Document Type: 
Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 
Release Decision: 
Original Classification: 
Document Page Count: 
Document Creation Date: 
December 20, 2016
Document Release Date: 
November 14, 2005
Sequence Number: 
Case Number: 
Publication Date: 
December 10, 1972
Content Type: 
PDF icon CIA-RDP73B00296R000500050025-4.pdf5.43 MB
? 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 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 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 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 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)