despairing about a govern-
tnt, that says "go away."
nation of vrealth and compassion cannot
crate old people, wtih untapped abilities,
. -m i
g n poverty, sickness, believing they
are been forgotten_ This is what we must
-,s ark no correct ?From remarks to Breeard
iunty Florida Senior Citizens, November 27,
L
AND ,TUSTICE
If we are serious about the security ef
teople in America, if we really believe that
every citizen?old or young, rich or poor,
.,..ack or white?has the right to be secure
et his person and property, then we ought
our national crime problem as it
not as Inc inythinakers would have us
at the heart of the crime problem is the
Approved For Release 2007/01/18: CIA-RDP73B00296R000500050025-4
Approved For Release 2007/01/18: CIA-RDP73B00296R000500050025-4
December 10, 1971 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ?SENATE S 21215
Mr. President, I yield to the Senator
from North Dakota.
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, I associate
myself with the views expressed by the
distinguished chairman of the committee.
There was a wide range of subjects dealt
with in this bill. Most of them have to
do with health, education, and welfare.
I think a very reasonable compromise
was reached with the House. And, of
course, a few items were deleted that the
House very strongly objected to.
I believe that as a whole it is a bill
that the Senate will approve.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who
yields time?
Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, I yield 5
minutes to the Senator from New York.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, the action
which was taken with respect to these
supplemental appropriations really is in
only one respect a cause for any satis-
faction. In many other respects it is well
nigh disastrous, and, as we will be going
at these things again in other supple-
mentals and other appropriations, I will
not engage my colleagues in extended
debate on the acceptance or rejection of
the fiscal year 1972 supplemental appro-
priations conference report. I think it is
critically important to make the record
clear as to manpower training, health
manpower programs, Neighborhood
Youth Corps, and so forth.
The conferees agreed, in regard to
manpower administration, on about one-
half, in round figures, of the some $80-
odd million which was added by amend-
ment in the Senate. Having met with the
House in conference on these matters
myself before, I think that result is by
no means anything to cheer about. It is
certainly far more of an accomplishment
than many other items in this bill.
I know, as I have been with the Senator
from Louisiana (Mr. ELLENDER) , the Sen-
ator from North Dakota (Mr. YOUNG),
the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr.
COTTON), and the Senator from Wash-
ington (Mr. MAGNUSON), at these con-
ferences that they do try to sustain the
Senate's position. I realize this and thank
them for the utilization of their prestige
and the weight of their position, in order
to gain what they did gain on this item.
I am very grateful to them, and hundreds
of thousands of youngsters will be as
well. So, let us emphasize the affirmative
before we get into any other part of this
bill. I wish to express that unequivocally,
and standing all by itself.
Where we would suffer, in my judg-
ment, disastrously, is in respect of a
number of items which relate, as was
stated by the Senator from North Dakota
(Mr. 'YOUNG), to Health, Education, and
Welfare, which are critically important
to our people. First, we took a terrible
beating with respect to health manpower
in the fact of a really dire emergency.
Mr. President, in that regard I would
like to point out that what was done was
just about what the administration
sought in its budget request, notwith-
standing the very grave danger of the
closing of medical and dental schools,
and the fantastic shortages of doctors,
dentists, nurses, and other health per-
sonnel.
I strongly supported the Senate allow-
ance for health manpower and believed
it would make great strides forward
toward implementing the comprehensive
authorizing legislation for health man-
power which we passed on July 14, 1971,
and was enacted into law as Public Law
92-157 and Public Law 92-158.
One week ago today I urged a separate
roll call vote on the health manpower
amendment of the supplemental ap-
propriations in order to strengthen the
hand of the Senate conferees. I did this
because I was deeply concerned about the
fate of this measure when it is in con-
ference with the House. The House Ap-
propriations Committee held no hear-
ings on the manpower and nursing sup-
plemental requests and their bill had no
dollar recommendations in this area.
I was concerned that without a basis for
independent judgment they would in-
sist on accepting the administration's
proposed budget, which I regret did not
adequately respond to health manpower
needs; the basic underpinning for any
reform of our health care system, with
which we also are deeply concerned.
Mr. President, to show how sharply
these cuts took place, I would refer to
the following:
I. Capitation grants for institutional sup-
port:
A. $200,000,000 authorized for medical, den-
tal and osteopathy schools.
$120,000,000 requested by Administration.
$160,000,000 provided by Senate Appropri-
ations Committee.
$130,000,000 provided by Conference, a
$30,000,000 reduction.
B. $34,000,000 authorized for veterinary,
optometry, podiatry and pharmacy schools.
$20,400,000 requested by Administration.
$30,000,000 provided by Senate Appropri-
ations Committee.
$25,200,000 provided by Conference, a $4,-
800,000 reduction.
C. $78,000,000 authorized for nursing
schools.
Nothing--requested by Administration.
$63,000,000 provided by Senate Appropri-
ations Committee.
$31,500,000 provided by Conference, a $31,-
500.000 reduction.
II. Student Assistance, loans and scholar-
ships:
A. $75,000,000 authorized for loans, for stu-
dents at all schools ($51,000,000 previously
appropriated) .
Nothing?supplemental Administration re-
quest.
$14,000,000 supplemental allowance pro-
vided by Senate Appropriations Committee.
Nothing--supplemental allowance provided
by Conference, a $14,000,000 reduction.
B. $111,700,000 authorized scholarships for
students at all schools ($35,000,000 previous-
ly appropriated) .
Nothing--supplemental Administration re-
quest.
$35,000,000 supplemental provided by Sen-
ate Appropriations Committee.
Nothing?supplemental provided by Con-
ference, a $35,000,000 reduction.
III. Construction Grants:
A. $335,000,000 authorized for medical,
dental, and other health profession schools,
exclusive of nursing schools.
$82,000,000 Administration supplemental
request.
$182,616,000 provided as supplemental ap-
propriation by Senate Appropriations Com-
mittee.
$142,385,000 provided as supplemental ap-
propriation by Conference, a $40,231,000 re-
duction.
B. $35,000,000 authorized for nursing
schools.
$9,500,000 Administration supplemental re-
quest.
$25,000,000 provided by Senate Appropria-
tions Committee.
$19,500,000 provided by Conference, a $5,-
500,000 reduction.
Thus, in capitation grant institutional
support for medical, dental, and osteop-
athy schools we have improved over the
administration request from 60 to 65 per-
cent, but are substantially down from the
Senate amendment 80-percent level of
support. My deepest regret and I know
shared by all is nursing school capitation
grant institutional support now at 40 per-
cent?where the administration had
zero?but down from the Senate amend-
ment 83-percent support level.
In addition, the conference report
eliminates other vital education funds:
namely, $65 million under Public Law 874,
the impacted aid program, for initial
funding of the low-income housing pro-
vision, category "c" children, so-called,
who were added to the program by Pub-
lic Law 91-230 last year. These payments,
some 22 percent of the entitlement,
would have covered 1.2 million school-
children in local districts throughout the
Nation. It is indeed unfortunate that
funds were not furnished for this effort
which, I might add, I had authored in
cosponsorship with the distinguished
Senator from Missouri (Mr. EAGLETON) .
Finally, in the education area, there
was omitted $200 million under Public
Law 815 to provide some 5,000 classrooms
for about 125,000 children in impacted
areas?no funds have been provided for
so-called section 5 construction since
1967 and moneys are badly needed, espe-
cially for American Indian children.
Mr. President, rather than crying
about spilled milk, by point in rising here
today is to call attention to what I con-
sider to be the flouting of a very impor-
tant provision of law. We provided, Mr.
President, in the Health Training Im-
provement Act of 1970, Public Law 91/-
519, for a report by the Secretary of the
Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare on the need for emergency finan-
cial assistance to our medical and dental
schools. Congress called for that report
on or before June 30, 19771, with a de-
termination as to what was really needed.
I understand, Mr. President, that re-
port is "done" but not "officially" avail-
able. We have demanded its release. In-
deed, I ask unanimous consent to have
printed in the RECORD my letter to the
Secretary of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare, Elliot Richardson, signed by me,
ranking Republican member of the Labor
and Public Welfare Committee, by the
Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr.
SCHWEIKER) , the ranking minority mem-
ber of our Health Subcommittee, by the
Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Wm-
LIAms), the chairman of the Labor and
Public Welfare Committee, and the Sen-
ator from Massachusetts (Mr. KENNEDY) ,
chairman of our Health Subcommittee,
dated December 1, demanding this re-
port, which request has not been com-
Approved For Release 2007/01/18: CIA-RDP73B00296R000500050025-4
Approved For Release 2007/01/18: CIA-RDP73B00296R000500050025-4
IC CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ---- SI! NATE December 0, /971
led with, although I understand that
report is completed.
There being no objection, the letter
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
11..; fOILOWS:
Drr.rmska.I 1971.
11.1m. ELLIOT RICHARDSON,
Tretary of Health. Education, and Welfare,
Wa.slanaton, D.C.
Ma. SECRETARY: As you know, the
e,iitb. Training Improvement Act of 1970
91-519) contains a provision withored
Settim.,)r Javits which sets forth the Con-
.11)001 1)'OIUg that the Nation's economy,
and security are adversely affected
attute financial crisis which threatens
_survival of medical and dental schools.
provision requests the 6ecretary to "de-
me tne need for emergency financial
Lo such medical and dental
s' and "report to the Congress on or
tre June 30, 1971" regarding "hit'. deter-
:- Mations of such need and his recomenenda-
, for such administrative and lesislative
iie determines is necessary .c) meet
deem."
'fortunately, although requested, the re-
was out available to the member:3 of the
nate Health Subcommitte in their de.libera-
?-10 on the development of comprehensive
dth manpower legislation. Nor was it
a .:itiable to tao Conferees during their ex-
o ova efforts to resolve vital funding dif-
t-ences betwen the House and-Senatc health
t:.:bloowttr bilis.
11.01.Ighi is now more than four months
tt?port was due pursuant to P.L. 91-
our :itafts have advised us that they have
regularly informed by the Department
.t-1,11..h. Education. and Welfare, or, behalf
iitierest in the matter, that the re-
was ' tisme" but not "officially" available.
the Senate prepared to consider health
:supplemental appropriations with-
newt week, we believe it is essential
e long overdue report on the medical
gl dental schools' need for financial assist-
9'-' made available to the Congress.
te tines ot this report will be most imoortant
the SOnatc as it considers establishing ap-
' tatffirs for health manpower and we
kipper ul that it will be
:uutl Daacte available.
.1?Ailnii K. iwrrs.
'10.500 fl SCHWEIKER,
.iiirsoN A. WILLIAMS.
o'0,'Att.1) M. KENNEDY.
',ViTS. Mr. President, I most
i?enethi or,Lest that particular denial of
etnation which is absolutely essen-
: attribute the denial of that infor-
great part to the massive cuts
t are so harmful to the whole matter
nit h. delivery which have been made
this enoplemental appropriation.
-vein no my utmost to find a way in
.eilseees can make it clear that it
not .;imply be frustrated by the sheer
leneee---anci. I use all of these
oft,Tieedly---of the Executive De-
tail, to cooperate in giving the in-
basic information to which
le, legitimately entitled.
do tiny- best to use every means
ahie to roe; including the poseibility
y be unable to act on meas-
they eventually want by virtue of
denial, which I consider to be un-
etied and uncalled for.
plI,ESTDINO OFFICER, The time
!en> Seeator has expired,
NO- Int.LENDER? I yield 1 minute, to
e Senator from New York.
JOWITS, Mr. President, my pur-
m rising was to emphasize that
point. I cannot understand why we I:
been denied this information.
Finally, I wish also to invite the it-
tention of the Senate to denial of any-
thing in impacted area funds for lie
public housing aspect of this situatem.
This has been neglected a long time. We
must continue the fight in the hopi of
getting some resources.
I realize all the problems of the Com-
mittee on Appropriations but I believe
these points essentially needed to be de
in this matter.
T I hank my colleagues for yielding ad
for their cooperation to the extent I lo ve
iipectrically spelled it out.
Me. YOUNG. Mr. President, I yie,(i 2
rnituites to the Senator from
tiampslaire.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The EL n-
.t,e.e from New Hampshire is recognized.
1`./f" COTTON. Mr. President, I wish
.aent for just 2 minutes on the
niai:ters that have been brought up by
the distinguished Senator from JO
York.
In my own ()I:Union the health m o-
pow,o. appropriation was by far the no)st
important item in the entire supiC it-
mental appropriations bill. If it were :-Jft
Ia 11:a! alone I would have econorneed
elsewhere in order to furnish more mcney
/or the training of doctors, nurses, and
technicians., in ail the fields of medic
H.07 ever, on this bill the jurisdiction of
the HEW Subcommittee was limited to
our oveb1 items and it seas not possible tor
use to secure the priorities that 1 ,eel
fliUL eventually Pe recognized.
Io this area of the health, education,
ont+ welfare section of the bill the Sen-
ate appropriation ran some $356 miLion
ever the budget estimate and con.sequent-
:j by the same amount over the lit use
uppl ?filiation, as the House was not z. ole
to consider these items at the time toey
marxed up the bill. The House confer' 's.
etnd the Senator from New York is fate
Sr elth the situation, were absolu, tly
'tot,:-,, ant in their demands, so the nost
11iteilt part of the entire conference ios
on these matters that are so vital to T.-to
training of the manpower to meet the
tional need for better health services.
The best the House would offer wet ed,
be to leave in $75 million out of the
million by which the Senate increased r.-te
Ifotie figure. Ti-at we would not t :e
anci we refused tc take.
The matter v.trit ('11'11 gist into ...e
flCXS day and we were unable to get e
a 50--50 split, and we had to accept 10
percent of the amount that the Seri??
apprapriation exceeded the Fonse --
propriation. Thi; meent we lost scene
S21.4 million but ,iiVed $147 million of i ?e
increase. I wanted tbi: REconr, to sI
itnat.
I thank the Senator. from New Y hr
for ;Jiving us credit for ct)ing our b, to
JAVITS. Fne,,jrient, will e
:Senator yield?
COTTON.. T
Mr JAVITS. I thank the Senator
I-Icr sat wild him in eonferenci, T
know how indefatigable he is in try o4
to firtht for the Senate position.
Mr. COTTON. I thank the Sepal
Mr. GRIFFIN Mr. President, -
unable to indicate approval of this con-
ference report without at least register-
ing in the RECORD my deep disappoint-
ment, and I know I speak for the senior
Senator from Michigan as well as Mil-
self, because the two of us worked very
closely in an effort to try to get funding
for a Federal building in the downtown
area of Detroit which already has been
named after former Senator Patrick V.
McNamara.
This building was authorized in 1963.
There is only one other building that
has been authorized as long as this
building without being funded. The
plans have been ready for several years.
There is a 2.5-acre tract in the center
of the city, which is grown up in weeds
and it is now off the tax rolls. The Fed-
eral Government is spending $2.5 billion
a year renting space to accommodate
various agencies and offices because this
building has not been built.
One of the agencies that needs space
the most is the FBI.
Crime is very bad in the city of Detroit
and it is very demoralizing that in the
inner city of Detroit the Federal Govern-
ment delays and delays, which indicates
that, like others moving out of the city of
Detroit, perhaps the Federal Government
is not going to build this building. Psy-
chologically it hurts.
But in addition, the estimated cost of
the building_ has gone up from $27 mil-
lion originally to an estimated $48 million
because we delayed for 9 years on this
building to be named after a former col-
league in the Senate.
In the debate earlier on the regular
appropriation, the Senator from New
Mexico (Mr. MONTOYA) promised he
would consider this in connection with
the supplemental, and the senior Senator
from Michigan (Mr. HART) and I ap-
peared before the subcomimttee, and he
agreed to put in $11 million for the sub-
structure to get the building going.
I guess we made a mistake. We should
have pressed for the whole amount. We
thought we were being very reasonable,
but as Senators have indicated, this was
not agreed to in conference by the House.
I want to indicate the circumstances.
I know the Senate conferees dirt fight for
this measure. I am aware of that and I
appreciate what was done.
I wonder if either the chairman or the
ranking minority member might give us
some enlightenment as to what the situ-
ation might be next year with respect to
this building.
Mr. ELI:ENDER. I wish to :tar
as the Senator stated, the Senate eon-
ferees did their best to maintain the
amount for the substructure in the Lill
but Representative Tom Se;_,EErt whe it
chairman of the House .Appruwiati-,m...;
Subcommittee, objected strenue.usly. Eis
chief argument was that by con.truct
this building pieeerneal--that is, rut-
ting the foundation or substructure in
first and later the superstructure in a
subsequent annropriation bill--it we tilti
cost a good deal more.
He promised us that come the next !M-
eal year he would put the entire amount
in so that one contractor could ..Tt a :.)id
on the con.,t-17urtion of the whale building
Approved For Release 2007/01/18: CIA-RDP73B00296R000500050025-4
Approved For Release 2007/01/18: CIA-RDP73B00296R000500050025-4
December 10, 1971 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE S 21217
and in that way the Government would
save money. That is the argument he
made to us and he would not agree to put
in the substructure under any conditions.
I believe that by having a single con-
tractor to construct the whole building
a better contract would be obtained by
the Government.
Mr. GRINVIN, I thank the chairman
for his comments.
Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, the dis-
tinguished chairman of the committee
has clearly stated the House opposition
on this matter.
The Senator from Michigan had asked
for the full amount. If the Senator from
Michigan had not been so economy-
minded and asked for the full cost he
might have gotten his building approved,
but I believe putting in the substructure
as he proposed would not have added to
the cost. In fact it could well have saved
money.
Representative STEED thought we
should not do this piecemeal but he did
agree to put in the full amount for the
building next year.
Mr. GRIFFIN. I thank the chairman
and the ranking Republican Member for
their statements. I hope the senior Sen-
ator from Michigan (Mr. HART) and I
will be able to see the building next year
and I hope the increased cost caused by
the delay will not be more than the sav-
ings Representative STEED has in mind.
Mr. HART, Mr. President, I would be
remiss if I did not bring up the subject
of the Patrick McNamara Federal Office
Building during the discussion of this
supplemental appropriations bill.
For several years, members of Michi-
gan's congressional delegation have been
seeking funds to construct this building,
which has been authorized since 1963.
The federally owned site for the build-
ing in downtown Detroit has been vacant
for a number of years.
This year some progress was made to-
ward securing funds for the project.
The Senate Appropriations Committee
and the Senate added $11.2 million to
this supplemental appropriations bill
which would have financed construction
of the building's substructure.
At this point I want to thank Senator
MONTOYA, chairman of the Senate Ap-
propriations Subcommittee on Treasury,
Post Office, and General Government, for
the leadership he gave in guiding this
amendment through the Senate.
Unfortunately, the House conferees re-
fused to yield, and the amendment was
dropped in conference.
It is my understanding that Repre-
sentative STEED, the able chairman of the
House Appropriations Subcommittee on
Treasury, Post Office, and General Gov-
ernment, opposed not the project but the
partial funding approach.
Let me say at this point that, when
Senator GRIFFIN and I testified before
Mr. STEED'S subcommittee, we found him
most responsive.
His responsiveness is indicated, I
believe, by the statement he made on the
House floor yesterday concerning the Mc-
Namara building.
Mr. STEED Said:
So far as I know, I know of no other proj-
ect in the country that is more badly needed
than the Detroit one, and I intend to do
everything I can to see that it is in the next
budget.
Mr. STEED was speaking, of course, of
projects funded by the General Services
Administration.
Certainly, the many persons in Detroit
and Michigan interested in this project
welcome Mr. STEED'S support. And need-
less to say, we will do all we can to see
that the entire $48 million needed to
cover the estimated construction cost is
included in next year's budget.
Our chances for success would be
greatly improved if the administration
requests the funds when it sends its bud-
get to Congress next year.
Absent such a request, we will again
seek to have the money added by Con-
gress. Again I thank Senator MONTOYA
for his strong support in this matter.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who
yields time?
Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, I yield
5 minutes to the Senator from Cali-
fornia.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from California is recognized.
Mr. CRANSTON. Mr. President, it is
with a considerable sense of disappoint-
ment that I rise to speak on the confer-
ence report on HR. 11955, the supple-
mental appropriations bill for fiscal year
1972. The greatest source of my disap-
pointment is the level of overall funding
of health manpower institutional sup-
port, construction programs, and student
scholarships and loans.
I know that my sense of disappoint-
ment is shared by the Senate conferees
on this measure, who had brought forth
from the Appropriations Committee a
bill which was responsive to the initia-
tives which the Congress so recently set
forth in the Comprehensive Health Man-
power Training Act of 19'71 (Public Law
92-157) and the Nurse Training Act of
1971 (Public Law 92-158).
I know that the leaders of the Appro-
priations Committee on both sides of the
aisle, and particularly the distinguished
Senator from Louisiana (Mr. ELLENDER) ,
chairman of the full Appropriations
Committee, and the Senator from Wash-
ington (Mr. MAGNUSON) , chairman of the
Labor-HEW Appropriations Subcommit-
tee, did all they could to convince the
House conferees of the need for the level
of appropriations in the Senate-passed
bill.
But the fact is, Mr. President, that
they were not fully successful in this
task and that 60 percent of the amount
by which the Senate bill increased the
President's meager budget request has
been deleted in the conference report.
Particularly regrettable are: the re-
duction from 80 percent of the authorized
level of capitation for the medicine, os-
teopathy and dentistry schools, as in-
cluded in the original bill, to the confer-
ence report level of 65 percent; the re-
duction of nursing school capitation from
83 percent in the Senate-passed bill to
just 40 percent in the conference report?
a cut of more than 50 percent; the slash
in construction grant funding from $190
million to $142 million for health profes-
sions schools and from $25 million to
$19.5 million for nursing schools; and the
total elimination of all funding above the
limited amount previously appropriated
for fiscal year 1972 for nursing and
health professions student assistance.
Mr. President, these lower levels of
support are basically inconsistent with
commitments made in the two new pub-
lic laws I referred to earlier for an in-
creased Federal responsibility in the
training and education of health profes-
sionals and nurses to meet the health
needs of the American people. In my
State of California, with such a great
number of medical schools and other
schools of health professions and of nurs-
ing, these cuts will work a great hardship.
And I know that the distinguished Sen-
ator from Washington is well aware of
this fact by reason of his generous re-
sponse on the floor on December 3 to
the amendment which I cosponsored with
by distinguished colleague from Cali-
fornia (Mr. TUNNEY) to add $20 million
to the health professions construction
grant appropriations item. As I pointed
out on the floor on that occasion, in the
testimony to Senator MAGNUSON'S sub-
committee which I inserted in the REC-
ORD, my State of California has three vi-
tally necessary health professions con-
struction grant applications already ap-
proved and ready to go to contract, to-
taling $14.2 million; and, in addition,
California has some $85 million in ap-
proved construction grants which will be
ready to go to contract in the very near
future for health professions schools.
Now, Mr. President, as I stated at the
outset, I am well aware of the great pres-
sures and difficulties under which the
Senate conferees labored in this confer-
ence, and I know that they did all that
was humanly possible to vindicate the
Senate position. And I do not propose at
this point to suggest that the Senate
should move to reject the conference re-
port in view of the brief time remaining
in this first session of the 92d Congress
and in view of the fact that this supple-
mental appropriations bill is the life
blood for the poverty program.
I would, however, like to address a few
questions to the distinguished Senator
from Washington to clarify several points
with respect to the conference report on
health manpower funding.
First, I ask the Senator from Washing-
ton to direct his attention to page 27 of
the appropriations committee report (No.
92-549) on the supplemental appropria-
tions bill in which the committee states,
after noting the inequitable nature of the
administration's recommendation of
total funding for schools and colleges of
optometry when compared against the
recommendations for the other six
health professions:
Therefore, the committee directs that the
total amounts granted schools and colleges
of optometry under special project and finan-
cial distress grants shall not be less than
those grants funded under the special proj-
ects and financial distress programs in fiscal
year 1971.
My question for the Senator from
Washington is: Does this direction of the
Appropriations Committee continue to
operate under the funding provisions for
schools and colleges of optometry in the
conference report?
Approved For Release 2007/01/18: CIA-RDP73B00296R000500050025-4
Approved For Release 2007/01/18: CIA-RDP73B00296R000500050025-4
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ?SI NATE December 10. 1971
Mr, MAGNUSON. The answer to the
nitsf%tion of the Senator from California
re yes, because there was an increase in
till appropriations agreed to in confer-
e, and the Senate report language, of
cearse, is the only prevailing language,
.,1 )7, assume (he Department will follow
very closely what we have suggested.
rot is on page 27 of the Senate corn-
tee report, the second paragraph.
CRANSTON. I thank the Senator
much for his very important and
ry helpful response.
to PRESIDING OFFICER. The 5
ta elites of the Senator have expired.
r. CRANSTON. May I have 2 min-
f:-i1IGNIISON. Mr. President.
' minutes to the Senator.
'eee. CRANL,;TON. In my State ol Call-
'.- 'lea there are two fine schools of op-
ti with 15 percent of all the op-
letry students in the Nation, and.
e.efore. the administration's desire to
di (Tease total funding to schools and
s. loses tel optometry is of particular con-
to me.
ask unanimous consent to have
at ted in the RECORD at this point sev-
er letters I have received from sohools
Aometry in California.
'here being no objection, the letters
rat ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
ss, foliOWS:
PtPP,,,O? Y CALIF:IRK TA BERKELEY,
licennber 2, -971.
i.KLAN CBANSTON,
LatC L)/1, 'c
lag ," .0
1-1 acne Crimasmoitt: I would appre-
b if you would contact your
ague, pit 1,ine Senate Appropriations Sub-
ainittee cn Labor/HEW requesting them
ve full funding to the VOPP professions
-cash :talon grants provided in the Compre-
htosive fmaith Manpower Training Act of
atm- hr.; been g rani ed
C. School of Optometry here at
we Pave expanded our enroilment
?t, program to meet the rations
tr needs m optometry. In
first received Federal aid
'fist s. t.):1) mllment of 116 professional
. stoat-ants and a facility equivalent to
0111-, hoe teachers This fall, largely he-
of .1.,i)riu.stat aid, we have expand -id our
t 211 students and a laculty
sileut to 27.6 all-lime tetichers.
orsgram has expanded the ct uality
pr,ssram has at ad-
f,0 Federal funding. ($.,13,000
e,-ant mid $215,000 Special
: in 1971- -72.1
rollment is within one or
absolute capacity. Since our
application cannot he f anded
s sir because of lack of Cal_ torus
names:, we will have to request an
tatuti 7rtan a further increase in enroll-
. Th a.: tia. canno1 look forwa.rd to bonus
a for some time.
hats matte a COMMILment to presently
:3))1) students. IF there is a cuth,Ick ire
nItal)11g, we will be forced to cut
cousillment in 1973. It the meantime
siair sst ytit, need to continue with our
- str.,Itert. slap:aims with fewer fac-
-ttitssid. suppites and expenses. Un-
'1 will result in a lowering of
)Ii unless the capitation grants
futictisci to at least we will be in
.i.h.; ill 79'72-73. To make any
all, we will need full funding.
rid,, ri1,can give us will be deeply ap-
predated. It should be understood that 'he
opinions expressed above are my own find
it uicessarily these of the University,
5- itcerely,
Msrrourit W MORGAN.
DPU,
---
Los ANGELES COLLEGE OP OPTOMETRY,
iros Angeles, Calif., December 2, 1911'
ki011. .U.A.N CRANSTON,
C l-sssafe,
Ecaa7: Office Building,
Wasli,ngton, D.C.
1'1,o n. SENATOR CP A NSTC N : As en admit- t-
traitor in one of the health pralessi is
schools in Californ.a, I am greatly concersii
about the ActininistratioCs statement of e:
ceibul LOD of funds under the Health Prot
'scat :Ion As',
a is view of this distribution indicates t,, ti
all lecalth professions wi-h the exception of
optometry, received substantial increases
support for education.
Csl tornia has ttvo fine schools of optc,
dry,,fie only stat:, in which this situat ii
exists Each ot these schools has incurs,d
C.../E.E.,.,ffable expense in recent years in
attemitt to meet the health manpower .ne Is
of this nation Eacn of these schools has :-
creased its output of graduates consideral
Withr it a fair share of federal funding, !ia
hares lips imposed on these two schools ri,'1
all other schools ot optometry in the uni ,
Slates will be imrnettsurable.
asis your support in rectifying this si
? itnd assuring that vision care and
tdnetry and its euucational programs, s'
cificallv receive more equitable treatment .a
the di,bursement ai these funds.
Uaspec If oily you rs
CH 0, LE:7. A. ABEL, O.D.,
Dear
12-aANST(7-(N. 'Vs. President,
T.:Thee ,suint of clarification I would Lee
fa eu.-eue -with the Senator from Wae e-
ie(gLeh is of a more nu-reaching natte:e.
I hay t already expressed my sense of
appentment with the general fund( Dv
level in the conference report whicl?
1.7Tinw the Senator abates fully, given ' (Ls
eefee. record of achievement in app:a-
eeia Lag funds to meet our Natio Les
Loalt_i care needE. I would hope, I say ?:,o
the Senator from kVashington, ti t
when it, comes time for the second si:,1-
ni.r,,,ntal appropriation bill. hopeftely
rcn;4n,nahly early in the next session., I ..?,e
would tory serious cr. e-
t.. 'jun to recommendations for ...a.-
cieueea anproprietions for more instie 1-
tiona L. construction and student ass:
;ince suppoit in the health professi( is
? d ii the nursing profession. provid(
een at that time -- so I am sure
? '2 able?provide etrong indicati(
? ereat unmet nee to which will cc e-
le.aue aiter the funds contained in
appnii,priations act at the conference .?i.-
1,-Jort _Lwel are allocated around the cour
try 1,) health manpower institut?io
the Senstor Irorn Wa,shingt?li
7,17e -7-s:lous conE.derw:ion to such r, -
LH:At:ions fl:r th second sum:.
.1V.Lr ACNUSo, agree with
Ltellatilr from California.
'the PRESIDING OFFICER. The 2
reintzi., of' the Senator have expired
TVIAGNUSON. Mr. President.
yinld. myself such time as I may need
;emount we finally arrived at .n
cmfesence was 40 percent or $143 ii,
lion 01. the Senate increase. It is not sta-
fieient, in my opinion, but there is so', ,e
point to another supplemental corne-(g-
along. Of course, we will give serious
consideration to all the matters men-
tioned in the Senator's question. All of
us were hopeful we would do much
better, although we did fairly well when
we consider that the budget was zero
on some of these items, and that we
had to operate between zero and the
Senate figures.
I think we came out with a la: ger
amount than we had hoped for when we
consider that the House had not held
hearings or looked into the matter. It
was not the fault of the House. because
the budget request was transmitted too
late.
I am hopeful that, in the regular ap-
propriation bill as well as the next sup-
plemental bill, we can move toward some
of the objectives mentioned by the Sen-
ator from California, because, after all,
we passed the Comprehensive Health
Manpower and Nurse Training Acts to
provide, not a crash program particular-
ly, but to have a forward thrust and put
more emphasis on health manpower.
The Senator from California and I
thoroughly agree that if there is a crisis
in health in this country, it is not in
the research field, because we have the
finest research anywhere, bar none. It
is in the failure of the delivery of health
care, and that means manpower. In
order to provide it, we have to provide
for construction of facilities to train
people. Otherwise, we will continue on a
treadmill and we are not going to be
able to do what we must do to meet the
health needs of this country.
I think we can make some progress
with the amounts that we arrived at in
conference.
The slew legislative authorities were
just signed by the President 3 weeks ago,
of course. We were meeting and working
hurriedly, although the Senator from
New Hampshire and I held some lengthy
hearings on the matter, and the House
did not have hearings.
So I can answer the Senator from Cal-
ifornia that we will do the best we can
to increase these amounts as we move
along. We need to do it or we are never
going to get adequate delivery of health
care in this country.
Mr, CRANSTON. I thank the Sena-
tor. I look_ forward to working with him
and his very effective leadership in the
direction that the Senator and I know
we must move.
Mr. MANSFIELD Mr. President, r,liL
the Senator yield?
leLLENDER. I yield.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Are all the items in
the supplemental appropriation bill now
before the Senate fully authorized?
Mr. ELLENDER. No. However, v,liat
we have done has the effect of both au-
thorizing and appropriating funds for
the items in the bill relating to the Eco-
nomic Opportunity Act of [984 as
amended which the President veaoed. We
had in the bill that passed the Senate
language making the availability of the
funds contingent upon an autherizanon
bill being enacted into law, but this lan-
guage was stricken out in coriereace.
The language that was stricken out read';
as follows: Provided further, That this
appropriation shall be available tiny
upon the enactment of S. 2007 or other
Approved For Release 2007/01/18: CIA-RDP73B00296R000500050025-4
Approved For Release 2007/01/18: CIA-RDP73B00296R000500050025-4
December 10, 1971 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE S 21219
authorizing legislation by the 92d Con-
gress."
That language appeared in four places
in the appropriation bill with regard to
0E0 activities. That was stricken from
the bill in each instance. The effect, then,
is an authorization and an appropriation
for the items stipulated in the supple-
mental appropriation bill.
Mr. MANSFIELD. What item is that?
Mr. ELLENDER. We have four items:
Under the Labor Department, the Man-
power Administration, $26,207,000 for
salaries and expenses; and manpower
training services, $776,717,000; under
HEW, for child development or the
Headstart program, $376,317,000; and the
Office of Economic Opportunity, $741,-
380,000.
Mr. MANSFIELD. None authorized?
Mr. ELLENDER. None authorized.
Mr. MANSFIELD. In other words, over
a billion dollars in the bill is not author-
ized?
Mr. ELLENDER. About $1.8 billion.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Could the distin-
guished chairman of the committee give
an explanation to the Senate as to how
the Appropriations Committee can oper-
ate in this manner, appropriating funds
for agencies for which authorizations
have not been received?
Mr. ELLENDER. When the conferees
struck out the contingency language,
that action has the effect of appropriat-
ing funds for these items under the au-
thorization that was last in force. It will
tie to legislation that had been continued
to be funded by the continuing legislation
and will not be based upon the new pro-
posed legislation vetoed by the President.
These funds are available for these pro-
grams as stipulated in the bill under the
old law.
Mr. MAGNUSON. May I say to the
Senator from Montana that we did, in
the bill, a little authorizing ourselves, to
the extent that the 0E0 funds will be
under the Act of 1964, and that includes
substantially many of the matters we are
talking about, except those with refer-
ence to child care, which was the reason
for the veto.
Mr. MANSFIELD. I would express the
hope that no more appropriation bills
will come before the Senate unless all
items in them are fully authorized, be-
cause I think it violates the institutional
integrity of the Senate to operate in that
fashion. In effect such action renders
meaningless the function and alleged au-
thority of 16 out of 17 of the Senate's
standing committees.
Mr. ELLENDER. The Senator knows
how I feel about that.
Mr. MANSFIELD. I hope this will be
the last bill which will come in with item,s
that have not been fully authorized. I
shall watch the bills with that in mind. I
know the distinguished chairman will co-
operate in that endeavor.
Mr. MAGNUSON. We did not expect
the veto, but, of course, we are appropri-
ating for these programs spelled out in
the bill under the Economic Opportu-
nity Act of 1964, as amended, the old leg-
islation. These are 'programs now being
carried on, and that is under the old law.
The PRESIDING OITICER. Who
yields time?
Mr. YOUNG. I yield 5 minutes on the
bill to the Senator from Maryland (Mr.
BEALL)
Mr. BEALL. Mr. President, I thank
the Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. President, I think it is appropri-
ate, prior to casting a vote on this sup-
plemental appropriation, that I register
my strong dissatisfaction with that sec-
tion of the bill dealing with health man-
power generally, and specifically with
that section dealing with the funding of
the "physician shortage scholarship pro-
gram."
One of the most serious health prob-
lems we have in the United States today
is in the health care delivery system,
and in that system we have a serious
maldistribution of doctors. A big chal-
lenge facing , Congress and the country
is how to encourage young men and
women to go into physician shortage
areas. Many suburban areas have an
adequate supply of doctors, but in many
rural and inner city areas, there is a
dire need for physicians. For example in
Baltimore a 1970 study identified 16
census tracts with 174,000 citizens totally
lacking a primary care physician. A 1970
American Medical Association study
found 134 counties in the Nation with-
out a single physician.
Earlier in the year, I introduced a bill,
S. 790, called the physician shortage
area scholarship program, in response
to this problem. This bill provides schol-
arships to young men or women who
agreed to practice 1 year for each year
of the scholarship in these physician
shortage areas. The measure was co-
sponsored by 25 additional Members of
this body.
I was extremely pleased when the
legislation was adopted as an amend-
ment to the Health Manpower Act by
the Health Subcommittee of the Com-
mittee on Labor and Public Welfare,
and when the measure was later passed
by the Senate. Subsequently, the House-
Senate conferees agreed the program
was needed, and it was included in the
final bill. I was delighted when the Sen-
ate appropriations included $1 million
for this program in the supplemental
appropriation bill.
These funds would have provided at
least 200 scholarships to young men and
women interested in serving in physi-
cian-shortage areas in the coming year.
I am naturally disappointed that our
House colleagues did not agree to that
appropriation. I believe such action was
a serious mistake. I also regret that
those who are supposedly listening
downtown did not have their antennas
out and get the message from Capitol
Hill and the people of America, that
there is concern about this problem. I
hope they will put their antennas out
now and provide, in the budget about to
be sent up for the next fiscal year, sub-
stantial funds for these physician-short-
age-area scholarships. This program
provides the opportunity to tap the
idealism of our young men and women
for service in their home areas, a unique
priority system, based on the premise
that individuals from a shortage area
are not only more likely to return, but
remain there, is established. Priority is
also given to low-income individuals.
I would further point out, if those
young people who take advantage of
the scholarships do not serve in the
shortage areas as agreed, the scholar-
ship reverts to a loan, so that it would
not cost us any additional money. In
other words, if the program works, com-
munities in dire need of doctors will be
aided; if it does not work, the Govern-
ment will not lose a cent. It is difficult
for me to understand why this program
was not fully funded, let alone the fail-
ure to fund the program at all.
?So, although I am disappointed that
the appropriation was not approved by
the House conferees this year, I hope
that when the next appropriation comes
up, we will have a significant appropria-
tion to help provide health care in the
areas where it is so desperately needed.
Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, I will
say to the Senator from Maryland that
he wrote us a letter about this matter,
and we put it in the Senate bill, but the
House conferees insisted on our giving
it up to make up some of the differences
where they yielded in other places.
What we are running into with the
House of Representatives, every time we
have a conference, both on the educa-
tion appropriation bill and on the health
appropriation bill, is that they have a
complete blockade over there about
scholarships. I do not know why, but the
members of that committee seem to have
their feet in concrete about scholar-
ships. They want to shift the matter, as
far as possible, into what they call loans.
We have had this argument over and
over with them, and in this case, in order
to get the bill, we had to do this.
But scholarships are the key to some
of these problems, because we want to
pick up people who really cannot afford
the education, who have talent, down
in the lower income brackets, and who
would not have the opportunity, if they
went to a bank, to get a loan.'
Many of the banks?and I have said
this over and over again?want the par-
ents to sign a note. In some cases they
require an account in the bank. Some of
these people do not have that; they can-
not sign a note, and we are losing a lot
of talent. The scholarship program was
only one facet of this effort. There are a
lot of people who want to enter into the
medical and health professions who just
cannot get a loan, or, in many cases, as
far as that is concerned, do not even
know how to go about it.
With scholarships, you pick up some
talented personnel from the lower in-
come groups. But the Senator from North
Dakota will agree with me that we have
an awful time when we mention scholar-
ships to the House conferees. Their the-
ory seems to be that scholarships should
phase out and we should turn to loans.
Mr. BEALL. Mr. President, I appreci-
ate the remarks of the distinguished Sen-
ator from Washington.
Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. BEALL. I yield.
Mr. YOUNG. No one could better un-
derstand nor be more sympathetic with
the position of my friend from Maryland
than the Senator from North Dakota. In
my home county in my State, we have
two hospitals but not a single doctor in
Approved For Release 2007/01/18: CIA-RDP73B00296R000500050025-4
91990
Approved For Release 2007/01/18: CIA-RDP73B00296R000500050025-4
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE December 10, 1971
he entire county. Years ago they had 15
J4).
Many of the doctors we get in North
takota now are Canadian doctors, or
loctors from other countries. There is
oniething wrong when we have such a
nortage of doctors that we have the
troblems that we have mentioned.
Mr. BEALL. I appreciate the remarks
:f the Senator from North Dakota, and
he support given by my colleagues in the
' nate to this proposal. I hope we can
flake our counterparts in the House of
lepresentatives understand the merits of
his program. As I said, if the student re-
ving such a scholarship carries out his
)(edge to serve in a physician-shortage
rea, the program is well worth the cost.
!f the student fails to carry out his corn-
nitment, the scholarship is in effect
-onyerted to a loan, which must be re-
aid. I would hope the House and the
.utininistration would carefully study
its unique approach, which I believe has
ite greatest potential of helping to solve
.he physician maldistribution problem.
Mr. COOK. Mr. President, will the
lenator yield?
Mr. YOUNG. I yield.
Mr. COOK. I might say to the Sena-
or from North Dakota, and also the
Jenator from Maryland and the Senator
'rum Washington, that maybe we in the
tenate should send over to our colleagues
a ;he House of Representatives all of
.e requests we so frequently get from
tospitals throughout our States, seeking
o keep doctors there who have come
rum other countries, and whose reten-
ion is being requested by the boards of
tealth and the hospitals because they
-.re absolutely necessary, and they do not
ve others to replace them. Maybe we
iad better send those requests over to
he Rouse committee members, so they
be aware of the problem in many
hates, when they get these young doe-
:ars in from foreign countries, and find
Alt. when their time is up, that they have
at to go back, and then they plead with
to see if we cannot intercede with the
41a to Department to keep them here be-
sine of the necessity for their services.
Mr. BEALL. Mr. President, will the
atnator from North Dakota yield to me
.o that I may make a unanimous-con-
out request?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
tor has 3 minutes remaining.
Mr. YOUNG. I yield.
Mr. BEALL. Mr. President, I ask
manimous consent to have printed in
he tiEnORD my floor statement of July
1 on when I discussed the physician
iiirtage program and its rationale, the
.,rovisions of the program as the Ian-
..te contained in Public Law 92-157.
,ad excerpts from the report of the Corn-
-itittee on Labor and Public Welfare dis-
? it-t;ing my program. Again, I repeat the
Iciction of funds was a tragic mistake
t hope to work with both the Ap-
,rooriations Committee and the admin-
Thttion in correcting this error early
x t; year.
rhere being no objection, the material
ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
i allows:
EXCT,:RPTS FROM SENATOR I3EALL'S REM SKS
o?-: JULY 14 ON HEALTH FROFES !,ONS
L.:JO-CATION ASSISTANCE AMENDMENTS DIAL -
-1 WITH HIS PHYSICIAN SHORTAGE St
FROURAM
7D0 was introduced by me on Feb: Lary
17 af this year and was cosponsored by Sen-
ator Dow/farrow add approximately one-q
iar-
tar of the Senate membership. As indor-
porated into S. 1134, the physician shot' age
area scholarship program is substantiall,; the
same as the original bill with the major ex-
ception being the deletion of the fellow ,hip
program. I ask unanimous consent tidi*. at
the conclusion of my remarks the text at the
phriician shortage area scholarship program
be printed in full in the RECORD.
Under this program, 3,500 scholarship, up
to $5,000 each, are authorized over a 5-sear
period to young men and women who :iizree
to serve in physician shortage areas. Five
hundred such scholarships will be avalAble
in the first year increasing to 900 by the
fifth year. This area may be in rural Ap-
palachia, in an urban poverty area, or among
migrant farmworkers. For each year of the
scholarship, 1 year of service in a shoriage
area is required. A student, participating in
the scholarship program, who subsequaatly
does all of his postgraduate work in a med-
ic:Li scarcity area, is relieved of 1 year Cl his
sect ice obligation
If a scholarshap recipient fails to I: onor
his commitment, the scholarship is in affect
era: iverted to a loan and the individual is re-
quired to repay to the Government the. ;due
of the scholarship plus interest at the c .m-
mercial market rate. If the program wc rks,
we will have taken important action in help-
ing to solve the maldistribution problem:: if
It does not, the Government will not 10 ,ie a
ce`tri`;ie physician maldditribution problciri is
one of the most serious problems conf t-it-
ing the country and it is one of the most
difficult to solve. That is why I believe that
this program, which is specifically desiatied
to respond to this problem, is so important.
For the many doctor-shortage areas ca the
Nation, I believe it is imperative that 'his
program be retained in the final bill. As I
mentioned earlier, we need 50,000 doctors in
the United States today. This gross natianal
statistic does not adequately convey the
gravity of the situation in many rural and
urban areas of this country. A 1970 AMA
stuiry of the distribution of physicians iicli-
eaLeil that there were 134 countries in this
country lacking a single physician. Whid. no
Maryland county was on that list, there are
many Maryland counties which are in dire
need of additional physicians.
Gaviously there are many more coma
iii-
ties than counties in tile country withed.t a
a single physician or without an adecia ate
iitemider of cloctods. Although there is not a
great deal of information available on ladi-
vidi al communities lacking doctors, rest arch
that- is available indicates that a great t tied
exists. For exam-dc. a 1960 survey of aver
1,600 towns and cities in Minnesota. North
Dakota, South Dakota and Montana idea ti-
lled 1,000 towns as not having a single pilv Si-
Clan and an add tional 224 towns with illy
one physician.
physician counties or communi tie , are
likely to become no-physician towns oreii
tied, antess action is taken. This is true be-
lbs age of physicians in these raral
communities tends to be higher. For ex-
ample, in rural Appalachia 65 percent the
physicians are over 50 years of age. In West
Virginia over the Inat 10 years approxim sly
c immunities of a population of less 1-..ain
10,000 have been left without a doctor as
rural practitioners retire and younger do., ors
are ;lot found to replace them. Thus, there is
is o'er! for providing incentives for v mg
physicians to go into these communities.
Just as this program is direly needed by
rural America, it is also needed by the in-
ner-city area. A 1970 study of the metro-
politan area of Baltimore identified 16 census
tracks in the inner city which were 'totally
lacking in primary care physicians. These
census areas served approximately 174,000
people, most of whom were economically dis-
advantaged. I believe that the bill, which is
incorporated into S. 934, will effectively re-
spond to the maldistribution problem in
both the rural and urban shortage areas
The program establishes a unique priority
system for selecting students for the scholar-
ship program.
PRIORITIES FOR SCHOLARSHIPS
The first priority is granted to individuals
from lower income families who live in a
physician-shortage area and who agree to re-
turn and practice in such area.
The second priority is given to individuals
who reside in a physician-shortage area who
agree to return and practice in such area.
The third priority is allocated to individ-
uals from lower income families who, al-
though residing in an area where there is not
a physician shortage agree to practice in any
physician-shortage area.
The final priority would go to individuals,
not lower income, who do not come from an
area of physician shortages, but who agree
to practice in any physician-shortage area.
Mr. President, there are twoprimary pur-
poses for the system of priorities for select-
ing eligible students for scholarships tinder
the bill.
First, the evidence supports, what com-
monsense tell us, the hypothesis that persons
from physican-shortage areas are more likely
to return to and remain in such areas and
practice medicine.
The results of an American Medical As-
sociation's survey published in 1970, ques-
tioning physicians on the factors that in-
fluence their decision to practice in a cer-
tain area gives support to the bill's priorities.
This survey found that over 45 percent of
physicians indicated that they were practic-
ing in or around the town in which they
were raised. The survey also revealed that 49
percent of the physicians raised in small
towns were practicing in communities of
2,500 or less. An equal percentage of doctors
raised in nonmetropolitan communities of
25,000 or more were practicing in cities of
that size. The AMA survey confirmed previ-
ous studies which had indicated that:
"Physicians who practice in small towns
are more likely to have a rural than urban
background."
The AMA study concluded that
"Physicians recruitment for rural areas
would be enhanced if more young men with
rural backgrounds were encouraged to enter
the medical profession."
Continuing, the report had this to say
about the influence of a doctor's origins
or his place of practice:
"Physicians who practice in small towns
are more likely to have rural rather than
urban backgrounds ... rural physicians have
predominantly rural backgrounds and metro-
politan physicians generally had urban lo-
cations during their youth."
If we can persuade young men and women
to practice in physician-shortage areas, the
evidence indicates that most are likely to re-
main. The AMA study on this point states
that:
"Once a physician establishes a practice he
is not likely to move."
this survey found:
At least 63, of the physicians had not
moved from their original practice location.
This percentage was consistent regardless of
the community size. A more detailed break-
down of the area showed that about one-
Approved For Release 2007/01/18: CIA-RDP73B00296R000500050025-4
Approved For Release 2007/01/18: CIA-RDP73B00296R000500050025-4
December 10, 1971 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE S 21221
fourth of the physicians in non-metropoli-
tan areas had practiced twenty years or more
in the same place."
This measure is then drafted to give priori-
ties to lower income and other individuals
from physician-shortage areas because it is
felt that these individuals are more likely
to return and remain in the areas in which
they were reared.
The second advantage of the priorities es-
tablished by the bill would be that it would
have the effect of attracting and making it
possible for more minority and lower income
individuals to go to medical school. Across
the country there has been a concern _over
the poor representation of the minority
groups in our medical schools. Only recently
the University of Maryland took steps to en-
large their minority representation among its
medical students.
Another important feature of the leg-
islation is that it would encourage stu-
dents to practice primary care, including
family medicine. In 1931, three out of four
of the Nation's doctors were engaged in fam-
ily practice. In 1967 only one out of five were
in general practice. In Baltimore City, only
9 percent of the practicing physicians are in
family practice. Indications are that this
trend toward specialization and away from
general practice is continuing. The Millis
report found only 15 percent of the medical
students graduates planning to enter general
practice.
Steps taken in recent years show s2me
promise of reversing this trend away from
general practice. For example, the American
Board of Family Practice has been created.
In addition, there is included in this bill
provisions to encourage family medicine.
I believe that these actions will be a further
incentive for medical students to specialize
in the practice of family medicine and
should encourage medical schools to focus
anew on the family physician.
Mr. President, much has been written re-
garding the idealism of today's young men
and women. The medical student is no ex-
ception. We are told that the new breed of
medical students want the opportunity
to serve their fellow citizen. My program
would provide them with this opportunity.
In addition, the priority scheme will not
only give them an opportunity to serve but it
will provide them the chance to serve and
minister to the health needs of citizens,
often their friends and neighbors, in the
physician shortage area wherein they grew
up.
I know the Appalachia area of my State
well. It is my home area. I know the young
men and women who live there and, I
believe, they, as well as similarly motivated
students from other areas of my State and
the Nation, will confirm my faith irs them by
making this program work.
I am convinced that this proposal is the
most important provision in the legislation
to deal with the Nation's maldistribution
problem. By granting priorities to indi-
viduals from the shortage areas to accept the
scholarship conditioned on their making a
commitment to serve in such areas, I am
convinced that the probability of its success
is good.
Mr. President, to solve the health care
crisis we must expand our medical manpower
and encourage doctors to locate in shortage
areas. For if we fail to solve this problem,
our goal of quality health care to all Ameri-
cans, wherever they live, and at a price they
can afford, will elude us. As Dr. Egeberg has
warned.
"I don't care what Congress does with
medical care, Medicaid, and all the other pro-
grams, nothing is going to improve the coun-
try's medical ssytem until we get more doc-
tors."
In summary, I believe my proposal will
significantly respond to some of our med-
ical manpower problems. It will encourage
primary care, including family medicine. It
responds to the maldistribution problem. It
will make it possible for more lower income
minority individuals to enter our medical
schools.
PHYSICIAN SHORTAGE SCHOLARSHIP PROVI-
SIONS OP PUBLIC LAW 92-157
TITLE I?AMENDMENTS TO TITLE VII OF
THE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT
"SUBPART III?PHYSICIAN SHORTAGE AREA
SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM
"SCHOLARSHIP GRANTS
"SEC. 781. (a) In order to promote the more
adequate provision of medical care for per-
sons who?
"(1) reside in a physician shortage area;
"(2) are migratory agricultural workers
or members of the families of such workers;
the Secretary may, in accordance with the
provisions of this subpart, make scholarship
grants to individuals who are medical stu-
dents and who agree to engage in the prac-
tice of primary care after completion of their
professional training (A) in a physician
shortage area, or (B) at such place or places,
such facility or facilities, and in such man-
ner, as may be necessary to assure that, of
the patients receiving medical care in such
practice, a substantial portion will consist
of persons referred to in clause (2). For pur-
poses of this subpart, (1) the term 'physician
shortage area' means an area determined by
the Secretary under section 741(f) (1) (C) to
have a shortage of and a need for physicians,
and (2) the term 'primary care' has the
meaning prescribed for it by the Secretary
under section 768(c) (3) (B).
"(b) (1) Scholarship grants under this
subpart shall be made with respect to aca-
demic years.
"(2) The amount of any scholarship grant
under this subpart to any individual for any
full academic year shall not exceed $5,000.
"(3) The Secretary shall, in awarding
scholarship grants under this subpart, ac-
cord priority to applicants as follows?
"(A) first, to any applicant who (1) is
from a low-income background (as deter-
mined under regulations of the Secretary),
(ii) resides in a physician shortage area, and
(iii) agrees that, upon completion of his
professional training, he will return to such
area and will engage in such area in the prac-
tice of primary care;
"(B) second, to any applicant who meets
all the criteria set forth in subparagraph (A)
except that prescribed in clause (i);
"(C) third, to any applicant who meets
the criterion set forth in clause (i); and
"(D) fourth, to any other applicant.
"(c) (1) Any scholarship grant awarded to
any individual under this subpart shall be
awarded upon the condition that such in-
dividual will, upon completion of his profes-
sional training, engage in the practice of pri-
mary care?
"(A) in the case of any individual who,
in applying for a scholarship grant under
this subpart, met the criteria set forth in
subparagraph (A) or (B) of subsection (b)
(3), in the physician shortage area in which
he agreed (pursuant to such subparagraph)
to engage in such practice; and
"(B) in the case of any individual who
did not agree (pursuant to such subpara-
graph (A) or (B) ) to engage in such practice
in any particular physician shortage area
(or who is not, under a waiver under para-
graph (4) of this subsection, required to en-
gage in such practice in any particular phy-
sician shortage area) ?
? "(i) in any physician shortage area, or
"(ii) at such place or places, in such fa-
cility or facilities, and in such manner, as
may be necessary to assure that, of the pa-
tients receiving medical care provided by
such individual, a substantial portion will
consist of persons who are migratory agri-
cultural workers or are members of the fam-
ilies of such workers;
for a twelve-month period for each full aca-
demic year with respect to which he receives
such a scholarship grant. For purposes of
the preceding sentence, any individual, who
has received a scholarship grant under this
subpart for four full academic years, shall
be deemed to have received such a grant for
only three full academic years if such indi-
vidual serves all of his internship or resi-
dency in a public or private hospital, which
is located in a physician shortage area, or a
substantial portion of the patients of which
consists of persons who are migratory agri-
cultural workers (or are members of the fam-
ilies of such workers) and, if, while so serv-
ing, such individual receives ;raining or pro-
fessional experience designed to prepare him
to engage in the practice of primary care.
"(2) The conditions imposed by paragraph
(1) shall be complied with by an individual
to whom it applies within such reasonable
period of time, after the completion of such
Individual's professional training, as the Sec-
retary shall by regulations prescribe.
"(3) If any individual to whom the condi-
tions referred to in paragraph (1) is applica-
ble fails, within the period prescribe pur-
suant to regulations under paragraph (2), to
comply with such conditions for the full
number of months with respect to which
such condition is applicable, the United
States shall be entitled to recover from such
individual an amount equal to the amount
produced by multiplying?
"(A) the aggregate-of (i) the amounts of
the scholarship grant or grants (as the case
may be) made to such individual under this
subpart, or (ii) the sums of the interest
which would be payable on each such schol-
arship grant if, at the time such grant
was made, such grant were a loan bearing
interest at a rate fixed by the Secretary
of the Treasury, after taking into consider-
ation private consumer rates of interest pre-
vailing at the time such grant was made,
and if the interest on each such grant had
been compounded annually, by
EXCERPTS FROM SENATE REPORT 92-251 DIS-
CUSSING FAMILY PHYSICIANS SHORTAGE
SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM
PHYSICIAN SHORTAGE AREA SCHOLARSHIP
PROGRAM
The bill includes a new demonstration
scholarship program designed to offer
stronger incentives to physicians to prac-
tree in shortage areas, to encoura-ge more
doctors to enter general practice, to assist in
remedying the problem of maldistribution of
physicians, and to increase the number of
lower income and minority young people
entering medical school.
The Secretary of HEW would be authorized
to make scholarship grants to medical stu-
dents who agree in advance to engage in
the practice of primary care in (1) a phy-
sician-shortage area or (2) any practice, a
substantial portion of which serves migra-
tory agricultural workers or their families. A
"physician shortage area" is defined by the
bill to mean a medically underserved area as
designated for purposes of the health pro-
fessions student loan cancellation provi-
sions.
Scholarships could be as much as $5,000
annually. One year of service would be re-
quired for each year of scholarship aid. (A
medical student who receives scholarship
aid for four academic years would be deemed
to have completed one year of the require-
ment for service if he served all of his in-
ternship or residency in a hospital in a phy-
sician shortage area or a hospital serving
substantial numbers of migrant workers and
their families and if, while so serving, he re-
ceives training or experience designed to
prepare him to engage in the practice of
primary care.)
If a scholarship recipient fails to comply
with the agreement, the Federal Govern-
ment would be entitled to recover proper-
Approved For Release 2007/01/18: CIA-RDP73B00296R000500050025-4
Approved For Release 2007/01/18: CIA-RDP73B00296R000500050025-4
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD --- ,ENATE Decembei. 10, 1971
Ls, a i Lii i_ rests, as though
i Seii L. aid had been a loan, payable
y, it hill 11;re yaws.
The hill establishes priorities for selection
Liideni,s for the scholarship program.
priority is given to individuals from
1:w-income families who live in physician
.hotta.ae areas and who agree to return and
,staitt in such areas. Second priority is
sy an lti individuals who reside in a physi-
ortage area and who agree to return
practice there. Third priority is given to
..o.etivid Hats trom low-income Sam lies who.
Limugh not residing in areas where there
physician shortages, agree to practice in
. physician. shortage area. Fourth. to any
sit-Ler ,toolicant.
Mr COOK. Mr. President, will the
nator from Washington yie.d for a
estion?
Mr. MAGNUSON. I yield.
Mr. COOK. So that we can get it into
so itscoma, there is no mistake or mis-
enderstanding that title I funds will be
funded at the 1971 level; that we will
tint find, for example. the situation in
my State, where we will be dented some
dl million plus that was available to us
in the 1971 year, and that they will be
available to us under the supplemental
appropriation.
AiIr. MAGNUSON. That is the amend-
ment dealing with title I funds of the
llementary and Secondary Education
Act in the amount of $32.5 million. The
ieinferees accepted our amendment on
fhat, so that no State will receive less
the fiscal year 1971 level.
Mr, COOK. I thank the Senator.
Mr. MAGNUSON. I think that involves
;mite a few States.
Mr. COOK. It does.
Mr_ MAGNUSON. We put a list of the
;tates into the REcoRro. The House con-
ierees accepted that amendment. It was
a little difficult at first, but they finally
clid accept it.
Mr. _HARTKE. Mr. President, the con-
ference report to H.R. 11955 for supple-
mental appropriations for fiscal year
1972 contains many excellent provisions.
am most disturbed, however, that the
imuference deleted most of the addition-
:ft funds for veterans which the Senate
Appropriations Committee had recom-
mended and, this body has passed. This
aeletion is due, I believe, to heavy lobby-
ing pressure by representatives of the
administration. That the modest $25
million in funds that the Senate voted
Cor veteran unemployment has been
.-4iashed to $6 million, is further evidence
that the administration prizes form
hove content. Eloquent statements and
elans for the veteran are heard, but sel-
dom is there money to implement them.
t am further concerned that informa-
n which administration operatives
upplied to some of the conferees was, I
aelieve, deliberately misleading. This in-
i.nrination noted that the unemployment
:tile for veterans aged 20 to 29 was at
? percent for October, down from the 8-
;orcent range where it has remained for
iiost of the year. This, of course created
d
to impression that the situation was
Ana-, better and that additional funds
'nem not needed. What these operatives
Tmvemently chose to ignore was that
.P.e November unemployment rate for
? Aera.ns was back up to 8.2 percent
[mese figures were released by the Bu-
reau of Labor Statistics several clae , be-
fore the conferees ever met and is e full
1.2 percent greater than for nonveterans
of the same age group. Indeed, thrift:gh-
oul, the entire year of 1971 the veteran
unemployment rate has been persietent-
ly nigher than that for comparable eon-
veterans.
The President last .June annolenied
lite firm intention to do something t., aid
ve!i.eran unemployment. Included ne his
se ?point plan was a mandatory Liting
wi-in the employment service system of
ail Job openings by Government c.on-
tt-,ctors. Qualified veterans were T.0 be
i.I.L.:orded priority in referral to thest. jobs
? the employment service. I weltddned
t move by the President which e inuld
int :Tease the estimated number o job
listings this year from 6.5 million tc over
11 million. But it was obvious tlect if
tImi,se job listings were to be processed,
additional funds for personnel were
needed. It was obvious, also, that if more
veterans were to be referred, additional
funds for personnel would be required.
And, I believe it was obvious that n the
veteran placement rate by the local em-
ployment service offices was to be un-
proved, additional funds, personnel and
supervision were needed. Last year less
thnii 13 percene of all veteran applf ants
were placed in a job for 3 days or more
d ation.
Indeed, all this was obvious to the De-
partment of Labor who submitted it re.-
quest of $30 million to the Office of Man-
actement and Budget to aid the veteran.
But the Office of Management and Eiiidg-
et authorized a submission of on13:. $4.5
million. Based on hearings on veteran
unemployment held by the Committee
on Veterans' Affairs, which I am ferivi-
leged to chair, I believed that additional
funds were necessary. Accordingly, I
took my case to the Appropriations stub-
committee of Labor-HEW and ()the.- re-
lated agencies.
I ask unanimous consent that my
testimony before the subcommittee be
inserted in the RECORD at the concliision
of lily remarks. The response of the sub-
committee was most gratifying, particu-
laxly from its distinguished chatiman
(Mr. MAGNUSON) and the ranking Re ['nib-
lican (Mr. COTTON.). Equally receptive
was the distinguished chairman of the
full committee (Mr. ELLENDER) and the
ranking Republican (Mr. YouNo) . The
full committee recommended to this
body that it appropriate $25 million of
the $30 million I recommended.
The $25 million that the Senate pi:Lssed
to aid veteran unemployment has now,
tile flits to pressure_ from the admin.- tra-
tion, been cut back to $6 million. Early
in this administration, we were told that
it should be judged, not by what it eaid,
but by what it did. After witnessing the
misinformation and pressure exerted to
delete these funds, I believe that I have
the basis to judge them. But, more im-
portant, the veteran who is unemployed
anti iooking for a job, will have a cleince
to make his judgment as well.
I ask unanimous consent to inive
printed in the 'RECORD the testiincey I
gave before the subcommittee and a lopy
of my letter to Chairman MAGNUS.
There being no objection, the tosti-
Morly and, letter were ordered to be
printed in the RECORD, as follows:
TESTIMON Y BEFORE THE SUBCO-NIMITI SE ON
LABOR, AND HEALTH, AND WELFARE, AN
RELATED AGENCIES
I want to thank the Committee for -11:c
Opportunity of being able to bring addi-
tional information concerning veterans un-
employment to your attention. r understamt
the pressure of' time which bears upon the.:
Committee, and I shall not monopolize it
by repeating information contained in my
letter of October 28 to Subcommittee Chaiy -
man Magnuson. Nor will I spend any largs
amount of time going over a detailed bud-
getary breakdown of how the additional $30
million supplemental appropria lion would be
allocated. This information has been prev-
iously supplied to your committee staff and
copies of the material are attached to rny
testimony as exhibits.
I believe a few brief points are in order,
however, for your consideration. First, whime
the unemployment rate seems to be improv-
ing somewhat for veterans, the situation still
calls for corrective action. In spite of a drop
in the veteran unemployment rate in Octo-
ber to 7 percent, this continues to be higher
than for comparable nonveterans. For most
of this year the veterans has experienced a;
unemployment rate of 8.5 percent. For those
recently discharged from the service who are
in the age group 20 to 24, the most current
figures indicate the unemployment rate is;
11.2 percent. Before too much reliance is
placed upon the October unemployment fig-
ures, it should be recognized that monthly
veteran employment figures are not season-
ally adjusted. October, as most of you know,
is traditionally one of the higher employ-
ment months. The Bureau of Labor Statis-
tics has cautioned against viewing the Octc-
ber figures as establishing any sort of trend.
Furthermore, it would seem to me if the
employment service was only able to place
less than 13 percent of its veteran applicants
last year that there is enormous room for
improvement. While ESARS data may in-
dicate there has been some additional place-
ment of Vietnam-era veterans, it also indi-
cates that the placement percentages are
running behind last year's total. For the first
quarter of Fiscal Year '72?July through
October?there were approximately 1.1 mil-
lion veteran applicants. Of that number, less
than 84,000 were placed in a regular job,
Which is defined as one of three or more days
duration. This would indicate a placement
percentage of 7.3 percent. First quarter
ESARS data also indicates that although vet-
erans made up 21.2 percent of employment.
service applicants, they comprise only 18.4
percent of those counseled, 13 percent of
those tested, and 12.3 percent of those en-
rolled in training.
The President himself has noted the im-
portance of the employment service to assure
that veterans secure jobs upon return to the
United States through his six point plan. Of
those 6 points, 3 bear directly upon the U.S.
Training and Employment Service and 2
others indirectly draw upon their resource::
Of these 6 points, perhaps the most im-
portant is the mandatory listing of jobs by
all government contractors required by Ex-
ecutive Order 11958.
The Department of Labor has estimated
that as a result of this Executive order, then::
will be generated an additional 5 millio'i
job openings above the original project:on Cl
6.5 million for a total of 11.5 million jot;
listings with the employment service. Clearly,
this almost doubling of job listings w:11 re-
quire additional staff. The Department ot
Labor itself has recognized that if the job is
to be done, additional funding will be neces-
sary. I wish to emphasize that this $30 mil-
lion request is in line with the same request,
that the Department of Labor itself sub-
mitted to the Office of Management and
Approved For Release 2007/01/18: CIA-RDP73B00296R000500050025-4
Approved For Release 2007/01/18: CIA-RDP73B00296R000500050025-4
December 10, 1971 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE S 21223
Budget. OMB, in the name of economy, ap-
proved a congressional submission of only
$4.5 million. And as late as September 28,
Assistant Secretary Lovell of the Department
of Labor admitted to me in hearings that he
did not believe the $1.5 million was sufficient
and that it would take the full $30 million
to do the job. Since that time, the Depart-
ment of Labor's official position has been
that it could get along with the $4.5 million.
But I think you are aware, Mr. Chairman,
that these statements are not dictated by
the convictions of the officials of the Depart-
ment of Labor but are statements from a
script written by the Office of Mangement
and Budget. As I have said before, I do not
believe we can economize at the expense of
our veterans.
Even if the Department of Labor through
large efforts is able to supply the necessary
services to veterans, it is my conviction that
it can only be done at the expense of other
programs. As Chairman of the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs, I am vitally concerned
that our returning veterans get an even
break. I do not believe, however, and I do
not think that any member of this Com-
mittee believes, that adequate services to
veterans should be purchased at the ex-
pense of programs for the disadvantaged and
minorities, yet clearly, this is what will
happen if we do not provide adequate fund-
ing.
Finally, included in my request is a modest
proposal for increasing the Veterans' Em-
ployment Service by 79 positions. These posi-
tions will be used to monitor the effective-
ness of the local employment service pro-
grams, for veterans. I believe last year's sta-
tistics and the contiuing statistics of this
year justify a larger degree of control and
oversight by those who are assigned ex-
clusively to monitoring veterans' functions.
While I do not doubt the sincerity of the
Department of Labor, there has been a tend-
ency in the past not to closely monitor
state employees assigned to veterans' func-
tions. The Veterans' Employment Service will
see that the federal money is well spent if
they are given adequate personnel.
U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON
VETERANS' AFFAIRS,
Washington, D.C., October 28, 1971.
Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Labor, and
Health, and Welfare, and Related Agen-
cies Committee on Appropriations, New
Senate Office Building, Washington?
D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Recently the Presi-
dent submitted a request for supplemental
appropriations for FY '72 (House Document
No. 92-164). Your committee, which has
been holding hearings on this matter, re-
ceived testimony on October 20 from Mal-
colm R. Lovell, Jr., Assistant Secretary for
Manpower, concerning the Administration's
request for $4,500,000 to aid in placement
service for veterans in response to Executive
Order 11598.
I have examined the request submitted as
well as the accompanying testimony of Mr.
Lovell, and it is my conviction that there
has been substantially less than a full and
candid disclosure to your committee of the
employment problems facing the returning
veteran and the action that must be taken.
The Committee on Veterans' Affairs, which I
am privileged to chair, has been conducting
a thorough inquiry into the employment
problems confronting the returning veteran
and what services the government is and is
not providing him. The committee has held
hearings on this subject on April 26, 28; May
10; September 28, 29; and October 8.
The composite picture that emerges is one
of neglect by the United States Training and
Employment Service. The Veterans Employ-
ment Service within the Department of
Labor, which has veteran employment as its
prime responsibility, is chronically under-
staffed and has been unable to effectively
monitor the state employment services.
One immediate indication of the problem
is, of course, the continuing higher unem-
ployment rate among Vietnam-era veterans.
The unemployment rate among the 20-to-29-
year-old age group has increased in the past
year from 6.2 percent to a current 8.3 per-
cent. By comparison, nonveterans of the
same age group are currently experiencing
an unemployment rate of only 6.6 percent.
It is interesting to note that since June 11,
when the President called for an "effective
mobilization of federal resources" to aid the
veteran, the gap between veteran and non-
veteran unemployment rates has widened
from .3 percent to 1.7 percent. When one
examines the unemployment rate for unem-
ployed veterans in the 20-to-24-year-old age
group, the figures increase even more drama-
tically; and if the veteran happens to be
black, he can experience an unemployment
rate as high as 20 percent.
Even more pertinent is the ESARS data
(Employment Service Automatic Reporting
System) obtained by the committee staff for
the last fiscal year. Despite a congressional
mandate to give priority to veterans and the
legal requirement that each of the some
2100 local employment offices have a vet-
erans' employment representative, the rec-
ord indicates that far from getting priority,
the returning veteran is getting less service
than the nonveteran. During the past year,
veterans constituted 21.5 percent of all state
employment service applicants. Yet ESARS
data shows that they comprised only 17.9
percent of those counseled; 13.2 percent of
those tested; and 14.7 percent of those en-
rolled in manpower training programs. Pro-
portionally fewer veterans were referred to
health, rehabilitative, welfare, or remedial
services. Only 11.3 percent of those enrolled
in orientation were veterans. Of the nearly
2.7 million veteran applications at the em-
ployment service offices last year, less than
13 percent resulted in placement in any sort
of job. Again, this was a lesser placement
percentage than for nonveterans. It is im-
portant to note in this connection that the
employment service defines a regular job as
one which is of three days duration. How
many of these placements were for tempo-
rary employment of short duration or "dead-
end" type jobs is not revealed by the figures,
and the Department of Labor has informed
me they are unable to supply any informa-
tion in this regard. Regulations defining
eligibility for manpower programs unfairly
and I believe unintentionally have tended to
exclude the young veteran. That is to say,
veterans who would otherwise be classified
as "disadvantaged" and eligible for certain
manpower training programs have been ex-
cluded by simple virtue of their compulsory
service in the Armed Forces. Even more
shocking to me is the fact that as to those
veterans who were placed in the category
of "disadvantaged," proportionately fewer
of them were enrolled in manpower training
programs than their disadvantaged nonvet-
eran counterparts.
The foregoing suggests quite graphically,
I believe, the failure of the state agencies to
perform as required by law and the necessity
of close effective supervision and assistance
by the Federal Veterans Employment Service.
Unfortunately, this division has too often
been treated as a poor stepchild of the De-
partment of Labor. Its line-item authority
for FY '72 is under $2.5 million. It has a total
staff of only 144 employees which includes 77
professionals in the field and 9 professionals
in the central office. Of this number, only one
is a Vietnam-era veteran. By comparison,
over 700 men were assigned to this division
following World War II. Operating under a
heavy work load, the Veterans Employment
Service was able to conduct evaluations of
only 732 of the 24(X) local employment service
offices last year. Clearly I believe that ade-
quate staffing is necessary if we are to insure
that the veteran receives a fair shake.
As you know, the Department of Labor
submitted a request for $30 million to the
Office of Management and Budget in order
to implement Executive Order 11598 resigned
to reduce the higher unemployment rate for
Vietnam veterans. OMB gave approval for a
submission of only $4.5 million. While I am
cognizant of necessary constraints imposed
by budgetary requirements, I do not believe
that we can economize at the expense of the
young veteran.
Because I know that you share the same
degree of concern about the employment
problems facing the veteran today, I am re-
spectfully requesting that your subcommittee
allow me to present this and additional testi-
mony to members of the committee together
with recommendations for budgetary in-
creases prior to any final action on the sup-
plemental request.
Thanking you in advance for your courtesy,
I remain
Sincerely,
VANCE HARTKE,
Chairman.
Mr. CASE. Mr. President, as a mem-
ber M the conference committee, I have
taken exception to one portion of the
conference report on the supplemental
appropriations bill that perpetuates an
inequity in the distribution of Federal
aid to school districts that carry a special
burden as a result of Federal activities.
Twice this year the Senate has ap-
proved funds to assist local districts
educating children whose parents live
in low-income public housing. On both
occasions, in the education appropria-
tions bill and again in this supplemental
appropriations bill, the funds approved
by the Senate for this purpose were
eliminated in the conference committee
meeting with House Members.
Since 1950, the Congress has provided
funds to assist school districts that pro-
vide an education for children whose
parents live or work on Federal installa-
tions throughout the country. This as-
sistance recognizes that a Federal activ-
ity can impose a special burden on a
school district, particularly when Fed-
eral property is removed from the local
tax rolls.
In my view, there can be no justifica-
tion for providing Federal aid to school
districts impacted by Federal installa-
tions if we do not provide the same type
of assistance to school districts required
to educate children whose parents live
in housing projects that are exempt
from local taxes because they are Fed-
eral property.
The failure to provide funds for the
authorized program of aid to districts
impacted by public housing is not only
inequitable, it is shortsighted on the part
of those who support aid to districts im-
pacted by other Federal installations.
We in Congress have already stated
our support for spreading low-income
public housing beyond the urban areas
where most of it now exists. Indeed re-
ports from the 1970 census indicate that
suburban public housing will continue to
expand during this decade. Over 3,000
communities in all 50 States now have
public housing and this is a program
that will touch more and more as the
years go by.
In my view, Federal aid for school dis-
Approved For Release 2007/01/18: CIA-RDP731300296R000500050025-4
Approved For Release 2007/01/18: CIA-RDP73B00296R000500050025-4
2122 r1 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? NATE
ee-0.-..eted by public housing is one
the most meritorious aspects of the
ei-hole impacted aid program and it most
? ertainly is the one related most directly
-,o identifiable public economic need.
,fr.OFIRLI--SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want
) commend the conferees for keeping in
it supplemental appropriations bill the
til level of funding for older Americans
eeograins provided by my amendment
eft Friday.
Tlae amendment increased the title III
, Immunity programs for the aging and
ete foster grandparents and retired sen-
- volunteer program by $45.75 million.
? also increased the training and re-
trch -programs by $9.5 million. This
overall level of funding this
o to $100 million.
. the chairman of the aging subcom-
ttee which originally passed the Older
ierica.n Act Amendments of 1969 which
?letialished the authorization of $62 mil-
at for fiscal year 1970, $85 million_ for
ral year 1971, and $105 million for
eft?. Now for the first time, we have
.right the level of funding close to the
of need that we found 3 years ago.
Thus, the administration originally re-
.;isted only 47 percent of the authorized
level in -fiscal year 1970. $1 million less
Ian the Johnson administration had re-
tested: 36 percent of the authorization
? fiscal year 1971, and an utterly Made-
ti -tate 28 percent of the authorized level
fiscal year 1972.
Congressional action each year in-
e 7.,a,e,e,d that level and again last week
30 to 0 approval of my amendment
fl monstrates the deep concern for the
of the elderly in this Nation which
beginning to receive expression in all
-anches of our Government.
Thus, last week, in a turnaround of
e.me importance, the administration
fetreed to support my amendment to in-
t.e ease funding to $100 million after the
reesident acknowledged to the White
e-fuse Conference on Aging that such a
:ding level was required.
Feither than wait until the next fiscal
sisr, I telt that the additional moneys
arid be available immediately. For that
submitted the amendment and
:Am pleased to see that now both the
elate and the House of Representatives
re approved that provision.
?hope that passage of this amend-
marks a major shift in the attitude
he Nation's political leaders toward
ei.ccii.:; ot ttie elderly. I hope it repre-
, a new understanding of the eco-
e, two deprivation, frustration, and alien-
e fl triat too often robs our elderly
sens oi the dignity that they deserve
te Elia/ chapter of their lives. And I
A represents a commitment ti ade-
, etc income, decent housing, auality
fiIii care, and the opportunity ti par-
'el,te fully in the life of our Nation.
Nit. II:ANSE:N. Mr. President, the con-
?nee -ari H.R. 11955 includes $2,215,000
tn eXter/.7ion and widening of the
.?tway at Jackson Hole Airport, Grand
Natiowii. Park, Wyo.
. add:Lions the funds will permit the
iatruse lion of a parallel taxiway, exten-
" .-e.i.sting parking aprons, and the
ation of electronic equipment.
I am grateful to try colleagues ir.lie
Congress for their recognition of he
urgent situation which exists at :he
Jackson Hole Airport This facility t tie
major air access to Grand Teton rid
Yellowstone National Parks, It is loc .-ed
entirely on National Park Service ,nd
and is within a county in which 97 e er-
cent of the land area is owned by he
Federal Government.
As more and more Americans visit lids
niajetetic area, tratliti has greatly ln-
creased at the Jackson Hole Airport, ssir-
_.
are using more sophisticated Lir-
oral t and safety standards have Leen
raised. In spite of these new conditi
there was not even a taxistrip at the .-s ir-
port and airplanes were forced to
down. the runway before takeoff.
`rite appropriation of $2,215,000 or
..facson Hole Airport will enable he
Jackson Hole Airport Authority and lie
_ _
ALittional Park Service to improve the s r-
port facilities arid provide for the sae ety
of Llie citizens using this airport. It wellid
have indeed been tragic if the Cong'?ess
had failed to act until disaster stru
All too often there is delay until los ; of
liturian life prompts action.
1 :nni proud and pleased that Cong. ,ss
has not delayed and has acted to rre.ice
improvements before an accident Lo-
cal-red at Jackson Hole Airport.
I .an grateful to the members of file
Committee on Appropriations for C fir
understanding and recommendation t it
these funds be included in the supele-
men tat appropriations bill. The cone 'ir-
reface of the House in this action uric
scores the wisdom of this decision.
I sincerely hope that the Senate A ill
pass the conference report.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. V 'to
yields time?
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I ask or
'ate yeas and nays.
Tiie yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING ()FEWER. V .10
sielci!i time?
Mr. ELLENDEa. Mr. President, tin:: ss
any other Senator wishes to speak, I ys lel
back the remainder of my time.
Mr. YOUNG. I yield back the
man, der of my time.
The PR.ESTDMIG OFFICER. All t
has been yielded back.
The question is on agreeing to the o
foresece report. On this question the yasis
and nays have been ordered, and eie
clerk will call the roll,
The second assistart legislative el it
called the roll.
Mr, BYRD of West Virginia. I ;:. -
flounce that the Senator from NE a'
Mexico (Mr. AiebEasce,T), the Sena ir
from Oklahoma (Mr. HARRIS) , and eise,
Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Meths's:::
are necessarily absent.
Mr. GRIFFIN. I announce that e
Senator from Utah (Mr. BENNETT )
the Senator from. South Dakota (1
MUNDT) are absent because of illness
The Senator from Illinois (Mr. PERI"
and the Senator from Maine (M...
SMrrel are necessarily absent.
If present and voting, the Sena r
from Illinois (Mr. PERCY) and the Ser. --
tor from Maine (Mrs. SMITH) would ea
vote "yea."
December 10 1971
The result was announced--yeas 84,
nays 9, as follows:
[No. 449 Leg]
YEAS-84
Fong Montoya
Aliott bright Moss
Baker Gambrell Muskie
Bayh Gravel Nelson
Beall Griffin Packwood
Bellmon Gurney Pastore
Bentsen Hansen Pen,sOn
Bible Hart Pell
Boggs Hartke Proxm ire
Brock Hatfield Randclph
Brooke Hollings Ribieoff
Burdick Hruska Saxbe
Byrd, W. Va., Hughes Schweiker
Cannon Humphrey Scott
Case Inouye Sparkman
Chiles Jackson Soong
Church Javits Stafford
Cook Jordan, N.C. Stennis
Cooper Jordan, Idaho Stevens
Cotton Kennedy Stevenson
Cranston Long SVnli ng ton
Curtis Magnuson Taft
Dole Mathias Talmarige
Dominick McClellan Tower
Eagleton McGovern Tunney
Eastland McIntyre Weicker
Ellender Miller Williams
Ervin Mondale Young
NAYS-9
Allen Fannin Metcal!'
Buckley Goldwater Roth
Byrd, Va, Mansfield Thurmond
NOT VOTING-7
Anderson McGee Smil h
Bennett Mundt
Harris Percy
So the conference report was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk
will report the amendments in di sageee-
ment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Resolved, That the House recede fon; its
disagreement to the amendMent of the Sen-
ate numbered 20 to the aforesaid bill, and
concur therein with an amendment, as fol-
lows:
In lieu of the matter proposed in
amendment, insert:
"Salaries and Expenses
"For an additional amount for tl-e rar -
power Administration, $26,207,000."
Resolved, That the House recede from its
disagreement to the amendment of the Sen-
ate numbered 21 to the aforesaid kill, and
concur therein with an amendment as fol-
lows:
In lieu of the sum named in said amend-
ment, insert: "$776,717,000", and de,ete the
last proviso.
Resolved, That the House recede from ita
disagreement to the amendment of toe Slim-
ate numbered 28, and concur there
an amendment, as follows:
In lieu of the matter inserted by
amendment, insert:
"National Institutes of Heal! h
"Health Manpower
"For an additional amount for 'He ills
Manpower", $492,980,000 of which $162,2-35,-
000 shall remain available until expe idet to
carry out part B of title VII and part A of
title VIII of the Public Health Servi se PCL:
Provided, That $93,000.000 to carry cut 2ec-
tions 772, 773, and 774 shall remain a'stl-
able for obligation through Sentern'ter 30,
1972: Provided further, That $100.000 sl;al I
be used to carry out programs in the faimPy
practice of medicine, as authorized by ;lie
Family Practice of Medicine Act of 1)70 IS.
3418, Ninety-first Congress).
"Loans, grants, and payments for the 1, ,Xt
succeeding fiscal year: For making, atter
December 31 of the current fiscal year loans,
grants, and payments under section
Parts C, F, and G of title VII. and r art. B
Approved For Release 2007/01/18: CIA-RDP73B00296R000500050025-4
Approved For Release 2007/01/18: CIA-RDP73B00296R000500050025-4
December 10, 1971 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD SENATE S 21225
and D of title VIII of the Public Health Serv-
ice Act for the first quarter of the next suc-
ceeding fiscal year, such sums as may be
necessary, and obligations incurred and ex-
penditures made hereunder shall be charged
to the appropriation for that purpose for
such fiscal year: Provided, That such loans,
grants, and payments, pursuant to this para-
graph may not exceed 50 per centum of the
amounts authorized in section 306, parts C
and G of title VII, and in part B of title VIII
for these purposes for the next succeeding
fiscal year.-
Resolved, That the House recede from its
disagreement to the amendment of the Sen-
ate numbered 29 to the aforesaid bill, and
concur therein with an amendment, as fol-
lows:
In lieu of the matter proposed by said
amendment, insert:
"Social and Rehabilitation Service
"Special Programs for the Aging
"For an additional amount to carry out,
except as otherwise provided, titles IV and V
leans Act of 1965, $45,750,000, to remain avail-
able for obligation through December 31,
1972.
"Research and Training
"For an additional amount to carry out,
except as otherwise provided, titles IV and V
of the Older Americans Act of 1965, $9,500,-
000, to remain available for obligation
through December 31, 1972."
Resolved, That the House recede from its
disagreement to the amendment of the Sen-
ate numbered 31, and concur therein with an
amendment, as follows:
In lieu of the sum named in said amend-
ment, insert: "6376,317,000," and delete the
proviso.
Resolved, That the House recede from its
disagreement to the amendment of the Sen-
ate numbered 34 to the aforesaid bill, and
concur therein with an amendment, as fol-
lows:
In lieu of the sum named in said amend-
ment, insert: $741,380,000", and delete the
last proviso.
Resolved, That the House recede from its
disagreement to the amendment of the Sen-
ate numbered 55 to the aforesaid bill, and
concur therein with an amendment, as fol-
lows:
In lieu of the sum named in said amend-
ment, insert: "$4,000,000".
Resolved, That the House recede from its
disagreement to the amendment of the Sen-
ate numbered 57 to the aforesaid bill, and
concur therein with an amendment, as fol-
lows:
In lieu of $36,000,000 named in said amend-
ment, insert the following: $32,000,000", and
In lieu of $36,225,000 named in said amend-
ment insert the following: "$32,225,000".
Resolved, That the House recede from its
disagreement to the amendment of the Sen-
ate numbered 60 to the aforesaid bill, and
concur therein with an amendment as fol-
lows:
In lieu of the matter sticken and inserted,
insert the following: "$2,200,000, of which
$200,000 shall be derived from the appropri-
ation 'Office of the Secretary, salaries and
expenses' ".
Resolved, That the House recede from its
disagreement to the amendment of the Sen-
ate numbered 68 to the aforesaid bill, and
concur therein with an amendment as fol-
lows:
In lieu of the matter proposed by said
amendment, insert the following:
"FUNDS APPROPRIATED TO THE
PRESIDENT
"ECONOMIC STABILIZATION ACTIVITIES
"SALARIES AND EXPENSES
"For expenses necessary to carry out the
Economic Stabilization Act of 1970, as
amended, including activities under Execu-
tive Orders No. 11615 of August 15, 1971,
and No. 11627 of October 15, 1971, both as
amended; activities under Proclamation
4074 of August 15, 1971; and hire of passen-
ger motor vehicles, and services as author-
ized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, but at rates for indi-
viduals not to exceed the per diem equiva-
lent of the rate for GS-18, such amounts as
may be determined from time to time by the
Director of the Office of Management and
Budget but not to exceed $20,153,000, to be
derived by transfer from balances reserved
for savings in such appropriations to the
departments and agencies of the Executive
Branch for the current fiscal year as the
Director may determine: Provided, That ad-
vances or repayments from the above
amounts may be made to any department or
agency for expenses of carrying out such
activities."
Resolved, That the House recede from its
disagreement to the amendment of the Sen-
ate numbered 75 to the aforesaid bill, and
concur therein with an amendment as fol-
lows:
In lieu of the section number named in
said amendment, insert the following: "902"
Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, I move
that the Senate concur in the amend-
ments of the House to the amendments
of the Senate numbered 20, 21, 28, 29, 31,
34, 55, 57, 60, 68, and 75.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ques-
tion is on agreeing to the motion of the
Senator from Louisiana.
The motion was agreed to.
WAIVER OF RULE REQUIRING CON-
FERENCE REPORT TO BE PRINT-
ED AS A SENATE REPORT
Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the requirement
that the conference report be printed as
a Senate report be waived, inasmuch as
under the rules of the House of Repre-
sentatives it has been printed as a re-
port of the House. The reports are
identical.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, I have
a tabulation which reflects the budget
estimates, the amounts in the House
and Senate versions of the bill for each
item, and the final amount agreed to in
conference. I ask unanimous consent to
have this tabulation printed in the REC-
ORD.
There being no objection, the tabula-
tion was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
THE SUPPLEMENTAL 1972 (H.R. 11955)
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL
SUMMARY
Chapter
No.
Department or activity
Version of bill
Senate
Conference
agreement
Budget estimate* ?
House
HUD-Space-Science-Veterans
$1, 587, 000
$1, 587, 000
$1, 587, 000
II
Interior and Related Agencies:
New budget (obligational) authority
26, 076,000
$8, 170, 000
29, 485, 000
21, 302, 000
Appropriation to liquidate contract authority
(10, 000, 000)
(10, 000, 000)
(10, 096, 000)
(10, 096, 000)
Transfers
(4, 172, 000)
(3, 746, 100)
(3, 746, 100)
(3, 746, 100)
Ill
Labor and Health, Education, and Welfare:
New budget (obligational) authority
2, 684, 655, 000
334, 439, 000
3,
401, 567, 000
2, 838, 790, 000
Transfers
(2, 560, 000)
(1, 900, 000)
(2, 560, 000)
(2, 560, 000)
IV
Legislative:
New budget (obligational) authority
27, 719, 515
23, 549, 920
26, 443, 515
24, 922, 515
Fiscal year 1971 (by transfer)
(250, 000)
(250, 000)
V
Public Works-AEC:
New budget (obligational) authority
119, 010, 000
46, 500, 000
119, 010,000
119, 010, 000
VI
State, Justice, Commerce, and Judiciary:
New budget (obligational) authority.
$6, 471, 000
72, 094, 000
115, 273, 000
110, 354, 000
VII
Transportation:
- New budget (obligational) authority
60, 244, 000
55, 544, 000
60, 994, 000
58, 294, 000
Appropriation to liquidate contract authority
(10, 000, 000)
(10, 000, 000)
(10, 0110, 000)
(10, 000, 000
Transfer
(200, 000)
(200, 000)
Vill
Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government:
New budget (obligational) authority
227, 592, 000
226, 956, 000
222, 006, 000
210, 556, 000
Transfers
1 Unlimited
(20, 153, 000)
(20, 153, 000)
Footnotes at end of table.
transfer
language.
Approved For Release 2007/01/18: CIA-RDP731300296R000500050025-4
-
21226
No.
Approved For Release 2007/01/18: CIA-RDP73B00296R000500050025-4
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-S NATE DerPmber 10, 197.1
1.1PPLEMENTIto 1977 01 R. 119551--Continur t
iMPARATIVE STATEMENT Of NEW BUDGET (0 Fl IC ATIONAI ) A1.1111HORITY ESTIMATES AND AA' NTS RECOMMF DEB IN THE BILL Continued
MVAR1V C0ntinue4
Department or activity
.11,00is and judgments _
Gran() total -
New budget (obligational) authority
Appropriation In liquidate contact quthority
sin Ste
-.seal year 1911 (by transfer)
Version of bill
Goiderence
a` House Senate agreement
4 $19, 079. 734 $21, 509, 856 $71, 5649056
4, 371 786, 282, 654 3, 998, 045, 371 3, 406, 385, 371
0, 000) (20, 000,000) (20, 096, 000) (20, 096, 000)
2,000) (5, 846, 100) (26, 459, 100) (26, 659, 100)
(250, 000) (250, (l00)
.141$1jPPLEME 'iTAL 1 t..1.11 ((1.R. 11955)
)1OMPARA RIF STATEMEl T OF NEW Bl 041 1 ,1111.11 IGATIONAl) AdTHORITY ESTIMATES AND 0IINTS RECOMMENDED IN THE 911
De tment or activity
r11-1APTER 1
Hod pace-Science, Vetere is' Administration other Inilonend,nt Agencies
11-1,3Turi ies and Exchange 11.,,nission
es and expenses ...
CIIAPTPII I
NEP, RTMENT- OF TH1 INTERIOR
Uoreau of Land Ma rat,,,l'illant
'11 1,9 Management of lands and resource; .
Bureau of Indian AN'
,ices management
;Unction
Total, Bureau of Indian . .
Geological
%IS, investigations, and research.
3ureau of Min,
i;e0servation and development of mineral resources
J2 6,1 Health and safety
lotal, Bureau of Mines.. _
:nice of Coal Pose, 03-1
11preall at Sport Fisheries 1, .1 Wildlife
Nal ional Pare Se. -,
5,.... S ils's,as and expenses_....
1inction
Cy transfer)
and road construction (appropriation to liquida0-, !had authority)
Or al, National Park Service
office at the
eon expenses
;-11v Nanster)
Itorlia:, Operations (by transfer)..
totIL Office of the Secretary
1(0.11, Department of the Interior
Appropriation to liquidate contract authority
to .r-ansier
la, ate
11. 200
5 20 000
version of bill
House
Senate
c,onfei mice
o5r(ement
$1 537, 000 ',27 20(
';1511,000 85, 000 85 000
_ 230,000 230, 000
550, 000 a:1", 000
'8r) On0 780 nrIll
1,19C, (00 051' (00
300, 000 301'., 200
- (. 000 5, 250, 000 7. 775 000 6 250 000
' 1.0, non 5, .750, 000 7.525,000 6 550 nnn
_ .
lc , 1. nno 10 200, ('00 5 120..200
rilil 000 100, 000 100 on
110, (00 2, 325, 000 2 225 )00
(96, 0005 ,9 '10)
110, 000 2 125, 000 200
5,000 500, 000 518,000 500 ::::0
2, (- 2,000) ( -3,746, 100) (-3, 746, 100) ( -3 716..110)
5, ,11 000) (3,746.100) (3, 746, 100) (3 746. N10)
ono 500, 000 518,000 !inn nnn
.0(111 6, 120, 000 22, 803, 000 :6. 110, r'03
(96, 000)