THE UNITED ST4TES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
LLJ
o
Statutes and Legislative History-
Executive Orders
Regulations
Guidelines and Reports
DO
UJ
a
-------
-------
THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Statutes and Legislative History
Executive Orders
Regulations
Guidelines and Reports
JANUARY 1973
WILLIAM D. RUCKELSHAUS
Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region V, Library ^i^-'
230 South Dearborn Street ;**
Chicago, Illinois 60604
-------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington, B.C. 20402 - Price $22.20 per 6-vol. set. Sold in sets only
Stock Number 5500-0063
-------
FOREWORD
It has been said that America is like a gigantic boiler in that
once the fire is lighted, there are no limits to the power it can
generate. Environmentally, the fire has been lit.
With a mandate from the President and an aroused public con-
cern over the environment, we are experiencing a new American
Revolution, a revolution in our way of life. The era which began
with the industrial revolution is over and things will never be
quite the same again. We are moving slowly, perhaps even grudg-
ingly at times, but inexorably into an age when social, spiritual
and aesthetic values will be prized more than production and con-
sumption. We have reached a point where we must balance civili-
zation and nature through our technology.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, formed by Reorg-
anization Plan No. 3 of 1970, was a major commitment to this new
ethic. It exists and acts in the public's name to ensure that due
regard is given to the environmental consequences of actions by
public and private institutions.
In a large measure, this is a regulatory role, one that encompas-
ses basic, applied, and effects research; setting and enforcing
standards; monitoring; and making delicate risk-benefit deci-
sions aimed at creating the kind of world the public desires.
The Agency was not created to harass industry or to act as a
shield behind which man could wreak havoc on nature. The great-
est disservice the Environmental Protection Agency could do to
American industry is to be a poor regulator. The environment
would suffer, public trust would diminish, and instead of free en-
terprise, environmental anarchy would result.
It was once sufficient that the regulatory process produce wise
and well-founded courses of action. The public, largely indifferent
to regulatory activities, accepted agency actions as being for the
"public convenience and necessity." Credibility gaps and cynicism
make it essential not only that today's decisions be wise and well-
founded but that the public know this to be true. Certitude, not
faith, is de rigueur.
In order to participate intelligently in regulatory proceedings,
the citizen should have access to the information available to the
in
-------
agency. EPA's policy is to make the fullest possible disclosure of
information, without unjustifiable expense or delay, to any inter-
ested party. With this in mind, the EPA Compilation of Legal
Authority was produced not only for internal operations of EPA,
but as a service to the public, as we strive together to lead the
way, through the law, to preserving the earth as a place both
habitable by and hospitable to man.
WILLIAM D. RUCKELSHAUS
Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
IV
-------
PREFACE
Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970 transferred 15 governmental
units with their functions and legal authority to create the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Since only the major laws
were cited in the Plan, the Administrator, William D. Ruckelshaus,
requested that a compilation of EPA legal authority be researched
and published.
The publication has the primary function of providing a work-
ing document for the Agency itself. Secondarily, it will serve as
a research tool for the public.
A permanent office in the Office of Legislation has been estab-
lished to keep the publication updated by supplements.
It is the hope of EPA that this set will assist in the awesome
task of developing a better environment.
LANE WARD GENTRY, J.D.
Assistant Director for Field Operations
Office of Legislation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The idea of producing a compilation of the legal authority of
EPA was conceived and commissioned by William D. Ruckelshaus,
Administrator of EPA. The production of this compilation in-
volved the cooperation and effort of numerous sources, both within
and outside the Agency. The departmental libraries at Justice and
Interior were used extensively; therefore we express our appre-
ciation to Marvin P. Hogan, Librarian, Department of Justice;
Arley E. Long, Land & Natural Resources Division Librarian,
Department of Justice; Frederic E. Murray, Assistant Director,
Library Services, Department of the Interior.
For exceptional assistance and cooperation, my gratitude to:
Gary Baise, formerly Assistant to the Administrator, currently
Director, Office of Legislation, who first began with me on this
project; A. James Barnes, Assistant to the Administrator; K.
Kirke Harper, Jr., Special Assistant for Executive Communica-
tions ; John Dezzutti, Administrative Assistant, Office of Executive
Communications; Roland 0. Sorensen, Chief, Printing Manage-
ment Branch, and Jacqueline Gouge and Thomas Green, Printing
Management Staff; Ruth Simpkins, Janis Collier, Wm. Lee Rawls,
Peter J. McKenna, James G. Chandler, Jeffrey D. Light, Randy
Mott, Thomas H. Rawls, John D. Whittaker, John M. Himmelberg,
and Richard A. Yarmey, a beautiful staff who gave unlimited
effort; and to many others behind the scenes who rendered varied
assistance.
LANE WARD GENTRY, J.D.
Assistant Director for Field Operations
Office of Legislation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
VI
-------
INSTRUCTIONS
The goal of this text is to create a useful compilation of the
legal authority under which the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency operates. These documents are for the general use of per-
sonnel of the EPA in assisting them in attaining the purposes set
out by the President in creating the Agency. This work is not
intended and should not be used for legal citations or any use
other than as reference of a general nature. The author disclaims
all responsibility for liabilities growing out of the use of these
materials contrary to their intended purpose. Moreover, it should
be noted that portions of the Congressional Record from the 92nd
Congress were extracted from the "unofficial" daily version and
are subject to subsequent modification.
EPA Legal Compilation consists of the Statutes with their legis-
lative history, Executive Orders, Regulations, Guidelines and Re-
ports. To facilitate the usefulness of this composite, the Legal
Compilation is divided into the eight following chapters:
A. General E. Pesticides
B. Air F. Radiation
C. Water G. Noise
D. Solid Waste H. International
GENERAL
The chapter labeled "General" and color coded red contains the
legal authority of the Agency that applies to more than one area
of pollution, such as the Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, E.O.
11514, Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality,
Regulation on Certification of Facilities, Interim Guidelines by
CEQ, and Selected Reports. Acts that appear in General are found
in full text with their legislative history. When the same Act
appears under a particular area of pollution, a cross reference is
made back to General for the text.
SUBCHAPTERS
Statutes and Legislative History
For convenience, the Statutes are listed throughout the Compi-
lation by a one-point system, i.e., 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, etc., and Legislative
vii
-------
viii INSTRUCTIONS
History begins wherever a letter follows the one-point system.
Thusly, any l.la, l.lb, 1.2a, etc., denotes the public laws compris-
ing the 1.1, 1.2 statute. Each public law is followed by its legisla-
tive history. The legislative history in each case consists of the
House Report, Senate Report, Conference Report (where applica-
ble), the Congressional Record beginning with the time the bill
was reported from committee.
Example:
1.4 Amortization of Pollution Control Facilities, as amended,
26U.S.C. §169 (1969).
1.4a Amortization of Pollution Control Facilities, Decem-
ber 30, 1969, P.L. 91-172, §704, 83 Stat. 667.
(1) House Committee on Ways and Means, H.R.
REP. No. 91-413 (Part I), 91st Cong., 1st Sess.
(1969).
(2) House Committee on Ways and Means, H.R.
REP. No. 91-413 (Part II), 91st Cong., 1st
Sess. (1969).
(3) Senate Committee on Finance, S. REP. No.
91-552, 91st Cong., 1st Sess. (1969).
(4) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No.
91-782, 91st Cong., 1st Sess. (1969).
(5) Congressional Record, Vol. 115 (1969) :
(a) Aug. 7: Debated and passed House, pp.
22746, 22774-22775;
(b) Nov. 24, Dec. 5, 8, 9: Debated and passed
Senate, pp. 35486, 38321-37322, 37631-
37633, 37884-37888;
(c) Dec. 22: Senate agrees to conference re-
port, p. 40718;*
(d) Dec. 22: House debates and agrees to con-
ference report, pp. 40820, 40900.
This example not only demonstrates the pattern followed for legis-
lative history, but indicates the procedure where only one section
of a P.L. appears. You will note that the Congressional Record
cited pages are only those pages dealing with the discussion
and/or action taken pertinent to the section of law applicable to
EPA. In the event there is no discussion of the pertinent section,
only action or passage, then the asterisk (*) is used to so indicate,
and no text is reprinted in the Compilation. In regard to the
-------
INSTRUCTIONS ix
situation where only one section of a public law is applicable, then
only the parts of the report dealing with same are printed in the
Compilation.
Secondary Statutes
Many statutes make reference to other laws and rather than
have this manual serve only for major statutes, these secondary
statutes have been included where practical. These secondary stat-
utes are indicated in the table of contents to each chapter by a
bracketed cite to the particular section of the major Act which
made the reference.
Citations
The United States Code, being the official citation, is used
throughout the Statute section of the compilation. In four Stat-
utes, a parallel table to the Statutes at Large is provided for your
convenience.
TABLE OF STATUTORY SOURCE
Statutes Source
1.1 Reorganization Plan No. 3 of EPA's originating act.
1970, 35 Fed. Reg. 15263.
1.2 The National Environmental In §4332(2) (c) a mandate was made
Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. to all Federal agencies as to environ-
§§4332(2) (c), 4344(5). mental impact statements. EPA func-
tioning as appropriate agency, and
§4344 cited in Reorganization Plan
No. 3 of 1970 as a direct transfer to
EPA.
1.3 Environmental Quality Improve- CEQ's originating act.
ment Act of 1970, 42 U.S.C.
§4371 et seg. (1970).
1.4 Amortization of Pollution Con- Direct reference in sections cited to
trol Facilities, as amended, 26 Clean Air Act, Fed. Water Pollution
U.S.C. §169(d). (1969). Control Act which were transferred
to EPA by Reorg. Plan No. 3 of 1970.
Also the certifying authority was
transferred to EPA through the Re-
org. Plan No. 3 of 1970.
1.5 Department of Transportation Reorg. Plan No. 3 of 1970 transferred
Act, as amended, 49 U.S.C. Clean Air Act and the functions of the
§1653(f) (1968). Secty of Interior pertaining to same
to EPA and its Administrator. The
Clean Air Act at §1857f—10 (b) ref-
erences 1.5 and requires consultation
from the Administrator.
-------
X
INSTRUCTIONS
Statutes
Source
1.6 Federal Aid Highway Act, as a-
mended, 23 U.S.C. §109(h), (i),
(j) (1970).
1.7 Airport and Airway Develop-
ment Act, 49 U.S.C. §§1712(f),
1716(c)(4), (e) (1970).
1.8 Disaster Relief Act of 1970, 42
U.S.C. §4401 et seq. (1970).
1.9 Interest on Certain Government
Obligations, as amended, 26
U.S.C. §103 (1969).
Direct reference made to EPA in
sections cited.
Direct references made to appropriate
agency for air, water and noise pollu-
tion which is EPA under Reorg. Plan
No. 3 of 1970.
The Water Quality Administration
was transferred to EPA by Reorg.
Plan No. 3 of 1970 and together with
E.G. 11490, §§703(3), 11102(1),
11103(2) EPA assumes responsibility.
§103(c)(4)(E) & (F) of the Act pro-
vides tax relief on industrial develop-
ment bonds for sewage or solid waste
disposal facilities and air or water
pollution control facilities.
1.10 Uniform Relocation Assistance Act requires Federal and federally
and Real Property Acquisition assisted projects and programs to deal
Polices Act of 1970, 42 U.S.C. uniformly and equitably with persons
§4601 et seq. (1970). whose property was taken. EPA pro-
mulgated regulation at 40 C.F.R.
§§4.1—4.263.
1.11 Departmental Regulations, as
revised, 5 U.S.C. §301 (1966).
1.12 Public Health Service Act, as
amended, 42 U.S.C. §§203, 215,
242, 242b, c, d, f, i, j, 243, 244,
244a, 245, 246, 247, 264 (1970).
1.13 Davis-Bacon Act, as amended,
40 U.S. C. §276a-276a-5 (1964).
1.14 Public Contracts, Advertisements
for Proposals for Purchases and
Contracts for Supplies or Ser-
vices for Government Depart-
ments; Application to Govern-
ment Sales and Contracts to sell
and to Government Corporations,
as amended, 41 U.S.C. §5 (1958).
1.15 Per Diem, Travel and Transpor-
tation Expenses; Experts and
Consultants; Individuals Serving
Without Pay, as amended, 5
U.S.C. §5703 (1969).
Bases of EPA regulat'on 40 C.F.R.
§§3.735—101 —3.735—107.
Referred to in Clean Air Act., basis
for authority in Water, Pesticides,
and Radiation functions transferred
in Reorg. Plan No. 3 of 1970.
Referenced from Clean Air Act, Fed.
Water Pollution Control Act, Solid
Waste Disposal Act—all of which
were transferred to EPA in Reorg.
Plan No. 3 of 1970.
Referred to in Clean Air Act, Federal
Water Pollution Control Act, and
Public Health Service Act—all of
which transferred to EPA in Reorg.
Plan No. 3 of 1970.
Referred to in Clean Air Act, Federal
Water Pollution Control Act—all of
which were transferred to EPA in
Reorg. Plan No. 3 of 1970.
-------
INSTRUCTIONS xi
Statutes Source
1.16 Disclosure of Confidential Infer- Referred to in Clean Air Act, and
mation Generally, as amended, FWPCA which were transferred to
18 U.S.C. §1905. EPA both being transferred by the
Reorg. Plan No. 3 of 1970.
1.17 Appropriation Bills Beginning with the Agricultural-En-
vironmental and Consumer Protection
Appropriation Act of 1971 each ap-
propriation bill for EPA will appear.
EXECUTIVE ORDERS
The Executive Orders are listed by a two-point system (2.1, 2.2,
etc.). Executive Orders found in General are ones applying to
more than one area of the pollution chapters.
REGULATIONS
The Regulations are noted by a three-point system (3.1, 3.2,
etc.). Included in the Regulations are those not only promulgated
by the Environmental Protection Agency, but those under which
the Agency has direct contact.
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS
This subchapter is noted by a four-point system (4.1, 4.2, etc.).
In this subchapter is found the statutorily required reports of
EPA, published guidelines of EPA, selected reports other than
EPA's and inter-departmental agreements of note.
UPDATING
Periodically, a supplement will be sent to the interagency distri-
bution and made available through the U.S. Government Printing
Office in order to provide an accurate working set of EPA Legal
Compilation.
-------
CONTENTS
A. GENERAL
Volume I
Page
1. Statutes and Legislative History.
1.1 Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, 5 U.S.C. Reorg. Plan of
1970 No. 3, Appendix (1970) 3
l.la Message of the President Relative to Reorganization
Plan No. 3, July 9, 1970, Weekly Compilation of
Presidential Documents, Vol. 6, No. 28, p. 908 (July
13, 1970) 8
l.lb Message of the President Transmitting Reorganiza-
tion Plan No. 3, July 9, 1970, Weekly Compilation
of Presidential Documents, Vol. 6, No. 28, p. 917
(July 13, 1970) 15
l.lc Hearings on Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970
Before the Subcommittee on Executive Reorganiza-
tion and Government Research of the Senate Com-
mittee on Government Operations, 91st Cong., 2d
Sess. (1970) 16
l.ld Hearings on Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970
Before the Subcommittee on Government Operations
of the House Committee on Government Operations,
91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970) 112
l.le House Committee on Government Operations, H.R.
REP. No. 91-1464, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970) — 367
l.lf Congressional Record, Vol. 116 (1970) 378
(1) July 9: House discussion, pp. 23532-23533 378
(2) Sept. 28: House approving Reorganization Plan
No. 3 of 1970 to Establish Environmental Pro-
tection Agency as an independent entity of
Government, pp. 33871-33876; 33879-33884;
34015 380
1.2 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C.
§§4332(2) (c), 4344(5) (1970) 407
1.2a National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Jan-
uary 1, 1970, P.L. 91-190, §§102(2) (c), 204(5), 83
Stat 853, 855 414
xiii
-------
-------
xiv CONTENTS
Page
(1) Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Af-
fairs, S. REP. No. 91-296, 91st Cong., 1st Sess.
(1969) 420
(2) House Committee on Merchant Marine and
Fisheries, H.R. REP. No. 91-378 (Part 2), 91st
Cong., 1st Sess. (1969) _... . . 458
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 91-
765, 91st Cong., 1st Sess. (1969) 467
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 115 (1969) 482
(a) July 10: Considered and passed Senate,
pp. 19008-19009, 19013 482
(b) Sept. 23: Amended and passed House, pp.
26569-26591 486
(c) Oct. 8: Senate disagrees to House amend-
ments, agreed to conference, pp. 29066-
29074, 29076-29089 538
(d) Dec. 20: Senate agreed to conference re-
port, pp. 40415-40417, 40421-40427 580
(e) Dec. 22: House agreed to conference report,
pp. 40923-40928 597
Volume II
1.3 Environmental Quality Improvement Act of 1970, 42 U.S.C.
§4371 et seq. (1970) 611
1.3a Environmental Quality Improvement Act of 1970,
April 3, 1970, P.L. 91-224, Title II, 84 Stat. 114 ^_ 614
(1) House Committee on Public Works, H.R. REP.
No. 91-127, 91st Cong., 1st Sess. (1969) 617
(2) Senate Committee on Public Works, S. REP.
No. 91-351, 91st Cong., 1st Sess. (1969) 617
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 91-
940, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970) 645
(4) Congressional Record 652
(a) Vol. 115 (1969), April 16: Passed p. 9259 652
(b) Vol. 115 (1969), Oct. 7: Amended and
passed Senate, pp. 28952-28954, 28956-
28957, 28962, 28967, 28969, 28972 652
(c) Vol. 116 (1970), March 24: Senate agreed
to conference report, pp. 9004-9005, 9009 _ 661
(d) Vol. 116 (1970), March 25: House agreed
to conference report, pp. 9333-9334 662
1.4 Amortization of Pollution Control Facilities, as amended,
26 U.S.C. §169 (1969) 663
1.4a Amortization of Pollution Control Facilities, Decem-
ber 30, 1969, 91-172, §704, 83 Stat. 667 665
-------
CONTENTS xv
Page
(1) House Committee on Ways and Means, H.R.
REP. No. 91-413 (Part I), 91st Cong., 1st Sess.
(1969) 670
(2) House Committee on Ways and Means, H.R.
REP. No. 91-413 (Part II), 91st Cong., 1st
Sess. (1969) 675
(3) Senate Committee on Finance, S. REP. No.
91-552, 91st Cong., 1st Sess. (1969) 679
(4) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 91-
782, 91st Cong., 1st Sess. (1969) 684
(5) Congressional Record, Vol. 115 (1969) — 690
(a) Aug. 7: Debated and passed House pp.
22746, 22774-22775 690
(b) Nov. 24, Dec. 5, 8, 9: Debated and passed
Senate, pp. 35486, 37321-37322, 37631-
37633, 37884-37888 691
(c) Dec. 22: Senate agrees to conference re-
port, p. 40718* 705
(d) Dec. 22: House debates and agrees to con-
ference report, pp. 40820, 40900* 705
1.5 Department of Transportation Act, as amended, 49 U.S.C.
§§1651, 1653(f), 1655(g), 1656 (1968) 706
1.5a Department of Transportation Act, October 15,
1966, P.L. 89-670, 332, 4(f), (g), 6, 7, 80 Stat. 931- 733
(1) House Committee on Government Operations
H.R. REP. No. 1701, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. (1966) 736
(2) Senate Committee on Government Operations,
S. REP. No. 1659, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. (1966) 737
(3) Senate Committee on Government Operations,
S. REP. No. 1660, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. (1966) 745
(4) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 2236,
89th Cong., 2d Sess. (1966) 755
(5) Congressional Record, Vol. 112 (1966) 769
(a) Aug. 24: Debated, amended and passed
House, pp. 21236-21237; 21275 769
(b) Sept. 29: Amended and passed Senate, pp.
24374-24375, 24402-24403; 771
(c) Oct. 13: House agrees to conference report,
pp. 26651-26652; 773
(d) Oct. 13: Senate agrees to conference report,
pp. 26563, 26568. 774
1.5b Federal Highway Act of 1968, August 23, 1968, P.L.
90-495, §18(b), 82 Stat. 824. 776
(1) Senate Committee on Public Works, S. REP.
No. 1340, 90th Cong., 2d Sess. (1968). 777
(2) House Committee on Public Works, H.R. REP.
No. 1584, 90th Cong., 2d Sess. (1968). 778
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 1799,
90th Cong., 2d Sess. (1968). 780
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 114 (1968): 783
-------
xvi CONTENTS
Page
(a) July 1: Debated, amended and passed
Senate, pp. 19529, 19530, 19552; 783
(b) July 3: Amended and passed House, pp.
19937, 19947, 19950;* 786
(c) July 26: House agrees to conference report,
pp. 23712, 23713; 786
(d) July 29: Senate agrees to conference re-
port, pp. 24036, 24037, 24038. 786
1.6 Federal Aid Highway Act of 1970, as amended, 23 U.S.C.
§109(h), (i), (j) (1970). 788
1.6a Federal Aid Highway Act of 1970, December 31,
1970, P.L. 91-605, §136(b), 84 Stat. 1734. 791
(1) House Committee on Public Works, H.R. REP.
No. 91-1554, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970). 792
(2) Senate Committee on Public Works, S. REP.
No. 91-1254, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970). 793
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 91-
1780, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970). 798
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 116 (1970): 800
(a) Nov. 25: Debated and passed House, pp.
38936-38937, 38961-38962, 38974-38976,
38997; 800
(b) Nov. 25: Proceedings vacated, laid on the
table, pp. 39007-39014; 812
(c) Dec. 7: Passed Senate, Senate insists on its
amendments and asks for conference, p.
40095; 813
(d) Dec. 8: Action of House rescinded, passed
House, House disagrees to Senate amend-
ments and agrees to conference, p. 40265; __ 813
(e) Dec. 17-18: House agrees to conference re-
port, pp. 42512-42518; 814
(f) Dec. 19: Senate agrees to conference report,
pp. 42717, 42723. 816
1.7 Airport and Airway Development Act, 49 U.S.C. §§1712 (f),
1716(c)(4), (e) (1970). 818
1.7a Airport and Airway Development Act of 1970, P.L.
91-258, §§12(f), 16(c)(4), (e),84 Stat. 221, 226. __ 821
(1) House Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce, H.R. REP. No. 91-601, 91st Cong.,
1st Sess. (1969). 824
(2) Senate Committee on Commerce, S. REP. No.
91-565, 91st Cong., 1st Sess. (1969). 831
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 91-
1074, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970). 834
(4) Congressional Record: 837
(a) Vol. 115 (1969), Nov. 6: Considered and
passed House, pp. 33293, 33307-33308,
33342; 837
-------
CONTENTS xvii
(b) Vol. 116 (1970), Feb. 25-26: Considered
and passed Senate, amended, pp. 4842,
5069-5072,5082-5083; 842
(c) Vol. 116 (1970), May 12: Senate agreed to
conference report p. 15136; 852
(d) Vol. 116 (1970), May 13: House agreed to
conference report, pp. 15294, 15295, 15297- 852
1.8 Disaster Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. §4401 et seq. (1970).__ 854
1.8a The Administration of Disaster Assistance, Decem-
ber 31, 1970, P.L. 91-606, Title II, 84 Stat. 1746 874
(1) Senate Committee on Public Works, S. REP.
No. 91-1157, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970). 891
(2) House Committee on Public Works, H.R. REP.
No. 91-1524, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970). 925
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 91-
1752, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970): 951
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 116 (1970): 975
(a) Sept. 9: Debated, amended, and passed
Senate, pp. 31040-31042, 31044, 31048-
31051, 31058-31060, 31062-31063; 975
(b) Oct. 5: Debated, amended, and passed
House, pp. 34795-34798; 993
(c) Dec. 15, 17: House debated and agrees to
conference report, pp. 42212-42214; 1000
(d) Dec. 18: Senate agrees to conference re-
port, p. 42369.* 1005
(5) Statement by the President Upon Signing the
Bill into Law December 31, 1970, Weekly Com-
pilation of Presidential Documents, Vol. 7, No.
1, January 4, 1971 (p. 12). 1005
1.9 Interest on Certain Government Obligations, as amended,
26 U.S.C. §103(c)(4) (1971). 1006
1.9a Amendments to Interest on Certain Government Ob-
ligations, Int. Rev. Code, June 28, 1968, P.L. 90-364,
Title I, §107(a), 82 Stat. 266. 1008
(1) House Committee on Ways and Means, H.R.
REP. No. 1104, 90th Cong., 2d Sess. (1968). __ 1009
(2) Senate Committee on Finance, S. REP. No. 1014,
90th Cong., 2d Sess. (1968). 1010
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 1533,
90th Cong., 2d Sess. (1968). 1010
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 114 (1968) :
(a) Feb. 29: Debated and passed House, p.
4704;* 1010
(b) March 26, 28, April 2: Debated in Senate
pp. 8159-8162; 1010
(c) June 20: House considers and passes con-
ference report, p. 18006;* 1017
(d) June 21: Senate agrees to conference re-
port, p. 18179 1017
-------
xviii CONTENTS
Page
1.9b Revenue Act of 1971, December 10, 1971, P.L. 92-
178, Title III, §315(a), 85 Stat. 529. 1017
(1) House Committee on Ways and Means, H.R.
REP. No. 92-533, 92d Cong., 1st Sess. (1971).* 1018
(2) Senate Committee on Finance, S. REP. No.
92-437, 92d Cong-., 1st Sess. (1971).* 1018
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 92-
708, 92d Cong., 1st Sess. (1971). 1018
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 117 (1971): 1019
(a) Oct. 5, 6: Considered and passed House,
pp. H9155-H9178, H9229;* 1019
(b) Nov. 15, 22: Considered and passed Sen-
ate, amended, pp. S18564-S18579; 1019
(c) Dec. 9: Senate agreed to conference re-
port, pp. S21095-S21109;* 1056
(d) Dec. 9: House agreed to conference report,
pp. H12114-H12134.* 1056
1.10 Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Ac-
quisition Policies for Federal and Federally Assisted Pro-
grams, 42 U.S.C. §4633 (1971). 1057
l.lOa Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property
Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, January 2, 1970,
P.L. 91-646, §213, 84 Stat. 1900. 1075
(1) Senate Committee on Government Operations,
S. REP. No. 91-488, 91st Cong., 1st Sess.
(1969) 1076
(2) House Committee on Public Works, H.R. REP.
No. 91-1656, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970). 1084
(3) Congressional Record: 1089
(a) Vol. 115 (1969), Oct. 27: Passed Senate,
pp. 31533-31535; 1089
(b) Vol. 116 (1970), Dec. 7: amended and
passed House, pp. 40169-40172; 1095
(c) Vol. 116 (1970), Dee. 17: Senate agrees to
House amendment, with an amendment,
pp. 42137-42140; 1102
(d) Vol. 116 (1970), Dec. 18: House concurs
in Senate amendment, pp. 42506-42507. __ 1109
1.11 Departmental Regulations, as revised, 5 U.S.C. §301
(1966). 1112
l.lla Codification of 5 U.S.C. §301, September 6, 1966,
P.L. 89-554, 80 Stat. 379. 1112
(1) Senate Committee on the Judiciary, S. REP.
No. 1380, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. (1966). 1113
(2) Congressional Record, Vol. 112 (1966) : 1117
(a) July 25: Amended and passed Senate, p.
17010;* 1117
(b) Aug. 11: House concurs in Senate amend-
ments, p. 19077.* 1117
-------
CONTENTS xix
Page
1.12 Public Health Service Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§203,
215, 241, 242, 242b, c, d, f, i, j, 243, 244, 244a, 245, 246,
247,264 (1970). 1118
1.12a The Public Health Service Act, July 1, 1944, P.L.
78-410, Title II, §§202, 214, Title III, §§301, 304,
305, 306, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 361, 58 Stat.
683, 690, 693, 695, 703. 1151
(1) House Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce, H.R. REP. No. 1364, 78th Cong.,
2d Sess. (1944). 1158
(2) Senate Committee on Education and Labor, S.
REP. No. 1027, 78th Cong., 2d Sess. (1944) — - 1170
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 90 (1944): 1172
(a) May 22: Amended and passed House, pp.
4794-4797, 4811; 1172
(b) June 22: Debated, amended, and passed
Senate, pp. 6486-6487, 6498-6500; 1179
(c) June 23: House concurs in Senate amend-
ments, pp. 6663-6664.* - 1186
1.12b National Mental Health Act, July 3, 1946, P.L.
79-487, §§6, 7, (a, b), 9, 60 Stat. 423, 424. 1186
(1) House Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce, H.R. REP. No. 1445, 79th Cong.,
1st Sess. (1945). 1189
(2) Senate Committee on Education and Labor, S.
REP. No. 1353, 79th Cong., 2d Sess. (1946)— 1191
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 2350,
79th Cong., 2d Sess. (1946). 1196
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 92 (1946) : 1198
(a) March 14, 15: Amended and passed House,
pp. 2283, 2284, 2285-2286, 2291, 2992,
2293, 2294, 2295; 1198
(b) June 15: Amended and passed Senate, p.
6995; 1204
(c) June 26: Senate agrees to conference re-
port, p. 7584; 1205
(d) June 28: House agrees to conference re-
port, p. 7926. 1206
1.12c National Heart Act, June 16, 1948, P.L. 80-655,
§§4(e, f), 5, 6, 62 Stat. 467. 1206
(1) Senate Committee on Labor and Public Wel-
fare, S. REP. No. 1298, 80th Cong., 2d Sess.
(1948). 1210
(2) House Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce, H.R. REP. No. 2144, 80th Cong.,
2d Sess. (1948). 1212
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 94 (1948) : 1217
(a) May 24: Amended and passed Senate, pp.
6297, 6298; 1217
-------
xx CONTENTS
Page
(b) June 8: Amended and passed House, pp.
7405-7406; 1219
(c) June 9: Senate concurs in House amend-
ment, p. 7555.* 1222
1.12d National Dental Research Act, June 24, 1948, P.L.
80-755, §4(e)(f), 62. Stat. 601. 1222
(1) Senate Committee on Labor and Public Wel-
fare, S. REP. No. 436, 80th Cong., 1st Sess.
(1947). 1223
(2) House Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce, H.R. REP. No. 2158, 80th Cong.,
2d Sess. (1948). 1224
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 94 (1948) : 1225
(a) June 8: Amended and passed House, p.
7417; 1225
(b) June 12: Amended and passed Senate, p.
7934;* 1226
(c) June 14: House concurs in Senate amend-
ments, p. 8175. 1226
1.12e Public Health Service Act Amendments, June 25,
1948, P.L. 80-781, §1, 62 Stat. 1017. 1227
(1) House Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce, H.R. REP. No. 1927, 80th Cong., 2d
Sess. (1948). 1227
(2) Senate Committee on Labor and Public Works,
S. REP. No. 1578, 80th Cong., 2d Sess. (1948). 1230
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 94 (1948): 1232
(a) May 18: Amended and passed House, p.
6008;* 1232
(b) June 12: Passed Senate p. 7933 1232
1.12f Career Compensation Act of 1949, October 12, 1949,
P.L. 81-351, Title V, §521 (e), 63 Stat. 835. 1232
Volume III
(1) House Committee on Armed Services, H.R.
REP. No. 779, 81st Cong., 1st Sess. (1949). __ 1233
(2) Senate Committee on Armed Services, S. REP.
No. 733, 81st Cong., 1st Sess. (1949). 1234
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 95 (1949) : 1235
(a) June 14: Debated in House, pp. 7656, 7676; 1235
(b) June 15: Passed House, p. 7775;* 1235
(c) Sept. 26: Amended and passed Senate, p.
13261;* 1235
(d) Sept. 27: House concurs in Senate amend-
ments, p. 13358.* 1236
-------
CONTENTS xxi
Page
1.12g 1953 Reorganization Plan No. 1, §§5, 8, 67 Stat.
631. 1236
(1) Message from the President Accompanying
Reorganization Plan No. 1, H.R. Doc. No. 102,
83rd Cong., 1st Sess. (1953). 1237
1.12h Amendment to Title 13 U.S. Code, August 31, 1954,
P.L. 83-740, §2, 68 Stat. 1025. 1239
(1) House Committee on the Judiciary, H.R. REP.
No. 1980, 83rd Cong., 2d Sess. (1954). 1240
(2) Senate Committee on the Judiciary, S. REP.
No. 2497, 83rd Cong., 2d Sess. (1954). 1242
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 100 (1954): 1243
(a) July 6: Passed House, p. 9806;* 1243
(h) Aug. 19: Amended and passed Senate, p.
15123;* 1243
(c) Aug. 19: House concurs in Senate amend-
ments, p. 15269.* 1243
1.12i National Health Survey Act, July 3, 1956, P.L. 84-
652, §4, 70 Stat. 490. 1244
(1) Senate Committee on Labor and Public Wel-
fare, S. REP. No. 1718, 84th Cong., 2d Sess.
(1956). 1244
(2) House Committee on Interstate and For-
eign Commerce, H.R. REP. No. 2108, 84th
Cong., 2d Sess. (1956). 1249
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 102 (1956): 1250
(a) March 29: Amended and passed Senate,
p. 5816;* 1250
(b) May 21: Objected to in House, p. 8562;*— 1250
(c) June 18: Amended and passed House, p.
10521.* 1250
1.12J An Act of Implementing §25 (b) of the Organic
Act of Guam, August 1, 1956, P.L. 84-896, §18, 70
Stat. 910. 1251
(1) House Committee on Interior and Insular Af-
fairs, H.R. REP. No. 2259, 84th Cong., 2d Sess.
(1956). 1251
(2) Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Af-
fairs, S. REP. No. 2662, 84th Cong., 2d Sess.
(1956). 1259
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 102 (1954): 1260
(a) June 18: Passed House, p. 10510;* 1260
(b) July 23: Amended and passed Senate, p.
13909;* 1260
(c) July 25: House concurs in Senate, amend-
ments, p. 14450.* 1261
1.12k Amendments to §314 (c) of the Public Health Serv-
ice Act, July 22, 1958, P.L. 85-544, §1, 72 Stat. 400. 1261
-------
xxii CONTENTS
Page
(1) House Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce, H.R. REP. No. 1593, 85th Cong.,
2d Sess. (1958). ___ 1262
(2) Senate Committee on Labor and Public Wel-
fare, S. REP. No. 1797, 85th Cong., 2d Sess.
(1958). ___ 1270
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 104 (1958): 1280
(a) April 21: Debated in House, pp. 6836-
6838; 1280
(b) May 5: Passed House, pp. 8004-8011; 1284
(c) July 10: Passed Senate, p. 13329. 1300
1.121 Health Amendments of 1959, July 23, 1959, P.L.
86-105, §1, 73 Stat. 239. 1301
(1) House Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce, H.R. REP. No. 590, 86th Cong., 1st
Sess. (1959). 1301
(2) Senate Committee on Labor and Public Wel-
fare, S. REP. No. 400, 86th Cong., 1st Sess.
(1959). 1309
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 105 (1959): 1311
(a) July 6: Passed House, pp. 12735-12740;__ 1311
(b) July 8: Passed Senate, p. 12979. 1315
1.12m International Health Research Act of I960, July
12, 1960, P.L. 86-610, §3, 74 Stat. 364. 1315
(1) Senate Committee on Labor and Public Wel-
fare, S. REP. No. 243, 86th Cong., 1st Sess.
(1959). 1317
(2) House Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce, H.R. REP. No. 1915, 86th Cong.,
2d Sess. (1960). 1321
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 106 (1960): 1338
(a) June 24: Committee discharged, amended
and passed House, p. 14293;* 1338
(b) June 30: Passed Senate, pp. 15132-15133. 1338
1.12n Hawaii Omnibus Act, July 12, 1960, P.L. 86-624,
§29(c), 74 Stat. 419. 1340
(1) House Committee on Interior and Insular Af-
fairs, H.R. REP. No. 1564, 86th Cong., 2d
Sess. (1960). 1340
(2) Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Af-
fairs, S. REP. No. 1681, 86th Cong., 2d Sess.
(1960). 1341
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 106 (1960): 1341
(a) May 16: Passed House, pp. 10355, 10357;* 1341
(b) June 28: Amended and passed Senate, p.
14684.* 1341
1.12o Amendments to §301 (d) of the Public Health Serv-
ice Act, September 15, I960, P.L. 86-798, 74 Stat.
1053. 1342
-------
CONTENTS xxiii
Page
(1) House Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce, H.R. REP. No. 2174, 86th Cong.,
2d Sess. (1960). 1342
(2) Congressional Record, Vol. 106 (1960) : 1351
(a) Aug. 30: Passed House, p. 18394; 1351
(b) Aug. 31: Senate Committee discharged,
passed Senate, p. 18593. 1352
1.12p 1960 Amendments to Title III of the Public Health
Service Act, September 8, 1960, P.L. 86-720, §l(b),
2, 74 Stat. 820. 1352
(1) House Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce, H.R. REP. No. 1780, 86th Cong.,
2d Sess. (1960). 1353
(2) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No.
2062, 86th Cong., 2d Sess. (1960). 1353
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 106 (1960) : 1353
(a) June 24: Amended and passed House, pp.
14294-14301;* 1353
(b) July 1: Amended and passed Senate, pp.
15383-15384;* 1353
(c) Aug. 26: Senate concurs in conference re-
port, pp. 17788-17789;* 1354
(d) Aug. 29: House concurs in conference re-
port, p. 18172.* 1354
1.12q Community Health Services and Facilities Act of
1961, October 5, 1961, P.L. 87-395, §2(a)-(d), 75
Stat. 824 1354
(1) House Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce, H.R. REP. No. 599, 87th Cong., 1st
Sess. (1961) 1355
(2) Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare,
S. REP. No. 845, 87th Cong., 1st Sess. (1961).- 1361
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R REP. No. 1209,
87th Cong., 1st Sess. (1961) 1370
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 107 (1961) : 1375
(a) July 25: Amended and passed House, pp.
13402, 13414, 13415; 1375
(b) Sept. 1: Amended and passed Senate, p.
17947; 1377
(c) Sept. 18: Conference report agreed to in
Senate, p. 19913;* 1378
(d) Sept. 20: Conference report agreed to in
House, p. 20484.* 1378
1.12r Extension of Application of Certain Laws to Ameri-
can Samoa, September 25, 1962, P.L. 87-688, §4 (a)
(1), 76 Stat. 587. 1378
(1) House Committee on Interior and Insular
Affairs, H.R. REP. No. 1536, 87th Cong., 2d
Sess. (1962) 1379
-------
xxiv CONTENTS
Page
(2) Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Af-
fairs, S. REP. No. 1478, 87th Cong., 2d Sess.
(1962). ___ 1382
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 2264,
87th Cong., 2d Sess. (1962). 1384
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 108 (1962): 1385
(a) April 2: Amended and passed House, p.
5576; 1385
(b) May 17: Amended and passed Senate, pp.
8698, 8699; 1387
(c) Aug. 28: House agrees to conference report,
pp. 17881-17882; 1387
(d) Aug. 30: Senate agrees to conference re-
port, p. 18253. 1388
1.12s Amendments to Title IV of the Public Health Service
Act, October 17, 1962, P.L. 87-838, §2, 76 Stat. 1073. 1388
(1) House Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce, H.R. REP. No. 1969, 87th Cong.,
2d Sess. (1962). 1389
(2) Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare,
S. REP. No. 2174, 87th Cong., 2d Sess. (1962). 1390
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 108 (1962): 1392
(a) Aug. 27: Passed House, p. 17690; 1392
(b) Sept. 28: Amended and passed Senate, p.
21247;* 1 1393
(c) Oct. 3: House concurs in Senate amend-
ment, p. 21833.* 1393
1.12t Graduate Public Health Training Amendments of
1964, August 27, 1964, P.L. 88-497, §2, 78 Stat. 613.. 1393
(1) House Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce, H.R. REP. No. 1553, 88th Cong., 2d
Sess. (1964) 1394
(2) Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare,
S. REP. No. 1379, 88th Cong., 2d Sess. (1964)_ 1403
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 110 (1964): 1411
(a) July 21: Passed House, pp. 16445, 16447; 1411
(b) Aug. 12: Passed Senate, pp. 19144-19145.* 1412
1.12u Community Health Services Extension Amendments,
August 5, 1965, P.L. 89-109, §4, 79 Stat. 436. 1412
(1) Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare,
S. REP. No. 117, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. (1965). 1413
(2) House Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce, H.R. REP. No. 249, 89th Cong., 1st
Sess. (1965). 1420
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 676,
89th Cong., 1st Sess. (1965). 1426
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. Ill (1965): 1427
(a) March 11: Amended and passed Senate, pp.
4843, 4844; 1427
-------
CONTENTS xxv
Pajre
(b) May 3: House Committee discharged,
amended and passed House, p. 9141; 1428
(c) July 26: Senate agrees to conference re-
port, p. 18216; 1428
(d) July 27: House agrees to conference report,
p. 18425.* 1429
1.12v Amendments to Public Health Service Act, August
9, 1965, P.L. 89-115, §3, 79 Stat. 448. 1429
(1) House Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce, H.R. REP. No. 247, 89th Cong., 1st
Sess. (1965) 1430
(2) Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare,
S. REP. No. 367, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. (1965) __ 1438
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 677,
89th Cong., 1st Sess. (1965). 1445
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. Ill (1965) : 1446
(a) May 10: Debated, amended and passed
House, pp. 9958, 9960-9962; 1446
(b) June 28: Debated, amended and passed
Senate, pp. 14952, 14953, 14954; 1458
(c) July 26: Conference report agreed to in
Senate, p. 18215; 1460
(d) July 27: Conference report agreed to in
House p. 18428. 1460
1.12w 1966 Reorganization Plan No. 3, §§1, 3, 80 Stat.
1610. 1461
(1) Message from the President Transmitting Re-
organization Plan No. 3, 1966, H. Doc. No. 428,
89th Cong., 2d Sess. (1966). 1462
1.12x Comprehensive Health Planning and Public Health
Services Amendments of 1966, November 3, 1966,
P.L. 89-749, §§3, 5, 80 Stat. 1181. I486
(1) Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare,
S. REP. No. 1665, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. (1966). 1479
(2) House Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce, H.R. REP. No. 2271, 89th Cong.,
2d Sess. (1966) 1483
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 112 (1966): 1490
(a) Oct. 3: Amended and passed Senate, pp.
24764-24766, 24768; 1490
(b) Oct. 17: Amended and passed House, pp.
27081,27085-27086,27088-27092; 1496
(c) Oct. 18: Senate concurs in House amend-
ments pp. 27381-27385. 1509
1.12y Partnership for Health Amendments of 1967, De-
cember 5, 1967, P.L. 90-174, §§2(a)-(f), 3(b) (2), 4,
8(a), (b), 9, 12(d), 81 Stat. 533. 1518
(1) House Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce, H.R. REP. No. 538, 90th Cong., 1st
Sesa. (1967). 1522
-------
xxvi CONTENTS
Page
(2) Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare,
S. REP. No. 724, 90th Cong., 1st Sess. (1967)- 1536
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 974,
90th Cong., 1st Sess. (1967). 1546
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 113 (1967): 1550
(a) Sept. 20: Debated, amended, and passed
House, pp. 26120-26132;* 1550
(b) Nov. 6: Debated, amended and passed,
Senate, pp. 31236-31238; 1550
(c) Nov. 21: House agrees to conference report,
p. 33338;* 1553
(d) Nov. 21: Senate agrees to conference re-
port, p. 33436.* 1553
1.12z Health Manpower Act of 1968, August 16, 1968,
P.L. 90-490, Title III, §302(b), 82 Stat. 789. 1553
(1) Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare,
S. REP. No. 1307, 90th Cong., 2d Sess. (1968). 1554
(2) House Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce, H.R. REP. No. 1634, 90th Cong., 2d
Sess. (1968). 1558
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 114 (1968): 1561
(a) June 24: Amended and passed Senate, p.
18422;* 1561
(b) Aug. 1: Amended and passed House, p.
24801;* • _ 1561
1.12aa Public Health Training Grants Act, March 12, 1970,
P.L. 91-208, §3, 84 Stat. 52. 1562
(1) Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare,
S. REP. No. 91-586, 91st Cong., 1st Sess.
(1969) 1563
(2) House Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce, H.R. REP. No. 91-712, 91st Cong.,
1st Sess. (1969) 1570
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 91-
855, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970). 1570
(4) Congressional Record: 1572
(a) Vol. 115 (1969), Dec. 11: .Amended and
passed Senate, pp. 37457, 38460; 1572
(b) Vol. 115 (1969), Dec. 16: Amended and
passed House, pp. 3918-3942;* 1572
(c) Vol. 116 (1970), Feb. 26: Senate agrees to
conference report, p. 5084; 1573
(d) Vol. 116 (1970), Feb. 26: House agrees to
conference report, pp. 5094-5095. 1574
1.12ab Medical Facilities Construction and Modernization
Amendments of 1970, June 30, 1970, P.L. 91-296,
Title I, §111 (b), Title IV, §401 (b) (A) (1), (C),
(D), 84 Stat. 340, 352. 1576
(1) House Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce, H.R. REP. No. 91-262, 91st Cong.,
1st Sess. (1969) 1577
-------
CONTENTS xxvii
Page
(2) Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare,
S. REP. No. 91-657, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970). 1579
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 91-
1167, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970). 1582
(4) Congressional Record: 1583
(a) Vol. 115 (1969), June 4: Amended and
passed House, pp. 14654, 14659, 14664;* __ 1583
(b) Vol. 116 (1970), April 7: Amended and
passed Senate, pp. 10542, 10546;* 1583
(c) Vol. 116 (1970), June 8: Senate agreed to
conference report, pp. 18757, 18758, 18761;* 1584
(d) Vol. 116 (1970), June 10: House agreed to
conference report, p. 19199.* 1584
1.12ac Public Health Service Drug Abuse Research, October
27, 1970, P.L. 91-513, Title I, §3(b), 84 Stat. 1241.. 1584
(1) Senate Committee on the Judiciary, S. REP.
No. 91-613, 91st Cong., 1st Sess. (1969). 1585
(2) House Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce, H.R. REP. No. 91-1444, 91st Cong.,
2d Sess. (1970) 1585
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 91-
1603, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970) 1587
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 116 (1970): 1588
(a) Jan. 28: Amended and passed Senate, p.
1647;* 1588
(b) Sept. 24: Amended and passed House, p.
33667;* 1588
(c) Oct. 14: House agreed to conference report,
pp. 36585, 36651;* 1588
(d) Oct. 14: Senate agreed to conference report,
p. 36885.* 1588
1.12ad Heart Disease, Cancer, Stroke and Kidney Disease
Amendments of 1970, October 30, 1970, P.L. 91-515,
Title II, §§201-203, 210, 220, 230, 240, 250, 260, (a),
(b), (c)(l), 270, 280, 282, 292, Title VI, §601(b)
(2), 84 Stat. 1301, 1303-1308, 1311. 1589
(1) House Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce, H.R. REP. No. 91-1297, 91st Cong.,
2d Sess. (1970). 1599
(2) Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare,
S. REP. No. 91-1090, 91st Cong., 2d Sess.
(1970) 1600
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 91-
1590, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970). 1638
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 116 (1970) : 1647
(a) Aug. 12: Amended and passed House, p.
28532; 1647
(b) Sept. 9: Amended and passed Senate, p.
31013; 1647
-------
xxviii CONTENTS
Page
(c) Oct. 13: House agreed to conference report,
pp. 36589-36591; 1648
(d) Oct. 14 : Senate agreed to conference report,
pp. 36888-36892. __. 1651
1.12ae Comprehensive Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Pre-
vention, Treatment, and Rehabilitation Act of 1970,
December 31, 1970, P.L. 91-616, Title III, §331, 84
Stat. 1853. 1651
(1) Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare,
S. REP. No. 91-1069, 91st Cong., 2d Sess.
(1970). 1651
(2) House Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce, H.R. REP. No. 91-1663, 91st Cong.,
2d Sess. (1970). 1653
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 116 (1970): 1654
(a) Aug. 10: Passed Senate, pp. 27857-27871;* 1654
(b) Dec. 18: Amended and passed House, pp.
42531, 42536;* 1654
(c) Dec. 19: Senate concurs in House amend-
ments, p. 42751.* 1654
1.13 The Davis-Bacon Act, as amended, 40 U.S.C. §§276a—
276a-5 (1964). 1655
[Referred to in 42 U.S.C. §1857j-3, 33 U.S.C. §1158 (g),
42 U.S.C. §3256]
1.13a The Davis-Bacon Act, March 3, 1931, P.L. 71-798,
46 Stat. 1494. 1659
(1) Senate Committee on Manufacturers, S. REP.
No. 1445, 71st Cong., 83d Sess. (1931). 1660
(2) House Committee on Labor, H.R. REP. No.
2453, 71st Cong., 83d Sess. (1931). 1662
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 74 (1930-1931) :__ 1664
(a) Feb. 4: Passed Senate, pp. 3918-3919; 1664
(b) Feb. 28: Debated and passed House, pp.
6504-6521. 1667
1.13b Amendment to the Act of March 3, 1931, August 30,
1935, P.L. 74-403, 49 Stat. 1011. 1705
(1) Senate Committee on Education and Labor, S.
REP. No 1155, 74th Cong., 1st Sess. (1935). _.. 1708
(2) House Committee on Labor, H.R. REP. No.
1756, 74th Cong., 1st Sess. (1935). 1713
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 79 (1935): 1720
(a) July 30: Amended and passed Senate, pp.
12072-12074; 1720
(b) Aug. 23: Debated and passed House, pp.
14384-14385. 1723
1.13c An Act to Require the Payment of Prevailing Rates
of Wages on Federal Public Works in Alaska and
Hawaii, June 15, 1940, P.L. 76-633, §1, 54 Stat. 399. 1726
(1) Senate Committee on Education and Labor, S.
REP. No. 1550, 76th Cong., 3d Sess. (1940). __ 1727
-------
CONTENTS xxix
Page
(2) House Committee on Labor, H.R. REP. No.
2264, 76th Cong., 3d Sess. (1940). 1728
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 86 (1940-1941): ... 1728
(a) May 28: Passed Senate, p. 6997; 1731
(b) June 3: Passed House, p. 7401. 1732
1.13d Hawaii Omnibus Act, July 12, 1960, P.L. 86-624,
§26, 74 Stat. 418. 1733
(1) House Committee on Interior and Insular Af-
fairs, H.R. REP. No. 1564, 86th Cong., 2d Sess.
(1960). 1734
(2) Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Af-
fairs, S. REP. No. 1681, 86th Cong., 2d Sess.
(1960) 1735
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 106 (1960): 1736
(a) May 16: Passed House, p. 10353;* 1736
(b) June 28: Amended and passed Senate, p.
14683;* 1736
(c) June 29: House concurs in Senate amend-
ment, p. 15009.* 1736
1.13e Amendments to Davis-Bacon Act, July 2, 1964, P.L.
88-349, §1, 78 Stat. 238. 1736
(1) House Committee on Education and Labor, H.R.
REP. No. 308, 88th. Cong., 1st Sess. (1963) 1738
(2) Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare,
S. REP. No. 963, 88th Cong., 2d Sess. (1964).__ 1774
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 110 (1964): 1788
(a) Jan. 28; Debated and passed House, pp.
1203-1233; 1788
(b) June 23: Passed Senate, pp. 14768-14770. 1858
1.13f Reorganization Plan No. 14 of 1950, 64 Stat. 1267,
5 U.S.C. §1332-15. 1863
1.13g Suspension of Provisions of Davis-Bacon Act of
March 3, 1931, Proclamation No. 4031, February 25,
1971, 36 Fed. Reg. 3457. 1864
1.13h Revocation of Proclamation of Suspension of Provi-
visions of Davis-Bacon Act, Proclamation No. 4040,
April 3, 1971, 36 Fed. Reg. 6335. 1866
Volume IV
1.14 Public Contracts, Advertisements for Proposals for Pur-
chases and Contracts for Supplies or Services for Govern-
ment Departments; Application to Government Sales and
Contracts to Sell and to Government Corporations, as
amended, 41 U.S.C. §5 (1958). 1869
[Referred to in 42 U.S.C. §1857b-l(a) (2) (D), 33 U.S.C.
§1155(g) (3) (A), 42 U.S.C. §242c(e)]
-------
xxx CONTENTS
Page
1.14a To Authorize Certain Administrative Expenses in
the Government Service, August 2, 1946, P.L. 79-600,
§9(a), (c), 60 Stat. 809. 1870
(1) House Committee on Expenditures in the Exec-
utive Departments, H.R. REP. No. 2186, 79th
Cong., 2d Sess. (1946). 1871
(2) Senate Committee on Expenditures in the Ex-
ecutive Departments, S. REP. No. 1636, 79th
Cong., 2d Sess. (1946). 1875
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 92 (1946) : 1878
(a) June 3: Amended and passed House, pp.
6165-6166;* 1878
(b) July 17: Amended and passed House, pp.
9189-9190; 1878
(c) July 26: House concurs in Senate amend-
ments, pp. 10185-10186. 1879
1.14b To Amend the Federal Property and Administrative
Services Act of 1949, September 5,1950, P.L. 81-744,
§§ 6(a), (b), 8(c), 64 Stat. 583, 591. 1880
(1) Senate Committee on Expenditures in the Ex-
ecutive Departments S. REP. No. 2140, 81st
Cong., 2d Sess. (1950). 1881
(2) House Committee on Expenditures in the Execu-
tive Departments, H.E. REP. No. 2747, 81st
Cong., 2d Sess. (1950). 1883
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 3001,
81st Cong., 2d Sess. (1950). 1884
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 96 (1950-1951): __ 1887
(a) July 26: Passed Senate, pp. 11092, 11094,
11096;* 1887
(b) Aug. 7: Amended and passed House, pp.
11919, 11921, 11922, 11927;* 1887
(c) Aug. 31: Senate agrees to conference re-
port, p. 13940;* 1887
(d) Aug. 31: House agrees to conference re-
port, p. 13993.* 1887
1.14c Small Business Opportunities Act, August 28, 1958,
85-800, §7, 72 Stat. 967 1888
(1) Senate Committee on Government Operations,
S. REP. No. 2201, 85th Cong., 2d Sess. (1958).. 1888
(2) Congressional Record, Vol. 104 (1958): 1891
(a) Aug. 14: Amended and passed Senate, p.
17539;* 1891
(b) Aug. 15: Committee discharged and passed
House, pp. 17908-17909.* 1891
1.15 Per Diem, Travel and Transportation Expenses; Experts
and Consultants; Individuals Serving Without Pay, as
amended, 5 U.S.C. §5703 (1969) 1892
[Referred to in 42 U.S.C. §§1857d(i), 1857e(e), 1857f-6e
(b)(2), 33 U.S.C. §§1159(a)(2)(B), 1160(c) (4),(i), 15
U.S.C. §1475(b), 42 U.S.C. §242f (b) (5), (6)]
-------
CONTENTS xxxi
Page
1.15a Administrative Expenses Act, August 2, 1946, P.L.
79-600, §5, 60 Stat. 808. 1893
(1) House Committee on Expenditures in Executive
Departments, H.R. REP. No. 2186, 79th Cong.,
2d Sess. (1946). 1894
(2) Senate Committee on Expenditures in Executive
Departments, S. REP. No. 1636, 79th Cong., 2d
Sess. (1946) 1895
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 92 (1946): 1895
(a) June 3: Amended and passed House, p.
6164;* 1895
(b) July 17: Amended and passed Senate, pp.
9189-9190; 1895
(c) July 26: House concurs in Senate amend-
ments, pp. 10185-10186.* 1896
1.15b Amendments to the 1946 Travel Expense Act, July
28, 1955, P.L. 84-189, §2, 69 Stat. 394. 1896
(1) Senate Committee on Government Operations,
S. REP. No. 353, 84th Cong., 1st Sess. (1955).__ 1897
(2) House Committee on Government Operations,
H.R. REP. No. 604, 84th Cong., 1st Sess.
(1955) 1903
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 1088,
84th Cong., 1st Sess. (1955): 1907
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 101 (1955) : 1909
(a) June 20: Amended and passed House, pp.
8752, 8755;* 1909
(b) June 22: Amended and passed Senate, p.
8928;* 1909
(c) July 12: House agrees to conference report,
p. 10300;* 1909
(d) July 13: Senate agrees to conference re-
port, p. 10387.* 1909
1.15c Enactment of Title 5, United States Code, "Govern-
ment Organization and Employees," September 6,
1966, P.L. 89-554, §5703, 80 Stat. 499. 1909
(1) House Committee on the Judiciary, H.R. REP.
No. 901, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. (1965). 1911
(2) Senate Committee on the Judiciary, S. REP.
No. 1380, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. (1966). 1916
(3) Congressional Record: 1917
(a) Vol. Ill (1965), Sept. 7: Passed House, p.
25954;* 1917
(b) Vol. 112 (1966), July 25: Amended and
passed Senate, pp. 17006, 17010-17011;* _ 1917
(c) Vol. 112 (1966), Aug. 11: House concurs
in Senate amendments, p. 19077.* 1917
1.15d Increase Maximum Rates Per Diem Allowance for
Government Employees, November 10, 1969, P.L.
91-114, §2, 83 Stat. 190. 1918
-------
xxxii CONTENTS
Page
(1) House Committee on Government Operations,
H.R. REP. No. 91-111, 91st Cong., 1st Sess.
(1969) ______________________________________ 1918
(2) Senate Committee on Government Operations,
S. REP. No. 91-450, 91st Cong., 1st Sess.
(1969) _____________________________________ 1930
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 115 (1969) : ______ 1941
(a) March 26: Considered and passed House,
pp. 7748-7752; _________________________ 1941
(b) Oct. 8: Amended and passed Senate, p.
29042; ________________________________ 1951
(c) Oct. 30: House concurs in Senate amend-
ments, pp. 32423-32425. _________________ 1952
1.16 Disclosure of Confidential Information Generally, as
amended, 18 U.S.C. §1905 (1948). ______________________ 1958
[Referred to in 42 U.S.C. §§1857c-9(c), 1857d(j)(l),
1857f-6(b), 1857h-5(a)(l), 33 U.S.C. §§1160 (f) (2), (k)
1.16a Disclosure of Information, June 25, 1948, P.L. 80-
772, §1905, 62 Stat. 791. ________________________ 1958
(1) House Committee on the Judiciary, H.R. REP.
No. 304, 80th Cong., 1st Sess. (1947). ________ 1959
(2) Senate Committee on the Judiciary, S. REP.
No. 1620, 80th Cong., 2d Sess. (1948) --------- 1960
(3) Congressional Record: ______________________ 1960
(a) Vol. 93 (1947), May 12: Amended and
passed House, p. 5049;* ________________ 1960
(b) Vol. 94 (1948), June 18: Amended and
passed Senate, pp. 8721-8722; __________ 1961
(c) Vol. 94 (1948), June 18: House concurs in
Senate amendments, p. 8865. _____________ 1961
1.17 Appropriation Bills
1.17a Agricultural-Environmental and Consumer Protec-
tion Appropriation Act of 1971, Title III, 85 Stat.
183. ------------------------------------------- 1962
(1) House Committee on Appropriations, H.R. REP.
No. 92-289, 92d Cong., 1st Sess. (1971). ______ 1963
(2) House Committee on Appropriations, H.R. REP.
No. 92-253, 92d Cong., 1st Sess. (1971). ______ 1981
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 92-
376, 92d Cong., 1st Sess. (1971). ____________ 1991
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 117 (1971): ______ 1994
(a) June 23: Amended and passed House, pp.
H5739-H5742, H5746-H5748, H5765, H-
5767, H5778-H5779, H5810-H5811; _______ 1964
(b) July 15 : Amended and passed Senate, pp.
S11161, S11162, S11163, S11164, S11165,
S11207, S11208, S11226-S11228; _________ 2005
(c) July 27: House agrees to conference report,
pp. H7170, H7171, H7172, H7173; ________ 2015
-------
CONTENTS xxxiii
Page
(d) July 28: Senate agrees to conference report,
pp. S12334-S12337.* 2016
1.17b Agricultural Environmental and Consumer Protec-
tion Programs Appropriation, August 22, 1972, P.L.
92-399, Title III, 86 Stat. 604 2017
(1) House Committee on Appropriations, H.R. REP.
No. 92-1175, 92d Cong., 2d Sess. (1972). 2019
(2) Senate Committee on Appropriations, S. Rep.
No. 92-983, 92d Cong., 2d Sess. (1972). 2058
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 92-
1283, 92d Cong., 2d Sess. (1972). 2067
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 118 (1972): 2074
(a) June 29: Considered and passed House, pp.
H6286-H6288, H6290, H6291, H6292, H-
6336; 2074
(b) July 27: Considered and passed Senate,
amended, pp. S12051-S12056, S12139-S-
12141; 2081
(c) Aug. 9: House and Senate agreed to confer-
ence report, pp. H7387-H7389, H3795,
H3796-H3797, S13161-S13162. 2093
2. Executive Orders
2.1 E.G. 11472, Establishing the Environmental Quality Coun-
cil and the Citizens Advisory Committee on Environmental
Quality, February 29, 1969, 34 Fed. Reg. 8693 (1969). ___ 2107
2.2 E.G. 11490, Emergency Preparedness Functions of Federal
Departments and Agencies, October 30, 1969, as amended,
35 Fed. Reg. 5659 (1970). 2111
2.3 E.G. 11507, Prevention, Control, and Abatement of Air and
Water Pollution at Federal Facilities, February 4, 1970, 35
Fed Reg. 2573 (1970). 2163
2.4 E.G. 11514, Protection and Enhancement of Environmental
Quality, March 5, 1970, 35 Fed. Reg. 4247 (1970). 2169
2.5 E.G. 11575, Administration of the Disaster Relief Act of
1970, as amended by E.G. 11662, March 29, 1972, 37 Fed.
Reg. 6563 (1972) 2173
2.6 E.G. 11587, Placing Certain Positions in Levels IV and V
of the Federal Executive Salary Schedule, March 15, 1971,
36 Fed. Reg. 475 (1971). 2175
2.7 E.G. 11628, Establishing a Seal for the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, October 18, 1971, 36 Fed. Reg. 20285
(1971). 2176
2.8 E.G. 11222, Standards of Ethical Conduct for Government
Officers and Employees, May 8, 1965, 30 Fed. Reg. 6469
(1965) 2177
2.9 E.G. 11667, Establishing the President's Advisory Commit-
tee on the Environmental Merit Awards Program, April
20, 1972, 37 Fed. Reg. 7763 (1972). 2185
-------
xxxiv CONTENTS
Page
3. Regulations.
3.1 Reorganization and Republication, Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, 36 Fed. Reg. 22369 (1971). 2187
3.2 Statement of Organization and General Information, En-
vironmental Protection Agency, 40 C.F.R. §§1.1-1.43
(1972).
3.3 Public Information, Environmental Protection Agency, 40
C.P.R. §§2.100-2.111 (1972).
3.4 Employee Responsibilities and Conduct, Environmental
Protection Agency, 40 C.F.R. §§3.735-101—3.735-107
(1971)
3.5 Interim Regulations and Procedures for Implementing the
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acqui-
sition Policies Act of 1970, Environmental Protection
Agency, 40 C.F.R. §§4.1-4.263 (1971).
3.6 Tuition Fees for Direct Training, Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, 40 C.F.R. §§5.1-5.7 (1972).
3.7 Certification of Facilities, Environmental Protection
Agency, 40 C.F.R. §§20.1-20.10 (1971).
3.8 General Grants Regulations and Procedures, Environ-
mental Protection Agency, 40 C.F.R. §§30.100-30.1001-3
(1972)
3.9 State and Local Assistance, Environmental Protection
Agency, 40 C.F.R. §§35.400-35.420 (1972).
3.10 Security Classification Regulation, Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, 41 C.F.R. §§11.1-11.6 (1972).
3.11 General, Environmental Protection Agency, 41 C.F.R.
§§15-1.000—15-1.5301 (1972).
3.12 Procurement by Formal Advertising, Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, 41 C.F.R. §§15-2.406-3-15—2.407-8
(1972)
3.13 Procurement by Negotiations, Environmental Protection
Agency, 41 C.F.R. §§15-3.51, 15-3.103, 15-3.405,
15-405-3, 15-3.600—15-3.606, 15-3.805, 15-3.808 (1972).-
3.14 Special Types and Methods of Procurement, Environmental
Protection Agency, 41 C.F.R. §§15-4.5300—15-4.5303
(1972).
3.15 Procurement Forms, Environmental Protection Agency,
41 C.F.R. §15-16.553-1 (1972).
3.16 Transportation, Environmental Protection Agency, 41
C.F.R. §§15-19.302—15-19.305 (1972).
3.17 Amortization of Pollution Control Facilities, Internal Rev-
enue Service, 26 C.F.R. §1.169 (1972).
3.18 Temporary Income Tax Regulations Under the Tax Reform
Act of 1969, Internal Revenue Service, 26 C.F.R. §§1.179-1,
1.642(f), 1.642(f)-l (1971).
3.19 Introduction, Environmental Protection Agency, 41 C.F.R.
§§115-1.100—115-1.110 (1971).
-------
CONTENTS xxxv
Page
4. Guidelines and Reports
4.1 The President's Environmental Program 2193
4. la The President's 1971 Environmental Program com-
piled by the Council on Environmental Quality,
March 1971, pp. 1-205 2193
4.1b The President's 1972 Environmental Program, com-
piled by the Council on Environmental Quality,
March 1972, pp. 1-75, 223. 2353
Volume V
4.2 Council on Environmental Quality, Annual Reports, as re-
quired by National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42
U.S.C. 34341. 2419
4.2a The First Annual Report of the Council on Environ-
mental Quality, August 1970, pp. 1-241. 2419
4.2b The Second Annual Report of the Council on En-
vironmental Quality, August 1971, pp. 3-265. 2660
Volume VI
4.2c The Third Annual Report of the Council on En-
vironmental Quality, August 1972, pp. 3-348. 2923
4.3 Citizens' Advisory Committee on Environmental Quality
Reports to the President and the President's Council on
Environmental Quality, as required by E.G. 11472, 3102 (c). 3269
4.3a Report to the President and the President's Council
on Environmental Quality, Citizens' Advisory Com-
mittee on Environmental Quality, August 1969. 3269
4.3b Report to the President and the President's Council
on Environmental Quality, Citizens' Advisory Com-
mittee on Environmental Quality, April 1971. 3292
4.4 Selected Reports: 3317
4.4a "Ocean Dumping: A National Policy." Report to the
President by the Council on Environmental Quality,
October 1970. 3317
4.4b "Toxic Substances", Report by the Council on En-
vironmental Quality, April 1971. 3377
4.5 Interim Guidelines, Executive Office of the President's
Council on Environmental Quality, 36 Fed. Reg. 7724
(1970) 3416
4.6 The Report of HEW and EPA on the Health Effects of
Environmental Pollution, Pursuant to Title V of P.L. 91-
515, H.R. Doc. No. 92-241, 92d Congress, 2d Sess. (1972)._ 3428
-------
xxxvi CONTENTS
Page
4.7 Interagency Agreements: 3461
4.7a Economic Dislocation Early Warning System Memoran-
dum of Understanding Between the Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency and the Secretary
of Labor (1971). 3461
4.7b Establishing and Maintaining an Industrial Security
Program, Interagency Agreement Between the Environ-
mental Protection Agency and the Department of De-
fense (1972). 3463
4.7c Cooperative Efforts Regarding Air and Water Quality
in Implementing the Everglades Jetport Pact, Memo-
randum of Understanding Between the Environmental
Protection Agency and National Park Service (1972). 3466
4.7d General Policy and Procedures for Providing Economic
and Technical Assistance to Developing Nations, Agree-
ment Between the Environmental Protection Agency and
the Agency for International Development (1972). — 3468
4.7e Cooperative Program Entitled Modular-Size Integrated
Utility Systems, Memoradum of Understanding Be-
tween the Environmental Protection Agency and the
Department of Housing and Urban Affairs (1972). 3473
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1233
1.12£(1) HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
H.R. REP. No. 779, 81st Cong., 1st Sess. (1949)
PROVIDING PAY AND PHYSICAL DISABILITY RETIRE-
MENT FOR MEMBERS OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES
JUNE 10, 1949.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State
of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. KILDAY, from the Committee on Armed Services, submitted
the following
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 5007]
The Committee on Armed Services, to whom was referred the
bill (H. R. 5007) to provide pay, allowances, and physical disabil-
ity retirement for members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine
Corps, Coast Guard, Coast and Geodetic Survey, Public Health
Service, the Reserve components thereof, the National Guard and
the Air National Guard, and for other purposes, having considered
the same, report favorably thereon with amendment and recom-
mend that the bill, H. R. 5007, as amended do pass.
[P.I]
Section 521 amends certain sections of the act of July 1, 1944,
relating to the Public Health Service in order to make certain
phraseology relating to pay and physical disability therein con-
form to the provisions of the proposed bill.
[p. 41]
-------
1234 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
1.12f(2) SENATE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
S. REP. No. 733, 81st Cong., 1st Sess. (1949)
PROVIDING PAY, ALLOWANCES, AND PHYSICAL DISA-
BILITY RETIREMENT FOR MEMBERS OF THE ARMY,
NAVY, AIR FORCE, MARINE CORPS, COAST GUARD,
COAST AND GEODETIC SURVEY, PUBLIC HEALTH SERV-
ICE, THE RESERVE COMPONENTS THEREOF, THE NA-
TIONAL GUARD, AND THE AIR NATIONAL GUARD, AND
FOR OTHER PURPOSES
JULY 20 (legislative day, JUNE 2), 1949.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. KNOWLAND, (for Mr. Tydings) from the Committee on
Armed Services, submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 5007]
The Committee on Armed Services, to whom was referred the
bill (H. R. 5007) to provide pay, allowances, and physical disabil-
ity retirement for members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine
Corps, Coast Guard, Coast and Geodetic Survey, Public Health
Service, the Reserve components thereof, the National Guard, and
the Air National Guard, and for other purposes, having considered
the same, report favorably thereon with amendments, and recom-
mend that the bill, as amended, do pass.
PURPOSE OF THE BILL
The purpose of the bill is to establish for the uniformed services
a compensation pattern which will tend to attract and retain first-
class personnel in the armed services, Coast Guard, Coast and
Geodetic Survey, and the Public Health Service. The bill also pro-
poses a complete revision of the laws which govern the basis of
compensation to be given to persons who are rendered unfit to
perform their duties by reason of a physical disability.
[p.l]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1235
U2f(3) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 95 (1949)
1.12f(3)(a) June 14: Debated in House, pp. 7656, 7676
Mr. SABATH. Mr. Speaker, this
resolution makes in order the con-
sideration of the bill H. R. 5007,
providing for pay, allowances, and
physical disability retirement for
members of the armed forces. It is
an open rule providing for 2 hours
general debate. After general debate,
the bill will be taken up, as usual,
under the 5-minute rule and read for
amendment.
This bill proposes compensation in
the way of pay, allowances, and physi-
cal disability retirement for all
branches of the uniformed services,
which includes: Army, Navy, Air
Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard,
Coast and Geodetic Survey, and the
Public Health Service. This increased
proposed compensation is to serve as
an added inducement so as to attract
and retain desirable personnel in the
services. At the same time, this bill
will correct and simplify an anti-
quated pay system that has been
building up in various phases since
1908. It will also, and justifiably so,
provide for a complete revision of the
present physical disability retirement
laws and establish a new system based
on either the degree of disability or
years of service. This change in the
retirement laws will eventually save
the American taxpayers and the Gov-
ernment millions of dollars.
[p. 7656]
Mr. WOLVERTON.
Please remember we are not asking
that the salaries of members of the
Public Health Service commissioned
corps be brought into line with physi-
cians and dentists in private practice.
I am convinced—and, certainly, the
record bears me out—that the work
of the Service carries sufficient pro-
fessional satisfaction to draw to it
and to hold highly competent men
and women if only they are assured a
basic financial security for themselves
and their families.
For these reasons, I ask that you
give your earnest attention to the bill
now under consideration. This bill re-
lates not only to the compensation of
members of the armed forces, but
includes as well the commissioned
corps of the Public Health Service.
It bears seriously on the Nation's
guiding instrument to health improve-
ment, and I urge that you give it full
support.
Mr. KILDAY. Mr. Chairman, I
yield such time as he may require
to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr.
VINSON].
[p.7676]
1.12f(3)(b) June 15: Passed House, p. 7775
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
1.12f(3)(c) Sept. 26: Amended and passed Senate, p. 13261
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
-------
1236 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
1.12f(3)(d) Sept. 27: House concurs in Senate amendments, p.
13358
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
1.12g 1953 REORGANIZATION PLAN NO. 1
§§ 5, S, 67 Stat. 631
TEXT OF REORGANIZATION PLAN NO. 1 OF 1953
Prepared by the President and transmitted to the Senate and
the House of Representatives in Congress assembled, March 12,
1953, pursuant to the provisions of the Reorganization Act of
1949, approved June 20,1949, as amended.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
Sec. 5. Transfers to the Department.—All functions of the Federal Secu-
rity Administrator are hereby transferred to the Secretary. All agencies of
the Federal Security Agency, together with their respective functions, per-
sonnel, property, records, and unexpended balances of appropriations, alloca-
tions, and other funds (available or to be made available), and all other func-
tions, personnel, property, records, and unexpended balances of appropria-
tions, allocations, and other funds (available or to be made available) of the
Federal Security Agency are hereby transferred to the Department.
Sec. 8. Abolitions.—The Federal Security Agency (exclusive of the agen-
cies thereof transferred by sec. 5 of this reorganization plan), the offices of
Federal Security Administrator and Assistant Federal Security Administra-
tor created by Reorganization Plan No. I (53 Stat. 1423), the two offices of
assistant heads of the Federal Security Agency created by Reorganization
Plan No. 2 of 1946 (60 Stat. 1095), and the office of Commissioner for Social
Security created by section 701 of the Social Security Act, as amended (64
Stat. 558), are hereby abolished. The Secretary shall make such provisions as
may be necessary in order to wind up any outstanding affairs of the Agency
and offices abolished by this section which are not otherwise provided for in
this reorganization plan.
[p. 631]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1237
1.12g(l) MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT
ACCOMPANYING REORGANIZATION PLAN NO. 1
H.R. Doc. No. 102, 83rd Cong., 1st Sess. (1953)
REORGANIZATION PLAN NO. 1 OF 1953
President Eisenhower transmitted Reorganization Plan No. I of
1953, creating a Department of Health, Education and Welfare, to
the First Session of the 83rd Congress with his message of March
12,1953 (H.Doc. 102).
To the Congress of the United States:
I transmit herewith Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1953, prepared in accord-
ance with the provisions of the Reorganization Act of 1949, as amended.
In my message of February 2, 1953, I stated that I would send to the Con-
gress a reorganization plan defining a new administrative status for Federal
activities in health, education, and social security. This plan carries out that
intention by creating a Department of Health, Education, and Welfare as
one of the executive departments of the Government and by transferring to
it the various units of the Federal Security Agency. The Department will
be headed by a Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, who will be
assisted by an Under Secretary and two Assistant Secretaries.
The purpose of this plan is to improve the administration of the vital
health, education, and social-security functions now being carried on in the
Federal Security Agency by giving them departmental rank. Such action is
demanded by the importance and magnitude of these functions, which affect
the well-being of millions of our citizens. The programs carried on by the
Public Health Service include, for example, the conduct and promotion of
research into the prevention and cure of such dangerous ailments as cancer
and heart disease. The Public Health Service also administers payments to
the States for the support of their health services and for urgently needed
hospital construction. The Office of Education collects, analyzes, and distrib-
utes to school administrators throughout the country information relating to
the organization and management of educational systems. Among its other
functions is the provision of financial help to school districts burdened by
activities of the United States Government. State assistance to the aged, the
blind, the totally disabled, and dependent children is heavily supported by
grants-in-aid administered through the Social Security Administration. The
old-age and survivors insurance system and child development and welfare
programs are additional responsibilities of that Administration. Other offices
of the Federal Security Agency are responsible for the conduct of Federal
vocational rehabilitation programs and for the enforcement of food and drug
laws.
There should be an unremitting effort to improve those health, education,
and social-security programs which have proved their value. I have already
recommended the expansion of the social-security system to cover persons not
now protected, the continuation of assistance to school districts whose popu-
lation has been greatly increased by the expansion of defense activities, and
the strengthening of our food and drug laws.
But good intent and high purpose are not enough; all such programs de-
pend for their success upon efficient, responsible administration. I have re-
-------
1238 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
cently taken action to assure that the Federal Security Administrator's views
are given proper consideration in executive councils by inviting her to attend
meetings of the Cabinet. Now the establishment of the New Department pro-
vided for in Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1953 will give the needed additional
assurance that these matters will receive the full consideration they deserve
in the whole operation of the Government.
This need has long- been recognized. In 1923, President Harding proposed
a Department of Education and Welfare, which was also to include health
functions. In 1924, the Joint Committee on Reorganization recommended a
[p. 869]
new department similar to that suggested by President Harding. In 1932, one
of President Hoover's reorganization proposals called for the concentration
of health, education, and recreational activities in a single executive depart-
ment. The President's Committee on Administrative Management in 1937
recommended the placing of health, education, and social-security functions
in a Department of Social Welfare. This recommendation was partially im-
plemented in 1939 by the creation of the Federal Security Agency—by which
action the Congress indicated its approval of the grouping of these functions
in a single agency. A new department could not be proposed at that time be-
cause the Reorganization Act of 1939 prohibited the creation of additional
executive departments. In 1949, the Commission on Organization of the Exec-
utive Branch of the Government proposed the creation of a department for
social security and education.
The present plan will make it possible to give the official directing the De-
partment titles indicative of their responsibilities and salaries comparable to
those received by their counterparts in other executive departments. As the
Under Secretary of an executive department, the Secretary's principal assist-
ant will be better equipped to give leadership in the Department's organiza-
tion and management activities, for which he will be primarily responsible.
The plan opens the way to further administrative improvement by authoriz-
ing the Secretary to centralize services and activities common to the several
agencies of the Department. It also establishes a uniform method of appoint-
ment for the heads of the three major constituent agencies. At present, the
Surgeon General and the Commissioner of Education are appointed by the
President and confirmed by the Senate, while the Commissioner for Social
Security is appointed by the Federal Security Administrator. Hereafter, all
three will be Presidential appointees subject to Senate confirmation.
I believe, and this plan reflects my conviction, that these several fields of
Federal activity should continue within the framework of a single depart-
ment. The plan at the same time assures that the Office of Education and the
Public Health Service retain the professional and substantive responsibilities
vested by law in those agencies or in their heads. The Surgeon General, the
Commissioner of Education, and the Commissioner of Social Security will all
have direct access to the Secretary.
There should be in the Department an Advisory Committee on Education,
made up of persons chosen by the Secretary from outside the Federal Gov-
ernment, which would advise the Secretary with respect to the educational
programs of the Department. I recommend the enactment of legislation au-
thorizing the defrayal of the expenses of this Committee. The creation of
such a Committee as an advisory body to the Secretary will help insure the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1239
maintenance of responsibility for the public educational system in State and
local governments while preserving the national interest in education through
appropriate Federal action.
After investigation I have found and hereby declare that each reorganiza-
tion included in Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1953 is necessary to accomplish
one or more of the purposes set forth in section 2(a) of the Reorganization
Act of 1949, as amended. I have also found and hereby declare that by reason
of these reorganizations, it is necessary to include in the reorganization plan
provisions for the appointment and compensation of the new officers specified
in sections 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the reorganization plan. The rates of compensa-
tion fixed for these officers are, respectively, those which I have found to pre-
vail in respect of comparable officers in the executive branch of the Govern-
ment.
Although the effecting of the reorganizations provided for in the reorga-
nization plan will not in itself result in immediate savings, the improvement
achieved in administration will in the future allow the performance of neces-
sary services at greater savings than present operations would permit. An
itemization of these savings in advance of actual experience is not practicable.
DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER
THE WHITE HOUSE,
March 12,1953.
[p. 870]
1.12h AMENDMENT TO TITLE 13 U.S. CODE
August 31,1954, P.L. 83-740, § 2, 68 Stat. 1025
SEC. 2. Title III of the Public Health Service Act (58 Stat. 682),
as amended, is amended by inserting, immediately following sec-
tion 312 thereof (42 U. S. C., sec. 244), and preceding section 313
thereof (42 U. S. C., sec. 245), the following new section:
"SEC. 312a. There shall be a collection of the statistics of the
births and deaths in registration areas annually, the data for
which shall be obtained only from and restricted to such registra-
tion records of such States and municipalities as in the discretion
of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare possess rec-
ords affording satisfactory data in necessary detail, the compensa-
tion for the transcription of which shall not exceed 4 cents for
each birth or death reported; or a minimum compensation of $25
may be allowed in the discretion of the Secretary of Health, Edu-
cation, and Welfare; in States or cities registering less than five
hundred deaths or five hundred births during the preceding year."
[p. 1025]
-------
1240 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
1.12h(l) HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
H.R. REP. No. 1980, 83rd Cong., 2d Sess. (1954)
EEVISION OF TITLE 13, UNITED STATES CODE, ENTI-
TLED "CENSUS"
JUNE 29, 1954.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State
of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. McCuLLocH, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted
the following1
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 9729]
The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill
(H. R. 9729) to revise, codify, and enact into law title 13 of the
United States Code, entitled "Census," having considered the
same, report favorably thereon without amendment and recom-
mend that the bill do pass.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
PURPOSE OF REVISION
The purpose of this bill is to revise and enact into law title 13 of
the United States Code entitled "Census." It is not the primary
purpose to make substantive changes, but rather to put the law in
a form more useful and understandable. This required the substi-
tution of simple language for awkward terms, reconciliation of
conflicting laws, omission of superseded, obsolete, or executed sec-
tions, and consolidation of similar or related provisions. Wherever
substantive changes were made (which were few), the explana-
tions thereof and the reasons therefor are given in the Revision
Notes to the sections concerned.
[P.I]
SUBCHAPTER III—'PROCEDURE
SECTION 241—SECTION REVISED
Based on title 13, U. S. C., 1952 ed., §§ 74, 84 (Aug. 7, 1916, ch.
274, § 4, 39 Stat. 437; Apr. 2, 1924, ch. 80, § 4, 43 Stat. 32; June
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1241
18, 1929, ch. 28, § 21, 46 Stat. 26; June 14, 1938, ch. 358, 52 Stat.
678; July 25,1947, ch. 331, 61 Stat. 457).
Section consolidates part of section 74 of title 13, U. S. C., 1952
ed., which section related to the collection of cotton statistic, with
part of section 84 of such title, which section related to the collec-
tion of statistics on oilseeds, nuts and kernels, fats, oils and
greases. For remainder of such sections 74 and 84, see Distribu-
tion Table.
Section 74 of title 13, U. S. C., 1952 ed., authorized the making
of requests for information by registered mail, and provided that,
if so made, the registry receipt should be "accepted as evidence of
[p. 32]
such demand". Section 84 thereof authorized the making of re-
quests by registered mail, or "by telegraph", and provided that, if
so made, the "return" receipt therefor should be "prima facie
evidence of an official request". The authorizations contained in
such sections have been carried into section 224 of this title, and
the evidentiary provisions thereof have been carried into this sec-
tion, and they apply to investigations other than those to which
such sections 74 and 84 related. See Revision Note to section 224
of this title.
In this revised section, the language of section 84 of title 13,
U. S. C., 1952 ed., was largely followed as probably being the more
desirable, but "or other written receipt thereof" was inserted
since there is no return receipt with respect to a telegram, and
words "in any prosecution under such section" were inserted for
the purpose of completeness.
Further, words "Secretary or other authorized officer or em-
ployee of the Department of Commerce or bureau or agency
thereof" were substituted for references to the Director of the
Census, to conform with 1950 Reorganization Plan No. 5, §§ 1, 2,
eff. May 24, 1950, 15 F. R. 3174, 64 Stat. 1263. See Revision Note
to section 4 of this title.
Changes were made in phraseology.
[p. 33]
-------
1242 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
1.12h(2) SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
S. REP. No. 2497,83rd Cong., 2d Sess. (1954)
EEVISION OF TITLE 13 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE,
ENTITLED "CENSUS"
AUGUST 18 (legislative day, AUGUST 5), 1954—Ordered to be printed
Mr. BUTLER, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the
following
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 9729]
The Committee on the Judiciary, to which was referred the bill,
(H. R. 9729) to revise, codify, and enact into law, title 13, of the
United Seates Code, entitled "Census", having considered the
same, reports favorably thereon, with amendments, and recom-
mends that the bill, as amended, do pass.
[p-i]
SUBCHAPTER III—PROCEDURE
SECTION 241—SECTION REVISED
Based on title 13, U. S. C., 1952 ed., §§ 74, 84 (Aug. 7, 1916, ch.
274, § 4, 39 Stat. 437; Apr. 2, 1924, ch. 80, § 4, 43 Stat. 32; June
18, 1929, ch. 28, § 21, 46 Stat. 26; June 14, 1938, ch. 358, 52 Stat.
678; July 25, 1947, ch. 331, 61 Stat. 457).
Section consolidates part of section 74 of title 13, U. S. C., 1952
ed., which section related to the collection of cotton statistics, with
part of section 84 of such title, which section related to the collec-
tion of statistics on oilseeds, nuts and kernels, fats, oils and
greases. For remainder of such sections 74 and 84, see Distribu-
tion Table.
Section 74 of title 13, U. S. C., 1952 ed., authorized the making
of requests for information by registered mail, and provided that,
if so made, the registry receipt should be "accepted as evidence of
[p. 32]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1243
such demand". Section 84 thereof authorized the making of re-
quests by registered mail, or "by telegraph", and provided that, if
so made, the "return" receipt therefor should be "prima facie
evidence of an official request". The authorizations contained in
such sections have been carried into section 224 of this title, and
the evidentiary provisions thereof have been carried into this sec-
tion, and they apply to investigations other than those to which
such sections 74 and 84 related. See Revision Note to section 224
of this title.
In this revised section, the language of section 84 of title 13,
U. S. C., 1952 ed., was largely followed as probably being the more
desirable, but "or other written receipt thereof" was inserted
since there is no return receipt with respect to a telegram, and
words "in any prosecution under such section" were inserted for
the purpose of completeness.
Further, words "Secretary or other authorized officer or em-
ployee of the Department of Commerce or bureau or agency
thereof" were substituted for references to the Director of the
Census, to conform with 1950 Reorganization Plan No. 5, §§ 1, 2,
eff. May 24, 1950, 15 F. R. 3174, 64 Stat. 1263. See Revision Note
to section 4 of this title.
Changes were made in phraseology.
[p.33]
1.12h(3) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 100 (1954)
1.12h(3)(a) July 6: Passed House, p. 9806
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
1.12h(3)(b) Aug. 19: Amended and passed Senate, p. 15123
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
1.12h(3)(c) Aug. 19: House concurs in Senate amendments, p.
15269
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
-------
1244 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
1.12i NATIONAL HEALTH SURVEY ACT
July 3,1956, P.L. 84-652, § 4, 70 Stat. 490
SEC. 4. Section 301 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U. S. C.
241) is amended by striking out the word "and" at the end of
paragraph (f), redesignating paragraph (g) as paragraph (h),
and inserting immediately following paragraph (f) the following
new paragraph :
"(g) Make available, to health officials, scientists, and appropri-
ate public and other nonprofit institutions and organizations, tech-
nical advice and assistance on the application of statistical meth-
ods to experiments, studies, and surveys in health and medical
fields; and".
Approved July 3, 1956.
[P. 490]
1.12i(l) SENATE COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND
PUBLIC WELFARE
S. REP. No. 1718, 84th Cong., 2d Sess. (1956)
CONTINUING SUKVEY AND SPECIAL STUDIES OF SICK-
NESS AND DISABILITY IN THE UNITED STATES
MARCH 28 (legislative day, March 26), 1956.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. HILL, from the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, sub-
mitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany S. 3076]
The Committee on Labor and Public Welfare to whom was
referred the bill (S. 3076) to provide for a continuing survey and
special studies of sickness and disability in the United States, and
for periodic reports of the results thereof, and for other purposes,
report favorably thereon, with an amendment, and unanimously
recommend that the bill, as amended, do pass.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1245
I. NEED FOR MORBIDITY STATISTICS
In the course of consideration of this measure the committee
heard no dissenting voice as to the urgency of the need for im-
proved statistics on the extent and kind of illness and disability in
the population. In fact, it is clear that this legislation would close
a major gap in our population and health statistics. We have
available today only piecemeal data—from special studies and sur-
veys, from reports on particular kinds of diseases, or from records
kept for a variety of purposes on particular segments of the popu-
lation.
Our Federal-State reporting systems for communicable diseases
and causes of death cover only a small part of the illnesses experi-
enced by the general population. Data from special surveys and
health statistics about particular groups of the population have
little value for making estimates of illness for the whole popula-
tion. Taken alone they do not present a representative sample of
the whole population. Hospitalization records represent only a
part of the illnesses receiving medical attention and they have
serious limitations for drawing general conclusions because they
cannot be reliably linked to the population served. The data from
these various sources cannot be combined because of the lack of
comparability in the bases upon which they were collected.
Against a backdrop of reliable basic data, however, material from
[p.i]
special surveys and health records of special groups in the popula-
tion could provide much valuable supplementary material.
Our most recent comprehensive data are those collected by the
National Health Survey in 1935-36. The figures obtained then are
still used—with adjustments for later population increases—be-
cause there is no later information for the population as a whole.
There is a more serious timelag here than appears from the mere
passage of 20 years. The last two decades have seen the develop-
ment of the wonder drugs and the development of many new
medical, surgical and rehabilitative techniques. There has been
much progress in public-health programs and in the construction
of hospitals and other health facilities. We cannot accurately as-
sess what has been accomplished by these advances or estimate
with the necessary precision the magnitude of the health and
medical problems we still face.
The committee considers this an essential and long overdue
-------
1246 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
measure. A wide range of public and private purposes would be
advanced by reliable basic information on illness and disability.
As our communicable disease reporting system aided the devel-
opment of effective control programs to counter the serious conta-
gious diseases of past decades, so better information on the occur-
rence and severity of chronic disease and disability will assist a
more effective attack on these major health problems of the pres-
ent
Statistics made available periodically as a result of the continu-
ing morbidity survey are needed for sound planning and evalua-
tion of programs in such fields as public health, vocational rehabil-
itation, welfare, and the special educational problems of physically
handicapped or mentally retarded children. They will provide a
better measure of need for hospitals and chronic disease facilities
and will aid in planning for more effective geographical distribu-
tion of these and other health facilities. Statistics on illness and
disability are also needed by voluntary health insurance carriers
and by agencies and industries which have to cope with problems
of manpower and absenteeism. Better statistics on the frequency
of various types of nonfatal accidents will greatly assist the public
and private safety programs which seek to reduce accidental in-
jury in the home, on the highway, and in industry. Knowledge of
the health status of people in middle and later years is essential to
effective community planning for the continued activity and gen-
eral well-being of older persons.
Medical research would have at hand an additional useful tool.
Data showing associations between various diseases and such fac-
tors as economic status, climate, geographical location, and the
like often point to new areas for exploration or suggest hypotheses
for further testing.
A number of voluntary groups carry on programs of research
and public education in connection with certain diseases or condi-
tions such as poliomyelitis, heart disease, cancer, mental health,
multiple sclerosis, crippling conditions, and alcoholism. In the past
these organizations have had to rely almost entirely on mortality
statistics to guide them in the wise expenditure of the large sums
collected annually for these purposes. They would be greatly aided
by the availability of current morbidity data.
[P. 2]
II. PROPOSED SURVEY PROGRAM
The National Morbidity Survey Act proposed in S. 3076 was
developed upon the basis of specific recommendations framed by a
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1247
subcommittee of experts charged with this task by the United
States National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics estab-
lished in 1949.
As described in the testimony presented to your committee, the
morbidity survey program would consist of two parts, each of
which would supplement the other. The first part would consist of a
continuous schedule of interviewing representative samples of the
population of the country to collect information about illnesses,
injuries and physical impairments of which the householders
themselves are aware and are willing to give information on a
noncompulsory basis. Information concerning the care received in
connection with these conditions would also be sought. These data
wouM be summarized and published at periodic intervals. Infor-
mation so obtained would include—for each major disease and
type of impairment—such things as number, age, sex, occupation
of persons afflicted, the duration of disability, the amounts and
types of medical or other services received for, or because of, the
illness or disability, and ability to work or engage in other activi-
ties—for example, the ability to attend school in the case of a
child, or, in the case of a housewife, the ability to perform usual
household duties.
It is now planned to publish data separately for the 10 largest
metropolitan areas and some 40 additional regions, at intervals of
2 years. It will probably be possible to publish quarterly estimates
—with less detail—for the Nation as a whole. Regional estimates
have been planned with a view to obtaining data which would
have validity and usefulness for local purposes—for health
officers, for other public officials and agencies and for community
planning purposes.
The second part of the survey program would consist of a series
of special studies, a major purpose of which would be to ascertain
the amount of nonmanifest or undiagnosed chronic disease in the
population—that is, disease which can be detected by physical
examination and clinical tests but which has not yet caused the
householder such discomfort or disability that he has had occasion
to seek medical attention. For example, subclinical diabetes can be
diagnosed by tests even before the individual is aware that any-
thing is wrong. Knowledge of the amount of such nonmanifest
disease is often of great importance in planning public-health pro-
grams, yet it cannot be obtained by interviewing the individual.
For this reason it is important to supplement the interview with
special studies in which physical examination and clinical tests
could be used for a smaller sample of the surveyed population.
-------
1248 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
Other important purposes of the special studies would be to im-
prove the accuracy of the general survey data and to explore
complex health problems. Analysis of medical records in hospitals,
clinics and physicians' offices would be made with the consent of
the individuals concerned and with the cooperation of the physi-
cian or institution. These special studies would be conducted at
intervals as needed.
It is estimated that the continuing program would cost in the
neighborhood of $1.25 million annually, with somewhat lower
costs in the initial year of preparation and planning. A small
full-time staff in the Public Health Service would be responsible
[p. 3]
for overall direction, planning of content, analysis and interpreta-
tion of results, and the publication of reports. The Public Health
Service would also carry on the special studies with its own staff
and by cooperative arrangements and contracts with appropriate
public and private agencies and groups. For example, arrange-
ments for the searching of medical records, physical examinations
and clinical testing might be made with hospitals, clinics, local
public-health agencies and medical schools.
Working agreements would be made with the Bureau of the
Census in the Department of Commerce for the bulk of the work
of the continuing household survey—work which involves the
major expense of that part of the survey program and for which
the special skills and resources of the Census Bureau are particu-
larly suited. According to present plans, this would include such
operations as selecting representative samples of the population,
data collection in the field through interviews, and the mechanical
processing of the field data. Thus, all unnecessary duplication of
specialized staff and field offices would be avoided. The collection
of data for the continuing survey would be carried on by means of
a scheduled program of interviews in sample households through-
out the country. This would be done by a small crew of regularly
employed enumerators working on a part-time basis—perhaps a
few days of each month.
This method—the continuing collection by interviewing repre-
sentative samples of the Nation's householders—is preferable to a
nationwide survey repeated at intervals of 3 or 4 years for 2 main
reasons. First, certain types of illness fluctuate markedly with the
seasons and from year to year and it is important to have infor-
mation on these illnesses at rather frequent intervals. For exam-
ple, much industrial absenteeism is due to respiratory diseases,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1249
and quarterly publication, and perhaps even more frequent office
analysis of these figures would be important in times of national
stress.
Second, greater precision per dollar expended can be obtained
by having the interviewing done on a continuing basis. A smaller
crew of enumerators would be possible because a smaller number
of householders would be being interviewed in any given period.
The households composing the sample would be changed periodi-
cally. The enumerators could be trained at the outset, with new
employees being trained only as replacements. Thus the quality of
work would be better, supervision of this smaller force would be
more effective, and there would be savings in training costs. In
contrast, the repeated or intermittent large survey would require
a larger crew of enumerators when the data were being collected
and a new crew would have to be recruited and trained each time.
The overall survey would thus be "continuing" in the sense that
the fieldwork of interviewing would be conducted on a regularly
planned basis by continuously employed and experienced part-time
enumerators. This plan of data collection will permit more fre-
quent summarization of information when the need occurs and
will help to keep the program flexible enough to meet new needs
and uses as they arise.
[p. 4]
1.12i(2) HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND
FOREIGN COMMERCE
H.R. REP. No. 2108, 84th Cong., 2d Sess. (1956)
NATIONAL HEALTH SURVEY ACT
MAY 3, 1956.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State
of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. DIES, from the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Com-
merce, submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany S. 3076]
The Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, to whom
was referred the bill (S. 3076) to provide for a continuing survey
-------
1250 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
and special studies of sickness and disability in the United States,
and for periodic reports of the results thereof, and for other
purposes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon
with an amendment and recommend that the bill as amended do
pass.
[p-l]
SEC. 4. Section 301 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 241) is
amended by striking out the word "and" at the end of paragraph (f), re-
designating paragraph (g) as paragraph (h), and inserting immediately fol-
lowing paragraph (f) the following new paragraph:
"(g) Make available, to health officials, scientists, and appropriate public
and other nonprofit institutions and organizations, technical advice and
assistance on the application of statistical methods to experiments, studies,
and surveys in health and medical fields; and."
[p. 2]
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS
*******
Section 4 of the bill would amend section 301 of the Public
Health Service Act by providing that the Surgeon General shall be
authorized to make available, to health officials, scientists, and
appropriate public and other nonprofit institutions and organiza-
tions, technical advice and assistance on the application of statisti-
cal methods to experiments, studies, and surveys in health and
medical fields.
[p-9]
1.12i(3) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 102 (1956)
1.12i(3)(a) March 29: Amended and passed Senate, p. 5816
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
1.12i(3)(b) May 21: Objected to in House, p. 8562
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
1.12i(3)(c) June 18: Amended and passed House, p. 10521
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1251
1.12J AN ACT OF IMPLEMENTING §25(b) OF THE
ORGANIC ACT OF GUAM
August 1,1956, P.L. 84-896, § 18, 70 Stat. 910
SEC. 18. Effective July 1, 1956, section 314 of the Public Health
Service Act (58 Stat. 682, 693), as amended (42 U. S. C., sec.
246), is further amended by adding the following new subsection:
" (1) Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, the provi-
sions of this section shall be applicable to Guam in the same
[p.910]
manner in which they apply to the States. Amounts paid to Guam
from its allotment under subsections (a), (b), (c), or (e) of this
section, together with matching funds of Guam, may, with the
approval of the Surgeon General, be expended in carrying out the
purposes specified in any such subsection or subsections other than
the one under which the allotment was made.
[p. 9H]
U2j(l) HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND
INSULAR AFFAIRS
H.R. REP. No. 2259, 84th Cong., 2d Sess. (1956)
IMPLEMENTING SECTION 25 (B) OF THE ORGANIC ACT
OF GUAM BY CARRYING OUT THE RECOMMENDATIONS
OF THE COMMISSION ON THE APPLICATION OF FED-
ERAL LAWS TO GUAM
JUNE 4, 1956.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State
of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. ENGLE, from the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,
submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 11522]
The Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, to whom was
referred the bill (H. R. 11522) to implement section 25 (b) of the
Organic Act of Guam by carrying out the recommendations of the
-------
1252 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
Commission on the Application of Federal Laws to Guam, and for
other purposes, having- considered the same, report favorably ther-
eon without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass.
EXPLANATION OF THE BILL
H. R. 11522, introduced by Congressman O'Brien of New York
as a "clean bill" following committee consideration of predecessor
legislation, has as its purpose the implementation of section 25
(b) of the Organic Act of Guam by carrying out the recommenda-
tions of the Commission on the Application of Federal Laws to
Guam, and for other purposes.
[p.i]
PUBLIC HEALTH PROVISIONS
Section 18 amends section 314 of the Public Health Service Act
(58 Stat. 682, 693), as amended (42 U. S. C. sec. 246), to make
said section 314 (and appropriations thereunder) applicable to
Guam in the same manner as it now applies to the States and
other United States Territories and possessions. This section will
permit Guam, with the approval of the Surgeon General, to use its
allotments under the various subsections of section 314 for any
one or more of the purposes specified in these subsections instead
of limiting the use of each allotment to the particular subsection
under which it was made. The purpose of this amendment to the
Public Health Act is to permit necessary flexibility in the use by
Guam of grants for public health. The Public Health Service Act
is now generally applicable to Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and
the Virgin Islands, and some of its provisions apply to Guam as
well. This section will place Guam in the same category as the
other Territories and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
[P. 4]
18. Section 18 amends the Public Health Service Act to author-
ize the Surgeon General to extend certain services to Guam.
The Public Health Service Act is now generally applicable to
Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, and some of
its provisions apply to Guam, as well. Two of the most important
activities authorized by the act do not, however, apply to Guam:
namely, the detailing of personnel and the payment of grants-in-
aid for the study, prevention, control, and treatment of certain
diseases (such as tuberculosis, venereal disease, mental health,
[p. 8]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1253
heart disease, and cancer). Because Guam's health needs differ
from those of other areas in the United States, it was thought
desirable to extend these activities authorized by the Public Health
Service Act to Guam on a more flexible basis than applies else-
where. Section 18 provides the necessary flexibility, and allows
grants to Guam for the study of such diseases as might be most
prevalent in the territory.
[P. 9]
A BILL To implement section 25 (b) of the Organic Act of Guam by carry-
ing out the recommendations of the Commission on the Application of
Federal Laws to Guam, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That (a) section
101 (a) (1) of the Federal Seed Act (53 Stat. 1275; 7 U. S. C.,
sec. 1561 (a) (1)), is amended by inserting immediately after the
word "Hawaii," the word "Guam,"
[P. 12]
SEC. 18. Effective July 1, 1955, the Public Health Service Act
(58 Stat. 682), as amended (42 U. S. C., sec. 201 et seq.), is
further amended by inserting after section 315 (58 Stat. 682, 695,
42 U. S. C., sec. 247), the following new section:
"GRANTS AND SERVICES TO GUAM
"SEC. 316. (a) There is hereby authorized to be appropriated
for each fiscal year a sum sufficient to enable the Surgeon General,
through the provision of consultative services, investigations and
[P. 16]
demonstrations, grants-in-aid, and the training of personnel (in-
cluding the establishment of facilities for research and training),
to cooperate with and assist Guam in establishing and maintaining
adequate public health services.
"(b) For each fiscal year, the Surgeon General shall determine
the portion of the appropriation under subsection (a) which will
be available for payments to Guam and shall from time to time
make payments therefrom to Guam in the amounts he determines
to be necessary for such ensuing period as he may designate. The
amount so determined shall prior to payment, be reduced or in-
creased, as the case may be, by the amount by which the Surgeon
-------
1254 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
General finds that estimates of required expenditures with respect
to any prior period were greater or less than the actual expendi-
tures for such period. Such payments shall be made through the
disbursing facilities of the Department of the Treasury and prior
to the audit or settlement by the General Accounting Office.
"(c) The moneys so paid to Guam shall be expended solely in
carrying out the purposes specified in this section and in accord-
ance with a plan submitted by the health authority of Guam and
approved by the Surgeon General. Such moneys shall be paid upon
the condition that there shall be spent in Guam for the same
general purpose from funds of Guam an amount determined by
the Surgeon General.
"(d) Whenever the Surgeon General, after reasonable notice
and opportunity for hearing to the health authority of Guam, finds
that with respect to money paid to Guam under this section there
is a failure to comply substantially with the provisions of this
section or the plan submitted under this section, he shall notify the
health authority that further payments will not be made from
appropriations under this section (or, in his discretion, that fur-
ther payments will not be made from such appropriations for
activities in which there is such failure) until he is satisfied that
there will no longer be any such failure. Until he is so satisfied,
the Surgeon General shall make no further payments from appro-
priations under this section, or shall limit payments to activities in
which there is no such failure.
"(e) The Surgeon General is authorized, on request of the
health authority of Guam, to detail personnel of the Service to
Guam for the purposes and on the terms and conditions provided
in section 214 (b) of this Act with respect to detail of personnel to
States."
[P. 17]
(Sec. 18) Section 314 of the Public Health Service Act (58 Stat.
682, 693) as amended (42 U.S.C., sec. 246)
GRANTS AND SERVICES TO STATES
SEC. 314. (a) To enable the Surgeon General to carry out the
purposes of section 301 with respect to developing more effective
measures for the prevention, treatment, and control of venereal
diseases, and to assist, through grants and as otherwise provided
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1255
in this section, States, counties, health districts, and other political
subdivisions of the States in establishing and maintaining ade-
quate measures for the prevention, treatment, and control of such
diseases, including the training of personnel for State and local
health work, and to enable him to prevent and control the spread
of the venereal diseases in interstate traffic, and to meet the cost
of pay, allowances, and traveling expenses of commissioned
officers and other personnel of the Service detailed to assist in
carrying out the purposes of this section with respect to the vener-
eal diseases, and to administer this section with respect to such
diseases, there is hereby authorized to be appropriated for each
[P. 50]
fiscal year a sum sufficient to carry out the purposes of this
subsection.
(b) To enable the Surgeon General to carry out the purposes of
section 301 with respect to developing more effective measures for
the prevention, treatment, and control of tuberculosis, and to as-
sist, through grants and as otherwise provided in this section,
States, counties, health districts, and other political subdivisions
of the States in establishing and maintaining adequate measures
for the prevention, treatment, and control of such disease, includ-
ing the provision of appropriate facilities for care and treatment
and including the training of personnel for State and local health
work, and to enable him to prevent and control the spread of
tuberculosis in interstate traffic, and to meet the cost of pay,
allowances, and traveling expenses of commissioned officers and
other personnel of the Service detailed to assist in carrying out the
purposes of this section with respect to tuberculosis, and to admin-
ister this section with respect to such disease, there is hereby
authorized to be appropriated for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1945, the sum of $10,000,000, and for each fiscal year thereafter a
sum sufficient to carry out the purposes of this subsection.
(c) To enable the Surgeon General to assist, through grants and
as otherwise provided in this section, States, counties, health dis-
tricts, and other political subdivisions of the States in establishing
and maintaining adequate public health services, including grants
for demonstrations and for training of personnel for State and
local health work, there is hereby authorized to be appropriated
for each fiscal year a sum not to exceed $30,000,000. Of the sum
appropriated for each fiscal year pursuant to this subsection there
shall be available an amount, not to exceed $3,000,000, to enable
the Surgeon General to provide demonstrations and to train per-
-------
1256 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
sonnel for State and local health work and to meet the cost of pay,
allowances, and traveling expenses of commissioned officers and
other personnel of the Service detailed to assist States in carrying
out the purposes of this subsection.
(d) For each fiscal year, the Surgeon General, with the ap-
proval of the Administrator, shall determine the total sum from
the appropriation under subsection (a), the total sum from the
appropriation under subsection (b), and, within the limits speci-
fied in subsection (c), the total sum from the appropriation under
that subsection which shall be available for allotment among the
several States. He shall, in accordance with regulations, from time
to time make allotments from such sums to the several States on
the basis of (1) the population, (2) the extent of the venereal-dis-
ease problem, the extent of the tuberculosis problem, and the ex-
tent of the mental health problem and other special health prob-
lems, respectively, and (3) the financial need of the respective
States. Upon making such allotments the Surgeon General shall
notify the Secretary of the Treasury of the amounts thereof.
(e) To enable the Surgeon General to carry out the purposes of
part B of title IV and to assist, through grants, States, counties,
health districts, and other political subdivisions of the State, and
public and nonprofit agencies, institutions, and other organiza-
tions, in establishing- and maintaining organized community pro-
grams of heart disease control, including grants for demonstra-
tions and the training of personnel, there is hereby authorized to
be appropriated for each fiscal year such sums as may be neces-
[P.51]
sary for such purposes. For each fiscal year, the Surgeon General,
with the approval of the Administrator, shall determine the total
sum from the appropriation under this subsection which shall be
available for allotment among the several States, and shall, in
accordance with regulations, from time to time make allotments
from such sum to the several States on the basis of (1) the
population and (2) the financial need of the respective States.
Upon making such allotments the Surgeon General shall notify the
Secretary of the Treasury of the amounts thereof.
(f) The Surgeon General, with approval of the Administrator,
shall from time to time determine the amounts to be paid to each
State from the allotments to such State, and shall certify to the
Secretary of the Treasury, the amounts so determined, reduced or
increased, as the case may be, by the amounts by which he finds
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1257
that estimates of required expenditures with respect to any prior
period were greater or less than the actual expenditures for such
period: PROVIDED, That in the case of amounts to be paid from
allotments to any State under subsection (e), the Surgeon General
may determine and certify to the Secretary of the Treasury
amounts to be paid to a county, health district, other political
subdivision of the State or to any public or nonprofit agency,
institution, or other organization in the State, if he finds that
payment to such subdivision or other organization has been recom-
mended by the State health authority of the State, and (1) that
the State health authority has not, prior to August 1 of the fiscal
year for which the allotment is made, presented and had approved
a plan in accordance with subsection (g), or (2) that the State
health authority is not authorized by law to make payments to
such other organization. Upon receipt of such certification, the
Secretary of the Treasury shall, through the Divison of Disburse-
ment of the Treasury Department and prior to audit or settlement
by the General Accounting Office, pay in accordance with such
certification.
(g) The moneys so paid to any State, or to any political subdivi-
sion or other organization, shall be expended solely in carrying out
the purposes specified in subsection (a), or subsection (b), or
subsection (c), or subsection (e), as the case may be, and in
accordance with plans, approved by the Surgeon General, which
have been presented by the health authority of such State, or,
under the circumstances specified in subsection (f) (1), by the
political subdivision, or the agency, institution or other organiza-
tion to whom the payment is made, and, to the extent that any
such plan contains provisions relating to mental health, by the
mental health authority of such State.
(h) Money so paid from allotments under subsections (a), (b),
(c), and (e), shall be paid upon the condition that there shall be
spent in such State for the same general purpose, from funds of
such State and its political subdivisions (or in the case of pay-
ments to a political subdivision or to an agency, institution or
other organization under circumstances specified in subsection (f)
(1), from funds of such political subdivision or organization), an
amount determined in accordance with regulations.
(i) Whenever the Surgeon General, after reasonable notice and
opportunity for hearing to the health authority or, where appro-
priate, the mental health authority of the State (or, in the case of
payments to any political subdivision or any agency, institution, or
-------
1258 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
other organization under the circumstances specified in subsection
(f) (1), such subdivision or organization) finds that, with respect
[p. 52]
to money paid to the State, subdivision, or organization out of
appropriations under subsection (a), or subsection (b), or subsec-
tion (c), or subsection (e), as the case may be, there is a failure
to comply substantially with either—
(1) the provisions of this section;
(2) the plan submitted under subsection (g) ; or
(3) the regulations;
the Surgeon General shall notify such State health authority or
mental health authority, political subdivision, or organization that
further payments will not be made to the State subdivision, or
organization, from appropriations under such subsection (or in
his discretion that further payments will not be made to the State,
subdivision, or organization from such appropriations for activi-
ties in which there is such failure), until he is satisfied that there
(will no longer be any such failure. Until he is so satisfied the
Surgeon General shall make no further certification for payment
to such State, subdivision, or organization from appropriations
under such subsection, or shall limit payment to activities in
which there is no such failure.
(j) All regulations and amendments thereto with respect to
grants to States under this section shall be made after consulta-
tion with a conference of the State health authorities and, in the
case of regulations or amendments which relate to or in any way
affect grants under subsection (c) for work in the field of mental
health, the State mental health authorities. Insofar as practicable,
the Surgeon General shall obtain the agreement, prior to the issu-
ance of any such regulations or amendments, of the State health
authorities and, in the case of regulations or amendments which
relate to or in any way affect grants under subsection (c) for
work in the field of mental health, the State mental health authori-
ties.
(k) Funds appropriated under subsection (a) and funds appro-
priated under subsection (b), in addition to being available for
payments to States, shall also be available for expenditure by the
Surgeon General in otherwise carrying out the respective subsec-
tions, including expenditures for printing and binding of the find-
ings of investigations, and for pay and allowances and traveling
expenses of personnel of the Service engaged in activities author-
ized by the respective subsections.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1259
(I) Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, the provi-
sions of this section shall be applicable to Guam in the same
manner in which they apply to the States. Amounts paid to Guam
from its allotment under subsections (a), (b), (c), or (e) of this
section, together with matching funds of Guam, may, with the
approval of the Surgeon General, be expended in carrying out the
purposes specified in any such subsection or subsections other than
the one under which the allotment was made.
[p. 53]
1.12j(2) SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND
INSULAR AFFAIRS
S. REP. No. 2662, 84th Cong., 2d Sess. (1956)
IMPLEMENTING SECTION 25 (B) OF THE ORGANIC ACT
OF GUAM
JULY 19 (legislative day, JULY 16), 1956.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. JACKSON, from the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,
submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 11522]
The Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, to whom was
referred the bill (H. R. 11522) to implement section 25 (b) of the
Organic Act of Guam by carrying out the recommendations of the
Commission on the Application of Federal Laws to Guam, and for
other purposes, having considered the same, report favorably
thereon with amendments and recommend that the bill, as
amended, do pass.
Favorable committee action, based on the hearing and executive
agency reports, was unanimous.
[P.1]
18. Section 18 amends the Public Health Service Act to author-
ize the Surgeon General to extend certain services to Guam.
The Public Health Service Act is now generally applicable to
Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, and some of
its provisions apply to Guam, as well. Two of the most important
-------
1260 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
activities authorized by the act do not, however, apply to Guam:
namely, the detaining of personnel and the payment of grants-in-
aid for the study, prevention, control, and treatment of certain
diseases (such as tuberculosis, venereal disease, mental health,
heart disease, and cancer). Because Guam's health needs differ
from those of other areas in the United States, it was thought
desirable to extend these activities authorized by the Public Health
Service Act to Guam on a more flexible basis than applies else-
where. Section 18 provides the necessary flexibility, and allows
grants to Guam for the study of such diseases as might be most
prevalent in the territory.
[P. 7]
DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS
Favorable reports on H. R. 6254 and H. R. 9216, which subse-
quently became H. R. 11522, from the Departments of the Inte-
rior, Justice, Navy, and Treasury are given below. The Depart-
ment of Agriculture opposed certain provisions of the original bill,
H. R. 6254, and for that reason those provisions were stricken
when H. R. 11522 was introduced. This measure is therefore now
acceptable to the Department of Agriculture.
The Department of Agriculture feels that many of the programs
of that Department are not suited to the needs of Guam, because
of the comparatively small area and the different farming condi-
tions to be found there. The Department has initiated plans to
study the agricultural needs of the territory, with a view to mak-
ing recommendations as to what types of agricultural assistance
might appropriately be extended to it.
[P. 8]
1.12j(3) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 102 (1954)
1.12j(3)(a) June 18: Passed House, p. 10510
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
1.12j(3)(b) July 23: Amended and passed Senate, p. 13909
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1261
1.12j(3)(c) July 25: House concurs in Senate amendments, p.
14450
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
1.12k AMENDMENTS TO §314(c) OF THE PUBLIC
HEALTH SERVICE ACT
July 22,1958, P.L. 85-544, § 1, 72 Stat. 400
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That the last
sentence of subsection (c) of section 314 of the Public Health
Service Act, as amended (42 U. S. C. 246 (c)), is amended by
inserting " (1)" immediately after "available", and by striking out
the period at the end thereof and inserting in lieu thereof a
comma and the following: "and (2) an amount, not to exceed
$1,000,000 to enable the Surgeon General to make grants-in-aid,
under such terms and conditions as may be prescribed by regula-
tions, for provision in public or nonprofit schools of public health
accredited by a body or bodies recognized by the Surgeon General,
of comprehensive professional training, specialized consultative
services, and technical assistance in the fields of public health and
in the administration of State and local public health programs,
except that in allocating funds made available under this clause
(2) among such schools of public health the Surgeon General shall
give primary consideration to the number of federally sponsored
students attending each such school."
[p. 400]
-------
1262 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
1.12k(l) HOUSE COMMITTEE IN INTERSTATE AND
FOREIGN COMMERCE
H.R. REP. No. 1593, 85th Cong., 2d Sess. (1958)
AMENDING SECTION 314 (c) OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH
SERVICE ACT
APRIL 2,1958.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. WILLIAMS of Mississippi, from the Committee on Interstate
and Foreign Commerce, submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 11414]
The Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, to whom
was referred the bill (H. R. 11414) to amend section 314 (c) of
the Public Health Service Act, so as to authorize the Surgeon
General to make certain grants-in-aid for the support of public or
nonprofit educational institutions which provide training and serv-
ices in the fields of public health and in the administration of
State and local public health programs, having considered the
same, report favorably thereon without amendment and recom-
mend that the bill do pass.
[p.l]
The testimony was overwhelmingly in favor of immediate enact-
ment of this legislation.
The witnesses stressed the great need for additional public
health personnel on all levels of government—Federal, State, and
local. Specific examples were given as to the numbers of budgeted
public health positions which have remained vacant because the
supply of trained health personnel is inadequate.2
NEED FOR LEGISLATION
The subcommittee and the full committee gave careful consider-
ation to all of the views expressed by the witnesses. The committee
feels that this is emergency legislation necessary to enable the 11
schools of public health in the United States to carry on their
activities which are vitally necessary if public health programs at
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1263
all levels of government are not to be seriously curtailed for want
of an adequate supply of trained public health personnel.
Recognizing the scarcity of public health personnel, Congress in
1956 enacted Public Law 911, 84th Congress, providing for a
3-year program of graduate traineeships for public health person-
nel. Recipients of Federal traineeship grants under this program
and similar programs sponsored by a number of Federal agencies,
States, and local governments attend for the most part the 11
schools of public health which would be qualified to receive aid
under the proposed legislation.
Five of these schools are public schools supported mostly by
public funds (California, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina,
and Puerto Rico). The remaining six schools are private schools
supported mainly by private funds (Columbia, Harvard, Johns
Hopkins, Pittsburgh, Tulane, and Yale). The graduates of these
schools for the most part go into public service. Of the 3,000
graduates during the years 1950 to 1955, 70 percent went into
Federal, State, and local public service; 22 percent are working
for voluntary organizations; and 8 percent are employed in indus-
try and elsewhere where they are concerned with matters of in-
dustrial and public health.
In excess of two-thirds of the students attending schools of
public health are sponsored by Federal, State, or local govern-
ments, and by the World Health Organization. In 1957-58, for
example, 717 out of a total of 1,065 (68 percent students) were
government sponsored. The governments pay the tuition of these
students but tuition on the average covers only 11 percent of the
basic teaching budgets of the schools of public health.
The tuition paid by all government agencies for the 717 govern-
ment sponsored students amounted to $495,000 (or an average of
$691 per student). The cost to the schools of training these stu-
dents amounted to $3,622,000 (or $5,052 per student). This left a
deficit of $3,127,000 (or $4,361 per student), which means that
State and private funds which support the 11 schools of public
health are subsidizing public health training for the Federal Gov-
ernment, State and local governments, foreign governments, in-
dustry and other organizations requiring the services of trained
public health personnel.
2 A 1951 study showed 3,200 budgeted but unfilled positions in State and local health depart-
ments. Last year 30 percent of local health officer positions were vacant. A 1953 study showed
1,720 additional public health physicians are required to meet minimum standards (1 public
health physician per 50,000 population).
[P-2]
-------
1264 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
Of the total of 717 governmentally sponsored public health
trainees, 533 trainees were sponsored by the Federal Government.
The deficit resulting from the Federal Government's paying tui-
tion only rather than the cost of training amounted to $2,324,413
in 1957-58. Witnesses appearing on behalf of the State-supported
schools of public health testified that the State legislatures in their
respective States have become increasingly reluctant to appropri-
ate funds for the five publicly supported schools of public health
since the majority of students attending these schools are out-of-
State students who upon graduation largely fill public health posi-
tions in other States or in foreign countries. A survey made of the
places of employment of graduates from schools of public health
during the years from 1950 to 1955 shows that only 25 percent of
the graduates are employed in the State in which they attended a
school of public health; 50 percent are employed in other States;
and 25 percent in foreign countries. These five State legislatures
cannot see why tax moneys supplied by the citizens of these States
should be used to subsidize other States, the Federal Government,
and foreign governments.
The role of the schools of public health and of their graduates is
one of leadership in public health activities of the Federal Govern-
ment, State and local governments, foreign governments, interna-
tional organizations, voluntary health organizations, and industry.
Existing Federal public health programs administered by agen-
cies such as the Public Health Service, the Atomic Energy Com-
mission, the Armed Services, and the International Cooperation
Administration, are vital in the interest of the health of the Amer-
ican people and the defense and foreign policy of the United
States.
The President of the United States, in his state of the Union
message for the year 1958, emphasized the importance from a
foreign policy standpoint of those United States foreign aid and
international health programs under which hundreds of trained
public health specialists have given freely of their professional
skills to disease-ridden peoples all over the globe, and under which
hundreds of students of foreign nations have attended American
schools of public health taking with them back home not only
knowledge of modern medical techniques to improve the health
standards of their people but also a feeling of friendship for the
American people.
The witnesses appearing on behalf of the Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare acknowledged the financial plight of the
schools of public health but raised a question as to the timeliness
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1265
of this legislation. The witnesses pointed to a provision contained
in Public Law 911, 84th Congress, requiring the Surgeon General
to call a conference between July 30, 1958, and December 1, 1958,
broadly representative of the professional groups which are in-
formed about the training of public health personnel. This confer-
ence is to assist the Surgeon General in appraising the effective-
ness of the public health traineeship program provided for in
Public Law 911 in meeting the needs for trained public health
personnel. Upon conclusion of the conference the Surgeon General
is directed to submit to the Congress the recommendations of the
conference relating to a long-range traineeship program.
The committee has carefully considered the question raised by
the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare with regard to
the appropriateness of passing this legislation at this time. The
Committee feels that the proposed legislation provides a bare min-
[p-3]
imum of support for schools of public health which is urgently
needed by these schools, and that any delay in making these emer-
gency funds available would seriously impair the ability of the
schools to provide the number and quality of training opportuni-
ties which they must make available if the Federal, State, and
local programs in the field of public health are to be adequately
supplied with trained public health personnel.
Perhaps the Department feels that the proposed legislation may
prejudice the chances of securing more far-reaching legislation at
a later date.
Certainly Congress in enacting Public Law 911, 84th Congress,
did not provide for a conference to develop long-range planning
for the training of an adequate supply of public health personnel
with the intent of precluding any immediately needed aid for the
hard-pressed schools of public health.
Should the long-range recommendations to the Congress which
may be made by the conference recommended legislation going
beyond the bare minimum contained in H. R. 11414, the next
Congress would in no way be barred from considering and enact-
ing additional legislation designed to provide for the training of
an adequate supply of public health personnel.
The committee has concluded on the basis of all of these consid-
erations—namely the financial plight of the schools of public
health, the urgent need for the training of additional public health
personnel, the importance of public health programs at all govern-
mental levels for the welfare and security of the American people,
-------
1266 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
and the unreasonableness of the situation which compels the 11
schools of public health to subsidize Federal, State, and local gov-
ernments—that H. R. 11414 should be enacted promptly so that
the Federal Government can assume as soon as possible a proper
share of the financial burden placed on schools of public health.
The committee hopes that to the maximum extent possible any
funds made available pursuant to this legislation will not be used
for the replacement of funds now secured from private and other
public sources, but that these new funds will be used for the
improvement and expansion of existing programs and the inaugu-
ration of new programs.
The legislation does not contain a statutory formula for the
distribution of funds to be made available to schools of public
health. Rather, the committee expects that the Surgeon General,
after consultation with the schools of public health, will work out
an acceptable formula just as the Surgeon General now consults
with the States in connection with the distribution of public health
grants made available pursuant to section 314 (c) of the Public
Health Service Act.
The reports of the departments and agencies are as follows:
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE,
January 28,1958.
Hon. OREN HARRIS,
Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,
House of Representatives.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This letter is in response to your request of May 21,
1957, for a report on H.R. 6771, a bill to amend section 314 (c) of the Public
Health Service Act, so as to authorize the Surgeon General to make certain
[P. 4]
grants-in-aid for the support of public or nonprofit educational institutions
which provide training and services in the fields of public health and in the
administration of State and local public health programs.
The bill would supplement the existing authority of the Surgeon General
so as to permit him to make grants-in-aid, under such terms and conditions
as may be prescribed by regulations, for the support of public or nonprofit
educational institutions which provide comprehensive professional training,
specialized consultative services, and technical assistance in the fields of pub-
lic health and in the administration of State and local public health programs.
The bill would authorize the use for this purpose of not to exceed $1 million
of the amount annually appropriated under section 314 (c) of the Public
Health Service Act. The existing annual appropriation authorization of $30
million in section 314 (c) would not be changed.
The types of educational institutions which meet the qualifications speci-
fied in the bill are basically the eleven schools of public health. Five of these
schools (University of Minnesota, University of North Carolina, University
of Michigan, University of California, and University of Puerto Rico) are
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1267
State-supported schools. The remaining six schools (Yale University, Johns
Hopkins University, Columbia University, Tulane University, Harvard Uni-
versity, and University of Pittsburgh) are private nonprofit educational in-
stitutions.
The schools of public health, together with other types of schools which
specialize in such fields as nursing and engineering, perform an essential role
in the training of professional public health personnel for Federal, State, and
local governments and voluntary health organizations and associations. In
addition, a sizable number of students attending these schools come from
foreign countries and, after graduation, work abroad. Almost all of the grad-
uates of the schools of public health obtain employment in either public or
quasi-public agencies.
There is already precedent for Federal participation in the costs of train-
ing professional personnel for essential public health work. Section 314 (c),
which the bill would amend, already authorizes States to use Federal grants
under that section for training public health personnel, and authorizes the
Surgeon General to provide such training. Also, the public health traineeship
program inaugurated by title I of the Health Amendments Act of 1956 (now
section 306 of the Public Health Service Act) provides Federal traineeships
for the graduate training of professional public health personnel; approxi-
mately half of the traineeships financed by this program are for training in
the 11 accredited schools of public health.
Funds available to the Surgeon General to provide training under section
314(c) and under Title I of the Health Amendments Act of 1956 cannot be
used for the type of direct institutional support contemplated by H.R. 6771.
The Congress did, however, include in the Health Amendments Act of 1956
a provision calling for a national public health training evaluation conference
later this year. This provision (sec. 306(e) of the Public Health Service Act)
reads as follows:
"(e) The Surgeon General shall, between June 30, 1958, and December 1,
1958, call a conference broadly representative of the professional and train-
ing groups interested in and informed about training of professional public
health personnel, and including members of the advisory committee appointed
pursuant to subsection (d), to assist him in appraising the effectiveness of
the traineeships under this section in meeting the needs for trained public
[p. 5]
health personnel; in considering modifications in this section, if any, which
may be desirable to increase its effectiveness; and in considering the most
effective distribution of responsibilities between Federal and State Govern-
ments with respect to the administration and support of public health training.
The Surgeon General shall submit to the Congress, on or before January 1,
1959, a report of such conference, including any recommendations by it relat-
ing to the limitation, extension, or modification of this section."
In our judgment, consideration of any legislation for enlarging or modify-
ing the role of the Federal Government in the support of public health train-
ing should await the holding of this conference and the submission of the
Surgeon General's report on its deliberations and recommendations. The fact-
ual data which will be developed in connection with the conference and the
expert evaluation of training needs, and of the most effective methods of
meeting these needs, which will emerge from the conference, will provide a
comprehensive and authoritative basis for determining whether additional
-------
1268 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
Federal financial assistance is necessary and, if so, what the nature and
extent of such assistance should be.
We recommend, therefore, that legislative action on H.R. 6771 be deferred
pending consideration of the report of the training evaluation conference
which will be submitted to the Congress by January 1, 1959.
The Bureau of the Budget advises that it perceives no objection to the sub-
mission of this report to your committee.
Sincerely yours,
M. B. FOLSOM, Secretary.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT,
BUREAU OF THE BUDGET,
Washington, B.C., January 27,1958.
Hon. OREN HARRIS,
Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN : This letter is in reply to your request of April 11,
1957, for the views of the Bureau of the Budget on H.R. 6771, a bill to amend
section 314 (c) of the Public Health Service Act, so as to authorize the Sur-
geon General to make certain grants-in-aid for the support of public or non-
profit educational institutions which provide training and services in the
fields of public health and in the administration of State and local public
health programs.
This bill would amend section 314 (c) of the Public Health Service Act to
enable the Surgeon General to make grants to public and nonprofit institu-
tions which provide public health training. The amount of the grant would
be limited to $1 million from the amount annually appropriated under the
authority of section 314(c).
The objective of the proposed measure is, in our opinion, an important part
of the larger problem of the scope and adequacy of currently available public
health training in the United States. At the present time, the Public Health
Service is undertaking a comprehensive study of this broad subject which is
to culminate in a conference next July. This conference will consist of about
100 participants representing professional and educational groups informed
[p. 6]
on the subject of public health training. The issues to be studied will include
an appraisal of the present capacity of training facilities, necessary expan-
sion of present staff and facilities and methods and sources for financing
needed training. The conclusion of this study will be reported to the Congress
as required by law, before January 1, 1959.
In view of the interrelationship between the objective of this proposed bill
and the study now under way by the Public Health Service, we would urge
that action on H.R. 6771 be deferred until the results of the study can be
evaluated and the total needs of public health training can be appraised.
Sincerely yours,
ROBERT E. MERRIAM,
Assistant Director.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1269
DEPARTMENT or JUSTICE,
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Washington, D.C., January 29,1958.
Hon. OREN HARRIS,
Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in response to your request for the views of
the Department of Justice concerning- the bill (H.R. 6771) to amend section
314(c) of the Public Health Service Act, so as to authorize the Surgeon Gen-
eral to make certain grants-in-aid for the support of public or nonprofit edu-
cational institutions which provide training and services in the fields of public
health and in the administration of State and local public health programs.
The bill would amend section 314 (c) of the Public Health Service Act (42
U.S.C. 246(c)) by adding thereto a provision which would earmark $1 mil-
lion of each year's appropriation to the Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare to enable the Surgeon General to make grants-in-aid for the
support of public or nonprofit educational institutions which provide training
and services in the public health field and in the administration of State and
local public health programs.
Whether the bill should be enacted involves a question of policy concerning
which this Department prefers to make no recommendation.
The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection to the
submission of this report.
Sincerely yours,
LAWRENCE E. WALSH,
Deputy Attorney General.
DEPARTMENT OP LABOR,
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,
Washington, D.C., June 20,1957.
Hon. OREN HARRIS,
Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
DEAR CONGRESSMAN HARRIS: This is in further reply to your request for
this Department's views on H.R. 6771, a bill to amend
[P-7]
section 314(c) of the Public Health Service Act, so as to authorize the
Surgeon General to make certain grants-in-aid for the support of public or
nonprofit educational institutions which provide training and services in the
fields of public health and in the administration of State and local public
health programs.
There presently is a shortage of trained persons actively engaged in public
health programs, and this Department favors reasonable measures to alleviate
this shortage. However, I would prefer to leave detailed comment on this par-
ticular proposal to the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, which
would administer its provisions.
The Bureau of the Budget advises that there is no objection to the submis-
sion of this report.
Sincerely yours,
JAMES T. O'CONNELL,
Under Secretary of Labor.
-------
1270 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
In compliance with clause 3 of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Repre-
sentatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, as introduced, are shown
as follows (new matter is printed in italics, existing law in which no change
is proposed is shown in roman) :
SECTION 314(c) OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT (42 U.S.C. 246(c))
GRANTS AND SERVICES TO STATES
SEC. 314. (a) * * *
*******
(c) To enable the Surgeon General to assist, through grants and as other-
wise provided in this section, States, counties, health districts, and other
political subdivisions of the States in establishing and maintaining adequate
public health services, including grants for demonstrations and for training
of personnel for State and local health work, there is hereby authorized to be
appropriated for each fiscal year a sum not to exceed $30,000,000. Of the sum
appropriated for each fiscal year pursuant to this subsection there shall be
available (1) an amount, not to exceed $3,000,000, to enable the Surgeon Gen-
eral to provide demonstrations and to train personnel for State and local
health work and to meet the cost of pay, allowances, and traveling expenses
of commissioned officers and other personnel of the Service detailed to assist
States in carrying out the purposes of this subsection, and (2) an amount,
not to exceed $1,000,000, to enable the Surgeon General to make grants-in-aid,
under such terms and conditions as may be prescribed by regulations, for the
support of public or nonprofit educational institutions which provide compre-
hensive professional training, specialized consultative services, and technical
assistance in the fields of public health and in the administration of State and
local public health programs.
[p. 8]
1.12k(2) SENATE COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND
PUBLIC WELFARE
S. REP. No. 1797, 85th Cong., 2d Sess. (1958)
AMENDING SECTION 314 (c) OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH
SERVICE ACT
JULY 3,1958.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. HILL, from the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, sub-
mitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 11414]
The Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, to whom was
referred the bill (H. R. 11414) to amend section 314 (c) of the
Public Health Service Act, so as to authorize the Surgeon General
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1271
to make certain grants-in-aid for provision in public or nonprofit
accredited schools of public health of training and services in the
fields of public health and in the administration of State and-local
public health programs, having considered the same, report favor-
ably thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill do
pass.
BACKGROUND AND EXPLANATION
This bill does not involve any increase in authorized expendi-
tures. It authorizes the earmarking of up to $1 million of the
funds which the Congress may appropriate under section 314 (c)
of the Public Health Service Act for grants-in-aid to the institu-
tions training public health personnel.
The bill was given 2 days of intensive hearings by the Subcom-
mittee on Health and Science of the House Committee on Inter-
state and Foreign Commerce, which recommended its passage. It
was unanimously passed by the House of Representatives.
Section 314 (c) of the Public Health Service Act authorized an
appropriation of not to exceed $30 million for public health grants
to States and local communities. In the light of two major consid-
erations, the State and Territorial health officers, to whose pro-
grams the sums appropriated under this section would otherwise
go, have asked that $1 million of this money be used to help defray
the costs of training the personnel needed to staff local, State, and
Federal public health programs.
[p.l]
The first of these considerations is based on the urgent need for
trained personnel in public health programs. The number of va-
cancies in budgeted public health positions in this country rose
from 22 percent in 1951 to 30 percent in 1956. In other words,
more than 1 out of 4 positions considered essential to the protec-
tion of the health of the people in our various communities is now
vacant because qualified personnel are not available. Should this
stituation persist the consequences will become most serious.
The second consideration which prompted the State and Terri-
torial health officers to request that additional money be made
available to help defray the costs of training personnel in the
public health field rests on the fact that the 11 institutions which
train such personnel are currently spending $3,622,000 a year to
train some 717 individuals sent them by governmental units while
the tuition paid by all Government agencies for these students
-------
1272 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
amounted to only $495,000. In other words, these 11 institutions
(5 public and 6 private nonprofit) are spending $3,127,000 from
their own funds to train the 717 governmentally sponsored public
health trainees.
Recognizing that so long as this situation exists it will be diffi-
cult to secure the additional trained public health personnel that
the Nation must have, the committee regards this measure as
emergency legislation designed to partially fill a serious gap in the
financing of the training of public health personnel. The Public
Health Service is currently studying this entire problem and will
make a report and recommendations to the Congress before Janu-
ary 1, 1959. At that time, the Congress will undoubtedly review
the whole problem in light of the recommendations which will be
made by the Public Health Service. In the meantime, the commit-
tee believes that the minimal action authorized by this legislation
should be promptly enacted.
HEARINGS
Because the comprehensive hearings held by the Subcommittee
on Health and Science of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce of the House of Representatives resulted in the presen-
tation of testimony overwhelmingly in favor of passage of the bill,
the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare felt that further
hearings were unnecessary. The conclusions reached by the full
committee in the House on the basis of the testimony and in the
light of agency reports on the legislation under consideration1
were set forth in its report as follows:
NEED FOR LEGISLATION
The Subcommittee and the full committee gave careful consider-
ation to all of the views expressed by the witnesses. The committee
feels that this is emergency legislation necessary to enable the 11
schools of public health in the United States to carry on their
activities which are vitally necessary if public health programs at
all levels of government are not to be seriously curtailed for want
of an adequate supply of trained public health personnel.
Recognizing the scarcity of public health personnel, Congress in
1956 enacted Public Law 911, 84th Congress, providing for a
1 The hearings were held on H. E. 6771, whi ch differs from H. R. 11414 in form only.
[p. 2]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1273
3-year program of graduate traineeships for public health person-
nel. Recipients of Federal traineeship grants under this program
and similar programs sponsored by a number of Federal agencies,
States, and local governments attend for the most part the 11
schools of public health which would be qualified to receive aid
under the proposed legislation.
Five of these schools are public schools supported mostly by
public funds (California, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina,
and Puerto Rico). The remaining six schools are private schools
supported mainly by private funds (Columbia, Harvard, Johns
Hopkins, Pittsburgh, Tulane, and Yale). The graduates of these
schools for the most part go into public service. Of the 3,000
graduates during the years 1950 to 1955, 70 percent went into
Federal, State, and local public service; 22 percent are working
for voluntary organizations; and 8 percent are employed in indus-
try and elsewhere where they are concerned with matters of in-
dustrial and public health.
In excess of two-thirds of the students attending schools of
public health are sponsored by Federal, State, or local govern-
ments, and by the World Health Organization. In 1957-58,
for example, 717 out of a total of 1,065 (68 percent students)
were government sponsored. The governments pay the tuition of
these students but tuition on the average covers only 11 percent of
the basic teaching budgets of the schools of public health.
The tuition paid by all government agencies for the 717 govern-
ment sponsored students amounted to $495,000 (or an average of
$691 per student). The cost to the schools of training these stu-
dents amounted to $3,622,000 (or $5,052 per student). This left a
deficit of $3,127,000 (or $4,361 per student), which means that
State and private funds which support the 11 schools of public
health are subsidizing public health training for the Federal Gov-
ernment, State and local governments, foreign governments, in-
dustry and other organizations requiring the services of trained
public health personnel.
Of the total of 717 governmentally sponsored public health
trainees, 533 trainees were sponsored by the Federal Government.
The deficit resulting from the Federal Government's paying tui-
tion only rather than the cost of training amounted to $2,324,413
in 1957-58. Witnesses appearing on behalf of the State-supported
schools of public health testified that the State legislatures in their
respective States have become increasingly reluctant to appropri-
ate funds for the five publicly supported schools of public health
since the majority of students attending these schools are out-of-
-------
1274 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
State students who upon graduation largely fill public health posi-
tions in other States or in foreign countries. A survey made of the
places of employment of graduates from schools of public health
during the years from 1950 to 1955 shows that only 25 percent of
the graduates are employed in the State in which they attended a
school of public health; 50 percent are employed in other States;
[P. 3]
and 25 percent in foreign countries. These five State legislatures
cannot see why tax moneys supplied by the citizens of these States
should be used to subsidize other States, the Federal Government
and foreign governments.
The role of the schools of public health and of their graduates is
one of leadership in public health activities of the Federal Govern-
ment, State and local governments, foreign governments, interna-
tional organizations, voluntary health organizations, and industry.
Existing Federal public health programs administered by agen-
cies such as the Public Health Service, the Atomic Energy Com-
mission, the Armed Services, and the International Cooperation
Administration, are vital in the interest of the health of the Amer-
ican people and the defense and foreign policy of the United
States.
The President of the United States, in his state of the Union
message for the year 1958, emphasized the importance from a
foreign policy standpoint of those United States foreign aid and
international health programs under which hundreds of trained
public health specialists have given freely of their professional
skills to disease-ridden peoples all over the globe, and under which
hundreds of students of foreign nations have attended American
schools of public health taking with them back home not only
knowledge of modern medical techniques to improve the health
standards of their people but also a feeling of friendship for the
American people.
The witnesses appearing on behalf of the Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare acknowledged the financial plight of the
schools of public health but raised a question as to the timeliness
of this legislation. The witnesses pointed to a provision contained
in Public Law 911, 84th Congress, requiring the Surgeon General
to call a conference between July 30, 1958, and December 1, 1958,
broadly representative of the professional groups which are in-
formed about the training of public health personnel. This confer-
ence is to assist the Surgeon General in appraising the effective-
ness of the public health traineeship program provided for in
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1275
Public Law 911 in meeting the needs for trained public health
personnel. Upon conclusion of the conference the Surgeon General
is directed to submit to the Congress the recommendations of the
conference relating to a long-range traineeship program.
The committee has carefully considered the question raised by
the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare with regard to
the appropriateness of passing this legislation at this time. The
Committee feels that the proposed legislation provides a bare min-
imum of support for schools of public health which is urgently
needed by these schools, and that any delay in making these emer-
gency funds available would seriously impair the ability of the
schools to provide the number and quality of training opportuni-
ties which they must make available if the Federal, State, and
local programs in the field of public health are to be adequately
supplied with trained public health personnel.
[p. 4]
Perhaps the Department feels that the proposed legislation may
prejudice the chances of securing more far-reaching legislation at
a later date.
Certainly Congress in enacting Public Law 911, 84th Congress,
did not provide for a conference to develop long-range planning
for the training of an adequate supply of public health personnel
with the intent of precluding any immediately needed aid for the
hard-pressed schools of public health.
Should the long-range recommendations to the Congress which
may be made by the conference recommended legislation going
beyond the bare minimum contained in H. R. 11414, the next
Congress would in no way be barred from considering and enact-
ing additional legislation designed to provide for the training of
an adequate supply of public health personnel.
The committee has concluded on the basis of all of these consid-
erations—namely, the financial plight of the schools of public
health, the urgent need for the training of additional public health
personnel, the importance of public health programs at all govern-
mental levels for the welfare and security of the American people,
and the unreasonableness of the situation which compels the 11
schools of public health to subsidize Federal, State, and local gov-
ernments—that H. R. 11414 should be enacted promptly so that
the Federal Government can assume as soon as possible a proper
share of the financial burden placed on schools of public health.
The committee hopes that to the maximum extent possible any
funds made available pursuant to this legislation will not be used
-------
1276 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
for the replacement of funds now secured from private and other
public sources, but that these new funds will be used for the
improvement and expansion of existing programs and the inaugu-
ration of new programs.
The legislation does not contain a statutory formula for the
distribution of funds to be made available to schools of public
health. Rather, the committee expects that the Surgeon General,
after consultation with the schools of public health, will work out
an acceptable formula just as the Surgeon General now consults
with the States in connection with the distribution of public health
grants made available pursuant to section 314 (c) of the Public
Health Service Act.
The reports of the departments and agencies are as follows:
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,
EDUCATION AND WELFARE,
January 28,1958.
Hon. OREN HARRIS,
Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,
House of Representatives.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN : This letter is in response to your request of May 21,
1957, for a report on H.R. 6771, a bill to amend section 314(c) of the Public
Health Service Act, so as to authorize the Surgeon General to make certain
[p. 5]
grants-in-aid for the support of public or nonprofit educational institutions
which provide training and services in the fields of public health and in the
administration of State and local public health programs.
The bill would supplement the existing authority of the Surgeon General
so as to permit him to make grants-in-aid, under such terms and conditions
as may be prescribed by regulations, for the support of public or nonprofit
educational institutions which provide comprehensive professional training,
specialized consultative services, and technical assistance in the fields of pub-
lic health and in the administration of State and local public health programs.
The bill would authorize the use for this purpose of not to exceed $1 million
of the amount annually appropriated under section 314 (c) of the Public
Health Service Act. The existing annual appropriation authorization of $30
million in section 314(c) would not be changed.
The types of educational institutions which meet the qualifications specified
in the bill are basically the eleven schools of public health. Five of these
schools (University of Minnesota, University of North Carolina, University
of Michigan, University of California, and University of Puerto Rico) are
State-supported schools. The remaining six schools (Yale University, Johns
Hopkins University, Columbia University, Tulane University, Harvard Uni-
versity, and University of Pittsburgh) are private nonprofit educational in-
stitutions.
The schools of public health, together with other types of schools which
specialize in such fields as nursing and engineering, perform an essential
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1277
role in the training of professional public health personnel for Federal, State,
and local governments and voluntary health organizations and associations.
In addition, a sizable number of students attending these schools come from
foreign countries and, after graduation, work abroad. Almost all of the grad-
uates of the schools of public health obtain employment in either public or
quasi-public agencies.
There is already precedent for Federal participation in the costs of train-
ing professional personnel for essential public health work. Section 314 (c),
which the bill would amend, already authorizes States to use Federal grants
under that section for training public health personnel, and authorizes the
Surgeon General to provide such training. Also, the public health traineeship
program inaugurated by title I of the Health Amendments Act of 1956 (now
section 306 of the Public Health Service Act) provides Federal traineeships
for the graduate training of professional public health personnel; approxi-
mately half of the traineeships financed by this program are for training in
the 11 accredited schools of public health.
Funds available to the Surgeon General to provide training under section
314(c) and under Title I of the Health Amendments Act of 1956 cannot be
used for the type of direct institutional support contemplated by H.R. 6771.
[p. 6]
The Congress did, however, include in the Health Amendments Act of 1956
a provision calling for a national public health training evaluation conference
later this year. This provision (sec. 306 (e) of the Public Health Service Act)
reads as follows:
"(e) The Surgeon General shall, between June 30, 1958, and December 1,
1958, call a conference broadly representative of the professional and train-
ing groups interested in and informed about training of professional public
health personnel, and including members of the advisory committee appointed
pursuant to subsection (d), to assist him in appraising the effectiveness of
the traineeships under this section in meeting the needs for trained public
health personnel; in considering modifications in this section, if any, -which
may be desirable to increase its effectiveness; and in considering the most
effective distribution of responsibilities between Federal and State Govern-
ments with respect to the administration and support of public health train-
ing. The Surgeon General shall submit to the Congress, on or before Jan-
uary 1, 1959, a report of such conference, including any recommendations by
it relating to the limitation, extension, or modification of this section."
In our judgment, consideration of any legislation for enlarging or modify-
ing the role of the Federal Government in the support of public health train-
ing should await the holding of this conference and the submission of the
Surgeon General's report on its deliberations and recommendations. The fact-
ual data which will be developed in connection with the conference and the
expert evaluation of training needs, and of the most effective methods of meet-
ing these needs, which will emerge from the conference, will provide a com-
prehensive and authoritative basis for determining whether additional Fed-
eral financial assistance is necessary and, if so, what the nature and extent of
such assistance should be.
We recommend, therefore, that legislative action on H.R. 6771 be deferred
pending consideration of the report of the training evaluation conference
which will be submitted to the Congress by January 1, 1959.
-------
1278 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
The Bureau of the Budget advises that it perceives no objection to the sub-
mission of this report to your committee.
Sincerely yours,
M. B. FOLSOM, Secretary.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT,
BUREAU OF THE BUDGET,
Washington, D.C., January 27,1958.
Hon. OREN HARRIS,
Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This letter is in reply to your request of April
11, 1957, for the views of the Bureau of the Budget on H.R. 6771, a bill to
amend section 314 (c) of the Public Health Service Act, so as to authorize the
[p. 7]
Surgeon General to make certain grants-in-aid for the support of public or
nonprofit educational institutions which provide training and services in the
fields of public health and in the administration of State and local public
health programs.
This bill would amend section 314(c) of the Public Health Service Act to
enable the Surgeon General to make grants to public and nonprofit institu-
tions which provide public health training. The amount of the grant would
be limited to $1 million from the amount annually appropriated under the
authority of section 314(c).
The objective of the proposed measure is, in our opinion, an important part
of the larger problem of the scope and adequacy of currently available public
health training in the United States. At the present time, the Public Health
Service is undertaking a comprehensive study of this broad subject which is
to culminate in a conference next July. This conference will consist of about
100 participants representing professional and educational groups informed
on the subject of public health training. The issues to be studied will include
an appraisal of the present capacity of training facilities, necessary expan-
sion of present staff and facilities and methods and sources for financing
needed training. The conclusion of this study will be reported to the Congress
as required by law, before January 1, 1959.
In view of the interrelationship between the objective of this proposed bill
and the study now under way by the Public Health Service, we would urge
that action on H.R. 6771 be deferred until the results of the study can be
evaluated and the total needs of public health training can be appraised.
Sincerely yours,
ROBERT E. MERRIAM,
Assistant Director.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1279
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Washington, B.C., January 29,1958.
Hon. OREN HARRIS,
Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in response to your request for the views of
the Department of Justice concerning the bill (H.R. 6771) to amend section
314(c) of the Public Health Service Act, so as to authorize the Surgeon Gen-
eral to make certain grants-in-aid for the support of public or nonprofit edu-
cational institutions which provide training and services in the fields of public
health and in the administration of State and local public health programs.
The bill would amend section 314(c) of the Public Health Service Act (42
U.S.C. 246(c)) by adding thereto a provision which would earmark $1 mil-
lion of each year's appropriation to the Department of Health, Education,
[p. 8]
and Welfare to enable the Surgeon General to make grants-in-aid for the
support of public or nonprofit educational institutions which provide training
and services in the public health field and in the administration of State and
local public health programs.
Whether the bill should be enacted involves a question of policy concerning
which this Department prefers to make no recommendation.
The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection to the
submission of this report.
Sincerely yours,
LAWRENCE E. WALSH,
Deputy Attorney General.
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,
Washington, D.C., June 20,1957.
Hon. OREN HARRIS,
Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
DEAR CONGRESSMAN HARRIS : This in further reply to your request for this
Department's views on H.R. 6771, a bill to amend section 314(c) of the Public
Health Service Act, so as to authorize the Surgeon General to make certain
grants-in-aid for the support of public or nonprofit educational institutions
which provide training and services in the fields of public health and in the
administration of State and local public health programs.
There presently is a shortage of trained persons actively engaged in public
health programs, and this Department favors reasonable measures to allevi-
ate this shortage. However, I would prefer to leave detailed comment on this
particular proposal to the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
which would administer its provisions.
The Bureau of the Budget advises that there is no objection to the sub-
mission of this report.
Sincerely yours,
JAMES T. O'CONNELL,
Under Secretary of Labor.
[p. 9]
-------
1280
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
In compliance with subsection 4 of rule XXIX of the Standing Rules of the
Senate, changes in existing law made by the bill, as reported, are shown as
follows (new matter is printed in italics, existing law in which no change is
proposed is shown in roman):
SECTION 314(c) OP THE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT (42 U.S.C. 246(c))
GRANTS AND SERVICES TO STATES
SEC. 314. (a) *
(c) To enable the Surgeon General to assist, through grants and as other-
wise provided in this section, States, counties, health districts, and other
political subdivisions of the States in establishing and maintaining adequate
public health services, including grants for demonstrations and for training
of personnel for State and local health work, there is hereby authorized to be
appropriated for each fiscal year a sum not to exceed $30,000,000. Of the sum
appropriated for each fiscal year pursuant to this subsection there shall be
available (1) an amount, not to exceed $3,000,000, to enable the Surgeon
General to provide demonstrations and to train personnel for State and local
health work and to meet the cost of pay, allowances, and traveling expenses
of commissioned officers and other personnel of the Service detailed to assist
States in carrying out the purposes of this subsection, and (2) an amount,
not to exceed $1,000,000, to enable the Surgeon General to make grants-in-aid,
under such terms and conditions as may be prescribed by regulations, for the
support of public or nonprofit educational institutions which provide compre-
hensive professional training, specialized consultative services, and technical
assistance in the fields of public health and in the administration of State
and local public health programs.
[p. 10]
1.12k(3) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 104 (1958)
1.12k(3)(a) April 21: Debated in House, pp. 6836-6838
AMENDING THE PUBLIC HEALTH
SERVICE ACT
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I move
to suspend the rules and pass the bill
(H. R. 11414) to amend section 314
(c) of the Public Health Service Act,
so as to authorize the Surgeon Gen-
[p. 6836]
eral to make certain grants-in-aid for
the support of public or nonprofit
educational institutions which pro-
vide training and services in the fields
of public health and in the adminis-
tration of State and local public
health programs.
The Clerk read as follows:
Be it enacted, etc., That the last sentence
of subsection (c) of section 314 of the public
Health Service Act, as amended (42 U. S. C.
246 (c)), is amended by inserting "(1)" im-
mediately after "available", and by inserting
immediately before the period at the end
thereof the following: ", and (2) an amount,
not to exceed $1 million, to enable the Sur-
geon General to make grants-in-aid, under
such terms and conditions as may be pre-
scribed by regulations, for the support of
public or nonprofit educational institutions
which provide comprehensive professional
training, specialized consultative services, and
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1281
technical assistance in the fields of public
health and in the administration of State and
local public health programs."
The SPEAKER. Is a second de-
manded?
Mr. O'HARA of Minnesota. Mr.
Speaker, I demand a second.
The SPEAKER. Without objection,
a second will be considered as ordered.
There was no objection.
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield
myself 4 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, the Committee on In-
terstate and Foreign Commerce urges
adoption by the House of the bill
H. R. 11414. The purpose of the bill
is to earmark an authorized appro-
priation of not to exceed $1 million
for grants-in-aid by the Surgeon
General to schools of public health.
The present provisions of the Pub-
lic Health Service Act authorize an
appropriation of not to exceed $30
million for public health grants to
State and local communities. The sum
of $1 million which is to be earmarked
for grants-in-aid to schools of public
health would come out of the $30
million already authorized. In a simi-
lar way there is already earmarked
under present law out of this $30
million, an amount of not to exceed
$3 million for demonstrations of
public-health methods and for the
training of public-health personnel.
The legislation has the support of
State and local public health officers,
the schools of public health and many
important voluntary organizations
concerned with public health.
The committee feels that this legis-
lation is in the nature of emergency
legislation and enactment is necessary
to enable the 11 schools of public
health in the United States to carry
on their activities which are vitally
necessary if public-health programs—
not only Federal, but also State and
local programs—are not to be seri-
ously curtailed for want of an ade-
quate supply of trained public-health
personnel.
Of the 11 schools of public health,
five schools are supported mostly by
public funds. These five schools are
located in California, Michigan,
Maine, North Carolina, and Puerto
Rico.
The remaining six schools are pri-
vate schools: Columbia, Harvard,
Johns Hopkins, Pittsburgh, Tulane
and Yale.
The schools of public health are in
an unusual situation because most of
their graduates go into public serv-
ice and, as a matter of fact, most of
their students who attend these
schools have their tuition paid by
Federal, State or local public health
agencies. However, these agencies pay
only the tuition of these students and
tuition covers only approximately 11
percent of the cost to the schools of
teaching these students. As a result
of this practice, in 1957-58 the schools
were left with a deficit of $3,127,000.
Thus, in actual practice the schools
of public health are subsidizing the
training of public health personnel
fo'- the Federal Government and for
State and local governments.
Another factor must be kept in
mind: of the students who attend the
schools of public health, only an aver-
age of 25 percent take jobs in the
State in which they attended school.
Witnesses appearing on behalf of
the publicly supported schools of pub-
lic health testified that the State legis-
lature in their respective States have
become increasingly reluctant to ap-
propriate funds for the five public-
supported schools of public health
since a majority of students attending
these schools are out-of-state students
who, upon graduating, largely fill
public health positions in other States
and foreign countries.
The testimony before the committee
shows a serious shortage of trained
public health personnel on all levels
of government—Federal, State and
local. If this shortage is to be re-
duced, the schools of public health
-------
1282
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
must be placed in a position to enlarge
their activities. H. R. 11414 will help
to make such expansion possible, and
I hope the House will adopt this
measure which is vital to the Nation's
public health program.
Mr. O'HARA of Minnesota. Mr.
Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to my
colleague, the gentleman from West
Virginia [Mr. NEAL].
Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to
oppose the passage of this bill for a
good many reasons. There is proba-
bly no field of activity on the Ameri-
can scene that has had more attention,
more public support and more prog-
ress than the field of general health
of the people of the United States.
We have contributions from local
communities, from drives of one sort
or another; we have various agencies
of wealth in the way of foundations,
that are contributing toward the
cause of health in its various phases;
we have support from the Government
for cancer research and various other
agencies that are very comprehensive
in their score. It seems to me that all
of the money and all of the effort in
the field of public health in its various
activities need to be restudied and
revamped with the idea that perhaps
we are getting so many duplications
that we are losing some of the effect
that we are trying to produce.
The Public Health Service and the
Surgeon General have been the lead-
ers in public health matters in the
history of the United States and have
done a wonderful job. The Public
Health Service really is responsible
for the various activities. They take
under their wing the job of trying to
educate and to train Public Health
workers to take their places in the
States and local communities in an
effort to bring about a general im-
provement in the health of the public.
Since this proposed appropriation
more or less tends to enter a new
field of activity, the support of schools
of public health, rather than to pro-
mote money for buildings or facilities,
it seems to me we are getting into a
new field of activity. We are branch-
ing out into a field the end of which
we cannot see unless there is a definite
review and study of the situation as
it exists today.
In 1956 the Congress of the United
States authorized the Surgeon Gen-
eral to appoint a committee consist-
ing of approximately 50 experts in
all phases of health matters to study
and to review these activities in order
that we might get some semblance of
a definitely correlated activity.
The Public Health Service takes the
position that since the report of this
committee is due at the end of 1959,
it might be well worthwhile for us to
postpone action on this bill until after
that report has been made.
I think the fact that the Public
Health Service, above all other agen-
cies, is primarily inclined to be in-
terested in the field of public health
trainees, we should take their advice
and postpone this legislation until
after this committee has had an op-
portunity to make its survey and to
report its findings. The whole field
of public health, the training of doc-
tors and nurses and of sanitarians
and of the people who go out in the
field of public health activity is of
great concern, of course, to all of us.
We find that that is not entirely
limited to the Public Health Service.
It is a field in which the medical
schools, the schools of nurse training,
the health centers and the various
agencies are all interested, and are
all taking part in the preparation
and training of these people who go
out into the field of public health
work. To me, it would seem our best
bet is to await the report of this
committee in order that the field
might be better understood and in
order that the Committee on Appro-
priations and those who consider the
appropriation of moneys for this field
of activity may have a more definite
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1283
picture when they sit down to make
appropriations. As it is now, it is a
million dollars here and other sums
there each year, until it is a maze
of activity that nobody seems to un-
derstand. Certainly, we should have
some beter understanding of the prob-
lem.
Mr. O'HARA of Minnesota. Mr.
Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. NEAL. I yield.
Mr. O'HARA of Minnesota. The
gentleman is a member of the sub-
committee. I am not a member of the
subcommittee, and I was not able to
be present when the bill was reported
out of the full committee. But, what
the gentleman has said is making a
very strong impression on me. His
point is that this legislation is pre-
mature and it is a matter that we
should wait for the report of this
conference which is to be held this
year and then we can determine much
better what should be done. Is that
not correct?
Mr. NEAL. I think the gentleman
has well stated it. In view of the fact
[p.6837]
that there are so many avenues of ap-
propriations and contributions going
into this general field, it would be well
if the Public Health Service could
have time enough and have informa-
tion which might be brought out
through the study of this committee
and have it laid before them in order
that they might have a better picture
of the problem and enable them to
appropriate the moneys for the proper
needs in order to get the best job done.
Mr. O'HARA of Minnesota. I thank
the gentleman.
Mr. NEAL. I know that the schools
of public health are doing good work.
I know that they, like all other insti-
tutions of learning, are having a hard
time trying to finance themselves.
Mr. BEAMER. Mr. Speaker, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. NEAL. I yield.
Mr. BEAMER. The gentleman from
West Virginia has been a member of
this subcommittee. I am asking
whether or not this legislation would
include instructional work in schools
of nursing. I have been hurriedly
reading the report and the reason I
ask the question is that I have had
comments from nurses associations in
the State of Indiana and they are
rather concerned about this type of
legislation. I have tried to assure
them that I thought it had some merit,
but they felt that it could be more
effective if it was operated on a State
level rather than on a Federal level.
I wonder whether this bill does in-
clude assistance or grants to schools
of nursing?
Mr, NEAL. This bill simply appro-
priates funds to the 11 public health
schools for training public health per-
sonnel, doctors, nurses, and sani-
tarians.
Mr. BEAMER. There are many
public health nurses and that is the
reason they raised the question, and
I am merely asking for information
because I have been contacted by the
public health nurses and the nurses
have consulted the public health
service.
Mr. NEAL. The public health
nurses and the public health admin-
istrators on a State and county level
are usually paid by the State through
the contributions of both the Federal
Government and the State.
Mr, O'HARA of Minnesota. Mr.
Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. NEAL. I yield.
Mr. O'HARA of Minnesota. Would
the gentleman from West Virginia
who is speaking to us from the well
of the House now tell us for how
many years he has been a physician
and surgeon and in the general prac-
tice of medicine?
Mr. NEAL. Long enough to have
seen a great deal of progress in the
field of education. I may say, too, I
firmly believe that the credit for the
-------
1284
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
activities and progress that has been
made in the field of education does
not belong to the Federal Government
nearly so much as it belongs to the
general activity and general consent
and general appreciation that has
been given to it through all the years
by the public, whether it is in public
contributions, individual contributions,
the drive for the cancer fund, or
what not. The people have always
been interested in public health.
I have observed the progress of
health programs for more than half
a century and I must say that the
medical profession and its associated
groups have not only led the way but
have made wonderful progress even
before the Federal Government ini-
tiated efforts to preempt the field.
Mr. PELLY. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. NEAL. I yield.
Mr. PELLY. I wonder if the gen-
tleman could truly say that these
rulings would be in accordance with
the ruling of the Supreme Court, that
no funds would go to segregated
institutions.
Mr. NEAL. I would not like to dis-
cuss that phase of this activity. I
think general health considers people
of all walks of life and all religions
and all groups.
The SPEAKER. The time of the
gentleman from West Virginia has
expired.
Mr. HIESTAND. Mr. Speaker, I
make the point of order that a
quorum is not present.
Mr. NEAL. I ask unanimous con-
sent, Mr. Speaker, to proceed for 2
additional minutes.
The SPEAKER. Well, the gentle-
man from California has made a point
of order. If he will withdraw it.
Mr. HIESTAND. I insist on the
point of order, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER. Evidently no quo-
rum is present.
Fix 6838]
1.12k(3)(b) May 5: Passed House, pp. 8004-8011
AMENDING SKCTION -314 (C) OF THE
PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to vacate proceed-
ings under suspension of the rules held
2 weeks ago on the bill (H.R. 11414)
to amend section 314 (c) of the Public
Health Service Act, so as to authorize
the Surgeon General to make certain
grants-in-aid for the support of public
or nonprofit educational institutions
which provide training and services in
the fields of public health and in the
administration of State and local pub-
lic health programs.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is
there objection?
There was no objection.
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I move
to suspend the rules and pass the bill
H. R. 11414, with amendments.
The Clerk read the bill, as follows:
Be it enacted, etc.. That the last sentence
of subsection (c) of section 314 of the Public
Health Service Act, as amended (42 U. S. C.
246 (c)), is amended by inserting "(1)" im-
mediately after "available", and by striking
out the period at the end thereof and insert-
ing in lieu thereof a comma and the follow-
ing: "and (2) an amount, not to exceed $1
million to enable the Surgeon General to make
grants-in-aid, under such terms and conditions
as may be prescribed by regulations, for provi-
sion in public or nonprofit schools of public
health accredited by a body or bodies recog-
nized by the Surgeon General, of comprehen-
sive professional training, specialized consulta-
tive services, and technical assistance in the
fields of public health and in the administra-
tion of State and local public health programs,
except that in allocating funds made available
under this clause (2) among such schools of
public health the Surgeon General shall give
primary consideration to the number of feder-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1285
ally sponsored students attending1 each such
school."
SEC. 2. The amendment made by the first
section of this act shall be applicable only to
the fiscal years beginning July 1, 1958, and
July 1, 1959.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is a
second demanded?
Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I demand
a second.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. With-
out objection, a second will be consid-
ered as ordered.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The
gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. HAR-
RIS] will be recognized for 20 minutes
[p. 8004]
and the gentleman from West Vir-
ginia [Mr. NEAL] for 20 minutes.
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield
myself 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, this bill—H.R. 11414
•—was called up under suspension 2
weeks ago, but due to the situation
existing at that time it was not com-
pleted. In the interim there has been
some discussion with reference to
clarifying amendments which would
make the bill more acceptable.
The reason for request this morning
to vacate the proceedings of 2 weeks
ago is for the purpose of offering
amendments to the bill in order that
it will be more acceptable and, as we
believe, more in the public interest.
The subcommittee held hearings on
the bill. It was considered by the sub-
committee and reported to the full
committee. The full committee re-
ported the bill. In view of the neces-
sity which we think is in the nature of
an emergency it is called up under a
suspension of the rules with the
amendments which will be fully ex-
plained by members of the committee.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to
the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr.
WILLIAMS], chairman of the subcom-
mittee.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Mississippi. Mr.
Speaker, the reason for calling this bill
up under suspension of the rules has
already been stated by my chairman.
The purpose of the legislation before
us now is simply to earmark $1 million
for grants-in-aid to schools of public
health.
The Subcommittee on Health and
Science held hearings on this legisla-
tion, and I may say that the legisla-
tion has the warm support of all of
those who are concerned with public
health matters. I think in all fairness,
though, I should state to the House
that the witnesses who appeared be-
fore the committee on behalf of the
Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare did express some reservations
with regard to the timing of this im-
portant legislation. The Department,
of course, itself acknowledges the
great need of schools of public health
and the important services rendered
by these schools in training public
health personnel for Federal, State,
and local health programs. The De-
partment, however, points to a provi-
sion contained in Public Law 911
passed by the 84th Congress that re-
quires the Surgeon General to call a
conference during the second half of
1958—that is this year—to assist the
Surgeon General1 in appraising the
effectiveness of the public health train-
ing program provided for in that law.
Congress recognized the urgent
need for additional public health per-
sonnel and provided in Public Law
911, of the 34th Congress, for an
emergency 3-year Federal traineeship
program.
The Department evidently feels that
enactment of this bill at this time
might prejudice the chances of seeking
more far-reaching legislation at a
later date, but I want to assure the
Department and the Members of the
House that the Committee on Inter-
state and Foreign Commerce is com-
pletely aware of the great responsibil-
ity which it has with regard to the
training of adequate numbers of pub-
lic health personnel.
-------
1286
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
Any recommendation that the Sur-
geon General's conference might make
will certainly receive the prompt and
careful consideration of our subcom-
mittee to the end that necessary legis-
lation will be enacted.
However, the needs of the schools of
public health are so immediate and so
great that postponement of the enact-
ment of this bill would work great
hardship on these schools and would
jeopardize continued operation of
Federal, State, and local public health
programs.
The record is replete with testimony
of the shortage of public health per-
sonnel. I would remind the House that
a recent study shows that 30 percent
of all local health officer positions are
vacant at the present time and we
must look to the schools of public
health to produce the needed qualified
personnel.
For these reasons the committee,
after careful consideration of the
question of timing raised by the De-
partment of Health, Education, and
Welfare, decided that this legislation
should be enacted at this time. The
committee felt that this legislation
provides a bare minimum of support
for schools of public health, and that
the recommendations of the Surgeon
General's conference will go consid-
erably beyond the provisions of the
bill presently under consideration.
Since the committee reported this
legislation, certain questions have
arisen on the part of members of the
subcommittee and members of the full
committee, as well as other Members
of the House, as to a formula for
allocating these funds.
Another question was raised with
reference to the placing of a time
limitation on this act in order to per-
mit Congress to review the action by
the conference which was set up
under Public Law 911.
In view of the fact that these ques-
tions were raised, the committee has
gotten together and has reported two
amendments to the bill to take care of
those objections which were raised.
One of these amendments in so many
words provides that in allocating
funds made available under this bill,
the Surgeon General shall give pri-
mary consideration to the number of
federally sponsored students attending
such schools. The gentleman from
West Virginia [Mr. NEAL] , I am quite
sure, will discuss that provision in
greater detail later in the debate.
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. WILLIAMS of Mississippi. I
yield to the gentleman from Arkansas.
Mr. HARRIS. In view of the fact
that the gentleman is discussing one
of the amendments which the com-
mittee members considered, I think
it would be advisable to insert at this
point a tabulation showing the num-
ber of students in the present year
and those sponsored in the various
institutions, 11 schools or institutions
in all. It is that tabulation the gentle-
man has in mind with reference to
the formula and in considering the
allocation of the funds here.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Mississippi.
That is exactly right. Mr. Speaker, I
ask unanimous consent to insert that
table at this point in the RECORD.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is
there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Mississippi?
There was no objection.
The tabulation referred to follows:
AII schools
Federally State
sponsored sponsored Total
California
Columbia
Harvard
Johns Hopkins.
Michigan
Minnesota
North Carolina.
Pittsburgh
Puerto Rico
Tulane
Yale
71
31
51
44
80
67
71
39
36
22
21
12
15
11
3
23
6
27
6
26
1
1
126
86
99
116
139
128
122
90
68
39
43
Total..
533
131 1,056
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1287
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The
time of the gentleman from Missis-
sippi has expired.
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield
the gentleman 3 additional minutes,
because I think at this point we can
clear up the amendments so that
everyone will understand them.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Mississippi. Mr.
Speaker, it might be stated also at
this point that at the present time
there are some 533 federally sponsored
students in these 11 schools of public
health and that these schools are
training these students at a total cost
to the schools over and above the
scholarship fund provided by the Fed-
eral Government of some $2,324,413
in the years 1957 to 1958. The pur-
pose of this bill is not to take care of
the entire amount of subsidy that the
Federal Government is enjoying in
these schools but actually to take care
of at least a part of it pending report
from the general conference on this
subject which is expected in January
of next year.
Mr. HARRIS. The other amend-
ment that the gentleman was about to
refer to has to do with the limitation?
Mr. WILLIAMS of Mississippi.
Yes.
Mr. HARRIS. Will the gentleman
explain that one in section 2?
Mr. WILLIAMS of Mississippi. The
second amendment to the bill provides
that this act shall be in effect for the
next 2 years. It has a 2-year limita-
tion. The committee feels that would
be a proper and sufficient time to per-
mit the Congress to consider recom-
mendations of the conference I have
mentioned heretofore.
Mr. HARRIS. Is it not true that in
conference with those who are inter-
ested in this program they, too, agree
that the 2-year limitation will permit
the program to go ahead through such
time as the conference report referred
to will be received by the Congress, at
which time the committee can consider
what further action on a broad gen-
eral policy will be necessary.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Mississippi. The
chief proponents of the legislation, of
course, were anxious that it be made 3
[p. 8005]
years. However, under the circum-
stances they were more than happy to
go along with the 2-year limitation on
this program. So far as I know, there
is no opposition to the bill now inas-
much as these amendments have been
oifered to clarify certain portions of
it.
Mr. HARRIS. Is it not true that the
amendment offered here would strike
out on line 2, page 2, the words "the
support of" and on line 3 the words
"educational institutions which pro-
vide" and insert therefor the words
"for provision in" on line 2 and on
line 3 following the words "nonprofit"
include "schools of public health
accredited by a body or bodies recog-
nized by the Surgeon General."
Is that the language change that
was made?
Mr. WILLIAMS of Mississippi.
That is the language change that was
made, of course, and it changes or
modifies to some extent the philosophy
of the bill and brings it more in line
with the general feeling among many
of us.
Mr. HARRIS. The purpose is to
overcome the objection that the orig-
inal language was thought by some
would be allocating this sum for the
support of the institution.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Mississippi.
That is correct.
Mr. HARRIS. And this language
seeks to allocate the funds for the
support of the program carried on by
the institution.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Mississippi.
This allocates the fund for a specific,
limited purpose.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The
time of the gentleman from Missis-
sippi has expired.
-------
1288
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield my-
self 5 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, previous gentlemen
have pretty well described the changes
that we have made in the wording of
this bill. When the bill was originally
proposed, languages contained in the
bill would have been construed or
could have been construed to mean
that the Federal Government could
support directly schools of higher
education. To my mind, to directly em-
power by such language support of
public and private schools is going far
beyond that precedent that we should
set here. Now, it was very definitely
shown in the testimony that these 11
schools of public health deserve a
great deal of help. They are operating
in a field of activity that is almost
individual, and in so doing, because
of the fact that their students are lim-
ited in number, they find it almost
impossible to meet the cost of their
programs.
One of the reasons why I think we
are justified in approving this par-
ticular legislation is that the Federal
Government is providing more than
half of the students that attend these
public health schools, and in so doing
is providing nothing further than tui-
tion. And that, of course, falls far
short of the cost of educating these
much-needed public health servants,
doctors, nurses, sanitarians, and so
forth. So we feel that the change of
wording in this law will give the
Public Health Surgeon, the Surgeon
General, sufficient power, in his dis-
cretion, to allocate these funds to the
various schools in regard to their
qualifications for doing specific and
special types of training in regard to
the number of students they are going
to provide for. So I have no objection
to the passage of this bill as it is
amended. And, really, due to the fact
that we are depending so much today
on activities that promote the general
health, I think we are thoroughly
justified in wholeheartedly recom-
mending and accepting this legislation.
Mr. PELLY. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. NEAL. I yield to the gentle-
man.
Mr. PELLY. Mr. Speaker, the gen-
tleman will recall that when we were
considering the same legislation be-
fore, I asked a question which was not
answered, namely, as to whether any
of these educational institutions had
facilities which were segregated. The
gentleman said he did not know. I
wonder if the gentleman would permit
me to inquire of the chairman of the
committee whether these institutions
which would get grants are segre-
gated, or are discriminating against
anyone because of race?
Mr. HARRIS. The gentleman may
read the list of the institutions that
would be covered and he would have
the information that I think he is
seeking.
Mr. PELLY. Mr. Speaker. I will
say to the gentleman that I have read
the list and I have made inquiry of
the Library of Congress. They were
able to inform me that none were,
with the possible exception of Tulane
University. They did not know nor
was that information given out.
Mr. HARRIS. If there is any such
procedure in any of these institutions,
I do not know of it.
Mr. PELLY. Would not the gentle-
man think that it would be the respon-
sibility of the Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare to limit any
grants to those institutions that were
not segregated so that the funds
would be spent in accordance with the
rulings of the Supreme Court?
Mr. HARRIS. If the gentleman
wants my personal opinion. I would
say no, because I do not think the
Department of HEW should be inter-
fering with the administration of any
of these institutions in matters of
this kind. I think the gentleman will
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1289
find that these institutions are carry-
ing on this and other programs with-
out criticism in this field.
Mr. PELLY. I realize that there
may be no criticism, but I thought in
this connection that at least those of
us who do not agree with the dis-
tinguished gentleman might have
some assurance of the kind that I
mention.
Mr. HARRIS. All the assurance I
can give the gentleman is past per-
formance, and I do not think you can
beat it.
Mr. PELLY. My purpose was this.
I did not expect to get that informa-
tion on the floor, but I want to say
that I should expect that that is the
way the Department of Health, Edu-
cation, and Welfare would act, and I
expect to inquire of them. If they do
not act that way, I shall protest.
Mr. HARRIS. I think the gentle-
man has a right to make any protest
he wishes, but I would say this in
order to relieve the gentleman of any
worries or fears he might have re-
garding an important program of this
kind, that the students themselves
have the prerogative of selecting the
institution they wish to attend. And
certainly if there were any such prob-
lem, the students would not choose an
institution that would cause them any
difficulty.
Mr. PELLY. I think the gentleman
would agree with me that if a stu-
dent were in the vicinity of one of
these institutions, it would not be
very practical for him to go a good
distance away to another institution.
Mr. HARRIS. The gentleman is in
error there. They do go considerable
distances, some of them clear across
the country, for this purpose, and
rightly so. I do not think the gentle-
man has any justifiable complaint at
all; I will say that frankly.
Mr. PELLY. Mr. Speaker, I am
not complaining. I was just seeking
information and I thank the gentle-
man.
Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I think
the anxiety of the gentleman is per-
haps a little farfetched. The fact of
the matter is that these students come
not only from the United States but
from the Caribbean area, and from
some of the Spanish-American coun-
tries to take these courses. There may
be some slight deviation, of course, as
the students come from various other
countries.
The International Cooperation Ad-
ministration, I think, assigns about
25 percent of the students and, of
course, most of these people go out
and become teachers in various fields
throughout the world. I do not be-
lieve the question of segregation would
in any way enter into this matter.
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. NEAL. I yield.
Mr. HARRIS. I should like at this
point, with the permission of the
gentleman, to compliment the gentle-
man from Mississippi, the chairman
of the subcommittee, and the other
members of the committee including
the distinguished gentleman from
West Virginia [Mr. NEAL] who is now
addressing us for their very fine and
conscientious work on this most im-
portant problem. The gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. RHODES], the au-
thor of the bill, recognized this prob-
lem some time ago and thought that
something should be done about it.
We fully realize that the Congress has
directed a conference to make a report
on this and other subjects, and we
also realize there is an emergency
here. This report will not be presented
until sometime next year. It is due in
January. If there is not some interim
relief given, then many of these
schools are going to be deprived of
the services that they should render
to the public-health program on the
Federal level, the State level and on
-------
1290
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
the local level. I want to compliment
the members of the committee who
gave such thorough study to this prob-
lem and who have come up with this
recommendation for this interim re-
lief.
Mr. NEAL. Does not the gentleman
believe that a thorough study of the
[p. 8006]
needs and the conditions throughout
our own country and the countries
which we are serving now in many
capacities—it will be quite essential
to have available institutions of repu-
table and accepted qualifications to
train health personnel to go into the
field which is not only of great im-
portance to our own people in this
country and to people wherever our
International Cooperation Admini-
stration and our other agencies of
Government are in operation through-
out the world?
Mr. HARRIS. I thoroughly agree
with the gentleman and I, certainly
along with other Members, intend to
give this problem our consideration
after the report of the conference to
which I have referred is received, and
it is the intention then that the com-
mittee will make a thorough investi-
gation and study of the problem with
the view to try to provide the kind
of program that would be acceptable
and which is so bady needed.
Mr. PELLY. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. NEAL. I yield.
Mr. PELLY. I want to say that the
support of this legislation by the dis-
tinguished gentleman from West Vir-
ginia [Mr. NEAL] means a great deal
to me because I think he has given
this a great deal of thought. As far
as I am concerned, I intend to sup-
port this legislation, particularly on
the basis of his recommendation.
Mr. NEAL. I thank the gentleman.
As I stated before, my greatest ob-
jection to the original language in this
legislation is that it would lay the
field open for Federal participation in
the operation of educational institu-
tions. I think it is a field that we
should look into very carefully and be
certain that we are not establishing
a precedent for Federal participation
in the field of general education.
Legislation enabling Federal agen-
cies to operate educational institutions
should never be approved until its
needs have been thoroughly studied.
Mr. PELLY. I want to say to the
gentleman I share his views regarding
the dangers of Federal aid to educa-
tion and I am glad to know, in this
instance, he feels there would be no
such danger.
Mr. NEAL. I thank the gentleman.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The
time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4
minutes to the gentleman from Minne-
sota [Mr. JUDD].
Mr. JUDD. Mr. Speaker, when this
bill was before us 2 weeks ago, I was
one of the Members who objected to
its passage at that time. I did not
like to be in the position of appearing
to oppose more adequate and more
comprehensive training of public
health officers, because there is no
field that is of more interest to me
personally, or is of greater importance
to our country as a whole. Our public
health training institutions are vital
also to many other countries through-
out the world. They are depending on
these 11 American schools of public
health to train the qualified doctors
and other personnel being sent to the
United States for that purpose from
their countries.
Furthermore, I had authored the
bill 4 years ago that transferred the
Indian medical service to the Public
Health Service, thereby increasing the
demand for persons trained in this
field. There is no question about the
need for expansion of this specialized
training.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1291
Also I did not like to be in the posi-
tion of appearing to oppose needed
grants to the public health school of
the University of Minnesota in my
own State.
But, Mr. Speaker, there were other
issues involved that are so funda-
mental that I felt obliged, neverthe-
less, to oppose the passage of the bill
in the form in which it was originally
brought to us.
In the first place, this same distin-
guished Committee on Interstate and
Foreign Commerce had sponsored
legislation passed 2 years ago which
gave a mandate to the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare to
hold a conference the last half of this
year to study and make recommenda-
tions on this very problem. The De-
partment could not hold it earlier,
under the language of the act, so it
cannot be blamed for the delay or
the emergency. It seemed to me un-
wise to pass general and permanent
legislation, without any time limita-
tion, that would prejudge the results
of that conference. The placing of a
2-year limitation on the bill makes It
a temporary measure, until the report
of the conference can be received and
studied. That takes care of that objec-
tion.
The most serious objection to the
bill was its broad language which
could establish a whole new philosophy
or pattern for providing Federal aid
to education in this country. The orig-
inal bill said the Surgeon General
could make grants-in-aid "for the sup-
port of public or nonprofit educational
institutions which provide compre-
hensive professional training, special-
ized consultative services, and techni-
cal assistance in the fields of public
health." I could not find a precedent
for this sort of language anywhere.
For example, the various acts which
have authorized the Federal Govern-
ment to assist in providing vocational
training in public high schools and
similar institutions do not authorize
grants for the support of the institu-
tions furnishing such training. Rather,
they make grants to finance the pro-
vision by those institutions of train-
ing in the specialized field of voca-
tional education.
The Federal Government has re-
peatedly made grants for scholarships
or teaching fellowships in a given
field, or for research projects, or for
professors or laboratories or schools
doing work on a special problem. That
is the proper way to do it.
But the original language of this
bill would have authorized the Fed-
eral Government to subsidize the gen-
eral running expenses of a school if
only it provides comprehensive pro-
fessional training in the public health
field. The grants could even be used
to write off deficits of prior years. This
would be Federal aid with a vengeance.
I am not suggesting that those in the
committee who sponsored the bill had
any such thing in mind. I am sure
they did not. Nevertheless the lan-
guage was so broad as to permit for
the first time in our history, Federal
grants-in-aid to be used for general
support of educational institutions
rather than to assist such institutions
in providing a particular type of spe-
cialized training. I suggested some
simple changes in language which
easily corrected the situation. Some of
the representatives of the institutions
who were calling on me saw immedi-
ately the necessity for making these
changes. There is a world of difference
between general subsidy of an educa-
tional institution's budget, and grants-
in-aid limited to enabling the insti-
tution to provide a specific type of
training.
So the bill as modified will authorize
the Surgeon General to make grants-
in-aid "for provision in public non-
profit schools of public health accred-
ited by a body or bodies recognized by
the Surgeon General of comprehensive
professional training—in the fields of
public health," and so on.
-------
1292
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
May I express my appreciation to
the chairman and the other members
of his committee who have worked on
this bill, for their readiness to accept
the suggested changes in language,
so that this apparently innocent bill
will not establish a precedent that
would rise to plague us in all sorts of
legislation in the future in this par-
ticularly delicate matter of the proper
relationships and distribution of re-
sponsibilities between the Federal
Government and the State and local
governments, in the all-important field
of education.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The
time of the gentleman from Minnesota
[Mr. JUDD] has expired.
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield
5 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. RHODES], the au-
thor of the bill.
Mr. BENTLEY. Mr. Speaker, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. RHODES of Pennsylvania. I
yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. BENTLEY. I congratulate the
gentleman.
I wonder if the gentlman can tell
me briefly approximately the share
that the University of Michigan will
get if this bill is enacted.
Mr. RHODES of Pennsylvania. I
yield to the chairman of the committee
to answer that.
Mr. HARRIS. There are 11 schools,
of course, that have public health
training facilities.
In the 1957-58 year the University
of Michigan has 80 federally spon-
sored trainees, 23 State-sponsored
trainees, a total of 139. The additional
36 are private students who pay their
own way.
The proposal contained in this bill
would give a proportionate share of
the $1 million additional funds allo-
cated out of a total of 533 federally
sponsored students which, as you can
see, would be probably around 14
percent.
Mr. BENTLEY. I thank the gentle-
man.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous con-
sent to insert at this point the text of
a telegram from Mr. Henry F.
Vaughan, dean of the School of Pub-
[p. 8007]
lie Health of the University of
Michigan.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is
there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
The text of the telegram referred
to follows:
My long years of association with public
health affairs in Michigan as health commis-
sioner of Detroit for 22 years, as member of
the Michigan State Board of Health for 20
years, and as Dean of the School of Public
Health at the University of Michigan for 17
years impresses me with the urgent need for
favorable action on H. R. 11414 -which under
suspension rules requiring two-thirds major-
ity for passage will be before the House on
Monday, May 5. Passage of this bill will bring
approximately $100,000 to the University of
Michigan to support our program. Our school
trains most of the physicians, dentists, engi-
neers, nurses, and others who serve the State,
county, and city health departments in Michi-
gan. Nearly 90 percent of our graduates join
public health agencies as directors or staff
members. Since we have great need for person-
nel in our health departments throughout the
State, support of this character is paramount
to supplement and replace financial support
which normally comes through the Michigan
Legislature. For example, we are short at
least 10 health officers in Michigan outside of
Detroit. In Detroit, of 388 budgeted positions
for nurses in Detroit department of health,
only 180 are now filled. Please give your
favorable vote to this bill on Monday.
Mr. BENTLEY. I want to say again
that I support the gentleman from
Pennsylvania on this legislation which
I think is very important and neces-
sary. I want to say that I support it
very much at this time.
Mr. RHODES of Pennsylvania. I
thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, this bill H. R. 11414
is a meritorious proposal and as
the distinguished chairman has well
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1293
stated, it is also emergency legisla-
tion. The purpose of the bill is to
amend section 314 (c) of the Public
Health Service Act to earmark an
authorized appropriation, not to ex-
ceed $1 million annually for each of 2
years, to be allocated by the Surgeon
General to the accredited schools of
public health. These funds will be
used by the schools to help offset the
annual deficits they now incur in the
training of public health personnel,
sent to the schools by the various
agencies of the Government.
I wish to commend the distinguished
chairman of our subcommittee, the
gentleman from Mississippi [Mr.
WILLIAMS] and the distinguished
chairman of the full committee, the
gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. HAR-
RIS] for their diligent work in behalf
of this legislation, which is of such
great importance to the health of our
people.
I would also like to pay tribute to
our distinguished colleague, the gen-
tleman from West Virginia [Mr.
NEAL], for his outstanding contribu-
tion in the work of our subcommittee
and for his keen interest in the cause
of public health. His high principles,
his devotion to the well-being of our
people, and his knowledge of health
and medical matters have made him
an invaluable member of our com-
mittee. His fairness and consideration
of his colleagues have earned for him
the respect and admiration of all
who are privileged to serve with him.
Mr. Speaker, to meet certain ob-
jections that have been raised, new
language has been agreed upon which
I believe will make this bill acceptable
to all Members. I appreciate the co-
operation that has been exhibited in
helping to reach this understanding
and agreement. There was no differ-
ence in our thinking that these schools
are performing a vital public service
and that they are staffed by a group
of outstanding authorities in the field
of preventive medicine, devoted to the
important training of public health
specialists.
In February 1957 the gentleman
from West Virginia [Mr. NEAL] and
I were named by the chairman of our
committee to attend the annual meet-
ing of the Association of Schools of
Public Health. We had the oppor-
tunity to meet with the deans and
directors of these institutions pro-
viding specialized training in the field
of public health and to discuss with
them their current problems and re-
sponsibilities.
In my report to the chairman,
dated March 6, 1957, I called atten-
tion to the financial needs of these
schools in supplying the increasing
demand for public health physicians,
dentists, engineers, hospital adminis-
trators, nurses and other related posi-
tions. It said, in part:
In discharging its responsibilities in the field
of public health, the Federal Government relies
to a considerable extent on the teaching and
research activities of the schools of public
health, and it, therefore, has a direct interest
in the adequate functioning of these schools
* * * The large numbers of foreign students
who attend schools of public health in the
United States makes these schools important
centers for our international health programs
which are an inegral part of our foreign policy.
The report concluded:
We believe these schools are playing an
important role in promoting the health and
welfare of our people and people of foreign
nations, and that, therefore, their problems
are worthy of careful study by this committee
and its Subcommittee on Health and Science.
Shortly thereafter, I introduced
H. R. 6771, to provide this urgently
needed assistance to schools of public
health to enable them to carry out
their great responsibilities in this
important field. A companion bill has
been introduced in the Senate. It has
the bipartisan sponsorship of the
chairman and four members of the
Labor and Public Welfare Committee.
There are 11 schools of public
health in the United States. Six are
private institutions—Yale University,
-------
1294
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
Johns Hopkins University, Columbia
University, Harvard University, Tu-
lane University, and the University
of Pittsburgh. Five are publicly sup-
ported—University of Minnesota,
University of North Carolina, Uni-
versity of Michigan, University of
California, and the University of
Puerto Rico.
Schools of public health train doc-
tors, nurses, engineers, and other
professional health workers in the
identification of diseases and health
hazards affecting the community, in
the location of their causes, and in
the development of methods of control.
They deal with such problems of
the modern age as the prevention
and control of radiological hazards,
accidents in homes and factories, on
the highways and in the air, the
chronic diseases such as mental illness,
cancer and heart disease which have
increased with the lengthening life
span of our population, the other
special problems of the aging and
those involving the health of mothers
and children. Industrial health, school
health, and the health protection of
our Armed Forces are very much the
concern of the schools in educating
specialists for duty in these areas.
Mr. Speaker, our subcommittee was
fortunate in having as witnesses in
support of this legislation the most
outstanding experts in the Nation in
the field of public health. In addition
we received written communications
urging its approval from the State
health officers of 32 States—Alabama,
Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colo-
rado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida,
Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico,
New York, North Carolina, North
Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
South Carolina, Utah, Washington,
West Virginia and Wisconsin. The
health officers of Alaska, Hawaii,
Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands
also wrote in support of this legis-
lation.
This legislation is also endorsed by
a broad cross section of organizations
actively concerned with public health
work, including the American Dental
Association, the American Public
Health Association, the American
Municipal Association, the American
Hospital Association, the Association
of State and Territorial Health Offi-
cers, the Association of Schools of
Public Health, the AFL-CIO, the
American Parents Association, the
National Advisory Committee on Lo-
cal Health Departments, the National
Congress of Parents and Teachers, the
National Council of Churches of
Christ of the United States of Amer-
ica, and by the presidents of the
universities and the deans of the 11
schools of public health.
Mr. Speaker, official data supplied
to the committee shows that the State
universities and private institutions
supporting schools of public health
are, in effect, subsidizing the public
health training for the entire Nation.
During the current academic year
717, or 68 percent, of the 1,065 stu-
dents enrolled at these 11 schools of
public health are sponsored by some
agency of government—Federal, State,
or local. The governments pay the
tuition of these students, but tuition
on the average covers only 11 percent
of the basic teaching budgets of these
schools.
The tuition paid by all government
agencies for these 717 students
amounted to $495,000. The cost to the
schools of training these students
amounted to $3,622,000. This means
a deficit for this year of $3,127,000
for these 11 schools of public health—
a financial burden to subsidize public
health training for the Nation which
these schools can no longer afford to
carry alone.
[p. 8008]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1295
A total of 533 of the 717 students
are sponsored by the various agencies
of the Federal Government. The deficit
resulting from the Federal Govern-
ment's paying tuition only, rather
than the actual costs of training these
students, amounts to $2,324,413 in the
1957-58 academic year.
Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the
$1 million authorized in this legisla-
tion will not solve the financial prob-
lems of these schools, since it is less
than one-half of the deficit resulting
from the training of federally spon-
sored students and less than one-third
of the deficit of all governmentally
sponsored students. It would, how-
ever, enable the schools to fill teaching
positions, vacant for lack of funds,
thus making possible an increased
enrollment and a greater number of
graduates needed to fill existing va-
cancies in public health positions in
many communities. It would also help
the schools to improve and expand
their teaching in the new and vital
areas where health problems are on
the increase in our modern society—
such problems as mental illness, can-
cer, heart disease, radioactive hazards,
health problems of the aged, childrens'
diseases, and in the field of civil
defense.
Quotations from some of the dis-
tinguished witnesses testifying in sup-
port of this bill will serve to drama-
tize its importance to the public
health of the American people.
Our distinguished House colleague,
the gentleman from Rhode Island,
Representative JOHN E. FOGARTY,
chairman of the Appropriations Sub-
committee having jurisdiction over
public health and related matters:
This is an important measure, bearing di-
rectly and vitally on the health and strength
of the United States. I endorse H. R. 6771
most strongly, and urge you to throw your
full support behind it. I am confident that you
will do so, when a careful study of the facts
reveals to you, as it has to me, how urgently
the country needs this legislation.
Dr. Ernest L. Stebbins, president of
the Association of Schools of Public
Health, chairman of the American
Preventive Board of Medicine, and
dean and director of the Johns Hop-
kins University School of Hygiene
and Public Health:
The schools of public health are comparable
to the military academies in that the schools
of public health train leaders for public serv-
ice. At the present time these schools are in a
sense subsidizing the Federal Government by
providing education which costs far in excess
of the payments that are made for these stu-
dents.* * * We believe that the enactment of
this legislation will be a deciding factor in
maintaining this country in a position of lead-
ership in the field of public health.
Dr. Leona Baumgartner, commis-
sioner of health of New York City:
I am frequently called out to other States
for public-health meetings. Every place I go,
I get exactly the same story. * * * We all need
additional trained public-health workers, and
to get them we need to train more workers in
this highly specialized field, and the only place
the people are going to get the training is in
these schools of public health.
Dr. Herman E. Hilleboe, commis-
sioner of the New York State Depart-
ment of Health and president of the
Association of State and Territorial
Health Officers:
The protection of the public health is a
joint Federal-State, and local responsibility,
and those of us in the States and localities
cannot do our jobs without trained personnel.
It seems to me that Federal support of schools
of public health will help us materially to
improve our public-health training program
on a nationwide basis. I wish to emphasize
particularly that these schools of public health
are an integral part of the public-health struc-
ture upon which our national security in no
small part depends.
Dr. Berwyn F. Mattison, executive
secretary of the American Public
Health Association:
There has never been a time in the past
decade when our list of vacant (public health)
positions did not exceed our list of qualified
applicants * * * increased facilities have not
kept pace with increasing demands for trained
personnel * * * the American Public Health
Association heartily endorses the Ehodes bill
and we believe the additional support proposed
* * * for schools of public health will aid in
training more professional workers in this
-------
1296
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
field. It must be recognized that shortage of
such skilled workers is preventing the full ap-
plication of modern science and technology to
the end that we prevent needless suffering, dis-
ability, and death.
Dr. Gaylord M. Anderson, dean of
the University of Minnesota School of
Public Health:
The work that every one of these 11 (public
health) schools is doing for the entire Nation,
the work that they are doing for the Federal
Government, is helping to train personnel to
be employed in this country and to be em-
ployed outside of the country in public-health
work. * * * Without such assistance (from
the Federal Government) the schools of public
health cannot even continue their present pro-
grams and certainly cannot expand to meet
the needs of the future which will be greater
not only in magnitude but also in complexity.
It is for these reasons that I strongly support
H. R. 6771 and urge its passage as a matter
of real importance to the health of the Nation.
Dr. Detlev Bronk, president of the
Rockefeller Institute and the National
Academy of Sciences:
It would be a truism to say that healthy
men, women, and children are the basic na-
tional resource. Because of that it seems to
me inconceivable that we as a Nation would
not give first priority to the spiritual and
physical health of our people, both for the
continued vitality of our country in peaceful
pursuits and in the building of our national
defenses where we certainly need men and
women who are healthy and able to meet the
challenge of the present and the future. * * *
I hope that the National Government will
recognize a responsibility to give leadership
and through the schools of public health you
can give that leadership toward the improve-
ment of the health and welfare of our people
without, 1 am convinced, in any way impairing
any sense of local responsibility.
Dr. Eugene P. Campbell, Chief of
Public Health Division, International
Cooperation Administration:
An ICA objective is to promote and develop
an increased measure of independence from
the United States in the matter of public
health training. Considering, however, that the
United States with 170 million people has 10
schools of public health, and the other Ameri-
can Republics with about 180 million people
have only 4 schools, it appears that there will
continue to be a demand on the part of South
Americans for training in the United States
for many years to come. Likewise, in view of
an even greater scarcity of training facilities
in the heavily populated areas of south Asia,
Far East, and Africa, there will be a continu-
ing demand from ICA and other sponsors of
foreign participants for training in the United
States.
Brig. Gen. M. S. White, Director of
Medical Staffing and Education, Of-
fice of The Surgeon General of the
Air Force:
There have been approximately * * * 200
officers who have attended schools of public
health since 1952 that I am aware of in the
3 services. * * * They furnish the only means
we have of providing that 1 year of specialized
training that will qualify our men as special-
ists in aviation medicine.
Dr. Charles L. Wilbar, Jr., secre-
tary of health of Pennsylvania:
In my experience, the greatest single detri-
ment to the conduct of a modern, efficient
public-health department * * * has been the
shortage of well-trained and well-qualified pro-
fessional and technical personnel. The demand
for such personnel by governmental and volun-
tary health agencies greatly exceeds the supply
* * *. It would seem to me to be fitting and
proper that Federal tax funds he used to
support these renowned graduate schools of
public health to help provide the necessary
funds for public-health training, which is ur-
gently needed if we are to have, in the United
States, a supply of public-health professional
leaders who are able to keep our Nation in the
forefront of the modern practice of public
health and preventive medicine.
Dr. Thomas Parran, dean of the
University of Pittsburgh School of
Public Health and former Surgeon
General of the United States Public
Health Service:
The 11 schools of public health have an
importance in our society far beyond their
numbers, the numbers of their graduates, or
the size of their budgets. They are the key-
stone to the whole public health structure of
the country—Federal, State, local. It is in
these schools that the future public-health
leaders of the country must be trained. The
schools serve the foreign policy of the United
States, since 25 percent of their students come
from other countries and return home in posi-
tions of administrative and professional re-
sponsibilities in their ministries of health and
universities * * *. The schools of public health
in this country are unique among institutions
of higher learning * * *. They train persons
for the public service to work in public pro-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1297
grams which are financed under basic Federal
law by joint Federal-State budgets.
Mr. Speaker, schools of public
health are essentially national schools,
since students in the last academic
year came from 47 States, the Dis-
trict of Columbia, 5 Territories and
possessions, as well as from 64 foreign
countries.
Graduates of these schools serve pri-
marily in official public health agen-
cies—Federal, State, local, foreign, or
international—as health officers, pub-
lic health nurses, engineers, or other
public health specialists. Other grad-
uates teach at medical schools or
schools of public health, conduct re-
search, are employed by voluntary
health agencies, serve in hospitals, or
[p. 8009]
engage in other activities in the public
health field.
Schools of public health take on the
characteristic of service academies
when we realize that of the graduates
during the years 1950-55, over 70 per-
cent are employed by Federal, State,
and local health departments, and 22
percent by voluntary health agencies.
This national characteristic of the
schools is further emphasized by the
fact that only 25 percent of them are
employed in the State where the
school is located, while 50 percent are
employed in other States, and 25 per-
cent in foreign countries.
The Federal Government, in recog-
nition of the need for more trained
public health personnel, already pro-
vides aid for training in schools of
public health. This is done directly
under various Federal training pro-
grams and also indirectly through
grants to the States for health pur-
poses. Most of the aid takes the form
of support for individual students.
An appreciable amount of teaching
assistance has been made available to
the schools from various units of the
Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare, including the National Insti-
tutes of Health. However, it should be
pointed out that this aid is in the form
of categorical grants for teaching in
specific fields, and is of no help to the
schools in strengthening other parts
of their total programs.
Of the direct Federal programs pro-
viding aid for training, one of the
most important is the public health
traineeship program, a 3-year pro-
gram inaugurated in 1956, providing
graduate or socialized public health
training for professional health per-
sonnel engaged in public health pro-
grams. Other direct training programs
include those of the National Insti-
tutes of Health, the Atomic Energy
Commission, the Office of Vocational
Rehabilitation, and the International
Cooperation Administration. In addi-
tion, the Public Health Service and
the three branches of our Armed
Forces send selected officers to the
schools to meet their own needs for
trained personnel.
Federal funds for research have al-
ready been provided and all of the
schools are conducting important in-
vestigations which add new knowledge
in the cause and prevention of diseases
and other health hazards. However,
research funds cannot be used for
teaching salaries nor for general
teaching operations. The schools' great
need is for unrestricted funds which
each can apply to the particular parts
of its teaching program that have
been weakened by insufficient financ-
ing.
Mr. Speaker, as our population has
grown, so has grown the need for
trained public health personnel. There
is an increasing shortage of public
health physicians, nurses, and sani-
tary engineers. In 1956 30 percent of
the vacancies in local health officer
positions went unfilled. New demands
for public health specialists are being
made, taxing the already inadequate
financial capabilities of our schools of
public health.
-------
1298
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
The present unmet demand repre-
sents, in part, a backlog of training
requirements. At the same time, the
potential needs and benefits of public
health services are greater than ever
before. Influencing factors are the
continuing increase in our population,
the establishment of new local health
units, the recruitment program of the
public health profession, and the trend
toward increased public support for
public health services. More general
understanding and acceptance of pro-
fessional education standards can be
expected to keep the demand at a high
level for many years to come.
As people begin to fully understand
the advantages and the economy to the
community of employing qualified per-
sonnel for public health programs, the
demand for trained people increases.
The demand for research workers in
public health has also increased con-
siderably as Congress has recognized
the need and has increased appropria-
tions for public health research. The
present and prospective output of
the schools of public health cannot
meet these many demands without
assistance, as contemplated in this
legislation.
Our greatest national resource is a
healthy population. Even in these days
of missiles and nuclear weapons, our
basic strength is in our people,
whether they be in the armed serv-
ices, working in defense plants, on
the farm, or in the home.
Military experts have speculated
about the chaos which would be the
result of germ warfare techniques of
an enemy aggressor. The deadly
effects of radioactive fallout from nu-
clear explosions of the enemy could
kill millions of our people, contami-
nate our water and food, crippling if
not destroying our ability to resist.
More localized epidemics of disease
caused by sabotage could neutralize
key defense installations and leave us
vulnerable to attack.
These types of situations, horrible
as they are to contemplate, must not
be ruled out of the realm of possi-
bility when we consider the ruthless
nature of international communism.
If we were faced by such crises, pub-
lic health personnel would be in the
front line of our defense. Trained
public health specialists in all fields
should therefore be considered as an
integral part of our Defense Estab-
lishment.
Mr. Speaker, public health also has
a prominent role in our foreign policy.
Under the point 4 and technical assist-
ance programs, hundreds of trained
public health specialists have given of
their professional skills to disease-
ridden peoples in the far off corners
of the globe. These devoted Americans
are truly grassroots diplomats of heal-
ing and mercy, winning the gratitude
and loyalty of peoples of the uncom-
mitted areas of the world. Under the
program of ICA, hundreds of stu-
dents of foreign nations attend Ameri-
can schools of public health each year,
taking back with them the most
modern medical standards of their
people.
The President, in his state of the
Union address, emphasized the impor-
tance of such programs when he said:
Another kind of work of peace is coopera-
tion on projects of human welfare. For exam-
ple, we now have it within our power to eradi-
cate from the face of the earth that age-old
scourge of mankind, malaria. We are embark-
ing with other nations in an all-out 5-year
campaign to blot out this curse forever. We
invite the Soviets to join with us in this great
work of humanity.
Indeed, we would be willing to pool our
efforts with the Soviets in other campaigns
against the diseases that are the common
enemy of all mortals—such as cancer and
heart disease.
If people can get together on such projects,
is it not possible that we could then go to a
full-scale cooperative program of science for
peace?
Mr. Speaker, whether we view the
need for the training of public health
personnel from a domestic health
standpoint, from a defense standpoint,
or from a broad foreign policy stand-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1299
point, the answer is the same. Schools
of public health are important to our
Nation. Their financial needs are
pressing. They train these specialists
for every level of government in
carrying out the joint Federal-State-
local responsibilities in the field of
public health. They need and deserve
financial assistance to help offset the
deficits they incur in furnishing this
important public health training. The
approach provided for in H.R. 11414
is a simple and direct method of meet-
ing the needs of the schools of public
health in fulfilling the increasing de-
mands for trained public health
specialists. I hope that it will be
approved.
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield
3 minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. DURHAM).
Mr. DURHAM. Mr. Speaker, I
know of no piece of legislation that
has come before the House this year
that renders as much service to the
country as does the pending legisla-
tion. I happen to live in the city or
town of Chapel Hill where one of the
first of these institutions was located
in 1933. It was set up primarily to
train personnel for public health work
for rural communities in the South
and Southeast. It has grown to such
an extent that it renders service not
only to the rural communities but to
communities throughout the world.
A question was asked here as to
where these students come from. The
students come from all parts of the
world to the school of public health at
University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill.
It was first supported and set up on
the basis of three counties; then the
State government, with the participa-
tion of the Federal Government in the
early days, supported this institution.
I do not recall how many have been
turned out but they have gone into
health departments throughout the
South and Southeast. We could not
operate our Public Health Service
facilities in those States unless we
have trained personnel which has been
provided through this facility at
Chapel Hill, N.C.
I hope this pending legislation will
be adopted. I certainly feel it renders
a great service to the country at large.
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield
2 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota [Mr. WIER].
Mr. WIER. Mr. Speaker, represent-
ing the Third Congressional District
[p. 8010]
of the State of Minnesota, wherein
lies the University of Minnesota, I
want to take this opportunity of con-
veying to the chairman of the Com-
mittee on Interstate and Foreign Com-
merce and to the members of that
committee, the appreciation, I am
sure, and the thanks of the Univer-
sity of Minnesota for the efforts of
the chairman and the committee in
bringing this bill to the House floor
for action here today.
May I say that the University of
Minnesota has done a remarkable
job in this particular field. They have
a great and outstanding leader in
public health in the person of Dr.
Anderson who also has been asso-
ciated with the Federal Government
in this public health and sanitation
work.
So I want to lend my support and
hope that this legislation will be
immediately passed.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The
question is on the motion of the
gentleman from Arkansas that the
rules be suspended and the bill be
passed.
The question was taken; and (two-
thirds having voted in favor thereof)
the rules were suspended and the bill
was passed.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. With-
out objection the title is amended, as
follows:
A bill to amend section 314 (c) of the
-------
1300
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
Public Health Service Act, so as to authorize
the Surgeon General to make certain grants-
in-aid for provision in public or nonprofit ac-
credited schools of public health of training
and services in the fields of public health and
in the administration of State and local public
health programs.
There was no objection.
[p. 8011]
1.12k(3)(c) July 10: Passed Senate, p. 13329
AMENDMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH
SERVICE ACT
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Presi-
dent, I ask unanimous consent that
the Senate proceed to the considera-
tion of Calendar 1833, H. R. 11414.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
bill will be stated by title for the in-
formation of the Senate.
The LEGISLATION CLERK. A bill
(H.R. 11414) to amend section 314 (c)
of the Public Health Service Act, so
as to authorize the Surgeon General
to make grants-in-aid for provision
in public or nonprofit accredited
schools of public health of training
and services in the field of public
health and in the administration of
State and local public-health pro-
grams.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is
there objection to the request of the
Senator from Texas?
There being no objection, the Sen-
ate proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. HILL. Mr. President, this bill
was unanimously passed by the
House of Representatives and was
unanimously reported to the Sen-
ate by the Committee on Labor and
Public Welfare. It is an emergency
bill. It does not provide for the au-
thorization of any additional funds.
It does not provide for any increase
in existing appropriations.
The bill simply provides that of the
funds which now are available to State
and Territorial health officers for Fed-
eral assistance in carrying out State,
local, county, and municipal health
programs, not to exceed $1 million
may be used to help to train addi-
tional county health personnel.
More than one-fourth of all the
positions needed today to carry on the
public-health work in State, county,
and municipal health departments are
vacant because of the lack of person-
nel. This, I repeat, is an emergency
proposal.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Presi-
dent, I have cleared the bill with the
distinguished minority leader, and it
is agreeable to him to have the bill
taken up. I hope it may be passed
promptly.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
bill is open to amendment. If there be
no amendment to be proposed, the
question is on the third reading of
the bill.
The bill (H.R. 11414) was ordered
to a third reading, read the third
time, and passed.
Mr. HILL. Mr. President, I move
that the Senate reconsider the vote
by which the bill was passed.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I move
to lay that motion on the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on the motion of the
Senator from Texas to lay on the
table the motion to reconsider the
vote by which the bill was passed.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
[p. 13329]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1301
1.121 HEALTH AMENDMENTS OF 1959
July 23,1959, P.L. 86-105, § 1, 73 Stat. 239
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 306
of the Public Health Service Act (42 U. S. C. 242d) is amended
(1) by striking out the word "two" in subsection (a) thereof and
inserting in lieu thereof the word "seven"; and (2) by inserting at
the end of subsection (e) thereof the following: "The Surgeon
General shall, between June 30,1963, and December 1, 1963, call a
similar conference, and shall submit to the Congress, on or before
January 1, 1964, a report of such conference, including any recom-
mendations by it relating to the limitation, extension, or modifica-
tion of this section."
[p. 239]
1.12Z(1) HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND
FOREIGN COMMERCE
H.R. REP. No. 590, 86th Cong., 1st Sess. (1959)
EXTENSION OF TRAINEESHIP PROGRAMS FOR PUBLIC
HEALTH PERSONNEL AND PROFESSIONAL NURSES
JUNE 29,1959.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State
of the Union and ordered to be printed.
Mr. ROBERTS, from the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Com-
merce, submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 6325]
The Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, to whom
was referred the bill (H. R. 6325) to extend certain traineeship
provisions of the Health Amendments Act of 1956, having consid-
ered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment and
recommend that the bill do pass.
-------
1302 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
PURPOSE OP THE LEGISLATION
The bill extends for a period of 5 years programs which provide
for (1) the graduate training of professional public health person-
nel and (2) the advanced training of professional nurses. These
two programs which were authorized by titles I and II of Public
Law 911 of the 84th Congress expire on June 30, 1959.
The cost estimates submitted by the Department of Health, Ed-
ucation, and Welfare for the two 5-year programs are as follows:
I960 1961 1962 1963 1964
Title I (sec. 306). Public health training. $2,000,000 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 4,000,000 $4,000,000
Title II (sec. 307): Professional nurses training.... 6,000,000 6,000,000 6,000,000 6,000,000 6,000,000
The Subcommittee on Health and Safety held hearings on the
bill and other bills related to public health training on June 8, 9,
and 10. In the course of these hearings the subcommittee heard
testimony from representatives of the Association of Schools of
Public Health; National Conference on Public Health Training;
American Nurses Association; Association of State and Terri-
[p.l]
torial Health Officers; American Public Health Association; the
Departments of Health of New York State and the State of Mary-
land ; and the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
All of these witnesses testified in favor of this legislation.
In view of the urgent need for the enactment of the bill, H.R.
6325, the committee decided to report this bill and to give separate
consideration to other bills (H.R. 6871 introduced by Congress-
man Rhodes of Pennsylvania and companion bills) still pending
before the committee dealing with other aspects of public health
training.
BACKGROUND
In 1956, the Congress established two new and important pro-
grams in the field of health services. One of these was a program
for the graduate training of professional public health personnel;
the other was a program for the advanced training of professional
nurses.
The reason for the first of these two programs was that the
number of persons who were receiving specialized training in pub-
lic health problems and programs in the United States, instead of
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1303
increasing annually, actually declined between 1947 and 1955. This
decline was even more disturbing for it occurred in the face of a
greatly increased demand for personnel trained to cope with the
health problems of our growing population, to put new research
discoveries into operation and to resolve new problems in the field
of public health such as those involving air pollution and the
disposal of radioactive waste products.
At the same time, the committee reported that the Nation was
faced by an acute shortage of nurses qualified by advanced train-
ing to fill key administrative and supervisory positions in over
6,000 hospitals and 4,000 public health nursing agencies located
throughout the Nation.
The programs recommended in 1956 to help cope with these
situations were limited to 3 years, and during that time the Sur-
geon General was required to call conferences broadly representa-
tive of the group interested in and informed about the training of
public health and nursing personnel. The conferees were charged
with the responsibility of carefully reviewing the effectiveness of
the traineeship programs, evaluating their worth and recommend-
ing to the Congress as to the desirability of continuing, modifying
or abolishing the traineeship programs. Those conferences have
been held. Each conference group has reported its findings and
recommendations to the Congress. The conferees unanimously de-
clared that the programs have proved most effective, have brought
a halt to the decline in the numbers of people seeking advanced
training in these essential fields and have initiated a reversal of
that trend. They were unanimous in recommending that the pro-
grams be continued. The conferees expressed the hope that in view
of the demonstrated values of the programs to the country, the
Congress would be prompt to extend them.
Under these programs more than 1,000 individuals were trained
in public health during the fiscal years of 1957 and 1958. More
than 1,800 graduate nurses have received advanced training. De-
spite these fine results, however, because of our increasing popula-
tion and because of the emergence of new problems, we are not
only not keeping pace with the constantly expanding need for such
highly trained personnel, but we are even losing ground. The com-
mittee believes, therefore, that these programs must be continued.
[p. 2]
For these reasons the committee unanimously recommends the
passage of H.R. 6325 which would extend the life of each of these
programs for 5 years.
-------
1304 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
PROVISIONS OF THE BILL
Titles I and II of Public Law 911 of the 84th Congress added
sections 306 and 307 of the Public Health Service Act. These
sections provide for the graduate training- of professional public
health personnel (sec. 306) and for the advanced training of pro-
fessional nurses (sec. 307). H.R. 6325 simply extends the life of
these two programs which expire on June 30, 1959, to June 30,
1964.
The bill follows the pattern of the original legislation in requir-
ing the Surgeon General to call conferences broadly representative
of the professional and training groups interested in and informed
about the training of professional public health personnel and
those interested in and informed about the advanced training of
professional nurses. Again as in the case of the original legisla-
tion, the Surgeon General is required to submit reports on those
conferences to the Congress.
The committee felt that the Congress should have the advice and
guidance of outside experts with respect to the desirability of
continuing, strengthening, or otherwise modifying the programs
in the light of such new developments as may occur or of such
new knowledge as experience may confer.
The American Hospital Association, the Association of State
and Territorial Directors of Public Health Nursing, and the
American Public Health Association have endorsed the bill. The
committee has received many communications favoring its pas-
sage. We have received no communications expressing opposition.
[p. 3]
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT,
BUREAU OF THE BUDGET,
Washington, D.C., June 16,1959.
Hon. OREN HARRIS,
Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,
House of Representatives, New House Office Building, Wash-
ington, D.C.
My DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN : This will acknowledge your letter of
April 17, 1959, inviting the Bureau of the Budget to comment on
H.R. 6325, a bill to extend certain traineeship provisions of the
Health Amendments Act of 1956, and your letter of May 6, 1959,
on H.R. 6871, a bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to
provide for a public health training program, and for other pur-
poses.
[p. 5]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1305
H.R. 6325 would provide for a 5-year extension through June
30, 1964, of the traineeship programs for graduate or specialized
public health training and for advanced training of professional
nurses currently authorized by sections 306 and 307 of the Public
Health Service Act. There are substantial unfilled requirements
for trained personnel in both these categories and the President's
budget message for 1960 recommended extension of these pro-
grams. Accordingly, you are advised that such extension would be
in accord with the program of the President. However, the Bureau
of the Budget believes that it would be desirable to make the
evaluation conferences on these two programs permissive rather
than mandatory in view of the possibility that satisfactory evalua-
tion of the two programs can very likely be achieved through
other means.
H.R. 6871 would authorize a series of programs for training of
public health personnel and aiding the schools in which they are
trained. Traineeships for graduate or specialized public health
training now authorized by section 306 of the Public Health Serv-
ice Act would be extended for 5 years by section 803 of this bill.
As indicated above, this extension would conform to the recom-
mendation of the President. The comment above regarding evalua-
tion conferences is applicable also to this bill.
H.R. 6871 also contains a number of other provisions. Grants to
public health schools of $6 million annually starting in fiscal year
1961 and continuing indefinitely would be authorized by section
804. These grants would be distributed on such terms and condi-
tions as may be prescribed by the Surgeon General and the bill
would repeal the existing provisions of the law which require the
Surgeon General to give primary consideration to the number of
federally sponsored students. Section 805 would authorize a 5-year
program of grants to schools of public health for construction of
teaching facilities totaling $15 million. Section 806 would author-
ize a permanent program of grants of $1 million annually begin-
ning in fiscal year 1960 to institutions for training public health
nurses. Finally, section 807 would authorize a permanent program
of $3 million a year beginning in fiscal year 1960 for grants to
States for training of personnel for State and local public health
work.
Thus H.R. 6871 would provide comparatively large grants to the
public health schools for both operating and construction pur-
poses, and therefore would greatly enlarge the aid that is now
provided to such schools under the temporary program enacted in
-------
1306 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
1958. It would also create a new program of grants to States for
training of public health personnel which would overlap existing
grant programs available for this purpose.
The Bureau of the Budget recognizes the need for improving
curricula for training of specialized public health personnel. How-
ever, we have serious question about the continuation on an en-
larged and permanent basis of direct Federal support grants for a
small segment of schools in our colleges and universities as pro-
vided in H.R. 6871. Federal commitments to underwrite directly
deficits of educational institutions in this manner raise basic ques-
tions of national educational policy and are likely also to lessen
private and State support for these institutions.
In lieu of the continuation of the present program under section
314 of the Public Health Service Act, the Bureau of the Budget
[p. 6]
would perceive no objection to the proposal being made by the
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare for special project
grants for strengthening graduate training in public health nurs-
ing and sanitary engineering and for schools of public health.
Such a program should be limited to 4 years so its expiration will
coincide with the expiration of the extended traineeship programs
for graduate nurses and public health specialists as proposed in
H.R. 6325, thereby permitting a concurrent reconsideration of the
best method of discharging any further Federal support for public
health training. In view of the purpose of the new program for
project grants for improvement of specialized public health curric-
ulums, it is proposed that it be initiated in the fiscal year 1961 at a
level not to exceed $2 million.
Sincerely yours,
ELMER B. STAATS,
Deputy Director
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
In compliance with clause 3 of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the
bill, as introduced, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to
be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in
italic, existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in
roman):
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1307
SECTIONS 306 AND 307 OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT
(42 U.S.C. 242d and 242e)
TITLE III—GENERAL POWERS AND DUTIES OF PUBLIC
HEALTH SERVICE
PART A—RESEARCH AND INVESTIGATIONS
TRAINEESHIFS FOR PROFESSIONAL PUBLIC HEALTH PERSONNEL
SEC. 306. (a) There are hereby authorized to be appropriated
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1957, and for each of the next
[two] seven fiscal years, such sums as the Congress may deter-
mine, to cover the cost of traineeships for graduate or specialized
training in public health for physicians, engineers, nurses, and
other professional health personnel.
(b) Traineeships under this section may be awarded by the
Surgeon General either (1) directly to individuals whose applica-
tions for admission have been accepted by the public or other
nonprofit institutions providing the training, or (2) through
grants to such institutions.
(c) Payments under this section may be made in advance or by
way of reimbursement, and at such intervals and on such condi-
tions, as the Surgeon General finds necessary. Such payments to
institutions may be used only for traineeships, and payments
under this section with respect to any traineeship shall be limited
to such amounts as the Surgeon General finds necessary to cover
the cost of tuition and fees, and a stipend and allowances (includ-
ing travel and subsistence expenses) for the trainee.
[p. 7]
(d) The Surgeon General shall appoint an expert advisory com-
mittee, composed of persons representative of the principal health
specialties in the fields of public health administration and train-
ing, to advise him in connection with the administration of this
section, including the development of program standards and poli-
cies. Members of such committee who are not otherwise in the
employ of the United States, while attending meetings of the com-
mittee or otherwise serving at the request of the Surgeon General,
shall be entitled to receive compensation at a rate to be fixed by
the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, but not exceed-
ing $50 per diem, including travel time, and while away from
their homes or regular places of business they may be allowed
-------
1308 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, as au-
thorized by law (5 U.S.C. 73b-2) for persons in the Government
service employed intermittently.
(e) The Surgeon General shall, between June 30, 1958, and
December 1, 1958, call a conference broadly representative of the
professional and training groups interested in and informed about
training of professional public health personnel, and including
members of the advisory committee appointed pursuant to subsec-
tion (d), to assist him in appraising the effectiveness of the train-
eeships under this section in meeting the needs for trained public
health personnel, in considering modifications in this section, if
any, which may be desirable to increase its effectiveness; and in
considering the most effective distribution of responsibilities be-
tween Federal and State governments with respect to the adminis-
tration and support of public health training. The Surgeon Gen-
eral shall submit to the Congress, on or before January 1, 1959, a
report of such conference, including any recommendations by it
relating to the limitation, extension, or modification of this sec-
tion. The Surgeon General shall, between June 30, 1963, and De-
cember 1, 1963, call a similar conference, and shall submit to the
Congress, on or before January 1, 1964, a report of such confer-
ence, including any recommendations by it relating to the limita-
tion, extension, or modification of this section.
(f) Except as otherwise provided in this section, nothing con-
tained in this section shall be construed as authorizing any depart-
ment, agency, officer, or employee of the United States to exercise
any direction, supervision, or control over the personnel or curric-
ulum of any training institution.
[P. 8]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1309
1.12.1(2) SENATE COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND
PUBLIC WELFARE
S. REP. No. 400, 86th Cong., 1st Sess. (1959)
EXTENDING CERTAIN TRAINEESHIP PROVISIONS OF
THE HEALTH AMENDMENTS ACT OF 1956
JUNE 17, 1959.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. HILL, from the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, sub-
mitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany S. 731]
The Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, to whom was
referred the bill (S. 731) providing for the extension of certain
traineeship provisions of the Health Amendments Act of 1956,
having considered the same, report favorably thereon without
amendment and recommend that the bill do pass.
BACKGROUND
In 1956, the Congress established two new and important pro-
grams in the field of health services. One of these was a program
for the graduate training of professional public health personnel;
the other was a program for the advanced training of professional
nurses. At that time, the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare
pointed out that from a high of over 900 persons trained in public
health in 1947, there had been a drop to only 400 persons trained
in 1955. This decline was even more disturbing for it occurred in
the face of a greatly increased demand for personnel trained to
cope with the health problems of our growing population, to put
new research discoveries into operation and to resolve new prob-
lems in the field of public health such as those involving air pollu-
tion and the disposal of radioactive waste products.
THE BILL
Titles I and II of Public Law 911 of the 84th Congress, which
provide for the graduate training of professional public health
personnel and for the advanced training of professional nurses,
-------
1310 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
expire on June 30, 1959. S. 731 simply extends the life of these
two programs to June 30, 1964.
The bill follows the pattern of the original legislation in requir-
ing the Surgeon General to call conferences broadly representative
of the professional and training groups interested in and informed
about the training of professional public health personnel and
those interested in and informed about the advanced training of
professional nurses. Again as in the case of the original legisla-
tion, the Surgeon General is required to submit reports on those
conferences to the Congress.
The committee gave consideration to the recommendation of the
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare that those provi-
sions of the bill calling for a conference in each field and a report
thereon to the Congress be set forth in the form of an authoriza-
tion rather than a requirement. We are of the opinion that the
Congress should have the advice and guidance of outside experts
with respect to the desirability of continuing, strengthening, or
otherwise modifying the programs in the light of such new devel-
opments as may occur or of such new knowledge as experience
may confer.
The bill calls for the holding of a conference on such program
between June 30 and December 1, 1963, and it requires the Sur-
geon Genera] of the U.S. Public Health Service to submit to the
Congress a report on each conference on or before January 1,
1964. The bill specifies a 5-month period in which to hold these
conferences only because currently unforeseeable conditions might
make it impossible or impracticable to call conferences in June of
[p. 2]
1963. The committee expects that, in the absence of such condi-
tions, the conferences will be held as soon as possible after June
30, 1963, and the reports thereon will be promptly transmitted to
the Congress so as to permit ample time for consideration of the
reports prior to the meeting of the Congress in January 1964.
[p. 3]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1311
DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE,
May 27,1959.
Hon. LISTER HILL,
Chairman, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This letter is in response to your request of
January 29, 1959, for a report on S. 731, a bill to extend certain trainee-
ship provisions of the Health Amendments Act of 1956.
The only provisions of this bill about which we have some reserva-
tion are those that require special program evaluation conferences to
be convened between June 30 and December 1 of 1963. In view of the
short time span between the last such conferences and those required in the
proposed amendments, we question the desirability of including such a
mandatory requirement in this extension legislation. Unless major issues
of policy should arise, it would seem likely that the question of subsequent
[p. 4]
program extension or modification would be resolved with less formal or
elaborate means of obtaining the views of interested groups and agencies. If
such provisions are included in the extension legislation, we believe they
should be in the form of an authorization, rather than a mandatory require-
ment.
We recommend the early enactment of this bill inasmuch as our present
authority will expire on June 30 of this year. Pursuant to Public Law 801,
84th Congress, we are enclosing a statement of cost estimates and personnel
requirements which would be entailed by a 5-year extension of these pro-
grams.
The Bureau of the Budget advises that enactment of legislation to provide
an extension of the programs for graduate training of public health person-
nel and for training of professional nurses would be in accord with the
program of the President.
Sincerely yours,
Secretary.
[p. 5]
1.12/(3) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 105 (1959)
I.i2f(3(a) July 6: Passed House, pp. 12735; 12738-12740
TRAINEESHIP PROGRAMS FOR PUBLIC
HEALTH PERSONNEL
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I move
to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 6325) to extend certain
traineeship provisions of the Health
Amendments Act of 1956.
The Clerk read as follows:
The Clerk read as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House oj
Representatives of the United States of Amer-
ica in Congress assembled, That section 306
of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
242d) is amended (1) by striking out the word
"two" in subsection (a) thereof and inserting
-------
1312
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
in lieu thereof the word "seven"; and (2) by
inserting at the end of subsection (e) thereof
the following: "The Surgeon General shall,
between June 30, 1963, and December 1, 1963,
call a similar conference, and shall submit to
the Congress, on or before January 1, 1964, a
report of such conference, including any recom-
mendations by it relating to the limitation,
extension, or modification of this section."
SEC. 2. Section 307 of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 242e) is amended (1)
by striking out the word "two" in subsec-
tion (a) thereof and inserting in lieu thereof
the word "seven"; and (2) by inserting at the
end of subsection (e) thereof the following:
"The Surgeon General shall, between June 30,
1963, and December 1, 1963, call a similar
conference, and shall submit to the Congress,
on or before January 1, 1964, a report of
such conference, including any recommenda-
tions by it relating to the limitation, exten-
sion, or modification of this section."
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is a
second demanded?
Mr. AVEBY. Mr. Speaker, I de-
mand a second.
[p. 12735]
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield
myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, first I want to com-
mend highly the chairman of the sub-
committee and the members of the
subcommittee for their work in re-
porting this legislation. The chair-
man of the subcommittee has shown
his intense interest in the field of
public health and the committee has
given very close attention to the bill
before it today. In other words, the
subcommittee through its hearings
and deliberations has developed a
record in order that the justification
for this bill would be made very clear
in the interest of the public health
of the Nation. In view of what has
been said, I think it may be pointed
out, Mr. Speaker, that these two pro-
grams were presented 3 years ago be-
cause of the dire need that was
shown at that time for specialized
training in public health.
[p. 12738]
The reason for the first of these
two programs was that the number
of persons who were receiving spe-
cialized training in public health
problems and programs in the United
States, instead of increasing annual-
ly, actually declined between 1947
and 1955. This decline was even more
disturbing for it occurred in the face
of a greatly increased demand for
personnel trained to cope with the
health problems of our growing pop-
ulation, to put new research dis-
coveries into operation and to resolve
new problems in the field of public
health such as those involving air
pollution and the disposal of radioac-
tive waste products.
At the same time, the committee
reported that the Nation was faced
by an acute shortage of nurses qual-
ified by advanced training to fill key
administrative and supervisory posi-
tions in over 6,000 hospitals and 4,000
public health nursing agencies located
throughout the Nation.
Those facts, Mr. Speaker, should
be called to the attention of the House
in order that everyone may know of
the shortages in these fields and the
necessity, therefore, for the continu-
ation of these programs. While the
programs have proven themselves, the
House should bear in mind that they
do not meet the actual needs of the
country.
The SPEAKER. The time of the
gentleman has expired.
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield
2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. RHODES], a mem-
ber of the committee.
Mr. RHODES of Pennsylvania. Mr.
Speaker, I join in support of H.R.
6325, the bill to extend titles I and II
of the Health Amendments Act of
1956, sponsored by the chairman of
the Health and Safety Subcommittee,
the distinguished gentleman from
Alabama [Mr. ROBERTS].
The original 3-year graduate train-
eeship program for professional pub-
lic health personnel and for advanced
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1313
training of professional nurses has
been a most successful one. More than
1,500 professional public health work-
ers and 1,800 graduate nurses have
received graduate training under this
program, improving the overall level
of competence of these individuals
and thereby strengthening the partic-
ular health department, agency, hos-
pital, or other organization in which
they are employed.
Section 306 (e) of the original act
directed that the Surgeon General call
an evaluation conference "broadly
representative of the professional and
training groups interested in and in-
formed about training of professional
public health personnel" during the
period of June 30, 1958, and December
1, 1958. This National Conference on
Public Health Training was held last
July here in Washington.
Despite the increased training of
public health personnel under the act,
the Conference found that we are still
lagging behind the number of trained
specialists needed to keep pace with
new health problems and our growing
population. There are still more than
2,500 vacant budgeted positions in
State and local health departments.
According to the Conference report,
more than 20,000 public health work-
ers currently employed have not had
adequate training while another 6,100
trained people will be needed to meet
new demands for public health ser-
vices during the next 5 years. In ad-
dition, we will need more than 5,000
radiation health specialists and radio-
logical technicians within the next
decade. The Conference strongly rec-
ommended that the present trainee-
ship program be extended and im-
proved. The 5-year extension provided
in H.R. 6325 will make possible the
continuation of this worthwhile and
effective program without interrup-
tion.
Mr. Speaker, the report of the Na-
tional Conference on Public Health
Training made it clear that the
traineeship program, in itself, will
not solve the complex public health
training problem in this country.
The report contained a number of
other important recommendations
dealing with the role of the graduate
institutions furnishing the graduate
training for public health and nursing
personnel and the needs of the various
States for adequate funds to make
possible advanced training for public
health workers already employed in
State and local health departments.
These recommendations of the Confer-
ence were embodied in my bill, H.R.
6871, also the subject of hearings be-
fore the Health and Safety Subcom-
mittee.
In view of the urgency in extending
titles I and II of the traineeship pro-
gram, which expired last week, it was
felt necessary that we act on H.R.
6325 immediately. Thus, it was impos-
sible for our subcommittee to give
proper consideration to the related
public health training programs pro-
posed in H.R. 6871. I trust that we
will bring to the House a sound and
comprehensive public health training
measure later in the present Congress.
It should be recognized that gradu-
ate public health training carried on
under the present traineeship program
has placed a heavy burden on the 11
schools of public health which pro-
vide such training for the Federal
Government, State, and local govern-
ments, and other health organizations.
Tuition paid under the program
meets only 11 percent of the actual
cost of training these public health
specialists.
The six private schools of public
health—Yale, Harvard, Johns Hop-
kins, Pittsburgh, Columbia, Tulane—
and the five publicly supported
schools—North Carolina, Minnesota,
Michigan, California, Puerto Rico—
are faced with an annual deficit of
more than $3 million in furnishing
-------
1314
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
this public health training for the
Nation. About two-thirds of all stu-
dents enrolled in these schools are
sent by some agency of the Federal
Government.
Congress recognized the Federal re-
sponsibility in public health education
by last year enacting Public Law 85-
544, authorizing a. 2-year emergency
program of assistance in training
needed public health specialists at the
11 schools of public health. A total of
$450,000 was appropriated for this
program in fiscal 1959, while the full
$1 million authorized is contained in
the fiscal 1960 Labor-HEW appropria-
tion bill now in conference. This pro-
gram is due to expire on June 30,
1960.
[p. 12739]
The program was limited in its
scope and duration at the request of
the administration, pending the
study, and recommendations of the
National Conference on Public Health
Training last year. The Conference
subsequently endorsed the program
established by Public Law 85-544
and recommended that it be extended
and that the authorization be in-
creased to more realistic levels. This
recommendation was included in H.R.
6871.
Mr. Speaker, despite the advances
in the field of public health and in
medical research, the new knowledge,
and technology developed is effective
only to the extent to which it can be
applied to existing health problems.
It is obvious that there must be a
tremendous expansion of public health
training facilities—in enrollment,
faculty, and in the scope of courses
offered—if we are to fill the backlog
of public health agency needs and
keep pace in the application of mod-
ern medical technology in the practi-
cal, day-to-day struggle against varied
public health problems.
They include air and water pollu-
tion, the use of food additives, atomic
radiation, accident hazards in trans-
portation, in the home, in the factory,
and on the farm. Also included are the
increasing importance of prevention
and control of heart disease, cancer,
mental illness, and other diseases fre-
quently occurring in adult and the
aged, the rehabilitation of disabled
individuals, and many other similar
health hazards of our modern
civilization.
While it is important that we enact
H.R. 6325 to extend the present train-
eeship program, it is clear that a piece-
meal approach to the urgent public
health training needs of our Nation
will not bring about a long-range
improvement. The backlog of training
needs and the anticipated needs for
public health personnel to meet new
challenges in the health field require
that we face up to this vast problem
and deal with it on a broad and
comprehensive basis. This is the ap-
proach proposed by H.R. 6871 and
companion measures, implementing
the recommendations of the National
Conference on Public Health Train-
ing, attended by the Nation's out-
standing experts in this field.
Just as in the case of weapons sys-
tems, public health training has a long
leadtime. We cannot train competent
specialists overnight. The longer we
delay in dealing with this problem, the
greater the effort must be to try to
catch up with our growing public
health needs.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the approval of
H.R. 6325 as a needed first step. We
will then be in a position to consider
the more comprehensive program pro-
posed by H.R. 6871, as recommended
by the Conference and endorsed by
such groups as the Association of
State and Territorial Health Officers,
the Association of Schools of Public
Health, the American Dental Asso-
ciation, the AFL-CIO, the American
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1315
Municipal Association, and by leading
public health experts throughout the
Nation.
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to revise and ex-
tend
[p. 12739]
the remarks I made earlier this
afternoon, to revise and extend the
remarks I made just a moment ago,
and to include therewith a table which
gives a breakdown of the programs
under titles 1 and 2.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Arkansas?
There was no objection.
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I have
no further requests for time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.
ALBERT). The question on suspending
the rules and passing the bill.
The question was taken; and (two-
thirds having voted in favor thereof)
the rules were suspended and the bill
was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on
the table. [p 12740]
1.12/(3)(b) July 8: Passed Senate, pp. 12979
EXTENSION OP CERTAIN TRAINEESHIP
PROVISIONS OF THE HEALTH
AMENDMENTS OF 1956
Mr. HILL. Mr. President, on Mon-
day last the Senate passed Senate
bill 731, a bill to extend certain
traineeships provisions of the Health
Amendments Act of 1956. About the
same time the Senate was passing
Senate bill 731, the House passed an
identical bill, House bill 6325. The
two bills are identical in every pro-
vision, every line, and every word.
I have consulted the distinguished
acting minority leader [Mr. KUCHEL],
who has consulted with the ranking
minority member on the Senate Com-
mittee on Labor and Public Welfare,
and we are all in agreement that
unanimous consent should be asked
for the present consideration of House
bill 6325, so that the bill may go to
the President and become law.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Chair lays before the Senate a bill
coming over from the House of Rep-
resentatives, which will be read.
The bill (H.R. 6325) to extend
certain traineeship provisions of the
Health Amendments Act of 1956, was
read twice by its title.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is
there objection to the present con-
sideration of House bill 6325?
There being no objection, the bill
was considered, ordered to a third
reading, read the third time, and
passed.
[p.12979]
1.12m INTERNATIONAL HEALTH RESEARCH ACT
OF 1960
July 12,1960, P.L. 86-610, § 3, 74 Stat. 364
AUTHORITY OF SURGEON GENERAL
SEC. 3. Part A of title III of the Public Health Service Act (42
U.S.C., ch. 6A) is amended by adding immediately after section
307, the following new section:
-------
1316 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
"INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION
t
"SEC. 308. (a) To carry out the purposes of clause (1) of
section 2 of the International Health Research Act of 1960, the
Surgeon General may, in the exercise of his authority under this
Act and other provisions of law to conduct and support health
research and research training, make such use of health research
and research training resources in participating foreign countries
as he may deem necessary and desirable.
[p. 364]
" (b) In carrying out his responsibilities under this section the
Surgeon General may—
"(1) establish and maintain fellowships in the United
States and in participating foreign countries;
"(2) make grants to public institutions or agencies and to
nonprofit private institutions or agencies in the United States
and in participating foreign countries for the purpose of es-
tablishing and maintaining fellowships;
"(3) make grants or loans of equipment, medical, biologi-
cal, physical, or chemical substances or other materials, for
use by public institutions or agencies, or nonprofit private
institutions or agencies, or by individuals, in participating
foreign countries;
"(4) participate and otherwise cooperate in any interna-
tional health research or research training meetings, confer-
ences, or other activities;
"(5) facilitate the interchange between the United States
and participating foreign countries, and among participating
foreign countries, of research scientists and experts who are
engaged in experiments and programs of research or research
training, and in carrying out such purpose may pay per diem
compensation, subsistence, and travel for such scientists and
experts when away from their places of residence at rates not
to exceed those provided in section 5 of the Administrative
Expenses Act of 1946 (5 U.S.C. 73b-2) for persons in the
Government service employed intermittently; and
"(6) procure, in accordance with the provisions of section
15 of the Administrative Expenses Act of 1946 (5 U.S.C.
55a), the temporary or intermittent services of experts or
consultants; individuals so employed shall receive compensa-
tion at a rate to be fixed by the Secretary, but not in excess of
$50 per diem, including travel time, and while away from
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1317
their homes or regular places of business may be allowed
travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, as
authorized by section 5 of the Administrative Expenses Act
of 1946 (5 U.S.C. 73b-2) for persons in the Government
service employed intermittently.
"(c) The Surgeon General may not, in the exercise of his au-
thority under this section, assist in the construction of buildings
for research or research training in any foreign country.
" (d) For the purposes of this section—
"(1) The term 'health research' shall include, but not be
limited to, research, investigations, and studies relating to
causes and methods of prevention of accidents, including but
not limited to highway and aviation accidents.
"(2) The term 'participating foreign countries' means
those foreign countries which cooperate with the United
States in carrying out the purposes of this section."
[p.365]
1.12m(l) HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND
FOREIGN COMMERCE
H.R. REP. No. 1915, 86th Cong., 2d Sess. (1960)
INTERNATIONAL HEALTH RESEARCH ACT OF 1960
JUNE 17, 1960.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State
of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. ROBERTS, from the Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce, submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany H.J. Res. 649]
The Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, to whom
was referred the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 649) relating to the
authority of the President, the Secretary of Health, Education,
and Welfare, and the Surgeon General of the Public Health Serv-
ice to provide for international cooperation in health research and
research training, and for other purposes, having considered the
-------
1318 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
same, report favorably thereon with amendments and recommend
that the joint resolution as amended do pass.
The amendments are as follows :
Page 5, line 4, strike out "shall" and insert in lieu thereof
"may".
Page 5, lines 13 and 14, strike out "and in conducting such
research and research training,".
Page 8, line 14, strike out "deficiencies, and" and insert in lieu
thereof "deficiencies) or to".
Page 8, line 15, strike out "handicapped)" and insert in lieu
thereof "handicapped".
Page 8, lines 18 and 19, strike out "in the United States and".
Page 8, lines 23 and 24, strike out "in the United States and".
Page 11, in lines 15 through 20, strike out:
For the purpose of exercising any authority which the
President may delegate to him under this section, and
exercising related functions and authorities, the Secre-
tary of Health, Education, and Welfare shall establish an
appropriate administrative office or unit within the De-
partment of Health, Education, and Welfare.
Page 12, line 3, strike out " (1)".
Page 12, strike out lines 22 through 24, inclusive.
Page 13, strike out lines 1 through 11, inclusive.
[P.I]
PURPOSE OF LEGISLATION
The purpose of the resolution as stated in section 2 of the bill
is: (1) to advance the status of the health sciences in the United
States through cooperative endeavors with other countries in
health research and research training, and (2) to advance the
international status of the health sciences through cooperative
enterprises in health research, research planning, and research
training.
In order to accomplish these purposes, the legislation would vest
certain powers in the President (sec. 5) and would vest other
powers in the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare (sec.
4) and the Surgeon General (sec. 3).
The powers vested in the President, the Secretary, and the Sur-
geon General are designed to supplement each other.
Surgeon General's powers
The provisions of the resolution relating to the responsibilities
of the Surgeon General with respect to the establishment of fel-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1319
lowships and the making of research grants are primarily a re-
statement of present powers of the Surgeon General with regard
to fellowships and grants with the explicit expression of the sense
of the Congress that these powers be exercised without regard to
national boundaries wherever such fellowships or grants can best
accomplish the purposes of this act, the Public Health Service Act,
and related provisions of law.
Secretary's powers
Section 3 would grant powers with regard to fellowships and
research grants to the Secretary of Health, Eduation, and Welfare
in carrying out his responsibilities under the Vocational Rehabili-
tation Act, under the act which established the Children's Bureau
and under other provisions of law. The Secretary would be author-
ized to establish fellowships and make grants wherever research
in the fields of rehabilitation and child welfare can best be carried
out without regard to national boundaries.
The powers which would be granted to the Secretary of Health,
Education, and Welfare with regard to making grants in the field
of child welfare are new powers, since the Secretary does not have
research grant authority in this field.
tP-2]
INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION
SEC. 308. (a) To carry out the pur-poses of clause (1) of section
2 of the International Health Research Act of 1960, the Surgeon
General may, in the exercise of his authority under this Act and
other provisions of law to conduct and support health research and
research training, make such use of health research and research
training resources in participating foreign countries as he may
deem necessary and desirable.
(6) In carrying out his responsibilities under this section the
Surgeon General may—
(1) establish and maintain fellowships in the United States
and in participating foreign countries;
(2) make grants to public institutions or agencies and to
nonprofit private institutions or agencies in the United States
and in participating foreign countries for the purpose of
establishing and maintaining fellowships:
(3) make grants or loans of equipment, medical, biological,
physical, or chemical substances or other materials, for use by
-------
1320 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
public institutions or agencies, or nonprofit privat institu-
tions or agencies, or by individuals, in participating foreign
countries;
(4) participate and otherwise cooperate in any inter-
national health research or research training -meetings, con-
ferences, or other activities;
(5) facilitate the interchange between the United States
and participating foreign countries, and among participating
foreign countries, of research scientists and experts who are
engaged in experiments and programs of research or research
training, and in carrying out such purpose may pay per diem
compensation, subsistence, and travel for such scientists and
experts when away from their places of residence at rates
not to exceed those provided in section 5 of the Administra-
tive Expenses Act of 1946 (5 U.S.C. 736-2) for persons in
the Government service employed intermittently; and
(6) procure, in accordance with the provisions of section
15 of the Administrative Expenses Act of 1946 (5 U.S.C.
55a), the temporary or intermittent services of experts or
consultants; individuals so employed shall receive compensa-
tion at a rate to be fixed by the Secretary, but not in excess
of $50 per diem, including travel time, and while away from
their homes or regular places of business may be allowed
travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, as
authorized by section 5 of the Administrative Expenses Act
of 1946 (5 U.S.C. 73b-2) for persons in the Government
service employed intermittently.
{c) The Surgeon General may not, in the exercise of his author-
ity under this section, assist in the construction of buildings for
research or reserach training in any foreign country.
[P-27]
(d) For the purposes of this section—
(1) The term "health research" shall include, but not be
limited to, research, investigations, and studies relating to
causes and methods of prevention of accidents, including but
not limited to highway and aviation accidents.
(2) The term "participating foreign countries" means
those foreign countries which cooperate with the United
States in carrying out the purposes of this section.
[p. 28]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1321
1.12m (2) SENATE COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND
PUBLIC WELFARE
S. REP. No. 243, 86th Cong., 1st Sess. (1959)
THE INTERNATIONAL HEALTH AND MEDICAL
RESEARCH ACT OF 1959
MAY 11, 1959.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. HILL, from the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare,
submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany S.J. Res. 41]
The Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, to whom was
referred the Senate joint resolution (S.J. Res. 41) to establish in
the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare the National
Advisory Council for International Medical Research, and to es-
tablish in the Public Health Service the National Institute for
International Medical Research, in order to help mobilize the ef-
forts of medical scientists, research workers, technologists, teach-
ers, and members of the health professions generally, in the
United States and abroad, for assault upon disease, disability, and
the impairments of man and for the improvement of the health of
man through international cooperation in research, research train-
ing, and research planning, having considered the same, report
favorably thereon, with an amendment in the nature of a substi-
tute and an amendment to the title, and recommend that the joint
resolution, as amended, do pass.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute does not
change the intent or the purpose of the joint resolution as intro-
duced. It merely clarifies certain provisions and adds language to
comply with technical suggestions made by the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare.
THE INTERNATIONAL HEALTH AND MEDICAL RESEARCH ACT OF 1959
In reporting Senate Joint Resolution 41 to the Senate the com-
mittee has approved a measure designed to join the skills and
resources of the health scientists of this Nation with the research
-------
1322 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
talents and capabilities of scientists in other countries in a con-
certed attack upon the unsolved problems of disease and disability
which confront all peoples of the world.
[p.i]
Under the general supervision and direction of the Secretary of
the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, the Surgeon
General of the U.S. Public Health Service, through the National
Institute for International Health and Medical Research (to be
created within the National Institute of Health), is authorized to
encourage, support, and cooperate in the training for, and the
planning and conduct of, research, experiments, and studies relat-
ing to the causes, diagnoses, treatment, control, and prevention of
physical and mental diseases and impairments of mankind or re-
lating to the rehabilitation of the physically or mentally handi-
capped. Such research, experiments, and studies may be carried on
in the United States and in foreign countries. An appropriation of
$50 million annually is authorized to carry out the provisions of
this joint resolution.
The joint resolution creates a National Advisory Council for
International Health and Medical Research. The Surgeon General
of the U.S. Public Health Service will serve as chairman of the
Council and he and representatives of the Office of Vocational
Rehabilitation and the Children's Bureau will be ex officio mem-
bers. Sixteen additional members will be appointed by the Secre-
tary of Health, Education, and Welfare for 4-year terms from
among leaders in the fields of health research, health sciences,
teaching and training in the health sciences, and public and inter-
national affairs. The members of the Council shall include, among
others, leaders in fields related to the health of mothers and chil-
dren, and in the field of rehabilitation.
The Council is authorized to advise, consult with, and make
recommendations to the Secretary and to the Surgeon General on
matters generally relating to the purposes and activities author-
ized by the joint resolution. The Council will also review all appli-
cations for financial grants authorized by the joint resolution and
make recommendations to the Surgeon General concerning such
financial grants. No financial grant shall be approved by the Sur-
geon General except after review and recommendation for ap-
proval by the Council.
In carrying out his responsibilities under the joint resolution,
the Secretary is required to take such steps as may be necessary to
assure that, in the administration of this program, the facilities
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1323
and services of all the offices and agencies of the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare (as well as those of the Public
Health Service) are utilized to the optimum extent and to provide
for coordination of the work of, and consultation between, the
Public Health Service and other agencies and offices of the Depart-
ment. To this end the Surgeon General is authorized to utilize, in
addition to the new Institute for International Health and Medical
Research, other units of the Public Health Service and, subject to
the approval of the Secretary, the Office of Vocational Rehabilita-
tion, the Children's Bureau, and such other agencies and offices in
the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare as he may
deem advisable.
HEARINGS
In the course of 6 days of hearings the purposes and objectives
of the joint resolution were supported by the American Medical
Association, the American Dental Association, many health asso-
ciations, and many persons of eminence and knowledge in health
sciences, industry, and public affairs. No one appeared to testify
[p. 2]
against the joint resolution. The witnesses, listed in the chronolog-
ical order in which they appeared before the committee, included:
General of the Army Omar N. Bradley, former Administrator
of Veterans' Affairs; Dr. Paul Dudley White, past president, In-
ternational Society of Cardiology; Dr. Detlev Bronk, president,
Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research and chairman of the
Advisory Council of the Citizens Committee on Health for Peace;
Dr. Howard A. Rusk, professor and chairman, Department of
Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, New York University,
Bellevue Medical Center.
Dr. I. S. Ravdin, chairman of the board of regents of the Ameri-
can College of Surgeons, vice president of medical development,
University of Pennsylvania; John T. Connor, president, Merck &
Co., Inc.; Dr. Gunnar Gundersen, president, American Medical
Association; Dr. Sidney Farber, professor of pathology, Harvard
Medical School, and the Children's Hospital, Boston; Dr. Freder-
ick J. Stare, professor of nutrition, and chairman, department of
nutrition, Harvard School of Public Health.
Dr. Cornelius P. Rhoads, medical director, Sloan-Kettering In-
stitute; Dr. Ross T. Mclntire, executive director, International
College of Surgeons; E. B. Whitten, executive director, National
Rehabilitation Association.
-------
1324 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENEEAL
Dr. Martha Eliot, head, department of maternal and child
health, Harvard School of Public Health; Leo Cherne, executive
director, Research Institute of America, and chairman of the
board, International Rescue Committee; Dr. Peter D. Coman-
duras, secretary general, Medical International Cooperation; Basil
O'Connor, president, the National Foundation.
Maj. Gen. Melvin J. Maas, USMCR, retired, Chairman, Presi-
dent's Committee on Employment of the Physically Handicapped;
Dr. Matthew Besdine, member of the American Dental Associa-
tion's Council on Legislation; Dr. George C. Paff enbarger, director
of the American Dental Association's Research Division at the
National Bureau of Standards; Dr. C. Willard Camalier, assistant
secretary, American Dental Association.
Hon. Arthur S. Flemming, Secretary, Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare; Dr. Leroy E. Burney, Surgeon General,
Public Health Service, Department of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare; Miss Mary E. Switzer, Director, Office of Vocational Reha-
bilitation, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; Mrs.
Katherine B. Oettinger, Chief, Children's Bureau, Social Security
Administration, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare;
Hon. Hubert H. Humphrey, U.S. Senator from the State of Minne-
sota.
PURPOSES AND OBJECTIVES OF THE JOINT RESOLUTION
This legislation is based upon the following fundamental points:
1. The ravages of disease, the despair of disability, and the
tragedy of premature death are specters which menace all the
peoples of the world.
2. Discoveries through medical research and progress in the
health sciences, regardless of their geographical or national ori-
gin, augment a common reservoir of knowledge to which all man-
kind should have access.
3. Science and research are activities of the human mind which
cannot be viewed as limited or confined by national boundaries.
[P. 3]
They flourish best and are most productive in a context which
encourages support, collaboration, and communication between
scientists sharing mutual interests wherever they may reside.
4. The scientific and economic resources of this Nation, pru-
dently and purposively employed, can be a crucial factor in bring-
ing to bear upon the urgent problems of disease and disability the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1325
world's scientific research potential in fields of health to the bene-
fit of the people of the United States and of all countries.
5. In thus joining with the health scientists and research work-
ers of other nations in a cooperative attack upon health problems
we can seek to further man's knowledge, not out of fear for our
security, nor from pride in our achievements, but as a venture in
the cause of human dignity and the betterment of all mankind.
It is in the recognition that disease and disability know no
international boundaries; that research in the health sciences fos-
tered on an international basis holds great promise of advance-
ment of benefit to all; and that an unselfish effort on the part of
the United States to advance health sciences in the interest of all
peoples can be a potent instrument of peace and good will, that the
committee has acted upon this joint resolution.
HEALTH RESEARCH ON A WORLDWIDE BASIS
The committee has taken particular note of a point repeatedly
emphasized during the hearings on this joint resolution; namely,
that research is the single most important component in any effort
to deal with the problems of disease, ill health, and disability
which confront the world. The continuing enlargement of our fund
of basic knowledge, together with the purposeful application of
existing knowledge in increasingly effective ways are essential to
progress in health and the ultimate victory over major problems
of disease and disability.
Today it is clear, as Dr. Burney, Surgeon General of the Public
Health Service, stated in his testimony, "that effective progress in
medical research involves horizons considerably broader than
those encompassed in the activities of a single nation." The pros-
pect and promise of significant findings in the fields of health and
medicine exist whenever men pursue research in these fields.
In like manner Dr. Howard Rusk, professor and chairman, de-
partment of physical medicine and rehabilitation, New York Uni-
versity, Bellevue Medical Center, noted the international character
of medical research:
Medicine has never been anything but international. You can go back in
history, and it is the beautiful evidence of internationalism that exists in the
world.
Microbiology came from Holland. Immunology with vaccination came from
Great Britain. Bacteriology came from Pasteur in Prance. Sulfonamides came
from Germany—but they waited 16 years because an assistant missed one
compound, and it was found 16 years later in a laboratory in another coun-
try. Penicillin came from Great Britain. Insulin came from Canada. Cortisone
-------
1326 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
came from the United States. Anesthesia came from the United States.
Rauwolfia lay dormant 400 years in India until some raw material came to a
laboratory in Boston, to be tried with a series of other drugs on patients with
high blood pressure. At the end of the fifth week, they were ready to aban-
don the drug because nothing had happened, not realizing that it took six.
They went on to the sixth week. And they gave us the greatest tool we have
in our hands today for the management of high blood pressure and certain
types of mental disease.
[P. 4]
And Dr. Gundersen, president, American Medical Association,
said:
Our association feels that medicine has no geographic boundaries, for it is
truly an international science for the benefit of everyone. Furthermore, we
believe that only through coordinated effort can physicians throughout the
world bring to their people the maximal health benefits that modern medicine
can provide.
Today, more than ever before, medical men all over the world are interde-
pendent. Consequently, physicians in America are interested not only in ex-
porting new developments in the art and science of medicine, but we also are
equally anxious to import new techniques and discoveries by our colleagues in
other countries. Worldwide progress in medicine can continue in the future
only through the free exchange of ideas between medical scientists in all
countries.
1. Value and meaning for the United States
Throughout the hearings the committee was impressed with the
emphasis given by witnesses to the belief that the people of the
United States stand to gain immeasurable health benefits through
the programs and activities which are authorized under Senate
Joint Resolution 41. American scientific partnership and partici-
pation in worldwide medical research can do much to advance
knowledge and to hasten the solution of many health problems
which we as well as other peoples face. Any enlargement of the
world's knowlege and understanding of disease and life processes
is of benefit to all people. Major breakthroughs in medical re-
search are possible wherever research is performed.
In this respect Dr. Burney stated:
Disease and ill health are scourges of all mankind. Their elimination is a
common cause, and a scientific advance by anyone is a victory for all.
Dr. Gundersen told the committee:
I believe that Senate Joint Resolution 41, 86th Congress, will provide an
important way in which the United States can contribute to the health and
well-being of our own citizenry and of all the peoples of the world.
We in medicine have long recognized that native intuition and the ability
to apply scientific methods of research are gifts which are not confined to
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1327
people in only a few nations of the world. Men and women of science in all
countries can contribute substantially to the expanding horizons of medical
knowledge.
Dr. Bronk, president of the Rockefeller Institute for Medical
Research, also urged this view before the committee:
* * * for the purposes of the record, I do wish to speak in approval of the
International Health and Medical Research Act of 1956.
There are, among others, these reasons which lead me to do so: As a Na-
tion, we are partners in building the strength of the free world. Having
made that very obvious statement, I would say that the strength of this
group of free nations will depend in large measure upon the strength and the
health of the peoples of those nations. For that reason, the significance of this
bill is obvious.
We are spending vast sums and making great efforts in order to persuade
the peoples of all the world that our national objective is the peaceful wel-
fare of all peoples. The enactment of this bill would, I think, be powerful
proof of this selfless national purpose.
Having said that our purpose is unselfish, as a scientist I would add that
benefit to our own people will unavoidably accrue from whatever we do for
others in the field of science. That is in the very nature of shared scientific
effort and the common value of the resulting scientific knowledge.
Dr. Paffenbarger of the American Dental Association added
further emphasis:
Certainly the crusade against sickness and disease is one in which all coun-
tries can enlist and from which all peoples can benefit. The place of medical
discovery is not important; a cure for disease is a boon to all of humanity
regardless of the country of its origin. A review of medical history will show
that significant discoveries have not been limited to any geographic area;
[p. 5]
achievements have come from all corners of the world. The names in an in-
ternational "Who's Who in Health Research" would doubtless read like the
membership roster of the United Nations.
The committee is convinced that the benefit which our people
will receive through support of international health research ac-
tivities will far exceed in value any amounts expended under this
joint resolution.
2. The scientific opportunities for research on an international
basis
The Surgeon General of the Public Health Service made clear in
his testimony the special opportunities which exist for research on
an international basis:
Many major problems of disease and disability can be studied effectively
only on a worldwide or regional basis.
The worldwide distribution of disease as related to natural and manmade
-------
1328 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
environmental conditions may reveal variations which could provide signifi-
cant insight into their causation and dissemination. Such variations and con-
trasts, studied systematically, may provide the key clues to the control or
eradication of many diseases.
For example, it is probable that clear understanding of and basic knowl-
edge relating to the phenomena of the viruses, their origin, modification, and
distribution, will be achieved only through long-range integrated studies on
the part of the world's virologists working through a network of viral labora-
tories in cooperatively planned and uniformly pursued observation and study.
*******
There are many examples in medical research where knowledge has re-
mained either indecisive or unused for unnecessarily long periods of time be-
cause of the lack of collaboration and communication among scientists work-
ing individually upon the same problems. Had they combined their efforts
rather than continued in isolation, or had there been means for ready access
to knowledge of the accomplishment of others, it is probable that more rapid
progress would have been made in many important areas of research.
In respect to the opportunities for research in the field of reha-
bilitation, Dr. Howard Rusk had this to say:
We in the United States provide world leadership in rehabilitation but we
have no monopoly on creative imagination, ingenuity, and research potentials.
In the scores of visits I have made to rehabilitation programs over the world
there has not been a single instance in which I have not learned something
new which could be utilized here in the United States to make our own pro-
grams more effective. Through these visits I know of scores of significant re-
search projects which could be implemented rapidly if this legislation is
adopted which would have significant value to our own rehabilitation efforts
here at home.
Through outstanding research work in prosthetics conducted through the
Prosthetics Research Board of the National Academy of Sciences in coopera-
tion with the Veterans' Administration and the Office of Vocational Rehabili-
tation, we have the finest artificial limbs the world has ever seen. Yet, two
of the most significant developments in prosthetics in recent years have come
from Germany—the suction socket and the Heidelberg arm.
The work being done in rehabilitation of the brain injured in Finland; with
blind persons with other physical handicaps in the Soviet Union; in plastic
surgery and rehabilitation for lepers in Hong Kong and Vellore, India; in
occupational health and employment of handicapped workers in the Scandi-
navian nations; in geriatric rehabilitation in Australia and the Scandinavian
nations; in the use of bamboo for braces in Hong Kong; in the socio-medico-
economic areas of disability evaluation, workmen's compensation, pensions,
and disability benefits in many nations—all of these and many other exam-
ples could be given of fruitful areas of research which could be immediately
developed if this legislation is passed.
3. International medical and health research 'potential and re-
sources
Many witnesses pointed out the resources in trained scientific
manpower and skills available for productive work in medical and
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1329
health research in foreign countries. They emphasized also the
great potential for the effective growth of health research that
exists in the many talented students in other lands needing only
[p. 6]
support or the opportunity for intensive training to permit their
joining in effective research endeavors. The importance of provid-
ing support for both the research activities and the training of
such promising scholars was emphasized again and again.
Dr. C. P. Rhoads, medical director, Sloan-Kettering Institute,
had this to say on this subject:
In short, I have spoken to the principal points of your bill. I have indicated
that I can differ with no point; that on the basis of personal experience with
young scientists from other countries in our own institution and personal ex-
perience in other countries, limited on my own part but very extensive on the
part of my staff, we are satisfied that there is a vast reservoir of unused
scientific talent. There is certainly a vast store of suppressed enthusiasm and
ability. Almost limitless opportunity exists to exploit this talent and this en-
thusiasm in fields most important to us, if it can be adequately managed so
that existing barriers to this kind of work will no longer exist.
Dr. Sidney Farber, professor of pathology, Harvard Medical
School, also addressed himself to this problem:
In many countries, such as Italy, the amount of research support available
is so small that men of great skill and intellect are compelled to carry on only
token research concerning problems which are selected because they do not
require manpower, equipment, or modern research facilities.
In a great basic research institute in Sweden * * * a distinguished path-
finder in research concerning the cell could double his research activities, and
the number of scientists trained in this field where men are so rare, with a
relatively small increase in his budget.
The value of providing for the training and support of foreign
scientists was well presented in the statement by Dr. George C.
Paffenbarger:
Perhaps the single most significant aspect of Senate Joint Resolution 41,
from the standpoint of both immediate and long-term advancement in re-
search, is the provision for training additional research workers and for mak-
ing maximum utilization of those presently available. The No. 1 need today,
at least in this association's chief area of interest, is for additional skilled
investigators. Many extremely promising areas of investigation are not now
receiving adequate study simply for lack of sufficiently trained personnel.
This is why this association has supported the domestic training and fellow-
ship programs in the past and today is supporting the proposal for a similar
program abroad.
Unfortunately there are at the present time foreign scientists with special
skills and talents who are not able to conduct the research investigations of
which they are capable because of lack of adequate facilities. This is a situa-
-------
1330 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
tion which should be remedied and is covered in Senate Joint Resolution 41.
There are laboratories and research institutions in foreign countries that
presently can offer special training by highly qualified personnel utilizing
facilities and subjects for study that are not available in the United States.
American students should be encouraged to visit these places for extended
periods to acquire the knowledge and training that can be provided. The type
of activity to be encouraged is exemplified by the experience of an outstand-
ing dental scientist who went recently to study in D'Allemagne's crystallogra-
phy laboratory in Belgium and brought back invaluable information and
techniques which he is now teaching to others in the United States. Similarly,
foreign health scientists should be encouraged to come to this country for the
interchange of scientific knowledge, information, and techniques. Some ex-
cellent programs along this line already are in existence and have proved in-
valuable, but the surface has only been scratched. The joint resolution wisely
makes provision for additional encouragement and support of this kind of
worthwhile venture.
4. International health research and the increase of understand-
ing among peoples of the world
Throughout the testimony presented to the committee in connec-
tion with this joint resolution, a most heartening aspect was the
[P. 7]
agreement among witnesses that programs and activities author-
ized by Senate Joint Resolution 41 would, in addition to their
immediate benefit in advancing our struggle against disease and ill
health, have a fundamental long-range value in enlarging the basis
for understanding among peoples of the world and enhancing the
possibility for peace.
The committee feels it to be important that the potential contri-
bution to peace and better relationships among peoples of the
world, that can come through a joining of hands in a scientific
endeavor which has no political, military, or economic objective,
be set forth for the consideration of the Senate.
Senate Joint Resolution 41 presents a program designed to use
man's skill and knowledge in a common struggle against disease
and ill health. In this process we are working with scientists, not
nations, our efforts are directed toward knitting tighter the fabric
of scientific effort, and our purpose is the well-being of man. This
effort must be preserved free from political overtones. This view-
point was stated again and again by witnesses, and the following
excerpts from the hearings are illustrative of this point:
Dr. Gunnar Gundersen testified:
* * * there is a growing recognition that medicine, with its resources and
influence fully mobilized, can perhaps do more for world peace than the bil-
lions of dollars being poured into armaments.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1331
Dr. Paul Dudley White said:
Thus, in conclusion, I can testify from my own experience, as well as from
that of many of my medical colleagues and friends all over the world, that the
new National Institute for International Medical Research should play a
great role in our activities the world over. Whatever helps physical health is
likely to improve the mental capacity, morale, and happiness of people every-
where. Of course, the spiritual health of individuals and whole communities
is of greater importance, even, than the physical health. One might say that
is not in our field; but one of the most challenging and pleasant duties of the
true physician is to deal with the whole man—body, mind, and soul. There-
fore, we may hope that benefit will come to all of these human needs through
better international understanding and cooperation in the field of medicine.
Dr. Detlev Bronk observed :
As the world is shrunk by accelerated travel and communication and torn
apart by international conflicts, it is of timely importance to further under-
takings such as this, which demonstrate the possibilities of peoples working
together. For the last 3 years, as president of the National Academy of
Sciences, I have been intimately associated with the International Geophysi-
cal Year. The U.S. effort has been carried forward by the National Commit-
tee for the International Geophysical Year of the National Academy of
Sciences, and supported financially by the National Science Foundation, with
the generous support of Congress. That has been, as all peoples now know, a
spectacular demonstration of how peoples of all nations can work together
for their common benefit and for the greater understanding of the world on
which we live.
* * * * * * *
I recognize that even though we have successful common undertakings such
as this, they will not quickly lead to a Utopia in which international conflicts
no longer exist. But these common scientific efforts are nevertheless dramatic
proof that peoples can gain by peaceful means that which they have vainly
sought to acquire through wars. I believe that is a lesson which is being
learned and recognized by peoples everywhere.
And so I believe that through such shared common scientific efforts, we are
going to leave a residue of faith among peoples everywhere that they can,
though common efforts, acquire that which they all desire, and acquire it by
peaceful means.
[P-8]
Dr. Howard Rusk asserted :
The International Health and Medical Research Act of 1959 is essentially
a humanitarian program directed toward a global assault on mankind's most
important enemies—disease and disability. But it has tremendous political
implications, for its rehabilitation aspects emphasize our belief in the United
States of America that man's mission on earth is to heal and not to hurt, to
build and not to destroy.
Dr. I. S. Ravdin, chairman of the board of regents of the Ameri-
can College of Surgeons and vice president of medical develop-
ment, University of Pennsylvania, expressed a similar view:
-------
1332 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
* * * I venture to state that a national institute for international medical
research which would "mobilize the efforts of medical scientists, research
workers, technologists, and members of the health professions for an assault
upon disease, disability, and the impairments of man" would create the cir-
cumstances for a better international understanding than can be achieved by
any other means.
*******
This Nation has long realized that a lack of concern for the problems of the
health of people leads all to frequently to poverty, to diseases which sap the
physical and mental vigor of people and finally to revolt. We who have gained
so much from the research of our own scientists and those from other coun-
tries, where good research has been and is being done, must realize that the
more quickly we can assist those less fortunate to begin to achieve what we
have so fortunately achieved the more quickly universal understanding will
be won in our troubled world.
John T. Connor, president of Merck & Co., said:
As you indicated, I am wholeheartedly in support of the aims and purposes
of this bill. The International Medical Research Act stirs the imagination with
its opportunities for a new breakthrough in international relations as well as
in medical research. It can give a new dimension to foreign affairs and a new
versatility to U.S. foreign policy. It can excite the universal support and
enthusiasm for an international program that America has not seen since
inauguration of the point 4 program of technical assistance.
Dr. Sidney Farber observed:
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I regard it as a privilege to
appear in strong- support for Senate Joint Resolution 41, so aptly named the
Health for Peace Act, which, because of its certain effect upon the progress of
medical research, will be regarded as one of the great landmarks in the his-
tory of medicine.
Indeed, because of the broad conception for which Senator Hill and his
fellow sponsors are responsible, the impact of this bill will be felt far beyond
medical research. It will make its mark on the history of the world.
Dr. Peter D. Comanduras, secretary general of MEDICO,
stated:
The establishment of the National Institute of International Research
would demonstrate to the peoples of the world that the United States is vitally
interested in the disease scourges that are still ravaging three-quarters of the
world; that it is taking steps to alleviate and eradicate human illnesses and
suffering; that it is encouraging the brilliant scientific minds all over the
world to come to this country to study, observe, and find ways and means to
attack disease all over the world, and that it is asking their cooperation to
forge weapons, not against humanity but for and in support of the health
and welfare of all peoples.
DISEASE AND DISABILITY ARE INTERNATIONAL PEOBLEMS
Testimony before the committee presented a sobering delinea-
tion of the grave problems of disease, ill health, disability, and
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1333
threat of premature death which confront the peoples of the world
despite the progress in the health and medical sciences to date.
[p. 9]
5. The problem of resistance
The great advances in medicine and public health practice made
possible through research have unfortunately created new prob-
lems which threaten to nullify some of the most useful develop-
ments. Their solution demands further research effort.
Among the most formidable of these manmade problems are
(1) the development of resistance by insects to the insecticides
which have made possible such enormous strides in the control of
insect-borne diseases such as ma^ria, and (2) the emergence of
antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria which present grave prob-
lems for hospitals.
Although antibiotic therapy has had a revolutionary impact on
the practice of medicine, the recent emergence of staphylococcal
strains marked by their communicability and virulence and by
high resistance to the antibiotics has brought about a situation
which many hospitals now recognize as the most immediately ur-
gent of all problems in the field of infectious disease. In this
country alone the number of deaths from staphylococcal septi-
cemia has increased almost 200 percent since 1949.
Despite the fact that staphylococcal infection has been a com-
mon hazard of hospital confinement throughout the centuries, very
little is known of the fundamental mechanisms involved in its
relationship to men. With the discovery of the sulfonamides and
antibiotics, fundamental research on the staphylococci was
dropped entirely. As a result of the "everyday miracles" following
the use of these drugs, further investigation seemed unnecessary.
Unfortunately, the problem was far from solved, and, in fact, the
most recent evidence has demonstrated unequivocally that the
emergence of these troublesome strains of staphylococci actually
parallels the introduction and widespread use of the antibiotics in
specific localities throughout the world. At the present time, the
most discouraging aspect of the problem is the overwhelming evi-
dence that the staphylococci have the faculty for becoming resis-
tant to every antibiotic originally effective against them. Only
through continuing intensive research will it be possible to over-
come this setback.
[P. 14]
-------
1334 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
The early successes with DDT and other new insecticides after
World War II led to the hope that the last form of the insect
vectors of disease might be eradicated. However, in recent years it
has become apparent that a number of insects of public health
importance were becoming resistant to DDT and to one or another
of the other insecticides. This has had a definite impact on the
progress of disease control operations. In some 17 different coun-
tries species of Anopheles mosquitoes have been confirmed as phy-
siologically resistant to insecticides. This problem demanded new
and intensive research work in the nature of the resistance proc-
ess. This work has led to studies of insect genetics which in their
turn have shed light on broader questions relating to the transmis-
sion of genetic information in biological systems. Greater research
effort must be undertaken to solve this mounting problem.
6. The growing threat of the environment
Health problems associated with man's environment are of
growing significance and urgency. These problems can be viewed
as falling into two broad groups: those associated with natural
geographical, climatological, and geophysical phenomena and
those arising from the social, economic, and cultural development
and practices of mankind.
Problems associated with life in Arctic areas, in arid lands, in
tropical and subtropical conditions are examples of the former.
Another is the influence of such factors as natural background
radioactivity upon human development and disease. This latter
has become of special importance with the release of findings from
recent studies pointing to a probable relationship between congen-
ital malformations and the incidence of cancer to such radioactiv-
ity. Geographical variations in naturally occurring disease can
also present intriguing and informative insights into the etiol-
ogy and epidemiology of diseases which emphasize the value of
greater effort in this area of inquiry.
This new and important area of health problems was pointed
out to the committee in the testimony of Dr. Detlev Bronk, in
which he said :
The whole relationship of man to his environment is a field which is only
now beginning to be explored; it must be explored on a worldwide basis. The
international study of the oceans, the poles, the atmosphere, and space all
relate to the health and welfare of mankind. As a result of those studies we
are going to have new possibilities for relating men and women and children
better to their natural environments and the environments created through
our own construction.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1335
All these efforts are efforts which are of necessity the common efforts of
all peoples because all nations are inhabited by men such as you and I.
Another aspect of this problem was noted by John T. Connor in
his testimony:
The productivity of peoples debilitated and weakened by disease, disability
and malnutrition is a fraction of the productivity of American workers.
India loses a billion man-days of work each year from tuberculosis alone.
Malaria costs additional millions of man-days in India, in Thailand, in the
Philippines, in the Latin American countries. Other diseases take their toll.
The developing nations lie largely in the "disease belt" that girdles the earth
and creates a reservoir of disease that in these modern times lies perilously
close to our own shores and our own homes. This disease belt is dangerous to
the United States. We have lost much of the natural immunity to disease
common to people who have survived to maturity in less protected environ-
ments.
[p. 15]
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
Section 1 provides that this joint resolution may be cited as the
"International Health and Medical Research Act of 1959."
Section 2 establishes that the purpose of this joint resolution is
to advance the status of the health sciences, the health standards
of the American people and peoples of other countries, through
cooperative endeavors with scientists, research workers, techni-
cians, experts, and teachers of other countries, in health research,
research planning, and research training; and to that end to help
mobilize the health sciences of the United States as a force for
peace, progress, and good will throughout the world.
The committee feels that this language makes it abundantly
clear that this joint resolution is intended to provide for a further-
ance of scientist-to-scientist relationships on an international
basis, in the interest of medical and health research, from whose
achievements can flow good will and understanding among the
peoples of the world. This joint resolution is based upon the objec-
tive considerations of science, the solution of health problems, and
the strengthening of the world's resources in medical and health
research.
Section 3 provides for the establishment of a National Institute
for International Health and Medical Research within the Na-
tional Institutes of Health of the U.S. Public Health Service.
This Institute will constitute the principal organizational unit
for carrying out the activities authorized in this joint resolution.
The question of the best organizational location for the National
-------
1336 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
Institute of International Health and Medical Research is a matter
which arose both in the public testimony on Senate Joint Resolu-
tion 41 and in the discussions in the executive sessions of the
committee.
The committee has carefully considered this matter, which it
believes to be crucial. The committee has concluded that only
through the establishment of a National Institute for Interna-
tional Health and Medical Research, as a part of the National
Institutes of Health and of the Public Health Service, can the
purposes and objectives of this resolution be effectively accom-
plished.
The committee believes that the programs and activities under
Senate Joint Resolution 41 should not become obscured and con-
fused with international policies. The major considerations with
which the administration of activities and programs under this
joint resolution shall be concerned are those relating to the fur-
therance of health research, carried out on a scientist-to-scientist
basis and not as a matter of government-to-government negotia-
tion.
To insure that the research and research training programs
authorized by this joint resolution are developed and administered
in a manner and with the knowledge and skill necessary for such
purposes, it is believed essential that the responsibility for these
programs be placed in an organization whose sole purposes and
operation are concerned with the conduct and support of health
research and research training. In the Federal Government the
National Institutes of Health of the Public Health Service have
achieved a superb record in bringing about a productive relation-
ship between the Federal Government and the scientific commu-
nity of this and other nations. The many technical study groups
and advisory councils through which the National Institutes of
Health work give assurance that the programs of this organiza-
tion will be appraised and carried out with scientific merit and
[P. 16]
potential being the sole determinants of action. This principle of
operation has received the complete support of scientists, educa-
tional institutions, and workers in the health and medical research
field throughout the Nation. Indeed, this recognition has extended
throughout the world. The programs and activities which would be
authorized under Senate Joint Resolution 41, to be successful,
must be carried out in a similar manner and in the same atmos-
phere as the other programs of the National Institutes of Health
which support research and research training.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1337
Another major factor influencing the committee's viewpoint on
this question is the importance of having the activities authorized
under this joint resolution carried out in close cooperation and
coordination with the categorical programs of the other Institutes
of the National Institutes of Health. Many of these programs
involve the support of research in foreign educational institutions
and laboratories. Research that will be supported through the
National Institute of International Health and Medical Research,
on the other hand, will not be limited by categorical program
objectives or considerations. This research will involve areas and
fields basic to the understanding of disease and life processes as
well as major health problems not within the purview of the
existing categorical programs. It will be necessary to assure close
relationships between the categorical programs and this new in-
ternational research program in order that the greatest utilization
can be derived from findings in the general area and also that
there is no unnecessary duplication among the several Institutes in
international operations.
The National Institutes of Health contain a great range of sci-
entific and administrative skills with a considerable background in
the direction and conduct of successful research programs in com-
plex and difficult scientific areas and involving sensitive relation-
ships with public and private groups, universities, and scientific
organizations. This has also involved working on the international
scene with investigators in foreign countries, international scien-
tific organizations and groups, and the World Health Organiza-
tion. As a result the National Institutes of Health possess a great
amount of experience and knowledge in matters relating to the
international support and conduct of medical and biological re-
search.
It is essential that the National Institute of International
Health and Medical Research be in a position to draw upon this
vast resource of experience and skill. Furthermore, the National
Institutes of Health possesses within its Division of Research
Grants a framework and a body of processes and procedures
which have proved to be most effective in the receipt, technical
review, awarding, and payment of research grants and other
awards involved in the support of research. It is expected that the
resources of this organization will serve the proposed new Insti-
tute.
In testimony before the committee, eminent witnesses supported
the point of view which the committee has taken in respect to the
location of the Institute.
-------
1338
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
Dr. I. S. Radvin had this to say on this question:
It is my personal opinion that such an Institute should be set up within the
present framework of the National Institutes of Health; and that it function
as do the existing Institutes in regard to funding, the awarding of research
grants, training and research fellowships, and contracts. This could be done
while at the same time providing for supervision and direction by the Secre-
tary of Health, Education, and Welfare and the safeguards necessary for
[p. 17]
the program to be in harmony with the foreign policy of this country. The
aspects of the overall problem which concern the Office of Vocational Re-
habilitation and the Children's Bureau could be protected by representation
on the Advisory Council as is now done for the Army, Navy, Air Force, and
Veterans' Administration.
Dr. Sidney Farber urged the same action:
If set up within the framework of the National Institutes of Health, with
its rich tradition of devoted public service, admirable standards of research
administration, and many years of successful conduct of the world's largest
medical research endeavors, the proposed new Institute of International
Medical Research should make a maximal contribution with the funds
available. This would be possible because unnecessary duplication of effort
could be avoided by utilizing the staffs, the administrative machinery, and
the invaluable experience of the existing Institutes of Health.
[p. 18]
1.12m(3) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 106 (1960)
1.12m(3)(a) June 24: Committee discharged, amended and passed
House, p. 14293
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
1.12m (3) (b) June 30: Passed Senate, p. 15132-15133
AUTHORITY OP SURGEON GENERAL
SEC. 3. Part A of title III of the
Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.,
ch. 6A) is amended by adding immedi-
ately after section 307, the following
new section:
"INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION
"SEC. 308 (a) To carry out the
purposes of clause (1) of section 2 of
the International Health Research Act
of 1960, the Surgeon General may, in
the exercise of his authority under
this Act and other provisions of law
to conduct and support health re-
search and research training, make
such use of health research and re-
search training resources in partici-
pating foreign countries as he may
deem necessary and desirable.
"(b) In carrying out his responsi-
bilities under this section the Surgeon
General may—
"(1) establish and maintain fellow-
ships in the United States and in
participating foreign countries;
"(2) make grants to public institu-
tions or agencies and to nonprofit
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1339
private institutions or agencies in the
United States and in participating
foreign countries for the purpose of
establishing and maintaining fellow-
ships ;
"(3) make grants or loans of equip-
ment, medical, biological, physical, or
chemical substances or other mate-
rials, for use by public institutions or
agencies, or by individuals, in parti-
cipating foreign countries;
"(4) participate and otherwise co-
operate in any international health
research or research training meet-
ings, conferences, or other activities;
"(5) facilitate the interchange be-
tween the United States and parti-
cipating foreign countries, and among
participating foreign countries, of re-
search scientists and experts who are
engaged in experiments and pro-
grams of research or research train-
ing, and in carrying out such purpose
may pay per diem compensation, sub-
sistence, and travel for such scientists
and experts when away from their
places of residence at rates not to
exceed those provided in section 5 of
the Administrative Expenses Act of
1946 (5 U.S.C. 73b-2) for persons in
the Government service employed in-
termittently; and
"(6) procure, in accordance with
the provisions of section 15 of the
Administrative Expenses Act of 1946
(5 U.S.C. 55a), the temporary or in-
termittent services of experts or con-
sultants ; individuals so employed shall
receive compensation at a rate to be
fixed by the Secretary, but not in
excess of $50 per diem, including trav-
el time, and while away from their
homes or regular places of business
may be allowed travel expenses, in-
cluding per diem in lieu of subsist-
ence, as authorized by section 5 of the
Administrative Expenses Act of 1946
(5 U.S.C. 73b-) for persons in the
Government service employed inter-
mittently.
"(c) The Surgeon General may not,
in the exercise of his authority under
this section, assist in the construction
of buildings for research training in
any foreign country.
"(d) For the purpose of this sec-
tion—
"(1) The term 'health research'
shall include, but not be limited to,
research, investigations, and studies
relating to causes and methods of pre-
vention of accidents, including but
not limited to highway and aviation
accidents.
"(2) The term 'participating for-
eign countries' means those foreign
countries which cooperate with the
United States in carrying out the
purposes of this section."
*****
[p. 15132]
Mr. HILL. Mr. President, the House
amendment does not change the basic
authority originally outlined in the
Senate bill. I have cleared the amend-
ment with the distinguished minority
leader, the Senator from Illinois [Mr.
DIRKSEN], and I move that the Senate
concur in the House amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on the motion of the
Senator from Alabama.
The motion was agreed to.
[p. 15133]
-------
1340 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
1.12n HAWAII OMNIBUS ACT
July 12,1960, P.L. 86-624, § 29(c), 74 Stat. 419
PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT
(c) Subsection (c) of section 361 of such Act, relating to regu-
lations governing apprehension and detention of persons to pre-
vent the spread of a communicable disease, is amended by striking
out ", the Territory of Hawaii,".
[P. 419]
1.12n(l) HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND
INSULAR AFFAIRS
H.R. REP. No. 1564, 86th Cong., 2d Sess. (1960)
AMENDING CERTAIN LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES IN
LIGHT OF THE ADMISSION OF THE STATE OF HAWAII
INTO THE UNION
MAY 2, 1960.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State
of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. O'BRIEN of New York, from the Committee on Interior and
Insular Affairs, submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 11602]
The Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, to whom was
referred the bill (H.R. 11602) to amend certain laws of the United
States in light of the admission of the State of Hawaii into the
Union, and for other purposes, having considered the same, report
favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that the
bill do pass.
[p-1]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1341
1.12n(2) SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND
INSULAR AFFAIRS
S. REP. No. 1681,86th Cong., 2d Sess. (1960)
HAWAII OMNIBUS BILL
JUNE 24, 1960.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. LONG of Hawaii, from the Committee on Interior and Insular
Affairs, submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 11602]
The Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, to whom was
referred the bill (H.R. 11602) to amend certain laws of the United
States in light of the admission of the State of Hawaii into the
Union, and for other purposes, having considered the same, report
favorably thereon with amendments and recommend that the bill,
as amended, do pass.
Public hearings were held on the Senate companion bill, S. 3054,
introduced by the chairman of the committee, Senator James E.
Murray of Montana, for himself and 10 other Senators, all of
whom are members of the committee, of both political parties.
Committee action in amending and reporting favorably H.R.
11602 was unanimous.
1.12n(3) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 196 (1960)
1.12n(3)(a) May 16: Passed House, pp. 10355; 10357
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
1.12n(3)(b) June 28: Amended and passed Senate, p. 14684
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
-------
1342 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
1.12o AMENDMENTS TO §301 (d) OF THE PUBLIC
HEALTH SERVICE ACT
September 15,1960, P.L. 86-798, 74 Stat. 1053
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That section
301 (d) of the Public Health Service Act, as amended (42 U.S.C.
241 (d)), is amended by adding after the semicolon at the end
thereof "and make, upon recommendation of the National Advi-
sory Health Council, grants-in-aid to public or nonprofit universi-
ties, hospitals, laboratories, and other institutions for the general
support of their research and research training programs: Pro-
vided, That such uniform percentage, not to exceed 15 per centum,
as the Surgeon General may determine, of the amounts provided
for grants for research projects for any fiscal year through the
appropriations for the National Institutes of Health may be trans-
ferred from such appropriations to a separate account to be avail-
able for such research and research training program grants-in-
aid for such fiscal year;".
Approved September 15, 1960.
[p. 1053]
1.12o(l) HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND
FOREIGN COMMERCE
H.R. REP. No. 2174, 86th Cong., 2d Sess. (1960)
AMENDING THE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT TO AU-
THORIZE INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH GRANTS
AUGUST 26, 1960.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. ROBERTS, from the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Com-
merce, submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 10341]
The Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, to whom
was referred the bill (H.R. 10341) to amend the Public Health
Service Act to authorize grants-in-aid to universities, hospitals,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1343
laboratories, and other public or nonprofit institutions to
strengthen their programs of research and research training in
sciences related to health, having considered the same, report fa-
vorably thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill
do pass.
PURPOSE OF LEGISLATION
The purpose of the legislation is to give the Surgeon General
authority to make grants for the general support of the research
programs of institutions (referred to in brief as "institutional
research grants"), as well as the grants now authorized by the
Public Health Service Act to support specific projects proposed by
individual applicants.
The funds for the general grants would be obtained by setting
aside a uniform percentage, not to exceed 15 percent, of the appro-
priations to the National Institutes of Health for research grants
authorized in existing legislation. Applications for the general
grants would be made by schools of medicine, dentistry, and public
health and reviewed by the National Advisory Health Council.
COST OP LEGISLATION
No additional appropriations are required to carry out this leg-
islation since a percentage of the regular appropriations made for
research grants by the National Institutes of Health would be set
aside for the making of the institutional research grants provided
for in this legislation.
COMMITTEE HEARINGS
The Subcommittee on Health and Safety held hearings on this
legislation on June 6 and 7 in the course of which it received
testimony and communications in support of H.R. 10341 from the
Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, and representatives
cf the Association of American Medical Colleges, the American
Dental Association, the American Public Health Association, the
American Hospital Association, the American Medical Associa-
tion, the American Society of Civil Engineers, and also from indi-
vidual medical schools, dental schools, and schools of public health.
The committee knows of no opposition to this legislation.
-------
1344 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
BACKGROUND OP LEGISLATION
H.R. 10341 would amend the Public Health Service Act so as to
authorize an additional means for the support of medical research
and research training in non-Federal institutions.
Section 301 (d) of the act now authorizes the Surgeon General
to make grants-in-aid to individuals and to public and private
institutions for research projects recommended by the appropriate
national advisory council.
Under the amendment proposed in H.R. 10341, additional au-
thority would be provided to make grants for the support of re-
search and research training programs of public and nonprofit
institutions. To this end, the proposed amendment would authorize
the Surgeon General to transfer a uniform percentage, not to
exceed 15 percent, of each of the National Institutes of Health
research grant appropriations to a separate fund for the purpose
of financing the institutional research grants.
The concept of a grant for the broad support of institutional
research and research training programs in the health sciences
has its origin in the great changes that have taken place in recent
years in the research and research training grant programs of the
National Institutes of Health. Funds made available for the sup-
port of research projects in the fields of cancer, heart, mental
health, and the other major research programs of NIH have risen
from a level of $3.5 million in fiscal year 1947 to a total of $200
million in fiscal year 1960. Funds for the support of research
training projects have grown in like proportion.
The research and research training programs of the National
Institutes of Health and of other Federal agencies have now
grown to a point where their size and scope exert a profound
influence upon the medical schools and other institutions within
which the individual investigators work.
It is estimated that four-fifths of the separately budgeted re-
search funds of medical schools come in the form of gifts, grants,
and contracts, the purposes of which are rather specifically defined
by the donor. Federal funds in the form of research project grants
or contracts comprise two-thirds of such moneys.
As a consequence, a new complex of questions confronts the
Federal administrator of medical research support programs.
These questions relate to the manner in which the Federal Govern-
ment can provide for the support of research and research train-
ing in a way that will not only meet the needs of the individual
[p. 2]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1345
investigator but will assure the medical schools and other research
institutions an effective and responsible role in respect to the use
of Federal funds for medical research and research training.
A study of this problem of institutional impacts and relation-
ships recently carried out by the Public Health Service concluded
that the increasing dependence upon project grants as a form of
research support has tended to deprive medical schools of a sub-
stantial measure of control over the content, emphasis, and direc-
tion of their research activities. Because such funds are restricted
in terms of the specific projects for which they can be employed,
they have limited the discretion of the schools to meet emerging
opportunities in research, to explore new and unorthodox ideas,
and to use research funds in ways and for purposes which they, in
their judgment, feel would contribute effectively to the further-
ance of their research program.
Similar conclusions regarding the appropriate role of institu-
tions in the conduct of federally supported research programs
have been expressed in the reports of several expert advisory
groups, including the President's Science Advisory Committee.
The National Science Foundation has recently announced the in-
auguration of an institutional research grant program somewhat
comparable to the one we have in mind.
The amendment to the Public Health Service Act proposed in
H.R. 10341 would permit the establishment of a system of institu-
tional research grants that would complement, but not replace, the
present structure of project grants.
Following the legislative pattern upon which the project grant
programs of the Public Health Service have been developed, the
proposed amendment is couched in general language so that the
scope and terms of the institutional research support programs can
be developed on the basis of operating experience and can be
adapted to the evolving needs of our national research effort.
Institutional research grants would be limited to those institu-
tions or segments of institutions that conduct comprehensive
health and medical research programs on a continuing basis. Dur-
ing the first years of this program, we would limit institutional
research grants to schools of medicine, dentistry, and public
health.
On the basis of this initial experience, consideration would be
given to extending this form of grant support to other institutions
at a later date. Any such extension, however, would be effected
only after consultation with the National Science Foundation and
other appropriate Federal agencies to assure that it is consistent
-------
1346 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
with general governmental policy and is coordinated with other
Federal programs of research support.
The amount of the grant to each institution would be deter-
mined in accordance with a formula to be developed after consult-
ation with fhe National Advisory Health Council. It is the tenta-
tive thinking of the Surgeon General that such a formula would
include three component elements :
1. A basic continuing grant that would be the same for all
acceptable applicant institutions in each category.
2. An additional amount representing a percentage of the
amount of Federal research project grants and contracts which
the institution was awarded during the previous year.
[p. 3]
3. A third amount representing a somewhat larger percentage
of the institutions' budgeted institutional research funds from
non-Federal sources. The greater weight assigned to this factor is
intended to serve as an incentive for institutions to seek non-Fed-
eral funds.
Institutional research grants, in order to be effective, must be
available on an assured, continuing basis and should be related to
the size of the research grant programs of the NIH and of the
participating institutions.
It is, therefore, proposed that the total dollar amount to be
devoted to the institutional research grant program be derived as
a uniform percentage of the funds provided for research grants in
the several NIH appropriations.
The Surgeon General anticipates that in the first year of the
operation of this program this uniform percentage should proba-
bly be 5 percent, in the second year 10 percent, and in the third
and subsequent years no more than 15 percent.
The proposed amendment does not include any new or addi-
tional appropriations authorization. Rather, it provides for trans-
ferring certain percentages of presently authorized research ap-
propriations to a special fund from which institutional research
grants would be made.
CONCLUSION
Your committee recommends the enactment of H.R. 10341 be-
cause we believe that, in the interest of furthering our national
research objectives we need to supplement and balance our pro-
grams of research project grants with a complementary program
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1347
of support for the research programs directed and administered
by our principal medical research institutions.
DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS
The reports of the departments and agencies on H.R. 10341 are
as follows:
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE,
January 27,1960.
Hon. SAM RAYBURN,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. SPEAKER: I am enclosing for your consideration a draft of a
bill to provide authority for the Public Health Service to institute a new
series of grants-in-aid to public or nonprofit institutions for the general
support of their research and research training programs in the fields of
medical and health related research. The establishment of a program of
institutional research grants which would be possible under this legislation,
will carry into effect recommendations made to the Secretary of Health,
Education, and Welfare by a distinguished group of consultants who recently
studied problems of medical research and education under the chairmanship
of Dr. Stanhope Bayne-Jones. These recommendations were included in the
report of these consultants entitled "The Advancement of Medical Research
and Education" issued June 27, 1958.
[p. 4]
The enclosed draft bill would amend section 301 (d) of the Public Health
Service Act. This section now authorizes the Surgeon General to make
grants-in-aid to public and private institutions and to individuals for re-
search projects in categorical disease areas, as recommended by appropriate
National Advisory Councils established under the Public Health Service Act.
Under the proposed amendment, further authority, in addition to that now
available for making grants-in-aid for research projects, would be provided
the Surgeon General to make grants-in-aid for the general support of research
and research training programs of public and nonprofit institutions. The
amendment would also provide the Surgeon General with authority to trans-
fer a uniform percentage, not to exceed 15 percent, of appropriations for
research grants made to the National Institutes of Health to a separate fund
for the purpose of financing such research and research training program
grants.
A detailed statement of the background, need for and purposes of, and
manner of administering this new program of grants-in-aid is contained in
an attached document. In summary the request for this amendment of the
Public Health Service Act has its origin in the steady and substantial growth
in the support of medical and health-related research through programs
administered by the National Institutes of Health of the Public Health
Service during the postwar period. The furtherance of medical research in
the Nation through the support of research and research training projects
has made great progress. An effort has heen made in the administration of
these programs to provide support under terms and conditions which would
-------
1348 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
foster the greatest practical freedom to the individual investigator com-
mensurate with the public interest, coupled with assurance of stable sup-
port as a means of enhancing productivity in the conduct of scientific inquiry.
Great progress has also been made through support of research training
projects to permit the development of the necessary resources in the form of
trained medical research manpower to assure the long-run development of
national medical research activities.
Funds made available for the support of research projects in the fields of
cancer, heart, mental health, arthritis, and metabolic diseases, allergy and
infectious diseases, and the other research programs of the National Insti-
tutes of Health have risen from a level of $3.5 million in fiscal year 1947 to
a total of $142 million in fiscal year 1959. All these funds have been provided
in the form of support for specific projects proposed by individual research
investigators working in research laboratories, hospitals, medical schools,
and other institutions. In large part the support of research exclusively
through the project system has deprived educational institutions of a large
measure of autonomy and freedom in determining the character and direc-
tion of their research activities. Furthermore, exclusive reliance upon the
project system does not make it possible for educational institutions to
assume a position of responsibility in carrying out their role in the conduct
of medical and health-related research supported through Federal funds.
Thus, a new and important set of problems now confronts the Federal
administration of medical research. These problems surround the basic
question of how to provide Federal support in a manner which not only
assures the full productivity of individual investigators through the best
[p-5]
terms and conditions of project support, but also places the universities and
medical schools, and other institutions within which the investigators work,
in a more effective and a more responsible position to develop and guide the
research and research training programs which are an essential part of
their function in a manner consonant with the institution's overall and long-
range objectives.
This need is clearly set forth in the report of the Secretary's Consultants
on Medical Research and Education (the Bayne-Jones report) which states
that:
"An increase in the capacity of research and educational institutions to
perform their educational and research functions more effectively would be
in the national interest. To this end, Federal funds for research should be
provided under conditions which give the institutions a substantial degree
of freedom in deciding how to use the funds. The essential function of such
funds is to foster freedom and responsibility in the institutions. This kind
of grant should be carefully designed to supplement project and program
grants, and should be established only after extensive consultation and
exploration."
Similar concern with the role of institutions in the conduct of Federal
research support programs is expressed in the recent report of the President's
Science Advisory Committee entitled "Strengthening American Science."
There the point is made that "institutional grants for specialized fields is
another instrumentality (in addition to project grants and program grants)
that should be encouraged" in providing support of Government-sponsored
research in non-Government installations.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1349
A study of these problems recently carried out by the Public Health Serv-
ice has indicated that exclusive dependence upon the project grants as a form
of research support has, in fact, deprived medical schools of a substantial
measure of control over the content, emphasis, and direction of their research
activities. Because such funds are restricted in terms of the specific projects
for which they can be employed, they have reduced the flexibility available
to the schools to meet emerging opportunities in research, to explore new
and unorthodox ideas, and to use research funds in ways and for purposes
which they, in their judgment, feel would contribute effectively to the
furtherance of their research program. The schools have been reluctant to
grant tenure appointments to staff members supported through such funds
because of their specific and finite character. This has militated against the
development of stable careers for research investigators, a condition believed
to be essential for the further strengthening of the Nation's medical
research effort.
Under the amendment to the Public Health Service Act proposed in the
attached bill the Public Health Service would endeavor to deal with these
problems through the establishment of a system of institutional research
grants as a complement to the present structure of project grants for the
support of research and research training now administered by that organi-
zation. The institutional research grant would constitute the award of a
sum of money to an educational or research institution in support of the
general research function or program of the institution to assist in the
development and maintenance in medical, dental, public health, and other
health related areas without specification of the precise research and research
training activities to be undertaken with the grant funds.
[p. 6]
The use of the institutional research grant would be limited to those
institutions or segments of institutions whose participation in medical
research or medical research training is deemed essential. These grants
would be made only on the basis of applications submitted by such institutions
and after review and recommendation for approval by the National Advisory
Health Council. During the first years of this program, it is intended to make
institutional research grants to schools of medicine, dentistry, and public
health only. On the basis of experience gained in relation to these institutions,
consideration may be given to extending this form of grant support to other
institutions meeting criteria established in regulations issued by the Surgeon
General after approval by the Secretary. This extension, however, would be
carried out only after consultation with the National Science Foundation or
other appropriate Federal agencies to assure that any such program is
consistent with general governmental policy and is coordinated with other
Federal programs of research support.
The amount of the grant would be made under guidelines developed in
consultation with the National Advisory Health Council and would be related
to the existing size of the research programs of the institution. In determining
the amount of a grant particular recognition should be given to the extent
of support from nonprofit sources as a means of encouraging greater effort
on the part of institutions to secure support for research activities from such
sources. The attached materials describe in some detail a tentative plan for
administering this program of institutional research grants.
-------
1350 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
We believe through the enactment of this legislation a substantial contribu-
tion will be made for improving the administration of Federal programs sup-
porting medical and health related research through grants. This action will
contribute to strengthening the role of institutions involved in these programs
and provide for a greater sharing of responsibility for the administration and
support of research grant programs administered by the Public Health
Service.
We should appreciate your referral of the enclosed draft proposal to the
appropriate committee for consideration.
The Bureau of the Budget advises that it perceives no objection to the
submission of this proposed legislation to the Congress for its consideration.
Sincerely yours,
ARTHUR S. FLEMMING,
Secretary.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT,
BUREAU OF THE BUDGET,
Washington, D.C., March 24,1960.
Hon. OREN HARRIS,
Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of
Representatives, Washington, D.C.
MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This will acknowledge your letter of February
16, 1960, requesting the views of the Bureau of the Budget on H.R. 10341, a
bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to authorize grants-in-aid to
universities, hospitals, laboratories, and other public or nonprofit institutions
to strengthen their programs of research and research training in sciences
related to health.
[p. 7]
The Bureau has previously reviewed this proposed legislation in draft form
and would recommend enactment for the reasons stated in the letter of trans-
mittal to the Speaker of the House of Representatives from the Department
of Health, Education, and Welfare.
Sincerely yours,
PHILLIP S. HUGHES,
Assistant Director for Legislative Reference.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
In compliance with clause 3 of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, as introduced, are
shown as follows (new matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no
change is proposed is shown in roman) :
SECTION 301 (d) OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT
*******
(d) Make grants-in-aid to universities, hospitals, laboratories, and other
public or private institutions, and to individuals for such research projects
as are recommended by the National Advisory Health council, or, with respect
to cancer, recommended by the National Advisory Cancer Council, or, with
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1351
respect to mental health, recommended by the National Advisory Mental
Health Council, or, with respect to heart diseases, recommended by the
National Advisory Heart Council, or, with respect to dental diseases and
conditions, recommended by the National Advisory Dental Research Council,
and include in the grants for any such project grants of penicillin and other
antibiotic compounds for use in such project; and make, upon recomimendation
of the National Advisory Health Council, grants^n-aid to public or nonprofit
universities, hospitals, laboratories, and other institutions for the general
support of their research and research training programs: Provided, That
such uniform percentage, not to exceed 15 per centum, as the Surgeon
General may determine, of the amounts provided for grants for research
projects for any fiscal year through the appropriations for the National
Institutes of Health may be transferred from such appropriations to a,
separate account to be available for such research and research training
program, grants-in-aid for such fiscal year;
[P-8]
1.12o(2) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 106 (1960)
1.12o(2)(a) Aug. 30: Passed House, p. 18394
GRANTS-IN-AID TO UNIVERSITIES, HOS-
PITALS, LABORATORIES, AND OTHER
PUBLIC OK NONPROFIT INSTITUTIONS
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent for the immediate
consideration of the bill (H.R. 10341)
to amend the Public Health Service
Act to authorize grants-in-aid to uni-
versities, hospitals, laboratories, and
other public or nonprofit institutions
to strengthen their programs of re-
search and research training in sci-
ences related to health.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is
there objection to the present con-
sideration of the bill?
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, reserv-
ing the right to object, what, if any,
will be the cost of this bill to the
Federal Government?
Mr. HARRIS. Not any additional
cost at all. This has to do with insti-
tutions which receive research grants
under the present program. This
authority would permit up to 15 per-
cent of the allocations to be made to
the institutions for allocation by the
institutions instead of Federal Gov-
ernment making it directly to the
individual.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection
to the present consideration of the
bill?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the bill, as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled. That sec-
tion 301 (d) of the Public Health Service Act,
as amended (42 U.S.C. 241 (d)), is amended
by adding after the semicolon at the end
thereof "and make, upon recommendation
of the National Advisory Health Council,
grants-in-aid to public or nonprofit uni-
versities, hospitals, laboratories, and other
institutions for the general support of their
research and research training programs:
Provided, That such uniform percentage, not
to exceed 16 per centum, as the Surgeon
General may determine, of the amounts
provided for grants for research projects for
any fiscal year through the appropriations
for the National Institutes of Health may be
transferred from such appropriations to a
separate account to be available for such
research and research training program
grants-in-aid for such fiscal year;".
The bill was ordered to be engrossed
and read a third time, was read the
third time, and passed, and a motion
to reconsider was laid on the table.
[p. 18394]
-------
1352
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
1.12o (2) (b) Aug. 31: Senate Committee discharged, passed Sen-
ate, p. 18593
AMENDMENT OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH
SERVICE ACT TO AUTHORIZE INSTITU-
TIONAL RESEARCH GRANTS
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr.
President, I ask unanimous consent
that the Committee on Education and
Labor, to which was referred H.R.
10341, be discharged from the further
consideration of the bill, and that the
Senate proceed to its immediate con-
sideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
bill will be stated by title.
The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. A bill
(H.R. 10341) to amend the Public
Health Service Act to authorize
grants-in-aid to universities, hospitals,
laboratories, and other public or non-
profit institutions to strengthen their
programs of research and research
training in sciences related to health.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is
there objection?
There being- no objection, the Sen-
ate proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. HILL. Mr. President, this bill
does not increase any authorization
for appropriation, and it does not
increase any appropriation.
The purpose of the legislation is to give
the Surgeon General authority to make grants
for the general support of the research pro-
grams of institutions (referred to in brief
as "institutional research grants"), as well
as the grants now authorized by the Public
Health Service Act to support specific projects
proposed by individual applicants.
The funds for the general grants would be
obtained by setting aside a uniform per-
centage, not to exceed 15 percent, of the
appropriations to the National Institutes of
Health for research grants authorized in
existing legislation. Applications for the
general grants would be made by schools of
medicine, dentistry, and public health and
reviewed by the National Advisory Health
Council.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
bill is open to amendment.
If there be no amendment to be pro-
posed, the question is on the third
reading and passage of the bill.
The bill (H.R. 10341) was ordered
to a third reading, read the third time,
and passed.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Presi-
dent, I move to reconsider the votes
by which H.R. 12458 and H.R. 10341
were passed be reconsidered.
Mr. HILL. Mr. President, I move
to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
[p. 18593]
1.12p 1960 AMENDMENTS TO TITLE III OF THE
PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT
September 8, I960, P.L. 86-720, § l(b), 2, 74 Stat. 820
* * *
(b) The first sentence of subsection (d) of section 306 of such
Act (42 U.S.C. 242d) is amended by inserting "and section 309"
after "this section" and by adding before the period at the end
thereof "and including, in the case of section 309, certification to
the Surgeon General of projects which it has reviewed and ap-
proved".
[p. 820]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1353
1.12p(l) HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND
FOREIGN COMMERCE
H.R. REP. No. 1780,86th Cong., 2d Sess. (1960)
PROJECT GRANTS FOR GRADUATE TRAINING IN PUBLIC
HEALTH
JUNE 9, 1960.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State
of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. ROBERTS, from the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Com-
merce, submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany H.E. 6871]
The Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, to whom
was referred the bill (H.R. 6871) to amend the Public Health
Service Act to provide for a public health training program, and
for other purposes, having considered the same, report favorably
thereon with amendments and recommend that the bill as
amended do pass.
1.12p (2) COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE
H.R. REP. No. 2062, 86th Cong., 2d Sess. (1960)
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
1.12p (3) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 106 (1960)
1.12p (3) (a) June 24: Amended and passed House, pp. 14294-
14301
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
1.12p (3) (b) July 1: Amended and passed Senate, pp. 15383-
15384
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
-------
1354 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
1.12p(3)(c) Aug. 26: Senate concurs in conference report, pp.
17788-17789
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
1.12p(3)(d) Aug. 29: House concurs in conference report, p.
18172
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
1.12q COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES AND
FACILITIES ACT OF 1961
October 5,1961, P.L. 87-395, § 2(a)-(d), 75 Stat. 824
GRANTS FOR PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES
SEC. 2. (a) Subsection (c) of section 314 of the Public Health
Service Act is amended by striking out "there is hereby authorized
to be appropriated for each fiscal year a sum not to exceed
$30,000,000" and inserting in lieu thereof "there is authorized to
be appropriated for each of the first five fiscal years ending after
June 30,1961, the sum of $50,000,000".
(b) The second sentence of such subsection is amended (1) by
striking out "an amount, not to exceed $3,000,000" and inserting
in lieu thereof "such amount as may be necessary", and (2) by
striking out "$1,000,000" and inserting in lieu thereof
"$2,500,000".
(c) Such subsection is further amended by inserting after the
first sentence the following new sentence: "When so provided in
any Act appropriating funds for carrying out the purposes of this
subsection for any year, such amounts as may be specified in such
Act shall be available only for allotments and payments for such
services and activities included under this subsection as may be
provided in such Act; and in such case the requirements of subsec-
tion (h) shall be separately applied to such allotments and pay-
ments."
(d) Section 314 of such Act is further amended by adding at
the end thereof the following new subsection:
"(m) The Surgeon General, at the request of the State health
authority or, where appropriate, the State mental health author-
ity, may reduce the payments to a State under this section by the
amount of the pay, allowances, traveling expenses, and any other
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1355
costs in connection with the detail of an officer or employee of the
Public Health Service to the State or any of its political subdivi-
sions when such detail is made for the convenience of and at the
request of the State and for purposes of carrying out its State
plan approved under this section. The amount by which such pay-
ments are so reduced shall be available for payment of such costs
by the Surgeon General, but shall, for purposes of subsection (h),
be deemed to have been paid to the State."
*******
[p. 824]
1.12q (1) HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND
FOREIGN COMMERCE
H.R. REP. No. 599, 87th Cong., 1st Sess. (1961)
COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES AND FACILITIES ACT
OF 1961
JUNE 27,1961.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State
of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. HARRIS, from the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Com-
merce, submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 4998]
The Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, to whom
was referred the bill (H.R. 4998) to assist in expanding and
improving community facilities and services for the health care of
aged and other persons, and for other purposes, having considered
the same, report favorably thereon with amendments and recom-
mend that the bill as amended do pass.
The amendments as they appear in the reported bill are as
follows:
On page 1, strike out line 6 and all that follows down through
line 7 on page 2, and insert in lieu thereof the following:
SEC. 2. (a) Subsection (c) of section 314 of the Public
Health Service Act is amended by striking out "there is here-
by authorized to be appropriated for each fiscal year a sum
not to exceed $30,000,000" and inserting in lieu thereof "there
is authorized to be appropriated for each of the first five fiscal
-------
1356 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
years ending after June 30, 1961, the sum of $50,000,000 for
each such fiscal year".
(b) The second sentence of such subsection is amended (1) by
striking out "$3,000,000" and inserting in lieu thereof
"$5,000,000", and (2) by striking out "$1,000,000" and in-
serting in lieu thereof "$2,500,000".
On page 3, beginning in line 23, strike out—
There are hereby authorized to be appropriated for each fiscal
year, beginning with the fiscal year ending June 30, 1962, such
sums as the Congress may determine and insert in lieu thereof
the following:
[P. 1]
There are hereby authorized to be appropriated for each of
the first five fiscal years ending after June 30, 1961, the sum
of $10,000,000 for each such fiscal year,
On page 4, line 15, strike out "or" and insert "of".
On page 4, line 18, after "section.", add the following:
Nothing in this Act shall preclude a State or community from
establishing and collecting fees for personal health services
which may be provided through programs financed from
funds under this section when collection of such fees is au-
thorized or required by State or local law.
On page 5, line 16, strike out "4" and insert "3".
On page 6, line 6, strike out "5" and insert "4".
On page 8, beginning in line 6, strike out—
(unless the Surgeon General determines that there is good cause
for releasing the applicant or other owner from the obligation
to do so)
On page 8, after line 18, add the following new subsection:
(d) The parenthetical phrase in the first sentence of sec-
tion 433 (a) of such Act which reads " (including grants-in-
aid for drawing plans, erection of buildings, and acquisition
of land therefor)" is repealed.
PURPOSE OF H.R. 4998 AS REPORTED BY COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE
AND FOREIGN COMMERCE
The overall purpose of the legislation is to expand certain exist-
ing Federal grant-in-aid programs and to initiate one new pro-
gram with a view to stimulating States, local communities, and
private nonprofit organizations to provide new or improved com-
munity health facilities and health services for the care of chroni-
cally ill or aged persons.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1357
First, the legislation would increase from $30 million to $50
million annually the limit on Federal expenditures for grants-in-
aid to the States which are designed to assist States and local
communities in providing adequate public health services, and it
would authorize this program for a period of 5 years.
[p. 2]
ANALYSIS OF THE BILL BY SECTIONS
Section 1.—The first section of the bill states that the short title
thereof shall be the "Community Health Services and Facilities
Act of 1961".
Section 2.—Section 2 of the bill consists of five subsections, four
of which amend section 314 of the Public Health Service Act, and
one of which adds a new section 316 to such act.
Increased appropriations authorized for grants to States for com-
munity health services
Section 314 of the Public Health Service Act provides in general
for grants and services to States in providing for prevention and
control of specified diseases, and in subsection (c) authorizes
grants to assist States and political subdivisions thereof to estab-
lish and maintain adequate public health services, including grants
for demonstrations and for training of personnel. The total
amount of appropriations authorized under subsection (c) is $30
million for each fiscal year.
Subsection (a) of section 2 of the reported bill provides that the
authorization of appropriations contained in subsection (c) of
such section 314 shall be $50 million for the first 5 fiscal years
beginning after June 30, 1961. The introduced bill would have
eliminated the current ceiling of $30 million annually upon author-
ized appropriations under such subsection.
Background information on section 314 (c)
The authority to make grants to States to assist them in the
establishment of adequate public health services was originally
provided for in title VI of the Social Security Act (1935).
When the Public Health Service Act was enacted in 1944, sec-
tion 314 (c) placed a $20 million ceiling on annual appropriations
for general public health formula grants to the States. This annual
appropriation ceiling was raised to $30 million in 1946 by the
National Mental Health Act in order to provide a legislative basis
-------
1358 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
for making' grants to assist States in establishing' and maintaining
community mental health services.
Grants to States under section 314 (c) are allotted among the 50
States, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the District of Columbia,
and Guam on the basis of the population, per capita income, and
extent of the general health (and mental health) problem in these
jurisdictions. States become eligible to receive payments from
their allotments when they have submitted and had approved by
the Surgeon General a State plan describing the uses they propose
to make of the funds.
States are required to match the Federal grants with expendi-
ture of State or local funds for the same general purpose as the
Federal grant. The Surgeon General is authorized to establish the
matching ratios by regulation. Prior to fiscal year 1960 these
matching ratios were a minimum of $1 State and local funds to $2
of Federal grants. In 1960 the matching ratios for the existing
programs were raised to a dollar-f or-dollar basis.
[p. 4]
Increased appropriations authorized for demonstrations, training
of State and local public health personnel, and detailing of
U.S. Public Health personnel to assist States
Subsection (b) of section 2 of the reported bill increases from
$3 million to $5 million the current ceiling upon the amounts
authorized to be allocated, from appropriations otherwise author-
ized, to provide demonstrations and to train personnel for State
and local health work and to meet the cost of pay, allowances, and
traveling expenses of commissioned officers and other personnel of
the Public Health Service detailed to assist States in carrying out
the program authorized under such subsection. The introduced bill
would have eliminated the ceiling upon such amounts entirely.
Increased appropriations authorized for schools of public health
Subsection (b) also provides an increase from $1 million to
$2,500,000 in the current ceiling upon the amounts authorized to
be utilized, out of appropriations made pursuant to such section
314(c), for grants-in-aid for provision in public or nonprofit
schools of public health of comprehensive professional training,
specialized consultive services, and technical assistance in the
fields of public health, with primary consideration being given to
the number of federally sponsored students attending each such
school. The introduced bill would have left the current ceiling of
$1 million annually intact.
Subsection (c) of section 2 of the reported bill authorizes the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1359
earmarking in appropriation acts of grant funds for particular
services and activities, and for applying to allotments and pay-
ments made from such earmarked funds the matching provisions
of section 314 (h) of the act.
Subsection (d) of section 2 of the reported bill adds a new
subsection (m) to section 314 of the Public Health Service Act,
which will provide that the Surgeon General, at the request of a
State health authority, may reduce payments to the State by the
cost of Public Health Service personnel detailed to the State at the
request of the State to assist in carrying out the State plan.
Public Health Service personnel would be detailed to a State or
political subdivision of a State under this provision only at the
request of and for the convenience of the State to assist in carry-
ing out its approved State plan. In such circumstances, deduction
of the cost of such a detail would be desirable in order to preserve
the equity of fund allocation among the States and to avoid added
cost to the Federal Government.
Opportunity to make Federal personnel available on loan to
States without added cost would facilitate State and local program
development in those areas where problems of early recruitment
of professional personnel might otherwise slow down or limit pro-
gram development. This subsection would require States to include
the costs of the detailed personnel in determining the amount of
required State matching.
[p. 5]
PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT
TITLE III—GENERAL POWERS AND DUTIES OF PUBLIC
HEALTH SERVICE
PART A—RESEARCH AND INVESTIGATIONS
*******
PART B—FEDERAL-STATE COOPERATION
*******
GRANTS AND SERVICES TO STATES
SEC. 314. (a) * * *
*******
(c) To enable the Surgeon General to assist, through grants and
as otherwise provided in this section, States, counties, health dis-
tricts, and other political subdivisions of the States in establishing
-------
1360 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
and maintaining adequate public health services, including grants
for demonstrations and for training of personnel for State and
local health work, [there is hereby authorized to be appropriated
for each fiscal year a sum not to exceed $30,000,000] there is
authorized to be appropriated for each of the first five fiscal years
beginning after June 30, 1961, the sum of $50,000,000 for each
such fiscal year. When so provided in any Act appropriating funds
for carrying out the purposes of this subsection for any year, such
amounts as may be specified in such Act shall be available only for
allotments and payments for such services and activities included
[p. 28]
under this subsection as may be provided in such Act; and in such
case the requirements of subsection (h) shall be separately ap-
plied to such allotments and payments. Of the sum appropriated
for each fiscal year pursuant to this subsection, there shall be
available (1) an amount, not to exceed [$3,000,000] $5,000,000
to enable the Surgeon General to provide demonstrations and to
train personnel for State and local health work and to meet the
cost of pay, allowances, and traveling expenses of commissioned
officers and other personnel of the Service detailed to assist States
in carrying out the purposes of this subsection, and (2) an
amount not to exceed [$1,000,000] $2,500,000 to enable the Sur-
geon General to make grants-in-aid under such terms and condi-
tions as may be prescribed by regulations, for provision in public
or nonprofit schools of public health accredited by a body or bodies
recognized by the Surgeon General, of comprehensive professional
training, specialized consultive services, and technical assistance
in the fields of public health and in the administration of State
and local public health programs, except that in allocating funds
made available under this clause (2) among such schools of public
health the Surgeon General shall give primary consideration to the
number of federally sponsored students attending each such
school.
^* ^ *H H* $£ *t* ^
(m) The Surgeon General, at the request of the State health
authority, may reduce the payments to a State under this section
by the amount of the pay, allowances, traveling expenses, and any
other costs in connection with the detail of an officer or employee
of the Public Health Service to the State or any of its political
subdivisions when such detail is made for the convenience of and
at the request of the State and for purposes of carrying out its
State plan approved under this section. The amount by which such
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1361
payments are so reduced shall be available for payment of such
costs by the Surgeon General, but shall, for purposes of subsection
(h), be deemed to have been paid to the State agency.
*******
[p. 29]
1.12q (2) SENATE COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND
PUBLIC WELFARE
S. REP. No. 845, 87th Cong., 1st Sess. (1961)
COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES AND FACILITIES ACT
OF 1961
AUGUST 31, 1961.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. HILL, from the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, sub-
mitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 4998]
The Committee on Labor and Public Welfare to whom was
referred the bill (H.R. 4998) to assist in expanding and improv-
ing community facilities and services for the health care of the
aged and other persons, and for other purposes, having considered
the same, report favorably thereon with amendments and recom-
mend that the bill, as amended, do pass.
THE PROBLEM
Advances in medicine have extended our lifespan to a record
high. Life expectancy at birth, on the average, was 69.7 years in
1959 as compared to 62.9 years in 1940.
This lengthening of the lifespan is creating an ever-increasing
population, both numerically and as a proportion of the total, of
older persons. There are now nearly 17 million persons 65 years of
age and over, and this number will increase to 20 million by 1970.
More than half of the 17 million persons 65 years of age and
older, excluding those in institutions, have some kind of chronic
health problem that interferes with their daily living, according to
data collected by the National Health Survey of the Public Health
-------
1362 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
Service. The survey also shows that chronic illness is not peculiar
to the elderly. It also affects the middle-aged, young adults, and
children as well.
Public health personnel and others in the field of health are
faced with the problem of most effectively and most economically
ministering to the health needs of those afflicted with chronic
illness. They point out that we are not making good use of our
scarce health resources when individuals in general hospitals could
be adequately cared for in nursing homes and when individuals in
nursing homes could be adequately cared for in their own homes.
[p. 1]
The rising cost of medical care intensifies the problem. The
Consumer Price Index of the Department of Labor shows that
medical care costs have risen higher than any other category of
expenses. The index of all items in the Consumer Price Index in
1960 was 126.5 (1947-49=100) as compared to 156.2 for all medi-
cal care items and 223.3 for hospital room rates.
The relatively few communities, hospitals, and agencies that
have undertaken the development of coordinated programs of out-
of-hospital health services have demonstrated that such services
are clearly in the best interests of the patient's health and eco-
nomic welfare.
BACKGROUND
On February 9, 1961, President Kennedy submitted a special
health message to the Congress and emphasized the present short-
age of 500,000 beds in long-term facilities for people who are sick
but do not require the more expensive services of a general hospi-
tal. The President urged an increase in the construction of beds in
nursing homes and chronic disease hospitals and said:
. . . Increasing the number of nursing-home beds will not
alone remedy the deficiency in care. Good operation, good
service, and proper safety are essential. Nor do all the aged
sick and chronically ill need to be cared for in hospitals or
nursing homes. At some stages in their illness many people
can fare better in their own homes if proper care is available.
But most communities do not have home health services.
Even limited home-nursing services are available in less than
1,000 U.S. communities.
I am therefore proposing stimulatory grants to the States,
and through them to communities, to improve the quality of
services in nursing homes—to develop organized community
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1363
home-care health services for the aged and chronically ill—to
develop health service information and referral centers—to
train additional personnel required for out-of-hospital health
services—and to assist in meeting the cost of studies and
demonstrations of new and improved means of providing
out-of-hospital care.. . .
On February 24, 1961, President Kennedy made his recommen-
dations for expanding and improving community health services
and facilities for the health care of the aged and other persons.
The President's recommendations were introduced in the Senate
as S. 1071, the companion measure in the House of Representa-
tives, H.R. 4998, was passed on July 25,1961, with amendments.
OBJECTIVES
Three major objectives to be achieved through the provisions of
H.R. 4998 as reported by this committee are—
(1) An increase in the availability, scope, and quality of com-
munity health services and facilities to assist in meeting the
health needs of the chronically ill and aged;
(2) An increase and expansion in research to more effectively
develop and utilize hospitals and other medical care facilities;
(3) The continuation of grants to assist in the construction of
health research facilities.
[p. 2]
In order to attain these objectives, the bill would—
First, increase from $30 million to $50 million, for each of the
next 5 years, the appropriation authorization for matching
grants-in-aid to States to assist them in expanding their public
health services for the chronically ill and aged.
Second, authorize for a period of 5 years, a new program of up
to $10 million annually of special project grants to public and
nonprofit organizations for studies, experiments, and demonstra-
tions of new or improved methods of providing health services
outside hospitals, primarily for chronically ill or aged persons.
Third, for a period of 3 years increase from $10 million to $20
million the annual appropriation authorization for grants-in-aid to
States for the construction of public and other nonprofit nursing
homes under the Hill-Burton program.
Fourth, liberalize the eligibility criteria of rehabilitation centers
for construction assistance under the Hill-Burton program, by
requiring that rehabilitation centers, to qualify for Federal assist-
-------
1364 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
ance, need to provide for medical services and either psychological,
social, or vocational services. Under existing law, all four categor-
ies of these services must be provided.
Fifth, amend the Hill-Burton Act to extend the authorization
for loans for construction of hospitals and other medical facilities
until June 30, 1964.
Sixth, increase the annual appropriation ceiling for hospital
research grants from $1,200,000 to $10 million, extend the pro-
gram to medical facilities other than hospitals, and authorize ap-
propriations for grants for the construction and equipping of ex-
perimental or demonstration hospitals and other medical facilities.
Seventh, amend the authority of the Surgeon General of the
Public Health Service to make nonmatching grants for the con-
struction of health research facilities by restricting such grants to
projects of regional or national significance.
Eighth, extend for an additional 3 years, until June 30, 1965,
the matching grant program for the construction of health re-
search facilities. The authorization would be increased from $30
million per year to $50 million per year.
[p. 3]
EXPLANATION OP THE BILL AS REPORTED BY THE COMMITTEE ON
LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE
The bill (H.R. 4998) as approved by the Committee on Labor
and Public Welfare would add only one new program in the Public
Health Service, but would continue or expand, for specified time
periods, several grant-in-aid programs that are presently author-
ized. Each program is discussed separately below with reference
to amendments approved by the Committee on Labor and Public
Welfare.
Section 1
This section provides that the short title of the act shall be the
"Community Health Services and Facilities Act of 1961."
Section 2
Subsection 314 (c) of the Public Health Service Act presently
provides for an annual appropriation authorization of $30 million
for matching grants and services to States and their political
subdivisions to establish and maintain adequate public health serv-
ices. Each of $1 of Federal formula grants awarded under this
authority must currently be matched by $1 of non-Federal funds,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1365
but is, in fact, matched by $14 of non-Federal funds to provide for
public health activities, primarily in the field of preventive medi-
cine.
H.R. 4998 would increase the authorization for appropriations
under this subsection from $30 million to $50 million for each of
the next 5 years to provide for additional matching grants to
States to assist them in developing public health programs aimed
against chronic illness. The requirement for matching funds would
be determined through regulation.
These funds would be used by the States and communities to
develop and enforce more effective health and safety standards for
the operation of nursing homes; to upgrade the scope and quality
of health services in nursing homes through technical assistance to
nursing home operators in such areas as nursing, rehabilitation,
and nutrition services, and through training programs to improve
the skills of nursing home personnel; and to establish and expand
community home health care programs, including home nursing
services, homemaker services, and other types of preventive, early
diagnostic, and health care services which can be provided to
patients in their own homes.
In addition, funds appropriated under the overall authorization
of $50 million would finance (a) the necessary costs of certain
direct PHS operations—demonstrations, training, and the detail
of PHS personnel—and (b) grants to schools of public health to a
maximum level of $2.5 million per year.
Direct PHS operations.—H.R. 4998 as passed by the House of
Representatives would establish a subceiling of $5 million per year
on appropriations for the costs of the demonstrations, training
[p. 4]
and detail of PHS personnel under the authority of section 314 (c)
of the Public Health Service Act. The administration, however,
recommended an open-end authorization on appropriations for
these purposes as provided for in H.R. 4998 and S. 1071, as intro-
duced.
To provide for the flexibility that has been requested by the
administration, this committee has deleted the subceiling of $5
million approved by the House of Representatives for the demon-
strations, training and detail of PHS personnel authorized by
section 314(c). Funds for these activities, however, will continue
to be provided for within the limits of the overall appropriation
authorization of $50 million per year in section 314(c).
Schools of public health.—H.R. 4998, as passed by the House of
-------
1366 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
Representatives, would increase, from $1 million to $2.5 million,
the amount which may be used each year out of appropriations
under section 314 (c) for grants-in-aid for provision in public or
nonprofit schools of public health of comprehensive professional
training, specialized consultation services, and technical assistance
in the field of public health.
The committee has been impressed with the urgency of need for
expanding the public health training program in the 12 schools of
public health that serve our 50 States to meet increased needs for
training professional personnel to staff the community health
services and facilities which would be established or expanded
under the other provisions of the bill. The increase in annual
authorization of funds to these schools will enable them to provide
more adequately for these training needs and reduce the annual
deficits incurred by these schools in providing training in public
health to federally sponsored students.
Special project grants.—The bill would add a new section, 316,
to the Public Health Service Act which would authorize grants to
States or other public or nonprofit agencies for studies, experi-
ments, and demonstrations looking toward the development of new
or improved methods of providing health services outside the hos-
pital, particularly for chronically ill or aged persons. The new
section authorizes appropriations of $10 million for each of the
first 5 fiscal years beginning after June 30, 1961. The bill as
introduced would have provided no appropriation ceiling or time
limitation on the program. The committee feels, however, that the
Congress should periodically review the progress of the program
and the adequacy of the legislation in meeting program needs. The
committee also concurs in the House amendment which provides
that nothing in the act shall preclude a State or local government
from collecting fees for personal health services provided under
this section when authorized by State or local law.
[p. 5]
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
Section 1
This section provides that the short title of the act shall be the
"Community Health Services and Facilities Act of 1961".
Section 2
Subsection (a) would amend section 314 (c) of the PHS Act to
increase the overall authorization for appropriations from $30
million to $50 million per year in each of the next 5 years so as to
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1367
authorize additional funds for assisting the States through match-
ing grants and otherwise, in establishing and maintaining public
health services for the aged and chronically ill and for other per-
sons.
Subsection (b) would further amend section 314 (c) to provide
that the overall authorization of $50 million would include (1)
such amount as may be necessary for demonstrations, training,
and the detail of PHS personnel, and (2) not to exceed $2.5
million for grants to schools of public health.
Subsection (c) would authorize the earmarking in appropria-
tion acts of appropriations for matching grants for assisting the
States in supplying specified public health services for the aged
and chronically ill. Matching requirements would be determined
through regulations and separately applied.
[p. 9]
Subsection (d) would authorize the Surgeon General, at the
request of the appropriate State agency, to reduce payments under
section 314 to a State by the amount of the costs of detailing PHS
personnel to such State.
Subsection (e) would add a section 316 to the PHS Act to
authorize for a period of 5 years a new program of up to $10
million annually of special project grants to States, local commun-
ities, and nonprofit organizations for studies, experiments, and
demonstrations of new or improved methods of providing health
services outside hospitals, particularly for the chronically ill or
aged persons. This section also provides that nothing in the Public
Health Service Act shall preclude a State or local government
from collecting fees for personal health services provided under
this section.
[p. 10]
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
In compliance with subsection (4) of the rule XXIX of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by the
bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to
be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in
italic, existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in
roman):
-------
1368 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT, AS AMENDED
TITLE III—GENERAL POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE PUB-
LIC HEALTH SERVICE
PART B—FEDERAL-STATE COOPERATION
Grants and Services to States (42 U.S.C. 246)
SEC. 314. (a) (Venereal Diseases)
(b) (Tuberculosis)
(c) To enable the Surgeon General to assist, through grants
and as otherwise provided in this section, States, counties, health
districts, and other political subdivisions of the States in estab-
lishing and maintaining adequate public health services, in-
cluding grants for demonstrations and for training of personnel
for State and local health work [there is hereby authorized to be
appropriated for each fiscal year a sum not to exceed $30,000,000]
there is hereby authorized to be appropriated for each of the first
five fiscal years ending after June 30, 1961, the sum of
$50,000 flOO. When so provided in any Act appropriating funds for
carrying out the purposes of this subsection for any year, such
amounts as may be specified in such Act shall be available only for
allotments and payments for such services and activities included
under this subsection as may be provided in such Act; and in such
case the requirements of subsection (h) shall be separately applied
to such allotments and payments. Of the sum appropriated for
each fiscal year pursuant to this subsection there shall be available
(1) [an amount, not to exceed $3,000,000] such amount as may be
necessary to enable the Surgeon General to provide demonstrations
and to train personnel for State and local health work and to meet
the cost of pay, allowances, and traveling expenses of commis-
sioned officers and other personnel of the Service detailed to assist
States in carrying out the purposes of this subsection, and (2) an
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1369
amount not to exceed [$1,000,000] $2,500,000 to enable the Sur-
geon General to make grants-in-aid, under such terms and condi-
[p. 13]
tions as may be prescribed by regulations, for provision in public
or nonprofit schools of public health accredited by a body or bodies
recognized by the Surgeon General, of comprehensive professional
training, specialized consultive services, and technical assistance
in the fields of public and in the administration of State and local
public health programs, except that in allocating funds made
available under this clause (2) among such schools of public health
the Surgeon General shall give primary consideration to the num-
ber of federally sponsored students attending each such school.
(d) For each fiscal year, the Surgeon General, with the ap-
proval of the Administrator, shall determine the total sum from
the appropriation under subsection (a), the total sum from the
appropriation under subsection (b), and, within the limits speci-
fied in subsection (c), the total sum from the appropriation under
that subsection which shall be available for allotment among the
several States. He shall, in accordance with regulations, from time
to time make allotments from such sums to the several States on
the basis of (1) the population, (2) the extent of the venereal-
disease problem, the extent of the tuberculosis problem, and the
extent of the mental health problem and other special health prob-
lems, respectively, and (3) the financial need of the respective
States. Upon making such allotments the Surgeon General shall
notify the Secretary of the Treasury of the amounts thereof.
(m) The Surgeon General, at the request of the State health
authority or, where appropriate, the State mental health author-
ity, may reduce the payments to a State under this section by the
amount of the pay, allowances, traveling expenses, and any other
costs in connection with the detail of an officer or employee of the
Public Health Service to the State or any of its political subdivi-
sions when such detail is made for the convenience of and at the
request of the State and for purposes of carrying out its State plan
approved under this section. The amount by which such payments
are so reduced shall be available for payment of such costs by the
Surgeon General, but shall, for purposes of subsection (h), be
deemed to have been paid to the State.
*******
[p. 14]
-------
1370 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
1.12q (3) COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE
H.R. REP. No. 1209, 87th Cong., 1st Sess. (1961)
COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES AND FACILITIES ACT
OF 1961
SEPTEMBER 18, 1961.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. HARRIS, from the committee of conference, submitted the fol-
lowing
CONFERENCE REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 4998]
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two
Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 4998) to
assist in expanding and improving community facilities and serv-
ices for the health care of aged and other persons, and for other
purposes, having met, after full and free conference, have agreed
to recommend and do recommend to their respective Houses as
follows:
That the Senate recede from its amendments numbered 15 and
19.
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amend-
ments of the Senate numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 16,
18, 20, and 21, and agree to the same.
Amendment numbered 11 :
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment
of the Senate numbered 11, and agree to the same with an amend-
ment as follows:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate
amendment insert the following: There is hereby authorized to be
appropriated not to exceed $10,000,000 for any fiscal year to carry
out the provisions of this section.
And the Senate agree to the same.
Amendment numbered 14 :
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment
of the Senate numbered 14, and agree to the same with an amend-
ment as follows:
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1371
In lieu of the matter proposed to be stricken out by the Senate
amendment insert the following :
SEC. 7. Effective July 1, 1962, the parenthetical phrase in the
first sentence of section 433 (a) of such Act which reads " (includ-
ing grants-in-aid for drawing plans, erection of buildings, and
acquisition of land therefor) " is repealed.
And the Senate agree to the same.
Amendment numbered 17 :
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment
of the Senate numbered 17, and agree to the same with an amend-
ment as follows :
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate
amendment insert the following: "six", and by striking out
"$30,000,000" and inserting "$50,000,000".
And the Senate agree to the same.
OREN HARRIS,
KENNETH A. ROBERTS,
GEORGE M. RHODES,
LEO W. O'BRIEN,
JOHN B. BENNETT,
PAUL F. SCHENCK,
ANCHER NELSEN,
Managers on the Part of the House.
LISTER HILL,
RALPH W. YARBOROUGH,
HARRISON WILLIAMS,
CLAIBORNE PELL,
JACOB JAVITS,
CLIFFORD P. CASE,
Managers on the Part of the Senate.
[P. 2]
STATEMENT OF THE MANAGERS ON THE PART OF THE HOUSE
The Managers on the part of the House at the conference on the
disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the
Senate to the bill (H.R. 4998) to assist in expanding and improv-
ing community facilities and services for the health care of aged
and other persons and for other purposes, submit the following
statement in explanation of the effect of the action agreed upon by
the conferees and recommended in the accompanying conference
report :
-------
1372 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
Amendment No. 1: This is a technical amendment. The House
recedes.
Amendments Nos. 2 and 3: These amendments eliminate the
subceiling, of $5 million per year, contained in the House bill, on
the amount available under clause (1) of subsection (c) of section
314 of the Public Health Service Act for demonstrations and to
train personnel for State and local health work and to meet the
cost of pay, allowances, and traveling expenses of personnel of the
Public Health Service. There is an overall ceiling1 of $50 million
per year on the amount that may be appropriated to carry out the
provisions of subsection (c) of such section 314. The House re-
cedes.
Amendment No. 4: This amendment would allow a State mental
health authority, where appropriate, to request the Surgeon Gen-
eral to reduce payments to the State under section 314 of the
Public Health Service Act by the amount of pay, allowances, trav-
eling expenses, and other expenses in connection with the detail of
personnel of the Public Health Service to the State or any of its
political subdivisions when such detail is made for the convenience
of and at the request of the State and for purposes of carrying out
its State plan approved under such section 314. This would give
each State mental health authority, in appropriate circumstances,
the same authority as is given to State health authorities under
the bill. The House recedes.
Amendments Nos. 5, 6, and 7: These are technical amendments.
The House recedes.
Amendments Nos. 8 and 9: These amendments make discretion-
ary, rather than mandatory as in the House bill, the inclusion, as a
part of a grant for any fiscal year under section 316 (which would
be added to the Public Health Service Act by the bill) or an award
for any fiscal year under section 636 of the act, of amounts deter-
mined to be necessary for succeeding fiscal years for completion of
the Federal participation in the project with respect to which such
a grant or award is made. Section 316 covers special project
grants for improving community health services, and section 636,
which is amended by the bill, provides for projects for the conduct
of research, experiments, or demonstrations relating to the devel-
opment, utilization, and coordination of services, facilities, and
resources of hospitals or other medical facilities, agencies, or insti-
tutions. The House recedes.
Amendment No. 10: This amendment spells out that the Federal
award under section 636 of the Public Health Service Act for
[p. 3]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1373
projects for construction of facilities or acquisition of equipment
will be based on so much of the cost of the facility or equipment as
the Surgeon General determines is reasonably attributable to ex-
perimental or demonstration purposes. The House recedes.
Amendment No. 11: This amendment limits to $10 million the
amount authorized to be appropriated in any fiscal year for proj-
ects under section 636 of the Public Health Service Act. These
projects relate to development, utilization, and coordination of
services, facilities, and resources of hospitals or other medical
facilities, agencies, or institutions. The House bill contained no
such limitation. The House recedes with a clarifying amendment.
Amendment No. 12: The Senate amendment revised the defini-
tion of "rehabilitation facility" to provide that such term means a
facility operated for rehabilitation of disabled persons through a
program of medical evaluation and services, and at least one of the
following programs: Psychological, social, or vocational evaluation
and services. The House bill contained no such provisions. Exist-
ing law requires that such a facility provide all four of such
programs. Since rehabilitation services can make a significant con-
tribution to a coordinated program of out-of-hospital medical serv-
ices, the House recedes.
Amendment No. 13: Section 6 of the Senate bill extended the
authority to make loans to eligible applicants under the Hill-Bur-
ton program, due to expire on July 1, 1962, to July 1, 1964. The
House bill contained no comparable provision.
In order that this authority may coincide with that of the Hill-
Burton grant program, the House recedes.
Amendments Nos. 14 and 15: Section 4(d) of the House bill
amended section 433 (a) of the Public Health Service Act, effective
as of July 1, 1963, by deleting language authorizing appropria-
tions for grants-in-aid for drawing plans, erection of buildings,
and acquisition of land therefor in connection with institutes es-
tablished for research relating to diseases. Senate amendments
Nos. 14 and 15 would have deleted the House-passed language, and
amended such section 433 (a), effective as of the date of enactment
of the bill, by limiting the authority to make such grants-in-aid to
grants made only when in the judgment of the Surgeon General
such action is necessary to provide for regional or national re-
search needs.
The House recedes with an amendment which provides that the
repeal of this parenthetical phrase shall take effect as of July 1,
1962. It is the expectation of the committee of conference that this
subject will be fully explored at an early date.
-------
1374 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
Amendments Nos. 16, 17, 18, and 19: Section 4 (e) of the House
bill amended section 704 of the Public Health Service Act to ex-
tend until June 30, 1963, the authoiity to make grants-in-aid, not
to exceed $30 million in any fiscal year, for the construction of
facilities for research in the sciences related to health.
Section 4 (f) of the House bill made a conforming amendment to
section 705 (a) of the Public Health Service Act.
Senate amendments Nos. 16, 17, 18, and 19 would, with techni-
cal and conforming changes, have extended such authority to June
30, 1965, and would have increased the amounts authorized to be
appropriated for such grants-in-aid to $50 million for each fiscal
year.
[p. 4]
The House recedes with an amendment under which the 1-year
extension of the program proposed in the House bill is retained,
and the Senate increase to $50 million for any fiscal year is
retained.
Amendments Nos. 20 and 21: Sections 8(c) and 8(d) of the bill
as amended by the Senate would have amended the appropriate
sections of title VII of the Public Health Service Act, as amended,
to amend the matching program for the construction of health
research facilities to make it clear that the facilities for which
grants may be made include facilities for research training and
other purposes related to research. The House bill contained no
comparable provision. This change makes it clear that the facili-
ties for which grants may be made under the matching program
include facilities for research training and other purposes related
to research. In view of the early expiration date for the entire
program provided by the conference action on amendment num-
bered 17, it is expected that the entire subject will be further
explored at an early date. The House recedes.
OREN HARRIS,
KENNETH A. ROBERTS,
GEORGE M. RHODES,
LEO W. O'BRIEN,
JOHN B. BENNETT,
PAUL F. SCHENCK,
ANCHER NELSEN,
Managers on the Part of the House.
[P. 5]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1375
1.12q(4) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 107 (1961)
1.12q(4)(a) July 25: Amended and passed House, pp. 13402,
13414, 13415
COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES AND
FACILITIES ACT OP 1961
Mr. TRIMBLE. Mr. Speaker, by
direction of the Committee on Rules
I call up House Resolution 375 and
ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as
follows:
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this
resolution it shall be in order to move that
the House resolved itself into the Commit-
tee of the Whole House on the State of the
Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 4998) to assist in expanding and im-
proving community facilities and services
for the health care of aged and other per-
sons, and for other purposes. After general
debate, which shall be confined to the bill, and
shall continue not to exceed two hours, to be
equally divided and controlled by the chair-
man and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Interstate and Foreign Com-
merce, the bill shall be read for amendment
under the five-minute rule. At the conclusion
of the consideration of the bill for amend-
ment, the Committee shall rise and report the
bill to the House with such amendments as
may have been adopted, and the previous
question shall he considered as ordered on the
bill and amendments thereto to final passage
without intervening motion except one motion
to recommit.
Mr. TRIMBLE. Mr. Speaker, I
^ield myself such time as I may con-
sume, after which I yield 30 minutes
to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr.
BROWN] .
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 375
provides for the consideration of H.R.
4998, a bill to assist in expanding and
improving community facilities and
services for the health care of aged
and other persons, and for other pur-
poses. The resolution provides for an
open rule with 2 hours of general
debate.
The overall purpose of H.R. 4998 is
to expand certain existing Federal
grant-in-aid programs and to initiate
one new program with a view to
stimulating States, local communities,
and private nonprofit organizations to
provide new or improved community
health facilities and health services
for the care of chronically ill or aged
persons.
First, the legislation would increase
from $30 to $50 million annually the
limit on Federal expenditures for
grants-in-aid to the States which are
designed to assist States and local
communities in providing adequate
public health services, and it would
authorize this program for a period
of 5 years.
Second, the legislation would in-
crease approximately in proportion
the subceilings on funds which are
especially earmarked within the afore-
mentioned grant-in-aid program (a)
for demonstrations, training of State
and local public health personnel, and
the detailing of U.S. Public Health
personnel to assist States, and (b)
for grants to accredited public and
nonprofit schools of public health.
Third, the legislation would author-
ize for a period of 5 years a new pro-
gram of up to $10 million annually of
special project grants to States, local
communities, and nonprofit organiza-
tions for studies, experiments, and
demonstrations of new or improved
methods of providing health services
outside hospitals, particularly for
chronically ill or aged persons.
Fourth, the legislation would for a
period of 3 years increase from $10
million to $20 million the limit on ex-
penditures for Federal grants-in-aid
to the States for the construction of
nursing homes under the Hill-Burton
Act.
Fifth, the legislation would elimi-
-------
1376
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
nate from the provisions of the Hill-
Burton Act the present ceiling of $1.2
million on expenditures for research
and demonstrations relating to the
effective utilization of hospital serv-
ices, and would authorize the utiliza-
tion of these funds to provide match-
ing grants for the construction of
experimental hospitals and other
medical facilities; and
Sixth, the legislation would repeal a
provision of the Public Health Service
Act authorizing, without any match-
ing requirement, outright grants for
the construction of health research
facilities. Thus, only matching grants
could be made under the act for the
construction of such facilities.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of
House Resolution 375.
[p. 13402]
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will
read the bill for amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House
of Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled. That this
Act may be cited as the "Community Health
Services and Facilities Act of 1961".
CHANTS FOR PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES
SEC. 2. (a.) Section 314(c) of the Public
Health Service Act is amended by striking out
"there is hereby authorized to be appropriated
for each fiscal year a sum not to exceed
$30,000,000" and inserting in lieu thereof
"there are hereby authorized to be appro-
priated for each fiscal year such sums as
the Congress may determine".
(b) Clause (1) of the second sentence of
such subsection is amended by striking out
"an amount, not to exceed $3,000,000, to
enable the Surgeon General" and inserting
in lieu thereof "such amount as may be
necessary to enable the Surgeon General".
(c) Such subsection is further amended
by inserting after the first sentence the
following new sentence: "When so provided
in any Act appropriating funds for carry-
ing out the purposes of this subsection for
any year, such amounts as may be specified
in such Act shall be available only for al-
lotments and payments for such services
and activities included under this subsec-
tion as may be provided in such Act; and
in such case the requirements of subsection
(h) shall be separately applied to such al-
lotments and payments."
(d) Section 314 of such Act is further
amended by adding at the end thereof the
following new subsection:
"(m) The Surgeon General, at the request
of the State health authority, may reduce to
payments to a State under this section by the
amount of the pay, allowances, traveling ex-
penses, and any other costs in connection with
the detail of an officer or employee of the Pub-
lic Health Service to the State or any of its
political subdivisions when such detail is made
for the convenience of and at the request of
the State and for purposes of carrying out its
State plan approved under this section. The
amount by which such payments are so re-
duced shall be available for payment of such
costs by the Surgeon General, but shall, for
purposes of subsection (h), be deemed to have
been paid to the State agency."
Mr. HARRIS (interrupting the
reading of the bill). Mr. Chairman, I
ask unanimous consent that the fur-
ther reading of the bill be dispensed
with, and that the bill be printed at
this point in the RECORD, and be open
to amendment at any point.
[p. 13414]
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Arkansas?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will
report the committee amendments.
The Clerk read as follows: On page
1, strike out line 6 and all that fol-
lows down through line 7 on page 2,
and insert in lieu thereof the follow-
ing:
"SEC. 2. (a) Subsection (c) of section 314
of the Public Health Service Act is amended
by striking out 'there is hereby authorized to
be appropriated for each fiscal year a sum not
to exceed $30,000,000' and inserting in lieu
thereof 'there is authorized to be appropriated
for each of the first five fiscal years ending
after June 30, 1961, the sum of $50,000,000 for
each such fiscal year'.
"(b) The second sentence of such subsection
is amended (1) by striking out '$3,000,000'
and inserting in lieu thereof '$5,000,000', and
(2) by striking out '$1,000,000' and inserting
in lieu thereof '$2,500,000'."
On page 3, beginning in line 23, strike out
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1377
"There are hereby authorized to be appropri-
ated for each fiscal year, beginning with the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1962, such sums as
the Congress may determine" and insert in
lieu thereof the following: "There are hereby
authorized to be appropriated for each of the
first five fiscal years ending after June 30,
1961, the sum of $10,000,000 for each such
fiscal year."
On page 4, line 15, strike out "or" and in-
sert "of".
On page 4, line 18 after "section.", add the
following: "Nothing in this Act shall preclude
a State or community from establishing and
collecting fees for personal health services
which may be provided through programs fi-
nanced from funds under ttiis section when
collection of such feeB is authorized or required
by State or local law."
On page 5, line 16, strike out *'4" and in-
sert "3".
On page 6, line 6, strike out "6" and insert
"4".
On page 8, beginning in line 6, strike out
"(unless the Surgeon General determines that
there is good cause for releasing the applicant
or other owner from the obligation to do so)".
The committee amendments were
agreed to.
[p. 13415]
1.12q(4)(b) Sept. 1: Amended and passed Senate, p. 17947
Mr. HILL. Mr. President, H.R.
4998, the proposed Community Health
Services and Facilities Act of 1961,
was unanimously reported by the
Committee on Labor and Public Wel-
fare. Its passage would greatly assist
in expanding and improving com-
munity facilities and services for the
health care of the aged and the chron-
ically ill outside of hospitals.
The bill would continue or expand
several existing grant-in-aid programs
for specified time periods, and would
create one new program in the Public
Health Service.
The major objectives of the bill are
as follows:
First, to increase from $30 million
to $50 million, for the next 5 years,
the annual authorization for grants
and services to States, to assist them
in developing public health programs
to provide out-of-hospital health serv-
ices to the aged and chronically ill;
*****
Mr. MANSFIELD. I understand
that the bill makes available $10 mil-
lion for grants-in-aid for the con-
struction of research or experimental
projects relating to improving hos-
pital design and function in order to
provide better patient care and more
economical hospital operation.
I will ask the chairman of the Com-
mittee on Labor and Public Welfare,
who is handling this bill, and whose
lifelong interest in the health of the
Nation is well known. What types of
projects does the committee contem-
plate would qualify for such grants?
Mr. HILL. Since very little con-
trolled research has been done to
determine how the structural design
of a hospital facility may be related to
improve patient care, more efficient
utilization of personnel and the con-
sequent reduction of the cost of care
to the patient, the Surgeon General
is directed by the bill to carefully
evaluate the intended results of any
project requesting construction funds
in order to determine whether the
project proposed is in fact for con-
trolled scientific research, experiment,
or demonstration. That is, the quali-
fying project must demonstrate its
scientific nature, and the Surgeon
General may determine its qualifica-
tion by reference to such things as
the proposed plans of design, the ex-
tent and results of any preliminary
research, pilot test projects, profes-
sional reports, analyses, or recom-
mendations. Matching funds could
then be made available to assist in the
construction of a total hospital facil-
ity or to assist in the construction of
a part or parts of hospitals for the
-------
1378
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
purposes of studying1 one or more
specific areas.
Mr. MANSFIELD. I thank the
distinguished chairman of the com-
mittee for the detailed answer he has
given to the question.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the com-
mittee amendments.
Mr. HILL. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the committee
amendments be considered en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, the committee amend-
ments will be considered en bloc.
The question is on agreeing to the
committee amendments en bloc.
The committee amendments were
agreed to en bloc.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, my
understanding is that there was no
controversy over the bill.
Mr. HILL. The Senator is correct.
The bill was unanimously reported by
the Committee on Labor and Public
Welfare.
Mr. DIRKSEN. That was once my
committee, the Senator will remem-
ber.
Mr. HILL. Yes. We were very
proud to have the Senator from Illi-
nois as a member of the committee,
and we regretted it very much when
he left.
Mr. DIRKSEN. I did not want to
leave.
Mr. HILL. We shall be glad to
have him back any time.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Circumstances
forced me to leave.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on the engrossment of the
amendments and the third reading of
the bill.
The amendments were ordered to be
engrossed and the bill to be read a
third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
bill having been read the third time,
the question is, Shall the bill pass?
The bill (H.R. 4998) was passed.
[p. 17947]
1.12q(4)(c) Sept. 18: Conference report agreed to in Senate, p.
19913
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
1.12q(4)(d) Sept. 20: Conference report agreed to in House, p.
20484
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
1.12r EXTENSION OF APPLICATION OF CERTAIN LAWS
TO AMERICAN SAMOA
September 25,1962, P.L. 87-688, § 4(a)(l), 76 Stat. 587
SEC. 4. (a) The Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 201 et
seq.) is amended as follows:
(1) in section 314 strike out subsection (1) and insert in
lieu thereof the following:
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1379
"(1) Except as otherwise provided in this subsection the provi-
sions of this section shall be applicable to Guam and American
Samoa in the same manner in which they apply to the States.
Amounts paid to Guam or American Samoa from its allotment
under subsection (a), (b), (c), or (e) of this section, together
with matching funds of Guam or American Samoa, respectively,
may, with the approval of the Surgeon General, be expended in
carrying out the purposes specified in any such subsection or
subsections other than the one under which the allotment was
made.";
*******
[p. 587]
1.12r (1) HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND
INSULAR AFFAIRS
H.R. REP. No. 1536, 87th Cong., 2d Sess. (1962)
EXTENDING THE APPLICATION OF CERTAIN LAWS TO
AMERICAN SAMOA
MARCH 28, 1962.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. O'BRIEN of New York, from the Committee on Interior and
Insular Affairs, submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 10062]
The Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, to whom was
referred the bill (H.R. 10062) to extend the application of certain
laws to American Samoa, having considered the same, report fa-
vorably thereon with amendment and recommend that the bill do
pass.
[p.l]
SEC. 3. In order to carry out the purposes of subsection (c) of section 1
of this Act—
*******
(d) Section 314 of the Public Health Service Act, as amended, is further
amended effective July 1, 1962, by inserting, in subsection (1) thereof, the
words "and American Samoa" after the word "Guam" in the first sentence
and the words "or American Samoa" after the word "Guam" in the second
sentence.
-------
1380 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
PURPOSE
The purpose of H.R. 10062, as amended, introduced by Repre-
sentative O'Brien of New York, is to make available to American
Samoa the technical assistance, as needed, of the various Federal
departments and agencies and to extend to American Samoa sev-
eral Federal assistance programs presently available in other parts
of the United States and its territories. Companion bills were in-
troduced by Representative Aspinall (H.R. 10049) and Representa-
tive Westland (H.R. 10071) and were considered concurrently
with the reported bill.
[P. 2]
Section 4 extends to American Samoa the provisions of section
314 of the Public Health Service Act. This section relates to
grants and services to States in the fields of venereal diseases,
tuberculosis, heart diseases, and adequate public health services.
The section by its original terms applied to the States, the District
of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. It was extended
to Guam by the act of August 1, 1956 (70 Stat. 910, 42 U.S.C.
2461). The present bill makes American Samoa and Guam subject
to the same rules. In general, the allotments to the States and
territories are based upon population, the extent of the health
problem, and the financial need of the State or territory. The State
or territory may be required to provide supplemental funds.
Section 4 also extends to American Samoa the provisions of the
Hospital Survey and Construction Act of 1946. The extension is in
the same terms that apply to Guam (act of Aug. 1, 1956, 70 Stat.
910, 42 U.S.C. 291i, 291g, 291t).
American Samoa is in need of an improved health program, and
is not able to finance it from local revenues. It should be entitled to*
participate in the general Federal program.
[P. 5]
p
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE,
Washington, February 8, 1962.
Hon. WAYNE N. ASPINALL,
Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, House of
Representatives, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN : This is in response to your request for a
report on H.R. 10049, H.R. 10062, and H.R. 10071, bills to extend
the application of certain laws to American Samoa.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1381
Under these bills, American Samoa would be given the benefits
of certain programs administered by the Department of Agricul-
ture and the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
The first section of the bills would authorize the Secretary of
Agriculture to provide American Samoa with scientific, technical,
and other assistance, including the establishment of any program
administered by that Department to meet the needs and promote
the welfare of American Samoa. Specifically, the national school
lunch program would be extended to American Samoa.
Other sections of the bills would specifically extend to American
Samoa (1) the benefits of the Vocational Education Act of 1946,
as amended; (2) participation in the benefits of the Library Serv-
ices Act; (3) the provisions of section 314 of the Public Health
Service Act, relating to grants and services for prevention, treat-
ment, and control of venereal disease, tuberculosis, heart disease,
and for the establishment and maintenance of adequate public
health services; and (4) hospital and medical facilities construc-
tion under the Hill-Burton program.
We strongly favor the objective of providing American Samoa
with needed assistance in health, education, and welfare in order
to improve the conditions of the people of American Samoa.
If your committee believes that this objective could best be
accomplished by legislation along the lines of the instant bills, we
prefer that, rather than making certain programs specifically ap-
plicable to American Samoa, the bills provide the Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare with flexibility in meeting the
needs of the people of American Samoa by vesting broad authority
in him to extend to American Samoa, upon the request of the
Governor of American Samoa, any needed program or service
administered by the Department, including grant-in-aid assist-
ance.
Also, the Secretary should be authorized to provide for any
modification of a program or service, including grant-in-aid assist-
ance, as he deems necessary in order to adapt it to the needs of
American Samoa. It would be essential to authorize the appropria-
tion of such sums as may be necessary to carry out these programs
in American Samoa which sums would be in addition to, and not
•in substitution for, sums appropriated or otherwise made available
to the Department.
[p. 7]
-------
1382 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
said section shall be less than $50,000, but for the purpose of this
proviso the term "State" shall not include the [Virgin Islands or
Guam] Virgin Islands, Guam, or American Samoa. * * *
PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT (58 STAT. 693) As AMENDED (42
U.S.C.246)
SEC. 314. (1) Except as otherwise provided in this subsection,
the provisions of this section shall be applicable to Guam and
American Samoa in the same manner in which they apply to the
States. Amounts paid to Guam or American Samoa from its allot-
ment under subsections (a), (b), (c), or (e) of this section,
together with matching funds of Guam or American Samoa, may,
with the approval of the Surgeon General, be expended in carry-
ing out the purposes specified in any such subsection or subsec-
tions other than the one under which the allotment was made.
[P. 12]
1.12r (2) SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND
INSULAR AFFAIRS
S. REP. No. 1478, 87th Cong., 2d Sess. (1962)
EXTENDING THE APPLICATION OF CERTAIN LAWS TO
AMERICAN SAMOA
MAY 9, 1962.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. LONG of Hawaii, from the Committee on Interior and Insular
Affairs, submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 10062]
The Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, to whom was
referred the bill (H.R. 10062) to extend the application of certain
laws to American Samoa, having considered the same, report fa-
vorably thereon with an amendment in the nature of a substitute,
and recommend that the bill, as amended, do pass.
PURPOSE
The purpose of H.R. 10062, as amended, is to make available to
American Samoa the technical assistance, as needed, of the var-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1383
ious Federal departments and agencies and to extend to American
Samoa several Federal assistance programs presently available in
other parts of the United States and its territories.
The islands of Samoa came under the American flag early in
this century by action of the American Samoan chiefs in ceding
the islands to the United States. At that time American Samoa
was valuable to the Navy as a coaling station, and the islands were
placed under naval administration. In 1951 jurisdiction over
American Samoa was transferred from the Department of the
Navy to the Department of the Interior.
In the 86th Congress, the Committee on Interior and Insular
Affairs reported favorably, and the Senate adopted, Senate Reso-
lution 330 authorizing and directing the committee to make a
study of conditions in American Samoa. Senator Long and Sena-
tor Gruening, accompanied by staff and additional experts, went
to the islands and conducted formal and informal hearings. The
results of that study were submitted to the Committee on Interior
and Insular Affairs and have become Senate Document 38, entitled
[p.l]
"Study Mission to Eastern (American) Samoa." The report of the
study mission documented the neglect which American Samoa has
experienced for many years. A number of specific recommenda-
tions were made by the report, including a recommendation that
American Samoa be included in certain Federal programs. In
order to carry out this recommendation, Senator Long and Sena-
tor Gruening introduced S. 2440. H.R. 10062, as amended, con-
forms to the text of S. 2440.
[p. 2]
PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT (58 STAT. 693) As AMENDED (42
U.S.C. 201, 246)
SEC. 314 [(1) Except as otherwise provided in this subsection,
the provisions of this section shall be applicable to Guam in the
same manner in which they apply to the States. Amounts paid to
Guam from its allotment under subsections (a), (b), (c), or (e)
of this section, together with matching funds of Guam, may, with
the approval of the Surgeon General, be expended in carrying out
the purposes specified in any such subsection or subsections other
than the one under which the allotment was made.] (I) Except as
otherwise provided in this subsection the provisions of this section
shall be applicable to Guam and American Samoa in the same
manner in which they apply to the States. Amounts paid to Guam
-------
1384 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
or American Samoa from its allotment under subsection (a), (6),
(c), or (e) of this section, together with matching funds of Guam
or American Samoa, respectively, may, with the approval of the
Surgeon General, be expended in carrying out the purposes speci-
fied in any such subsection or subsections other than the one under
which the allotment was made.
*******
[p. 9]
1.12r (3) COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE
H.R. REP. No. 2264, 87th Cong., 2d Sess. (1962)
EXTENDING THE APPLICATION OF CERTAIN LAWS TO
AMERICAN SAMOA
AUGUST 23,1962.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. ASPINALL, from the committee of conference, submitted the
following
CONFERENCE REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 10062]
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two
Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 10062)
to extend the application of certain laws to American Samoa,
having met, after full and free conference, have agreed to recom-
mend and do recommend to their respective Houses as follows:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amend-
ments of the Senate and agree to the same with an amendment as
follows :
In lieu of the matter inserted by section 1 of the Senate amend-
ment insert the following:
That, upon request of the Secretary of the Interior—
(a) the head of any Federal department, agency, or corpo-
ration may, notwithstanding any other provision of law, ex-
tend to American Samoa, without reimbursement, such scien-
tific, technical, and other assistance under any program which
it administers as, in the judgment of the Secretary of the
Interior, will promote the welfare of American Samoa. The
provisions of the preceding sentence shall not apply to finan-
-------
-STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1385
cial assistance under any grant-in-aid program. The Secre-
tary of the Interior shall not request assistance pursuant to
this subsection which will involve nonreimbursable costs as
estimated for him in advance by the heads of the depart-
ments, agencies, and corporations concerned in excess of an
aggregate of $150,000 in any one fiscal year;
(b) the Secretary of Agriculture may extend to American
Samoa the benefits of the National School Lunch Act (60
Stat. 230), as amended (42 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.) ; and
(c) the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare may
extend to American Samoa the benefits of the Vocational Ed-
ucation Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 775; 20 U.S.C. 15i et seq.), the
Library Services Act (70 Stat. 293; 20 U.S.C. 351 et seq.),
[p.l]
the Hospital Survey and Construction Act (Act of August 13,
1946; 60 Stat. 1040; 42 U.S.C. 291 et seq.), and section 314 of
the Public Health Service Act (58 Stat. 693; 42 U.S.C. 246),
all as amended.
And the Senate agree to the same.
WAYNE N. ASPINALL,
LEO W. O'BRIEN,
WALTER ROGERS,
JOHN P. SAYLOR,
JACK WESTLAND,
Managers on the Part of the House.
HENRY M. JACKSON,
ERNEST GRUENING,
OREN E. LONG,
THOMAS H. KUCHEL,
JACK MILLER,
Managers on the Part of the Senate.
[P. 2]
1.12r (4) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 108 (1962)
1.12r(4)(a) April 2: Amended and passed House, p. 5576
(d) section 314 of the Public Health Service
Act, as amended, is further amended effective
July 1, 1962, by inserting, in subsection (1)
thereof, the words "and American Samoa"
after the word "Guam" in the first sentence
and the words "or American Samoa" after the
word "Guam" in the second sentence.
The SPEAKER. Is a second de-
manded?
Mr. SAYLOR. Mr. Speaker, I de-
mand a second.
The SPEAKER. Without objection,
-------
1386
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
a second will be considered as ordered.
There was no objection.
Mr. ASPINALL. Mr. Speaker, I
strongly recommend that favorable
consideration be given to H.R. 10062,
which extends the application of sev-
era^ laws in American Samoa. This
is a bill that received comprehensive
hearings before our Subcommittee on
Territorial Affairs. It was introduced
at the request of the Governor of
American Samoa and carries strong
endorsements from the Departments
of the Interior, Agriculture, and
Health, Education, and Welfare. The
Governor of American Samoa, the
Honorable H. Rex Lee, personally ap-
peared before our subcommittee and
explained how the provisions em-
bodied in the bill would be utilized.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, the gentle-
man from Washington [Mr. WEST-
LAND], a high-ranking member of our
committee, and I visited American
Samoa in December and convinced
ourselves that the services that would
be made available in this bill would
assist the territory immeasurably. Our
colleague from Ohio [Mr. KIRWAN],
chairman of the Subcommittee on Ap-
propriations for Interior Department
and Related Agencies, made an on-
the-spot study of conditions in Ameri-
can Samoa and will, I am sure, agree
with me that we must extend all
reasonable aid to the 20,000 American
nationals who live in this unincor-
porated territory.
The United States has owned
American Samoa for over 60 years. In
many respects our Government can be
proud of the progress the Samoans
have made in those six decades but
in other respects we have been ne-
glectful. The executive and legislative
arms of the Government must share
in the neglect. We could have done
better and we must do better. Blam-
ing each other at this time will ac-
complish little. We can begin to make
up for our lack of assistance anc
guidance of the territory by granting
the provisions of H.R. 10062.
This bill will accomplish two pur-
joses. First, upon the request of the
Governor, it will make available to
American Samoa without reimburse-
ment the scientific and technical as-
sistance the various Departments and
agencies have to offer. Second, it will
extend to American Samoa several
Federal assistance programs present-
ly available to the 50 States, Puerto
Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Guam.
In the first category of assistance
there could be included the revision of
the territorial tax structures, educa-
tion, agricultural and fisheries pro-
duction and marketing, harbor and
shipping improvements, public utili-
ties, land planning and zoning. The
bill provides that assistance in these
fields will be made available only
upon the request of the Governor and
it carries a limitation of an aggregate
of $150,000 in any one fiscal year.
The second purpose of the bill is
to extend five public laws, applicable
to Guam and the Virgin Islands, to
American Samoa. These laws are so
familiar to us that we may be sur-
prised to find that American Samoa
was overlooked when they were enact-
ed. The laws are the National School
Lunch Act, the Vocational Education
Act, the Library Services Act, the
Hospital Survey and Construction
Act, and the part of the Public Health
Service Act which refers to grants
and services in the field of venereal
diseases, tuberculosis, and heart ail-
ments.
This is not costly legislation. In
fact, it requires no increase in author-
ized appropriations. Aid that may be
requested under section 1 is limited to
$150,000 a year. The sums of $80,000
and $10,000 for the Vocational Educa-
tion and Library Services Acts, re-
spectively, may be provided. For the
other three acts the cognizant depart-
ments will have to justify their needs.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1387
Mr. Speaker, this bill will provide
the Governor of American Samoa sev-
eral sorely needed tools that he can
use to promote the welfare of the ter-
ritory and its inhabitants. I urge its
adoption.
The SPEAKER. The question is
on the motion to suspend the rules
and pass the bill, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-
thirds having voted in favor thereof),
the rules were suspended and the bill,
as amended, was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on
the table.
[p. 5576]
1.12r (4) (b) May 17: Amended and passed Senate, pp, 8698-8699
EXTENDING APPLICATION OF CERTAIN
LAWS TO AMERICAN SAMOA
The Senate proceeded to consider
the bill (H.R. 10062) to extend the
application of certain laws to Ameri-
can Samoa, which had been reported
from the Committee on Interior and
Insular Affairs, with an amendment to
strike out all after the enacting clause
and insert:
*****
[p. 8698]
PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT
SEC. 4. (a) The Public Health Service Act
(42 U.S.C. 201 et aeq.) is amended as follows:
(1) in section 314 strike out subsection (1)
and insert in lieu thereof the following:
"(1) Except aa otherwise provided in this
subsection the provisions of this section shall
be applicable to Guam and American Samoa
in the same manner in which they apply to
the States. Amounts paid to Guam or Ameri-
can Samoa from its allotment under subsection
(a), (b), (c), or (e) of this section, together
with matching funds of Guam or American
Samoa, respectively, may, with the approval
of the Surgeon General, be expended in carry-
ing out the purposes specified in any such sub-
section or subsections other than the one un-
dei1 which the allotment was made.";
(2) in subsections (a) and (d) of section
631 insert "American Samoa," after "Guam,";
and
(3) in sections 624 and 652 insert a comma
and "American Samoa," after "Virgin Is-
lands".
(b) The amendments made by this section
shall become effective July 1, 1962.
The amendment was agreed to.
The amendment was ordered to be
engrossed and the bill to be read a
third time.
The bill was read the third time
and passed.
[p. 8699]
1.12r (4) (c) Aug. 28: House agrees to conference report, pp.
17881-17882
APPLICATION OF CERTAIN LAWS TO
AMERICAN SAMOA—CONFERENCE RE-
PORT
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President,
on behalf of the Senator from Wash-
ington [Mr. JACKSON], I submit a
report of the committee of conference
on the disagreeing votes of the two
Houses on the amendments of the
Senate to the bill (H.R. 10062) to
extend the application of certain laws
to American Samoa. I ask unanimous
consent for the present consideration
of the report.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
report will be read, for the informa-
tion of the Senate.
The legislative clerk read the re-
port.
(For conference report, see House
-------
13-88
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
proceedings of August 30, 1962, p.
18253, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is
there objection to the present con-
sideration of the report?
There being no objection, the Sen-
ate proceeded to consider the report.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President,
as passed by the House, H.R. 10062
authorized the Governor of American
[p. 17881]
Samoa to request Federal depart-
ments, corporations, or agencies to
extend, without reimbursement, scien-
tific and technical assistance to pro-
mote the welfare of the territory. The
bill also authorized the extension,
upon application by the Governor, of
several public laws applicable in other
U.S. territories to Samoa. They are
the National School Lunch Act, the
Vocational Education Act, the Library
Services Act, and the Public Health
Service Act.
The Senate passed the bill in a
somewhat different form. The prin-
cipal difference in the Senate version
was that the request for technical
assistance would be made by the
Secretary of the Interior, rather than
by the Governor of American Samoa;
and the programs extended through
the various laws I have just men-
tioned would become effective upon
enactment of the bill.
The House conferees and the Senate
conferees have agreed that authority
to request technical assistance from
other departments shall rest with the
Secretary of the Interior, instead of
the Governor of Samoa. It has also
been agreed that benefits from the
School Lunch Act and the other acts
included in the bill shall not become
effective except upon request of the
Secretary of the Interior made to the
Secretary of Agriculture and to the
Secretary of Health, Education, and
Welfare.
I present this report on behalf of
the distinguished junior Senator from
Washington [Mr. JACKSON].
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the report.
The report was agreed to.
[p. 17882]
1.12r (4) (d) Aug. 30: Senate agrees to conference report, p.
18253
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
1.12s AMENDMENTS TO TITLE IV OF THE PUBLIC
HEALTH SERVICE ACT
October 17,1962, P.L. 87-838, § 2, 76 Stat. 1073
SEC. 2. Section 301 (d) of the Public Health Service Act is
amended by striking out the words "research projects" wherever
they appear therein and inserting in lieu thereof "research or
research training projects".
[p. 1073]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1389
1.12s (1) HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND
FOREIGN COMMERCE
H.R. REP. No. 1969, 87th Cong., 2d Sess. (1962)
ESTABLISHMENT OF INSTITUTE OF CHILD HEALTH AND
HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
JULY 9, 1962.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State
of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. ROBERTS of Alabama, from the Committee on Interstate and
Foreign Commerce, submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 11099]
The Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, to whom
was referred the bill (H.R. 11099) to amend the Public Health
Service Act to provide for the establishment of an Institute of
Child Health and Human Development, and for other purposes,
having considered the same, report favorably thereon without
amendment and recommend that the bill do pass.
[p.l]
SECTION 2 OF THE BILL
This section would amend section 301 (d) of the Public Health
Service Act so as to clarify the authority of the Surgeon General
to make project grants for research training projects.
[P. 7]
-------
1390 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
1.12s (2) SENATE COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND
PUBLIC WELFARE
S. REP. No. 2174, 87th Cong., 2d Sess. (1962)
NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH
SEPTEMBER 27, 1962.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. YARBOROUGH, from the Committee on Labor and Public Wel-
fare submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 11099]
The Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, to whom was re-
ferred the bill (H.R. 11099) to amend the Public Health Service
Act to provide for the establishment of an Institute of Child
Health and Human Development, and for other purposes, having
considered the same, report favorably thereon with amendments
and recommend that the bill as amended do pass.
SUMMARY
H.R. 11099 also would make two comparatively minor amend-
ments to the Public Health Service Act, as amended. The first
amendment would amend section 301 (d) to provide explicitly that
the authorization for project grants includes research training
projects as well as research projects. The second amendment
would clarify the present authority of the Surgeon General to
appoint advisory committees and would authorize the use of such
committees for reviewing applications for grants for research or
research training projects.
[p-l]
SECTION 2 OF THE BILL
This section would amend section 301 (d) of the Public Health
Service Act so as to clarify the authority of the Surgeon General
to make project grants for research training projects.
[p. 10]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1391
TITLE III—GENERAL POWERS AND DUTIES OF PUBLIC
HEALTH SERVICE
PART A—RESEARCH AND INVESTIGATIONS
IN GENERAL
SEC. 301. The Surgeon General shall conduct in the Service, and
encourage, cooperate with, and render assistance to other appro-
priate public authorities, scientific institutions, and scientists in
the conduct of, and promote the coordination of, research, investi-
gations, experiments, demonstrations, and studies relating to the
causes, diagnosis, treatment, control, and prevention of physical
and mental diseases and impairments of man, including water
purification, sewage treatment, and pollution of lakes and streams.
In carrying out the foregoing the Surgeon General is authorized
to—
*******
(d) Make grants-in-aid to universities, hospitals, laboratories,
and other public or private institutions, and to individuals for
such research or research training projects as are recommended
by the National Advisory Health Council, or, with respect to can-
cer, recommended by the National Advisory Cancer Council, or,
with respect to mental health, recommended by the National Advi-
sory Mental Health Council, or, with respect to heart diseases,
recommended by the National Advisory Heart Council, or, with
respect to dental diseases and conditions, recommended by the
National Advisory Dental Research Council, and include in the
grants for any such project grants of penicillin and other antibiotic
compounds for use in such project; and make, upon recommenda-
tion of the National Advisory Health Council, grants-in-aid to
public or nonprofit universities, hospitals, laboratories, and other
institutions for the general support of their research and research
[p. 13]
training programs: Provided, That such uniform percentage, not
to exceed 15 per centum, as the Surgeon General may determine, of
the amounts provided for grants for research or research training
projects for any fiscal year through the appropriations for the
National Institutes of Health may be transferred from such ap-
propriations to a separate account to be available for such re-
search and research training program grants-in-aid for such fiscal
year;
*******
[p. 14]
-------
1392
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
1.12s (3) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 108 (1962)
1.12s (3) (a) Aug. 27: Passed House, p. 17690
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I am
asking the House to support the bill
H.R. 11099, which was reported
unanimously by our committee.
The purpose of the legislation is to
establish two new institutes at the
National Institutes of Health. The
first of these two would be the Insti-
tute of Child Research and Human
Development. The second would be
the Institute of General Medical
Sciences.
As the Members of the House can
readily see from the names of these
two proposed new institutes, neither
of them is related or limited to any
particular disease or disease category.
At present, there are seven insti-
tutes at the National Institutes of
Health. Each of these institutes deals
with a different disease or disease
category. There is the National Can-
cer Institute, the National Heart In-
stitute, the National Institute of Men-
tal Health, the National Institute of
Dental Research, and so forth.
Now, under the provisions of the
Public Health Service Act, the Sur-
geon General is authorized to estab-
lish by administrative action addi-
tional institutes for other diseases and
groups of diseases. He is not author-
ized, however, to establish any insti-
tute which cuts across individual
diseases categories. Therefore, it is
necessary to resort to legislation if
these two new institutes are to be
established.
Some of the Members of the House
might ask, "Why is it necessary to
establish new institutes?" Some Mem-
bers may say that the existing insti-
tutes are already spending enough
money, and that the creation of two
additional institutes will only lead to
increased spending.
Let me tell you, then, why our
committee feels that it is highly de-
sirable to establish these two new
institutes.
Our committee received extensive
testimony from physicians, expert in
these two areas, that there is an ur-
gent need for better administrative
coordination of research activities car-
ried on and supported by the National
Institutes of Health where these re-
search activities are not directly re-
lated and limited to individual
diseases. These witnesses testified
that research in these two broad
areas in which the new institutes
would function is essential to any
broad advances in the health sciences.
The proposed new Institute of Child
Health Research and Human Develop-
ment is designed to coordinate pro-
grams in the fields of child health and
human development and to stimulate
new interest and effort in these im-
portant research areas.
The new Institute will give major
attention to the study of the continu-
ing process of growth and develop-
ment that characterizes all biological
life—from reproduction and prenatal
development through infancy and
childhood and on into the stages of
maturation. The program will include
research and training in the follow-
ing broad areas;
First. The biological and physio-
logical aspects of human reproduction,
growth, and development.
Second. Studies in the prenatal and
perinatal period in human develop-
ment, from conception until shortly
after birth.
Third. Obstetrical and pediatric
problems not directly related to the
specific disease interests of the other
institutes.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1393
Fourth. Studies of the process of
maturation.
Fifth. Studies in special problem
areas such as mental retardation.
Some research activity is now being
conducted in these fields. As com-
pared with research in the fields
covered by the disease-oriented insti-
tutes, however, it is relatively limited
and inadequate.
The existing categorical institutes
would continue their primary respon-
sibility for research in their particular
disease categories with respect to
children as well as other segments of
the population. For example, the
study of leukemia in children would
remain in the National Cancer Insti-
tute, and the National Institute of
Mental Health would continue to be
responsible for research into schizo-
phrenia in children.
[p. 17690]
1.12s (3) (b) Sept. 28: Amended and passed Senate, p. 21247
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
1.12s (3) (c) Oct. 3: House concurs in Senate amendment, p. 21833
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
1.12t GRADUATE PUBLIC HEALTH TRAINING
AMENDMENTS OF 1964
August 27,1964, P.L. 88-497, § 2, 78 Stat. 613
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That:
This Act may be cited as the "Graduate Public Health Training
Amendments of 1964."
SEC. 2. (a) Subsection (a) of section 306 of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 242d),7 relating to traineeships for profes-
sional public health personnel, is amended by striking out "seven"
and inserting in lieu thereof "twelve" and by inserting immedi-
ately after "Congress may determine," the following: "but not tc
exceed $4,500,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1965,
$7,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1966, $8,000,000 for
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1967, and $10,000,000 each for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1968, and the succeeding fiscal year,".
(b) Subsection (e) of such section is amended by adding at the
end thereof the following new sentence: "The Surgeon General
shall, between June 30, 1967, and December 1, 1967, call a similar
-------
1394 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
conference, and shall submit to the Congress, on or before January
1, 1968, a report of such conference, including any recommenda-
tions by it relating to the limitation, extension, or modification of
this section."
[p. 613]
1.12t (1) HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND
FOREIGN COMMERCE
H.R. REP. No. 1553, 88th Cong., 2d Sess. (1964)
GRADUATE PUBLIC HEALTH TRAINING AMENDMENTS
OF 1964
JULY 9, 1964.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State
of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. HARRIS, from the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Com-
merce, submitted the following'
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 11083]
The Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, to whom
was referred the bill (H.R. 11083) to amend the Public Health
Service Act to extend the authorization for assistance in the provi-
sion of graduate or specialized public health training, and for
other purposes, having considered the same, report favorably
thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass.
PRINCIPAL PURPOSE OF THE BILL
This bill extends the authorization for public health traineeships
contained in section 306 of the Public Health Service Act for 5
additional years and extends for 4 additional years the authoriza-
tion in section 309 of the Public Health Service Act for project
grants to schools of public health, schools of nursing, and schools
of engineering, for public health training, so that both programs
would carry identical expiration dates of June 30,1969.
At present, the authorization for appropriations contained in
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1395
section 306 is open ended. The bill would impose authorization
ceilings as described below. In conformity with recommendations
made by the Second National Conference on Public Health Train-
ing, the appropriation authorization for each of these programs
would be increased above the amounts appropriated in past years.
The bill would also strengthen the existing program of project
grants for public health training by authorizing grants to institu-
tions not now eligible, such as schools of medicine, dentistry, social
work, and pharmacy. Such grants would, for example, enable med-
ical schools to improve their departments of preventive medicine
and increase the public health content of their curriculums,
[P. 1]
The bill also provides for a conference on public health training,
to be called by the Surgeon General of the Public Health Service
between June 30 and December 1, 1967, with a report to the
Congress by January 1,1968.
The proposals outlined above are based on the recommendations
of the Second National Conference on Public Health Training,
called by the Surgeon General in August 1963. Action along the
lines recommended by the Conference would significantly help in-
crease the supply of critically needed professional public health
manpower.
COST OF THE BILL
The cost of the bill is shown in the following table:
COST, 1965-69
[Dollars in thousands]
Item
Public health trameeships
Project grants.
Administration
Total- . ... . .
Man-years of employment .
1965
$4,500
2,500
375
7,375
36
1966
$7,000
4,000
445
11,445
44
1967
$8,000
5,000
520
13,520
51
1968
$10,000
7,000
590
17,590
57
1969
$10,000
9,000
665
19,665
64
Total
$39,500
27,500
2,595
69,595
252
BACKGROUND
Well-trained professional workers are vitally needed to staff
public health agencies and programs throughout the country. Pub-
lic health agencies serve a growing population today, and their
-------
1396 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
responsibilities have increased and broadened over the years. Yet
there are actually fewer public health physicians employed by-
State and local agencies today than in 1950. The number of public
health engineers has increased by only a small fraction; and other
essential disciplines are in short supply.
The Public Health Service conducts a program of public health
traineeships which has contributed significantly to the manpower
pool in this field. A total of 5,273 individual traineeships has been
awarded since 1956.
The authorization for this traineeship program expired on June
30, 1964. The authorization for a complementary program of pro-
ject grants to schools of public health, nursing, and engineering—
designed to strengthen graduate or specialized public health train-
ing programs—expires on June 30,1965.
[p. 2]
NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION
At the Conference on Public Health Training held in August of
1963, the authoritative knowledge of 80 leaders in the fields of
public health and public health training was focused on public
health manpower problems. The Conference measured the ade-
quacy of the rate at which trained personnel are being developed
by evaluating the staffing of health agencies over the past 10
years.
It is clear that the supply of trained health professionals is not
keeping pace with population growth. It was also found that the
present rate of training barely offsets attrition and program ex-
pansion, permitting little gain in providing more adequate train-
ing for the more than 20,000 inadequately trained personnel.
For example, in 1958, slightly less than half of all professional
personnel in State and local health departments had received the
training necessary to qualify them fully for their public health
responsibilities. In 1963, 5 years later, only 51 percent were ade-
quately trained. In addition, more than 5,000 budgeted positions
are now vacant.
To maintain even the present inadequate staffing pattern in
State and local health departments in relation to population
growth and to offset attrition, at least 17,000 more trained work-
ers must be produced by 1970.
Many more will be needed by voluntary health agencies and
Federal agencies, such as the Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare, the Department of Defense, and other departments
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1397
which have health responsibilities and international health pro-
grams.
An additional critically important basic need is to overcome the
acute shortage of teachers, so that the faculties of the schools
which must train these workers may be augmented.
[P. 3]
PUBLIC HEALTH TRAINEESHIPS
Section 306 of the Public Health Service Act, initially enacted in
1957, currently authorizes appropriations of such sums as Con-
gress may determine to cover the costs of traineeships for gradu-
ate or specialized training in public health for physicians, engi-
neers, nurses, and other professional health personnel.
Under the traineeship program, more than 5,000 traineeships
have been awarded since 1957 to support individuals in long-term
public health training. In addition, grants have been made during
the last 2 years to support approximately 4,800 trainees in short-
term continuation training.
Included among the short courses which these individuals have
attended with such traineeships are courses in chronic diseases,
dental public health, accident prevention, patient care in nursing
homes, and public health training for physical therapists.
Trainees under these programs have come from all of the
States, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands. They have
attended a total of 12 schools of public health, 71 schools of nurs-
ing, and 83 other schools, including schools of engineering, depart-
ments of nutrition, microbiology, and others.
One of the goals of this program is to bring new people into
public health. The fact that 58 percent of all trainees had not
previously been employed in public health attests to the effective-
ness of these traineeships in recruiting students into the field.
These traineeships are awarded either directly to the individual
or are made by the institutions involved, and provide the follow-
ing:
(1) Payment of the standard charges of the school for
tuition and fees.
(2) Transportation to the school (once) at 6 cents per mile
and an allowance of 6 cents per mile for necessary travel
during field training required by the school for completion of
the program of study.
(3) A monthly stipend based upon the highest academic
-------
1398
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
degree held by the recipient and the number of his dependents
as defined for Federal income tax purposes.
The basic monthly schedule of these stipends is as follows:
Degree: Amount
Prebachelor $200
Postbachelor 250
Postmaster 300
Postdoctorate 400
An additional $30 per month is added for each dependent.
The average cost of a long-term public health traineeship was
$3,762 for those traineeships which were awarded from fiscal year
1963 funds.
The following tables show the operation of the program since
its establishment in 1956, and projected operations for future
years:
TABLE I.—Appropriations for the public health traineeship program (sec. 306,
Public Health Service Act)
Appropriation
Fiscal year:
1957 $1,000,000
1958 2,000,000
1959 2,000,000
1960 1,974,000
Appropriation
Fiscal year—Continued
1961 $2,000,000
1962 2,000,000
1963 4,000,000
1964 4,195,000
[p. 4]
TABLE II.-NUMBER AND COST OF TRAINEES UNDER THE PUBLIC HEALTH TRAINEESHIP PROGRAM
Fiscal year
1957
1958..
1959
1960 .
1961
1962
1963
1964.
Expenditures
$890,912
1,854,001
1,972,848
1,904,224
1,991,819
1,943,336
'3,728,334
'3,624,238
Number Expenditures
363 .
665
654
624
607
568
991 > $169, 510
= 801 '565,385
Number
«1,270
23,500
1 Expenditures and obligations as of June 30,1964.
1 Estimated.
•As of June 30, 1964; total expected to reach 1,000.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1399
TABLE III.-PROJECTED NUMBER OF TRAINEES AND EXPENDITURES-PUBLIC HEALTH TRAiNEESHIP PROGRAM
Long-term training
Year
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
Number
1,000
1,600
1,800
2,100
2,100
Amount
$3,900,000
5,800,000
6,500,000
8,000,000
8,000,000
Short-term training
Number
3,500
7,000
8,500
11,500
11,500
Amount
$600,000
1,200,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,000,000
Total
amount
$4,500,000
7,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
10,000,000
[p. 5]
SECTION-BY-SECTION DESCRIPTION OF THE BILL
SECTON1
This section provides that this act may be cited as the "Gradu-
ate Public Health Training Amendments of 1964."
SECTON 2
Section 2 of the bill amends section 306 of the Public Health
Service Act which provides for traineeships for professional pub-
lic health personnel.
Provisions of existing law
Subsection (a) of section 306 authorizes the appropriation of
such sums as the Congress may determine for each of the 8 fiscal
years in the period beginning on July 1, 1956, and ending on June
30,1964, for such traineeships.
Subsection (b) of section 306 provides that traineeships may be
awarded by the Surgeon General either directly to individuals or
through grants to nonprofit institutions providing the training.
Subsection (c) of section 306 relates to the payment made with
respect to traineeships. It provides that such payments shall be
limited to such amounts as the Surgeon General finds necessary to
cover the cost of tuition and fees, and a stipend and allowances
(including travel and subsistence expenses) for the trainee. This
subsection also provides that payments to institutions may be used
only for traineeships.
Subsection (d) of section 306 requires the Surgeon General to
appoint an expert advisory committee, composed of persons repre-
sentative of the principal health specialties in the fields of public
health administration and training, to advise him in connection
with the administration of the program under section 306 and the
-------
1400 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
program under section 309 which is also amended by the bill and
provides for project grants for graduate training in public health.
Members of this expert advisory committee who are not otherwise
in the employ of the United States, while attending meetings of
the committee or otherwise serving at the request of the Surgeon
General, are entitled to receive compensation at a rate fixed by the
Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, but not exceeding
$50 per diem, including travel time, and travel expenses including
per diem in lieu of subsistence, as authorized by law for persons in
the Government service employed intermittently, while away from
their homes or regular places of business.
Subsection (e) of section 306 as originally enacted required the
Surgeon General to call a conference broadly representative of the
professional and training groups interested in and informed about
training of professional public health personnel, and including
members of the advisory committee appointed pursuant to subsec-
tion (d), to assist him in appraising the effectiveness of the train-
eeships under this section in meeting the needs for trained public
health personnel; in considering modifications in section 306, if
any, which might be desirable to increase its effectiveness; and in
considering the most effective distribution of responsibilities be-
tween Federal and State Governments with respect to the admin-
istration and support of public health training. This Conference
[P. HI
had to be called between June SO and December 1, 1958, and the
Surgeon General was required to submit to the Congress a report
on such conference including any recommendations by it relating
to the limitation, extension, or modification of this section on or
before January 1, 1959. Public Law 86-105 amended this subsec-
tion to require the Surgeon General to call a similar conference
between June 30 and December 1, 1963, and submit to the Con-
gress, on or before January 1, 1964, a report of such conference,
including any recommendations by it relating to the limitation,
extension, or modification of section 306.
Subsection (f) of section 306 provides that, except as otherwise
provided in section 306, nothing contained therein shall be con-
strued as authorizing any department, agency, officer, or employee
of the United States to exercise any direction, supervision, or
control over the personnel or curriculum of any training institu-
tion.
Amendments made by the bill
Subsection (a) of section 2 of the bill amends subsection (a) of
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1401
section 306 of the Public Health Service Act so as to extend the
program under section 306 for 5 additional years (July 1, 1964,
through June 30, 1969), but would impose a ceiling on the amount
which could be appropriated for any fiscal year. These ceilings
would be as follows: $4,500,000 for fiscal year 1965, $7 million for
fiscal year 1966, $8 million for fiscal year 1967, and $10 million
each for fiscal years 1968 and 1969.
Subsection (b) of section 2 of the bill would amend subsection
(e) of section 306 of the Public Health Service Act so as to
require the Surgeon General to call a conference between June 30
and December 1, 1967, similar to the Conference required by
subsection (e) as originally enacted. The Surgeon General would
be required to submit to the Congress on or before January 1,
1968, a report on such conference, including any recommendations
by the Conference relating to the limitation, extension, or modifi-
cation of section 306.
[P. 12]
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED
In compliance with clause 3 of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the
bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to
be omitted and enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed
in italic, existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in
roman) :
PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT
*******
TRAINEESHIPS FOR PROFESSIONAL PUBLIC HEALTH PERSONNEL
SEC. 306. (a) There are hereby authorized to be appropriated
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1957, and for each of the next
[seven] twelve fiscal years, such sums as the Congress may
determine, but not to exceed $4,500,000 for the fiscal year ending
June 30,1965, $7,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1966,
$8,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1967, and
$10,000,000 each for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968, and the
succeeding fiscal year, to cover the costs of traineeships for grad-
uate or specialized training in public health or physicians, engi-
neers, nurses, and other professional health personnel.
(b) Traineeships under this section may be awarded by the
Surgeon General either (1) directly to individuals whose applica-
tions for admission have been accepted by the public or other
-------
1402 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
nonprofit institutions providing the training, or (2) through
grants to such institution.
(c) Payments under this section may be made in advance or by
way of reimbursement, and at such intervals and on such condi-
tion as the Surgeon General finds necessary. Such payments to
institutions may be used only for traineeships, and payments
under this section with respect to any traineeship shall be limited
to such amounts as the Surgeon General finds necessary to cover
the cost of tuition and fees, and a stipend and allowances (includ-
ing travel and subsistence expenses) for the trainee.
[p. 16]
(d) The Surgeon General shall appoint an expert advisory com-
mittee, composed of persons representative of the principal health
specialties in the fields of public health administration and train-
ing, to advise him in connection with the administration of this
section, and section 309 including the development of program
standards and policies and including, in the case of section 309,
certification to the Surgeon General of projects which it has re-
viewed and approved. Members of such committee who are not
otherwise in the employ of the United States, while attending
meetings of the committee or otherwise serving at the request of
the Surgeon General, shall be entitled to receive compensation at a
rate to be fixed by the Secretary of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare, but not exceeding $50 per diem, including travel time, and
while away from their homes or regular places of business they
may be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of
subsistence, as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 73 b-2) the persons in
the Government service employed intermittently.
(e) The Surgeon General shall, between June 30, 1958, and
December 1, 1958, call a conference broadly representative of the
professional and training groups interested in and informed about
training of professional public health personnel, and including
members of the advisory committee appointed pursuant to subsec-
tion (d), to assist him in appraising the effectiveness of the train-
eeships under this section in meeting the needs for trained public
health personnel; in considering1 modifications in this section, if
any, which may be desirable to increase its effectiveness; and in
considering the most effective distribution of responsibilities be-
tween Federal and State governments with respect to the adminis-
tration and support of public health training. The Surgeon Gen-
eral shall submit to the Congress, on or before January 1, 1959, a
report of such conference, including the recommendations to the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1403
limitation, extension, or modification of this section. The Surgeon
General shall, between June 30, 1963, and December 1, 1963, call
a similar conference, and shall submit to the Congress, on or
before January 1, 1964, a report of such conference, including any
recommendations by it relating to the limitation, extension, or
modification of this section. The Surgeon General, shall, between
June 30, 1967, and December 1, 1967, call a similar conference,
and shall submit to the Congress, on or before January 1, 1968,
a report of such conference, including any recommendations by
it relating to the limitation, extension, or modification of this
section.
(f) Except as otherwise provided in this section, nothing con-
tained in this section shall be construed as authorizing any depart-
ment, agency, officer, or employee of the United States to exercise
any supervision, or control over the personnel or curriculum of
any training institution.
*******
[p. 17]
1.12t (2) SENATE COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND
PUBLIC WELFARE
S. REP. No. 1379, 88th Cong., 2d Sess. (1964)
GRADUATE PUBLIC HEALTH TRAINING AMENDMENTS
OF 1964
AUGUST 12, 1964.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. HILL, from the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, sub-
mitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 11083]
The Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, to whom was
referred the bill (H.R. 11083) to amend the Public Health Service
Act to extend the authorization for assistance in the provision of
graduate or specialized public health training, and for other pur-
poses, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with-
out amendment and recommend that the bill do pass.
-------
1404 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
SUMMARY
H.R. 11083 would extend the existing program of public health
traineeships for 5 additional years and extend for 4 additional
years for existing programs of project grants to schools of public
health, schools of nursing, and schools of engineering, for public
health training. Both programs would carry identical expiration
dates of June 9,1969.
H.R. 11083 also provides for a conference on public health
training, to be called by the Surgeon General of the Public Health
Service between June 30 and December 1, 1967, with a report to
the Congress by January 1,1968.
The provisions of H.R. 11083 are based on the recommendations
of the Second National Conference on Public Health Training,
called by the Surgeon General in August 1963. Action along the
lines recommended by the Conference would significantly help in-
crease the supply of critically needed professional public health
manpower.
[P. 1]
THE PROGRAM
Traineeships
Section 306 of the Public Health Service Act, initially enacted in
1957, currently authorizes appropriations of such sums as Con-
gress may determine to cover the costs of traineeships for gradu-
ate or specialized training in public health for physicians, engi-
neers, nurses, and other professional health personnel.
Under the traineeship program, more than 5,000 traineeships
have been awarded since 1957 to support individuals in long-term
public health training. In addition, grants have been made during
the last 2 years to support approximately 4,800 trainees in short-
term continuation training.
Included among the short courses which these individuals have
attended with such traineeships are courses in chronic diseases,
dental public health, accident prevention, patient care in nursing
homes, and public health training for physical therapists.
Trainees under these programs have come from all of the
States, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands. They have
attended a total of 12 schools of public health, 71 schools of nurs-
ing, and 83 other schools, including schools of engineering, depart-
ments of nutrition, microbiology, and others.
One of the goals of this program is to bring new people into
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1405
public health. The fact that 58 percent of all trainees had not
previously been employed in public health attests to the effective-
ness of these traineeships in recruiting students into the field.
[P. 2]
SECTION-BY-SECTION DESCRIPTION OF THE BILL
SECTON1
This section provides that this act may be cited as the "Gradu-
ate Public Health Training Amendments of 1964."
SECTION 2
Section 2 of the bill amends section 306 of the Public Health
Service Act which provides for traineeships for professional pub-
lic health personnel.
Provisions of existing law
Subsection (a) of section 306 authorizes the appropriation of
such sums at the Congress may determine for each of the 8 fiscal
years in the period beginning on July 1, 1956, and ending on June
30,1964, for such traineeships.
[p. 3]
Subsection (b) of section 306 provides that traineeships may be
awarded by the Surgeon General either directly to individuals or
through grants to nonprofit institutions providing the training.
Subsection (c) of section 306 relates to the payment made with
respect to traineeships. It provides that such payments shall be
limited to such amounts as the Surgeon General finds necessary to
cover the cost of tuition and fees, and a stipend and allowances
.(including travel and subsistence expenses) for the trainee. This
subsection also provides that payments to institutions may be used
only for traineeships.
Subsection (d) of section 306 requires the Surgeon General to
appoint an expert advisory committee, composed of persons repre-
sentative of the principal health specialties in the fields of public
health administration and training, to advise him in connection
with the administration of the program under section 306 and the
program under section 309 which is also amended by the bill and
provides for project grants for graduate training in public health.
Members of this expert advisory committee who are not otherwise
in the employ of the United States, while attending meetings of
-------
1406 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
the committee or otherwise serving at the request of the Surgeon
General, are entitled to receive compensation at a rate fixed by the
Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, but not exceeding
$50 per diem, including travel time, and travel expenses including
per diem in lieu of subsistence, as authorized by law for persons in
the Government service employed intermittently, while away from
their homes or regular places of business.
Subsection (e) of section 306 as originally enacted required the
Surgeon General to call a conference broadly representative of the
professional and training groups interested in and informed about
training of professional public health personnel, and including
members of the advisory committee appointed pursuant to subsec-
tion (d), to assist him in appraising the effectiveness of the train-
eeships under this section in meeting the needs for trained public
health personnel; in considering modifications in section 306, if
any, which might be desirable to increase its effectiveness; and in
considering the most effective distribution of responsibilities be-
tween Federal and State Governments with respect to the admin-
istration and support of public health training. This Conference
had to be called between June 30 and December 1, 1958, and the
Surgeon General was required to submit to the Congress a report
on such conference including any recommendations by it relating
to the limitation, extension, or modification of this section on or
before January 1, 1959. Public Law 86—105 amended this subsec-
tion to require the Surgeon General to call a similar conference
between June 30 and December 1, 1963, and submit to the Con-
gress, on or before January 1, 1964, a report of such conference,
including any recommendations by it relating to the limitation,
extension, or modification of section 306.
Subsection (f) of section 306 provides that, except as otherwise
provided in section 306, nothing contained therein shall be con-
strued as authorizing any department, agency, officer, or em-
ployee of the United States to exercise any direction, supervision,
or control over the personnel or curriculum of any training insti-
tution.
Amendments made by the bill
Subsection (a) of section 2 of the bill amends subsection (a) of
section 306 of the Public Health Service Act so as to extend the
[P. 4]
program under section 306 for 5 additional years (July 1, 1964,
through June 30,1969), but would impose a ceiling on the amount
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1407
which could be appropriated for any fiscal year. These ceilings
would be as follows: $4,500,000 for fiscal year 1965, $7 million for
fiscal year 1966, $8 million for fiscal year 1967, and $10 million
each for fiscal years 1968 and 1969.
Subsection (b) of section 2 of the bill would amend subsection
(e) of section 306 of the Public Health Service Act so as to
require the Surgeon General to call a conference between June 30
and December 1, 1967, similar to the conference required by
subsection (e) as originally enacted. The Surgeon General would
be required to submit to the Congress on or before January 1,
1968, a report on such conference, including any recommendations
by the conference relating to the limitation, extension, or modifi-
cation of section 306.
[P. 5]
HEARINGS
At hearings conducted by the committee on August 6, 1964, the
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare testified in favor
of H.R. 11083. Its provisions are also endorsed by the American
Public Health Association, the Association of Schools of Public
Health and by the American Nurses Association.
DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT,
BUREAU OF THE BUDGET,
Washington, D.C., August 6,1964.
Hon. LISTER HILL,
Chairman, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN : This is in reply to your letter of July 23,
1964, requesting the views of the Bureau of the Budget on H.R.
11083, a bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to extend the
authorization for assistance in the provision of graduate or spe-
cialized public health training, and for other purposes.
This bill would enable the Public Health Service to expand its
efforts in attracting and training qualified persons for service in
public health. In addition, it would serve to strengthen the pro-
grams of those institutions which provide the facilities and facul-
ties for such training. The enactment of the Health Professions
Educational Assistance Act of 1963 necessitates the supplementa-
tion of the medical practitioner with more public health officials
and professional nurses. H.R. 11083 would help meet the need for
-------
1408 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
public health manpower as outlined by the President in his health
message.
Enactment of this legislation would be in accord with the pro-
gram of the President.
Sincerely yours,
PHILLIP S. HUGHES,
Assistant Director for Legislative Reference.
[p. 6]
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE,
Washington, August 5,1964.
Hon. LISTER HILL,
Chairman, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in response to your request of
July 23, 1964, for a report on H.R. 11083, as passed by the House,
an act to amend the Public Health Service Act to extend the au-
thorization for assistance in the provision of graduate or special-
ized public health training, and for other purposes.
The bill would extend for 5 years the authorization for public
health traineeships contained in section 306 of the Public Health
Service Act, and for 4 years the authorization contained in section
309 of that act for project grants to schools of public health,
schools of nursing, and schools of engineering for public health
training. These complementary programs would then carry identi-
cal expiration dates of June 30,1969.
The bill would also strengthen and improve the program of
project grants for public health training by amending the provi-
sions of section 309 of the Public Health Service Act to—
(a) Broaden the eligibility for project grants to include
other types of institutions and agencies which provide gradu-
ate or specialized public health training, in addition to schools
of public health, schools of nursing, and schools of engineer-
ing;
(&) Broaden the purpose of the project grants to include
the strengthening and expansion of specialized training in
public health, in addition to the presently authorized graduate
training in public health; and
(c) Increase the annual appropriation authorization from
its present level of $2 million to a maximum of $9 million for
fiscal year 1969.
The bill would carry out recommendations of the President con-
tained in his health message, and is the same as the legislative
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1409
proposal submitted to the Congress by this Department, except for
the appropriation ceilings for the traineeship program which were
added in the House.
Extension and expansion of these training activities along the
lines provided for in this legislation would significantly contribute
to alleviation of the critical shortage of adequately trained profes-
sional public health manpower.
We therefore urge enactment of this bill. The Bureau of the
Budget advises that enactment of this legislation would be in
accord with the program of the President.
Sincerely,
WILBUR J. COHEN,
Assistant Secretary.
[P. 7]
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
In compliance with subsection (4) of rule XXIX of the Stand-
ing Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by the bill,
as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be
omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in
italic, existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in
roman) :
PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT
*******
TRAINEESHIPS FOR PROFESSIONAL PUBLIC HEALTH PERSONNEL
Sec. 306. (a) There are hereby authorized to be appropriated
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1957, and for each of the next
[seven] twelve fiscal years, such sums as the Congress may deter-
mine, but not to exceed $4,500,000 for the fiscal year ending June
30, 1965, $7,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1966,
$8,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1967, and
$10,000,000 each for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968, and the
succeeding fiscal year, to cover the cost of traineeships for gradu-
ate or specialized training in public health for physicians, engi-
neers, nurses, and other professional health personnel.
(b) Traineeships under this section may be awarded by the
Surgeon General either (1) directly to individuals whose applica-
tions for admission have been accepted by the public or other
nonprofit institutions providing the training, or (2) through
grants to such institutions.
(c) Payments under this section may be made in advance or by
-------
1410 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
way of reimbursement, and at such intervals and on such condi-
tions, as the Surgeon General finds necessary. Such payments to
institutions may be used only for traineeships, and payments
under this section with respect to any traineeship shall be limited
to such amounts as the Surgeon General finds necessary to cover
the cost of tuition and fees, and a stipend and allowances (includ-
ing travel and subsistence expenses) for the trainee.
(d) The Surgeon General shall appoint an expert advisory com-
mittee, composed of persons representative of the principal health
specialties in the fields of public health administration and train-
ing, to advise him in connection with the administration of this
section, and section 309 including the development of program
standards and policies and including, in the case of section 309,
certification to the Surgeon General of projects which it has re-
viewed and approved. Members of such committee who are not
otherwise in the employ of the United States, while attending
meetings of the committee or otherwise serving at the request of
the Surgeon General, shall be entitled to receive compensation at a
rate to be fixed by the Secretary of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare, but not exceeding $50 per diem, including travel time, and
while away from their homes or regular places of business they
may be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of
subsistence, as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 73 b-2) for persons in
the Government service employed intermittently.
(e) The Surgeon General shall, between June 30, 1958, and
December 1, 1958, call a conference broadly representative of the
professional and training groups interested in and informed about
training of professional public health personnel, and including
members of the advisory committee appointed pursuant to subsec-
[p.8]
tion (d), to assist him in appraising the effectiveness of the train-
eeships under this section in meeting the needs for trained public
health personnel; in considering modifications in this section, if
any, which may be desirable to increase its effectiveness; and in
considering the most effective distribution of responsibilities be-
tween Federal and State governments with respect to the adminis-
tration and support of public health training. The Surgeon Gen-
eral shall submit to the Congress, on or before January 1, 1959, a
report of such conference, including any recommendations by it
relating to the limitation, extension, or modification of this sec-
tion. The Surgeon General shall, between June 30, 1963, and De-
cember 1, 1963, call a similar conference, and shall submit to the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1411
Congress, on or before January 1, 1964, a report of such confer-
ence, including any recommendations by it relating to the limita-
tion, extension, or modification of this section. The Surgeon Gen-
eral shall, between June 30, 1967, and, December 1, 1967, call a
similar conference, and shall submit to the Congress, on or before
January 1,1968, a report of such conference, including any recom-
mendations by it relating to the limitation, extension, or modifica-
tion of this section.
(f) Except as otherwise provided in this section, nothing con-
tained in this section shall be construed as authorizing any depart-
ment, agency, officer, or employee of the United States to exercise
any direction, supervision, or control over the personnel or curric-
ulum of any training institution.
[p. 9]
1.12t (3) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 110 (1964)
1.12t (3) (a) July 21: Passed House, pp. 16444-16447
GRADUATE PUBLIC HEALTH TRAINING
AMENDMENTS OP 1964
Mr. ROBERTS of Alabama. Mr.
Speaker, I move to suspend the rules
[p. 16444]
and pass the bill (H.R. 11083) to
amend the Public Health Service Act
to extend the authorization for assist-
ance in the provision of graduate or
specialized public health training, and
for other purposes.
The Clerk read as follows:
Be it enacted bv the Senate and Haute of
Representative* of the United States of
America in Congreu assembled. That this
Act may be cited as the "Graduate Public
Health Training Amendments of 1964".
SEC. 2. (a) Subsection (a) of section 306
of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
242d), relating to traineeships for profes-
sional public health personnel, is amended
by striking out "seven" and inserting in lieu
thereof "twelve" and by inserting immedi-
ately after "Congress may determine," the
following: "but not to exceed $4,500,000 for
the fiscal year ending June 30. 1965, $7,000,-
000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1966,
$8,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1967, and (10,000,000 each for the fiscal year
ending June 3, 1968, and the succeeding fiscal
year,".
(b) Subsection (e) of such section is
amended by adding at the end thereof the
following new sentence: "The Surgeon Gen-
eral shall, between June SO, 1967, and De-
cember 1, 1967, call a similar conference,
and shall submit to the Congress, on or before
January 1, 1968, a report of such conference,
including any recommendations by it relat-
ing to the limitation, extension, or modifica-
tion of this section."
Mr. ROBERTS of Alabama. Mr.
Speaker, I yield myself such time as
I may desire.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 11083 is a bill to
extend and expand two existing pro-
grams administered by the Public
Health Service, public health trainee-
ships authorized under section 306 of
the Public Health Service Act, and
project grants at schools of public
health and other schools under section
309 of the Public Health Service Act.
A National Conference on Public
Health Training was called by the
Surgeon General in conformity with
section 306 of the Public Health Serv-
ice Act in October 1963 to evaluate
-------
1412
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
existing programs. That conference
made a number of recommendations
designed to increase the supply of
critically needed professional public
health manpower. Today, only a little
more than 50 percent of the profes-
sional personnel in State and local
health departments have received the
training necessary to qualify them
formally for their public health re-
sponsibilities.
The present rate of training of
public health personnel barely offsets
attrition in this field and program ex-
pansion. To maintain even the present
inadequate staffing pattern in State
and local health departments and to
offset attrition, at least 17,000 more
trained workers must be produced by
1970. Many more in addition to this
17,000 will be needed by voluntary
health agencies and Federal agencies;
many will also be needed to overcome
the present acute shortage of teachers.
As an example of the current short-
ages of personnel in this field, more
than 5,000 budgeted positions are now
vacant in State and local health de-
partments. This bill is designed to help
meet this problem by providing
traineeships for professional public
health personnel and project grants
for schools of public health.
Section 306 of the Public Health Act
today authorizes appropriations of
such sums as Congress may determine
to cover the cost of traineeships. The
committee amended this section to
eliminate this "open end" authoriza-
tion, and included specific appropria-
tion ceilings for each of the next 5
years, totaling $39,500,000.
[p. 16445]
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.
DAWSON). The question is, Will the
House suspend the rules and pass the
bill, H.R. 11083?
The question was taken; and (two-
thirds having voted in favor thereof)
the rules were suspended and the bill
was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on
the table.
[p. 16647]
1.12t (3) (b) Aug. 12: Passed Senate, pp. 19144-19145
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
1.12u COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES EXTENSION
AMENDMENTS
August 5,1965, P.L. 89-109, § 4, 79 Stat. 436
GENERAL PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES
SEC. 4. (a) The first sentence of subsection (c) of section 314 of
such Act is amended by striking out "first five fiscal years ending
after June 30, 1961" and inserting in lieu thereof "first six fiscal
years ending after June 30,1961".
(b) The third sentence of subsection (c) of section 314 of such
Act is amended by striking out "$2,500,000" and inserting in lieu
thereof "$5,000,000".
[p. 436]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1413
1.12u (1) SENATE COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND
PUBLIC WELFARE
S. REP. No. 117, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. (1965)
COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES EXTENSION AMEND-
MENTS OF 1965
MARCH 10,1965.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. HILL, from the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, sub-
mitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany S. 510]
The Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, to whom was
referred the bill (S. 510) to extend and otherwise amend certain
expiring provisions of the Public Health Service Act relating to
community health services, and for other purposes, having consid-
ered the same, report favorably thereon with amendments and
recommend that the bill do pass.
SUMMARY
S. 510 would extend four existing grant-in-aid programs au-
thorized by the Public Health Service Act, as amended, to provide
assistance to the States and their communities in financing essen-
tial public health services. The legislation would continue:
The program of grants for immunizations against polio,
diphtheria, whooping cough, and tetanus for the 5 fiscal years
1966-70 at an annual appropriation authorization of $8 mil-
lion, and add measles to the program;
The program of grants for migratory workers health serv-
ices for 5 fiscal years with appropriation authorizations of $7
million for 1966, $8 million for 1967, $9 million for 1968, and
$10 million each for 1969 and 1970;
The program of formula grants for general health services,
mental health services, radiological health services, dental
health services, health services for the chronically ill and
aged, and schools of public health for 1 additional year, fiscal
year 1967, with no change in the overall annual appropriation
ceiling of $50 million; and
-------
1414 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
The program of project grants to finance studies, experi-
ments, and demonstrations for the development of new or
improved methods of providing health services to the chroni-
cally ill or aged persons for 1 additional year, fiscal year 1967,
[p. i]
with no change in the $10 million annual authorization for
appropriations.
[P-2]
Section 4 (a) : This section extends for 1 additional year section
314 (c) of the PHS Act (expiring June 30, 1966), which author-
izes annual appropriations of $50 million to assist States, counties,
health districts, and other political subdivisions of the States in
establishing and maintaining adequate public health services, in-
cluding demonstration and training grants and grants-in-aid to
schools of public health.
Section 4(b) of the bill would increase the subceiling on appro-
priations for the formula grants for schools of public health from
$2,500,000 to $5 million. This increase in the subceiling would not
necessitate any increase in the overall appropriation authorization
of $50 million for section 314 (c).
[p. 7]
PAKT B—FEDERAL COOPERATION
* * * * * * *
GRANTS AND SERVICES TO STATE
SEC. 314. (a) To enable the Surgeon General to carry out the
purposes of section 301 with respect to developing more effective
measures for the prevention, treatment, and control of venereal
diseases, and to assist, through grants and as otherwise provided
in this section, States, counties, health districts, and other political
subdivisions of the States in establishing and maintaining ade-
quate measures for the prevention, treatment, and control of such
diseases, including the training of personnel for State and local
health work, and to enable him to prevent and control the spread
[P. 8]
of the venereal diseases in interstate traffic, and to meet the cost
of pay, allowances, and traveling expenses of commissioned
officers and other personnel of the Service detailed to assist in
carrying out the purposes of this section with respect to the vener-
eal diseases, and to administer this section with respect to such
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1415
diseases, there is hereby authorized to be appropriated for each
fiscal year a sum sufficient to carry out the purposes of this
subsection.
(b) To enable the Surgeon General to carry out the purposes of
section 301 with respect to developing more effective measures for
the prevention, treatment, and control of tuberculosis, and to as-
sist, through grants and as otherwise provided in this section,
States, counties, health districts, and other political subdivisions
of the States in establishing and maintaining adequate measures
for the prevention, treatment, and control of such disease, includ-
ing the provision of appropriate facilities for care and treatment
and including the training of personnel for State and local health
work, and to enable him to prevent and control the spread of
tuberculosis in interstate traffic, and to meet the cost of pay,
allowances, and traveling expenses of commissioned officers and
other personnel of the Service detailed to assist in carrying out the
purposes of this section with respect to tuberculosis, and to admin-
ister this section with respect to such disease, there is hereby
authorized to be appropriated for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1945, the sum of $10,000,000, and for each fiscal year thereafter a
sum sufficient to carry out the purposes of this subsection.
(c) To enable the Surgeon General to assist, through grants and
as otherwise provided in this section, States, counties, health dis-
tricts, and other political subdivisions of the States in establishing
and maintaining adequate public health services, including grants
for demonstrations and for training of personnel for State and
local health work, there is authorized to be appropriated for each
of the [first five fiscal years ending after June 30, 1961,] first six
fiscal years ending after June 30, 1961, the sum of $50,000,000.
When so provided in any Act appropriating funds for carrying out
the purposes of this subsection for any year, such amounts as may
be specified in such Act shall be available only for allotments and
payments for such services and activities included under this
subsection as may be provided in such Act; and in such case the
requirements of subsection (h) shall be separately applied to such
allotments and payments. Of the sum appropriated for each fiscal
year pursuant to this subsection there shall be available (1) such
amount as may be necessary to enable the Surgeon General to
provide demonstrations and to train personnel for State and local
health work and to meet the cost of pay, allowances, and traveling
expenses of commissioned officers and other personnel of the Serv-
ice detailed to assist States in carrying out the purposes of this
subsection, and (2) an amount not to exceed [$2,500,000]
-------
1416 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
$5,000,000 to enable the Surgeon General to make grants-in-aid,
under such terms and conditions as may be prescribed by regula-
tions, for provision in public or nonprofit schools of public health
accredited by a body or bodies recognized by the Surgeon General,
of comprehensive professional training, specialized consultative
services, and technical assistance in the fields of public health and
in the administration of State and local public health programs,
except that in allocating funds made available under this clause
(2) among such schools of public health the Surgeon General shall
[p. 9]
give primary consideration to the number of federally sponsored
students attending each such school.
(d) For each fiscal year, the Surgeon General, with the ap-
proval of the Secretary, shall determine the total sum from the
appropriation under subsection (a), the total sum from the appro-
priation under subsection (b), and, within the limits specified in
subsection (c), the total sum from the appropriation under that
subsection which shall be available for allotment among the sev-
eral States. He shall, in accordance with regulations, from time to
time make allotments from such sums to the several States on the
basis of (1) the population, (2) the extent of the venereal disease
problem, the extent of the tuberculosis problem, and the extent of
the mental health problem and other special health problems,
respectively, and (3) the financial need of the respective States.
Upon making such allotments the Surgeon General shall notify the
Secretary of the Treasury of the amounts thereof.
(e) To enable the Surgeon General to carry out the purposes of
part B of title IV and to assist, through grants, States, counties,
health districts, and other political subdivisions of the State, and
public and nonprofit agencies, institutions, and other organiza-
tions, in establishing and maintaining organized community pro-
grams of heart disease control, including grants for demonstra-
tions and the training of personnel, there is hereby authorized to
be appropriated for each fiscal year such sums as may be neces-
sary for such purposes. For each fiscal year, the Surgeon General,
with the approval of the Secretary, shall determine the total sum
from the appropriation under this subsection which shall be avail-
able for allotment among the several States, and shall, in accord-
ance with regulations, from time to time make allotments from
such sum to the several States on the basis of (1) the population
and (2) the financial need of the respective States. Upon making
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1417
such allotments the Surgeon General shall notify the Secretary of
the Treasury of the amounts thereof.
(f) The Surgeon General, with approval of the Secretary, shall
from time to time determine the amounts to be paid to each State
from the allotments to such State, and shall certify to the Secre-
tary of the Treasury the amounts so determined, reduced or in-
creased, as the case may be, by the amounts by which he finds that
estimates of required expenditures with respect to any prior pe-
riod were greater or less than the actual expenditures for such
period: Provided, That in the case of amounts to be paid from
allotments to any State under subsection (e), the Surgeon General
may determine and certify to the Secretary of the Treasury
amounts to be paid to a county health district, other political
subdivision of the State or to any public or nonprofit agency,
institution, or other organization in the State, if he finds that
payment to such subdivision or other organization has been recom-
mended by the State health authority of the State, and (1) that
the State health authority has not, prior to August 1 of the fiscal
year for which the allotment is made, presented and had approved
a plan in accordance with subsection (g), or (2) that the State
health authority is not authorized by law to make payments to
such other organization. Upon receipt of such certification, the
Secretary of the Treasury shall, through the Division of Disburse-
ment of the Treasury Department and prior to audit or settlement
by the General Accounting Office, pay in accordance with such
certification.
[p. 10]
(g) The moneys so paid to any State, or to any political subdivi-
sion or other organization, shall be expended solely in carrying out
the purposes specified in subsection (a), or subsection (b), or
subsection (c), or subsection (e), as the case may be, and in
accordance with plans, approved by the Surgeon General, which
have been presented by the health authority of such State, or,
under the circumstances specified in subsection (f)(l), by the
political subdivision, or the agency, institution or other organiza-
tion to whom the payment is made, and, to the extent that any
such plan contains provisions relating to mental health, by the
mental health authority of such State.
(h) Money so paid from allotments under subsections (a), (b),
(c), and (e), shall be paid upon the condition that there shall be
spent in such State for the same general purpose from funds of
such State and its political subdivisions (or in the case of pay-
-------
1418 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
ments to a political subdivision or to an agency, institution or
other organization under circumstances specified in subsection
(f) (1), from funds of such political subdivision or organization),
an amount determined in accordance with regulations.
(i) Whenever the Surgeon General, after reasonable notice and
opportunity for hearing to the health authority or, where appro-
priate, the mental health authority of the State (or, in the case of
payments to any political subdivision or any agency, institution, or
other organization under the circumstances specified in subsection
(f) (1), such subdivision or organization) finds that, with respect
to money paid to the State, subdivision, or organization out of
appropriations under subsection (a), or subsection (b), or subsec-
tion (c), or subsection (e), as the case may be, there is a failure
to comply substantially with either—
(1) the provisions of this section;
(2) the plan submitted under subsection (g); or
(3) the regulations;
the Surgeon General shall notify such State health authority or
mental health authority, political subdivision, or organization that
further payments will not be made to the State, subdivision, or
organization from appropriations under such subsection (or in his
discretion that further payments will not be made to the State,
subdivision, or organization from such appropriations for activi-
ties in which there is such failure), until he is satisfied that there
will no longer be any such failure. Until he is so satisfied the
Surgeon General shall make no further certification for payment
to such State, subdivision, or organization from appropriations
under such subsection, or shall limit payment to activities in
which there is no such failure.
(j) All regulations and amendments thereto with respect to
grants to States under this section shall be made after consulta-
tion with a conference of the State health authorities and, in the
case of regulations or amendments which relate to or in any way
affect grants under subsection (c) for work in the field of mental
health, the State mental health authorities. Insofar as practicable,
the Surgeon General shall obtain the agreement, prior to the issu-
ance of any such regulations or amendments, of the State health
authorities and, in the case of regulations or amendments which
relate to or in any way affect grants under subsection (c) for
work in the field of mental health, the State mental health authori-
ties.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1419
(k) Funds appropriated under subsection (a) and funds appro-
priated under subsection (b), in addition to being available for
[p. HI
payments to States, shall also be available for expenditure by the
Surgeon General for printing and binding of the findings of
investigations, and for pay and allowances and traveling ex-
penses of personnel of the Service engaged in activities authorized
by the respective subsections.
(1) Except as otherwise provided in this subsection the provi-
sions of this section shall be applicable to Guam and American
Samoa in the same manner in which they apply to the States.
Amounts paid to Guam or American Samoa from its allotment
under subsections (a), (b), (c), or (e) of this section, together
with matching funds of Guam or American Samoa, respectively,
may, with the approval of the Surgeon General, be expended in
carrying out the purposes specified in any such subsection or
subsections other than the one under which the allotment was
made.
(m) The Surgeon General, at the request of the State health
authority or, where appropriate, the State mental health author-
ity, may reduce the payments to a State under this section by the
amount of the pay, allowances, traveling expenses, and any other
costs in connection with the detail of an officer or employee of the
Public Health Service to the State or any of its political subdivi-
sions when such detail is made for the convenience of and at the
request of the State and for purposes of carrying out its State
plan approved under this section. The amount by which such pay-
ments are so reduced shall be available for payment of such costs
by the Surgeon General, but shall, for purposes of subsection (h),
be deemed to have been paid to the State.
*******
[p. 12]
-------
1420 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
1.12u (2) HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND
FOREIGN COMMERCE
H.R. REP. No. 249, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. (1965)
COMMUNITY HEALTH SEEVICES EXTENSION AMEND-
MENTS OF 1965
APRIL 15, 1965.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. HARRIS, from the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Com-
merce, submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 2986]
The Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, to whom
was referred the bill (H.R. 2986) to extend and otherwise amend
certain expiring provisions of the Public Health Service Act relat-
ing to community health services, and for other purposes, having
considered the same, report favorably thereon with amendments
and recommend that the bill as amended do pass.
[p.l]
Section 4. General public health services
This section extends for 1 additional year the program carried
on under section 314 (c) of the Public Health Service Act under
which the Surgeon General makes grants to assist in establishing
and maintaining adequate public health services in the several
States, including grants for demonstrations and for training of
personnel for State and local public health work. The present
authorization of appropriations of $50 million per year would
apply during- the year for which this program is extended.
[p. 13]
PART B—FEDERAL-STATE COOPERATION
*******
GRANTS AND SERVICES TO STATES
SEC. 314. (a) To enable the Surgeon General to carry out the
purposes of section 301 with respect to developing more effective
measures for the prevention, treatment, and control of venereal
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1421
diseases, and to assist, through grants and as otherwise provided
in this section, States, counties, health districts, and other political
subdivisions of the States in establishing and maintaining ade-
quate measures for the prevention, treatment, and control of such
diseases, including the training of personnel for State and local
health work, and to enable him to prevent and control the spread
of the venereal diseases in interstate traffic, and to meet the cost
of pay, allowances, and traveling expenses of commissioned
officers and other personnel of the Service detailed to assist in
carrying out the purposes of this section with respect to the vener-
eal diseases, and to administer this section with respect to such
diseases, there is hereby authorized to be appropriated for each
fiscal year a sum sufficient to carry out the purposes of this
subsection.
(b) To enable the Surgeon General to carry out the purposes of
section 301 with respect to developing more effective measures for
the prevention, treatment, and control of tuberculosis, and to as-
sist, through grants and as otherwise provided in this section,
States, counties, health districts, and other political subdivisions
of the States in establishing and maintaining adequate measures
for the prevention, treatment, and control of such disease, includ-
ing the provision of appropriate facilities for care and treatment
and including the training of personnel for State and local health
work, and to enable him to prevent and control the spread of
tuberculosis in interstate traffic, and to meet the cost of pay,
allowances, and traveling expenses of commissioned officers and
other personnel of the Service detailed to assist in carrying out the
purposes of this section with respect to tuberculosis, and to admin-
ister this section with respect to such disease, there is hereby
authorized to be appropriated for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1945, the sum of $10,000,000, and for each fiscal year thereafter a
sum sufficient to carry out the purposes of this subsection.
(c) To enable the Surgeon General to assist, through grants and
as otherwise provided in this section, States, counties, health dis-
tricts, and other political subdivisions of the States in establishing
and maintaining adequate public health services, including grants
for demonstrations and for training of personnel for State and
local health work, there is authorized to be appropriated for each
of the first [five] six fiscal years ending after June 30, 1961, the
sum of $50,000,000. When so provided in any Act appropriating
funds for carrying out the purposes of this subsection for any
year, such amounts as may be specified in such Act shall be availa-
ble only for allotments and payments for such services and activi-
-------
1422 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
ties included under this subsection as may be provided in such
Act; and in such case the requirements of subsection (h) shall be
separately applied to such allotments and payments. Of the sum
appropriated for each fiscal year pursuant to this subsection there
shall be available (1) such amount as may be necessary to enable
the Surgeon General to provide demonstrations and to train per-
[p. 17]
sonnel for State and local health work and to meet the cost of pay,
allowances, and traveling expenses of commissioned officers and
other personnel of the Service detailed to assist States in carrying
out the purposes of this subsection, and (2) an amount not to
exceed $2,500,000 to enable the Surgeon General to make grants-
in-aid, under such terms and conditions as may be prescribed by
regulations, for provision in public or nonprofit schools of public
health accredited by a body or bodies recognized by the Surgeon
General, of comprehensive professional training, specialized con-
sultive services, and technical assistance in the fields of public
health and in the administration of State and local public health
programs, except that in allocating funds made available under
this clause (2) among such schools of public health the Surgeon
General shall give primary consideration to the number of feder-
ally sponsored students attending each such school.
(d) For each fiscal year, the Surgeon General, with the ap-
proval of the Administrator, shall determine the total sum from
the appropriation under subsection (a), the total sum from the
appropriation under subsection (b), and, within the limits speci-
fied in subsection (c), the total sum from the appropriation under
that subsection which shall be available for allotment among the
several States. He shall, in accordance with regulations, from time
to time make allotments from such sums to the several States on
the basis of (1) the population, (2) the extent of the venereal-dis-
ease problem, the extent of the tuberculosis problem, and the ex-
tent of the mental health problem and other special health prob-
lems, respectively, and (3) the financial need of the respective
States. Upon making such allotments the Surgeon General shall
notify the Secretary of the Treasury of the amounts thereof.
(e) To enable the Surgeon General to carry out the purposes of
part B of title IV and to assist, through grants, States, counties,
health districts, and other political subdivisions of the State, and
public and nonprofit agencies, institutions, and other organiza-
tions, in establishing and maintaining organized community pro-
grams of heart disease control, including grants for demonstra-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1423
tions and the training of personnel, there is hereby authorized to
be appropriated for each fiscal year such sums as may be neces-
sary for such purposes. For each fiscal year, the Surgeon General,
with the approval of the Secretary, shall determine the total sum
from the appropriation under this subsection which shall be avail-
able for allotment among the several States, and shall, in accord-
ance with regulations, from time to time make allotments from
such sum to the several States on the basis of (1) the population
and (2) the financial need of the respective States. Upon making
such allotments the Surgeon General shall notify the Secretary of
the Treasury of the amounts thereof.
(f) The Surgeon General, with approval of the Secretary, shall
from time to time determine the amounts to be paid to each State
from the allotments to such State, and shall certify to the Secre-
tary of the Treasury, the amounts so determined, reduced or in-
creased, as the case may be, by the amounts by which he finds that
estimates of required expenditures with respect to any prior pe-
riod were greater or less than the actual expenditures for such
period: Provided, That in the case of amounts to be paid from
allotments to any State under subsection (e), the Surgeon General
[P. 18]
may determine and certify to the Secretary of the Treasury
amounts to be paid to a county health district, other political
subdivision of the State or to any public or nonprofit agency,
institution, or other organization has in the State, if he finds that
payment to such subdivision or other organization has been recom-
mended by the State health authority of the State, and (1) that
the State health authority has not, prior to August 1 of the fiscal
year for which the allotment is made, presented and had approved
a plan in accordance with subsection (g), or (2) that the State
health authority is not authorized by law to make payments to
such other organization. Upon receipt of such certification, the
Secretary of the Treasury shall, through the Division of Disburse-
ment of the Treasury Department and prior to audit or settlement
by the General Accounting Office, pay in accordance with such
certification.
(g) The moneys so paid to any State, or to any political subdivi-
sion or other organization, shall be expended solely in carrying out
the purposes specified in subsection (a), or subsection (b), or
subsection (c), or subsection (e), as the case may be, and in
accordance with plans, approved by the Surgeon General, which
have been presented by the health authority of such State, or,
-------
1424 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
under the circumstances specified in subsection (f) (1), by the
political subdivision, or the agency, institution or other organiza-
tion to whom the payment is made, and, to the extent that any
such plan contains provisions relating to mental health, by the
mental health authority of such State.
(h) Money so paid from allotments under subsections (a), (b),
(c), and (e), shall be paid upon the condition that there shall be
spent in such State for the same general purpose from funds of
such State and its political subdivisions (or in the case of pay-
ments to a political subdivision or to an agency, institution or
other organization under circumstances specified in subsection
(f) (1), from funds of such political subdivision or organization),
an amount determined in accordance with regulations.
(i) Whenever the Surgeon General, after reasonable notice and
opportunity for hearing to the health authority or, where appro-
priate, the mental health authority of the State (or, in the case of
payments to any political subdivision or any agency, institution, or
other organization under the circumstances specified in subsection
(f) (1), such subdivision or organization) finds that, with respect
to money paid to the State, subdivision, or organization out of
appropriations under subsection (a), or subsection (b), or subsec-
tion (c), or subsection (e), as the case may be, there is a failure
to comply substantially with either—
(1) the provisions of this section;
(2) the plan submitted under subsection (g) ; or
(3) the regulations;
the Surgeon General shall notify such State health authority or
mental health authority, political subdivision, or organization that
further payments will not be made to the State subdivision, or
organization from appropriations under such subsection (or in his
discretion that further payments will not be made to the State,
subdivision, or organization from such appropriations for activi-
ties in which there is such failure), until he is satisfied that there
will no longer be any such failure. Until he is so satisfied the
Surgeon General shall make no further certification for payment
to such State, subdivision, or organization from appropriations
[P. 19]
under such subsection, or shall limit payment to activities in
which there is no such failure.
(j) All regulations and amendments thereto with respect to
grants to States under this section shall be made after consulta-
tion with a conference of the State health authorities and, in the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1425
case of regulations or amendments which relate to or in any way
affect grants under subsection (c) for work in the field of mental
health, the State mental health authorities. Insofar as practicable,
the Surgeon General shall obtain the agreement, prior to the issu-
ance of any such regulations or amendments, of the State health
authorities, and in the case of regulations or amendments which
relate to or in any way aifect grants under subsection (c) for
work in the field of mental health, the State mental health authori-
ties.
(k) Funds appropriated under subsection (a) and funds appro-
priated under subsection (b), in addition to being available for
payments to States, shall also be available for expenditure by the
Surgeon General in otherwise carrying out the respective subsec-
tions, including expenditures for printing and binding of the find-
ings of investigations, and for pay and allowances and traveling
expenses of personnel of the Service engaged in activities author-
ized by the respective subsections.
(1) Except as otherwise provided in this subsection the provi-
sions of this section shall be applicable to Guam and American
Samoa in the same manner in which they apply to the States.
Amounts paid to Guam or American Samoa from its allotment
under subsections (a), (b), (c), or (e) of this section, together
with matching funds of Guam or American Samoa, respectively,
may, with the approval of the Surgeon General, be expended in
carrying out the purposes specified in any such subsection or
subsections other than the one under which the allotment was
made.
(m) The Surgeon General, at the request of the State health
authority or, where appropriate, the State mental health author-
ity, may reduce the payments to a State under this section by the
amount of the pay, allowances, traveling expenses, and any other
costs in connection with the detail of an officer or employee of the
Public Health Service to the State or any of its political subdivi-
sions when such detail is made for the convenience of and at the
request of the State and for purposes of carrying out its State
plan approved under this section. The amount by which such pay-
ments are so reduced shall be available for payment of such costs
by the Surgeon General, but shall, for purposes of subsection (h),
be deemed to have been paid to the State.
[p. 20]
-------
1426 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
1.12u (3) COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE
H.R. REP. No. 676, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. (1965)
COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES EXTENSION AMEND-
MENTS OF 1965
JULY 23,1965.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. HARRIS, from the committee of conference, submitted the fol-
lowing
CONFERENCE REPORT
[To accompany S. 510]
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two
Houses on the amendment of the House to the bill (S. 510) to
extend and otherwise amend certain expiring provisions of the
Public Health Service Act relating to community health services,
and for other purposes, having met, after full and free conference,
have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their respective
Houses as follows:
That the Senate recede from its disagreement to the amendment
of the House and agree to the same with an amendment as fol-
lows:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the House
amendment insert the following:
That this Act may be cited as the "Community Health Services
Extension Amendments of 1965".
[p.l]
GENERAL PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES
Sec. 4. (a) The first sentence of subsection (c) of section 314 of
such Act is amended by striking out "first five fiscal years ending
after June 30, 1961" and inserting in lieu thereof "first six fiscal
years ending after June 30,1961".
(b) The third sentence of subsection (c) of section 314 of such
Act is amended by striking out "$2,500,000" and inserting in lieu
thereof "$5,000,000".
[P. 2]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1427
1.12u (4) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. Ill (1965)
1.12u (4) (a) March 11: Amended and passed Senate, p. 4843,
4844
Mr. HILL. Mr. President, the Com-
mittee on Labor and Public Welfare
has favorably reported S. 510, the
Community Health Services Extension
Amendments of 1965. This bill is a
part of the President's health program
and its enactment is urged by the ad-
ministration. When hearings were con-
ducted by the Subcommittee on Health
the spokesmen for the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare as
well as numerous health organizations
and agencies urged its enactment.
This bill would extend four existing
grant-in-aid programs that are au-
thorized by the Public Health Service
Act.
*****
[p. 4843]
FORMULA GRANTS TO STATES
Section 4 would extend for 1 addi-
tional year, fiscal year 1967, the
formula grants for general assistance,
mental health, dental health, radio-
logical health, chronic diseases, and
public health schools. No change in
the overall annual authorization of $50
million is proposed.
Only a 1-year extension is recom-
mended by the committee pending the
completion of two major studies.
One of these major studies is being
carried out by the Association of State
and Territorial Health Officers.
In addition, the 4-year study of the
National Commission on Community
Health Services will be completed
within a year. This study to develop
improved methods of providing com-
munity health services is under the
direction of the well-qualified Mr.
Marion Folsom. The sponsors are the
American Public Health Association
and the National Health Council.
In the case of the formula grants
for schools of public health, however,
the committee is of the opinion that to
defer action would not be in the na-
tional interest. It is recommended,
therefore, that the subceiling of $2,-
500,000 earmarked for schools of pub-
lic health under section 314 (c) of the
Public Health Service Act be raised to
$5 million with no increase in the over-
all appropriation authorization of $50
million under such section.
The 12 schools of public health are
a national resource. They serve as a
source of professional public health
personnel for all of the State and local
governments and for all of the Federal
agencies including the Public Health
Service, the Department of Defense,
and the Veterans' Administration.
Senators may recall that there are
only 12 schools of public health in the
entire United States. In other words,
of the 50 States, only 10 have schools
of public health; the remaining 40
States must look to the 12 schools for
the training of doctors and public
health nurses, public health tech-
nicians, and other public health em-
ployees that they must have.
Last year Congress approved the
graduate public health training
amendments of 1964 that more than
doubles the Federal support for pub-
lice health training. The resultant ex-
pansion in professional public health
students requires additional support
to the schools of public health if they
are to maintain the high level of train-
ing that is now offered.
In the near future two new schools
of public health will be established.
Unless the formula grants are in-
creased there will be a reduction in the
amounts available to the 12 existing
schools of public health.
*****
[p. 4844]
-------
1428
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
1.12u (4) (b) May 3: House Committee discharged, amended and
passed House, p. 9141
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. HARRIS
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I offer
an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. HARRIS : Strike
out all after the enacting clause of S. 510 and
insert the provisions of H.R. 2986 as passed:
"That this Act may be cited as the "Com-
munity Health Services Extension Amend-
ments of 1965".
"GENERAL PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES
"SEC. 4. The first sentence of subsection (c)
of section 314 of such Act is amended by strik-
ing out 'first five fiscal years ending after
June 30, 1961* and inserting in lieu thereof
'first six fiscal years ending after June 30
1961'.
The amendment was agreed to.
The Senate bill was ordered to be
read a third time, was read the third
time, and passed, and a motion to re-
consider was laid on the table.
A similar House bill (H.R. 2986)
was laid on the table.
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to take from the
Speaker's table the bill (S. 510) to ex-
tend and otherwise amend certain
expiring provisions of the Public
Health Service Act relating to com-
munity health services, and for other
purposes, with a House amendment
thereto, insist upon the House amend-
ment, and request a conference with
the Senate.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Arkansas? The Chair hears none, and
appoints the following conferees:
Messrs. HARRIS, O'BRIEN, ROGERS of
Florida, SATTERFIELD, SPRINGER, NEL-
SEN, and CARTER.
[p. 9141]
1.12u (4) (c) July 26: Senate aggrees to conference report, p. 18216
COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES
EXTENSION AMENDMENTS OF 1965—
CONFERENCE REPORT
Mr. HILL. Mr. President, I submit a
report of the committee of conference
on the disagreeing votes of the two
Houses on the amendment of the
House to the bill—S. 510—to extend
and otherwise amend certain expiring
provisions of the Public Health Service
Act relating to community health serv-
ices, and for other purposes. I ask
unanimous consent for the present
eration of the report?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
report will be read for the information
of the Senate.
The legislative clerk read the report.
(For conference report, see House
proceedings of July 27, 1965, p. 18425,
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is
there objection to the present consid-
eration of the report?
There being no objection, the Sen-
ate proceeded to consider the report.
Mr. HILL. Mr. President, the con-
ferees agreed to the House amendment
that authorized $33 million over the 3
fiscal years 1966-68 to assist in financ-
ing immunization programs against
polio, diphtheria, whooping cough,
tetanus, and measles, in lieu of the
5-year program approved by the Sen-
ate. The Senate amendment relating to
simplified record-keeping was accepted
in a modified form.
There was agreement to authorize
$24 million in appropriations over the
3 fiscal years 1966-68 for health serv-
ices for domestic agricultural farm-
workers and their families. The
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1429
Senate had approved $44 million for
the 5 fiscal years 1966-70 and the
House of Representatives had ap-
proved $9 million for the 3 fiscal years
1966-68. The House amendment de-
leting authorization for financing
necessary hospital care was rejected.
There was also agreement to reject
the House amendment that deleted the
Senate-approved increase in the sub-
ceiling on appropriations from $2,-
500,000 to $5 million for formula
grants for schools of public health
for each of the fiscal years 1966 and
1967.
The provisions of the legislation au-
thorizing $50 million for formula
grants for fiscal year 1967 for gen-
eral health services, mental health
services, dental health services, health
services for the chronically ill and
aged, radiological health services, and
schools of public health as well as $10
million for project grants for com-
munity health services for fiscal year
1967 were identical as approved by
the Senate and House of Representa-
tives and were not in conference.
These programs of the Public
Health Service are outstanding ex-
amples of Federal-State cooperation in
advancing health in this country.
The conference report is signed by
all of the conferees on the part of the
Senate and by all the conferees on the
part of the House.
Mr. President, I move the adoption
of the report.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the con-
ference report.
The report was agreed to.
[p. 18216]
1.12u (4)(d) July 27: House agrees to conference report, p. 18425
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
1.12v AMENDMENTS TO PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT
August 9, 1965, P.L. 89-115, § 3, 79 Stat. 448
CONTRACT AUTHORITY
SEC. 3. Section 301 of the Act is amended by striking out "and"
at the end of subsection (g), by redesignating subsection (h) as
subsection (i), and by inserting immediately before such subsec-
tion the following new subsection:
" (h) Enter into contracts during the fiscal year ending June 30,
1966, and each of the two succeeding fiscal years, including con-
tracts for research in accordance with and subject to the provi-
sions of law applicable to contracts entered into by the military
departments under title 10, United States Code, sections 2353 and
2354, except that determination, approval, and certification re-
quired thereby shall be by the Secretary of Health, Education, and
Welfare; and".
[p. 448]
-------
1430 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
1.12v (1) HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND
FOREIGN COMMERCE
H.R. REP. No. 247, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. (1965)
HEALTH RESEARCH FACILITIES AMENDMENTS OF 1965
APRIL 15, 1965.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State
of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. HARRIS, from the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Com-
merce, submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 2984]
The Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, to whom
was referred the bill (H.R. 2984) to amend the Public Health
Service Act provisions for construction of health research facili-
ties by extending the expiration date thereof and providing in-
creased support for the program, to authorize additional Assistant
Secretaries in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
and for other purposes, having considered the same, report favor-
ably thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill as
amended do pass.
The amendment is as follows :
Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu thereof
the following :
That this Act may be cited as the "Health Research Facilities Amendments of
1965".
CONTRACTS FOR RESEARCH
SEC. 3. Section 301 of the Act is amended by striking out "and" at the end
of subsection (g), by redesignating subsection (h) as subsection (i), and by
inserting immediately before such subsection the following new subsection:
"(h) Enter into contracts during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1966,
and each of the two succeeding fiscal years, involving obligations of not
more than $43,000,000 for any such fiscal year, including contracts for
research in accordance with and subject to the provisions of law appli-
cable to contracts entered into by the military departments under title
10, United States Code, sections 2353 and 2354, except that determination,
approval, and certification required thereby shall be by the Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare ; and".
[p.l]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1431
ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SECRKTARIES OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
SEC. 4. (a) There shall be in the Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare, in addition to the Assistant Secretaries now provided for by law,
three additional Assistant Secretaries of Health, Education, and Welfare,
who shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent
of the Senate. The provisions of section 2 of the Reorganization Plan Num-
bered 1 of 1953 (67 Stat. 631) shall be applicable to such additional Assistant
Secretaries to the same extent as they are applicable to the Assistant Secre-
taries authorized by that section.
(b) The office of Special Assistant to the Secretary (Health and Medical
Affairs), created by section 3 of the Reorganization Plan Numbered 1 of
1953 (67 Stat. 631), is hereby abolished.
(c) Paragraph (17) of section 303 (d) of the Federal Executive Salary
Act of 1964 (78 Stat. 418) is amended by striking out "(2)" before the period
at the end thereof and inserting in lieu thereof "(5)"; and paragraph (95)
of section 303 (e) of such Act is repealed.
(d) The President may authorize the person who immediately prior to the
date of enactment of this Act occupies the office of Special Assistant to the
Secretary (Health and Medical Affairs) to act as one of the additional
Assistant Secretaries authorized by subsection (a) of this section, until that
office is filled by appointment in the manner provided by such section. While
so acting, such person shall receive compensation at the rate now or hereafter
provided by law for Assistant Secretaries of executive departments.
HEARINGS:COST
The committee held 4 days of hearings on this and three other
health bills on March 2, 3, 4, and 5, 1965. All witnesses who
testified concerning this legislation favored the provisions con-
tained in the reported bill.
The total costs of the programs provided for in the bill will be
slightly in excess of $409 million over the 3 fiscal years 1966
through 1968. An aggregate of $280 million in appropriations is
authorized for health research facilities and $43 million annually
is authorized for the continuation of contract authority. It is an-
ticipated that the additional costs associated with the appointment
of additional assistant secretaries will be minimal.
RESEARCH CONTRACT AUTHORITY
Research contract authority has been available to the Public
Health Service through "point-of-order" language contained in the
annual appropriation acts since fiscal year 1957. The program of
research contracts based on this temporary authority has in-
creased steadily in size and importance.
-------
1432 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
Under existing law, except with respect to specific authorization
contained in the 1965 appropriation act for cancer research, the
[p. 3]
research contract authority granted to the Public Health Service
does not permit the use of contract funds for permanent improve-
ments. Authority to provide for permanent improvements through
research contracts is available to other major Federal research-
supporting agencies including the National Science Foundation,
the Department of Defense, and the Atomic Energy Commission.
The reported bill would authorize the Public Health Service to
enter into contracts for research or development (or both) during
the fiscal years 1966, 1967, and 1968, subject to an annual authori-
zation ceiling of $43 million, including contracts providing for
indemnification of contractors as now authorized in the case of the
military departments by 10 U.S.C. 2354, and, when necessary foi
the performance of the contract, the inclusion in a research con-
tract of provisions for the construction of facilities available to
the military departments under 10 U.S.C. 2353.
The research contract is considered by the Public Health Serv-
ice to be the appropriate mechanism for the financing of research
and development activities in non-Federal organizations when the
activity is undertaken at the request of the Public Health Service,
and is directed to the accomplishment of specific research objec-
tives of the Public Health Service. In contrast, the research grant
is considered more appropriate for the support of research initi-
ated by a non-Federal institution or individual, and directed to-
ward the accomplishment of the research purposes of that institu-
tion or individual. In addition, research contracts are also used by
the Public Health Service for the financing of all research activi-
ties conducted by profitmaking organizations.
The committee is aware that there has been some criticism of
the research contract mechanism used by the Public Health Serv-
ice, and has therefore provided a 3-year limitation on this author-
ity and has placed a ceiling on the funds which may be obligated
under this program.
Recently a committee known as the Wooldridge Committee is-
sued a report discussing among other things research contracts
entered into by the National Institutes of Health. The committee
expects to study this problem further and, in order to prevent
disruption of ongoing programs, has provided the limited authori-
zation contained in the bill.
[p. 4]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1433
SECTION-BY-SECTION DESCRIPTION OF THE COMMITTEE SUBSTI-
TUTE
*******
SECTION 3. CONTRACTS FOR RESEARCH
This section amends section 301 of the Public Health Service
Act by adding a new subsection (h) thereto. This new subsection
would specifically authorize the Surgeon General to enter into
contracts in carrying out the duties imposed upon him by such
section 301. Those duties are to conduct in the Public Health
Service, and encourage, cooperate with, and render assistance to
other appropriate public authorities, scientific institutions, and
scientists in the conduct of, and promote the coordination of, re-
search, investigations, experiments, demonstrations, and studies
relating to the causes, diagnosis, treatment, control, and preven-
tion of physical and mental diseases and impairment of man, in-
cluding water purification, sewage treatment, and pollution of
lakes and streams. This authority to enter into contracts for the
purposes enumerated above would be limited to the 3 fiscal years
in the period beginning on July 1, 1965, and ending on June 30,
[p. 10]
1969. The contracts entered into during any of the 3 fiscal years in
such period could not involve obligations in excess of $43 million
for any such year. In addition, this new subsection (h) would give
to the Surgeon General similar contract authority to that which is
possessed by the heads of military departments under the provi-
sions of sections 2353 and 2354 of title 10 of the United States
Code. Similar authority in the past has been given to the Surgeon
General in appropriation acts. Under this authority, a contract for
research could provide for the acquisition or construction by, or
furnishing to, the contractor, of research facilities and equipment
that the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare determines
to be necessary for performance of the contract. The facilities and
equipment, and specialized housing for them, could be acquired or
constructed at the expense of the United States, and could be lent
or leased to the contractor with or without reimbursement, or
could be sold to him at fair value. No new construction or im-
provement having general utility could be carried out under this
authority. Facilities that could not be readily removable or separa-
ble without unreasonable expense or unreasonable loss of value
could not be installed or constructed unless special provisions were
included in the contract to protect the interests of the United
States.
-------
1434 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
Under this proposed new subsection, such contracts could also,
with the approval of the Secretary of Health, Education, and
Welfare, contain provisions that the United States would indem-
nify the contractor against (1) claims (including reasonable ex-
penses of litigation or settlement) by third persons, including
employees of the contractor, for death, bodily injury, or loss of or
damage to property, from a risk that the contract defines as unu-
sually hazardous, and (2) loss of or damage to property of the
contractor from a risk that the contract defines as unusually haz-
ardous, but only to the extent that they arise out of the direct
performance of the contract and to the extent not compensated by
insurance or otherwise. Any contract having such indemnification
provisions would also have to provide for notice to the United
States of any claim or suit against the contractor for a claim
covered by such provisions and control of or assistance in the
defense of such suit or claim by the United States, at its election.
No indemnity payment could be made unless the Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare, or an officer or employee of the
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare designated by him,
certified that the amount of the payment was just and reasonable.
Indemnification payments under such contracts would be made
from (1) funds obligated for the performance of the contract
concerned, (2) funds available for research and not otherwise
obligated, or (3) funds appropriated for such payments.
[p. HI
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, As
REPORTED
In compliance with clause 3 of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the
bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to
be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in
italic, existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in
roman):
PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT
*******
TITLE III—GENERAL POWERS AND DUTIES OF PUBLIC
HEALTH SERVICE
PART A—RESEARCH AND INVESTIGATION
IN GENERAL
SEC. 301. The Surgeon General shall conduct in the Service, and
encourage, cooperate with, and render assistance to other appro-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1435
priate public authorities, scientific institutions, and scientists in
the conduct of, and promote the coordination of, research, investi-
gations, experiments, demonstrations, and studies relating to the
causes, diagnosis, treatment, control, and prevention of physical
and mental diseases and impairments of man, including water
purification, sewage treatment, and pollution of lakes and streams.
In carrying out the foregoing the Surgeon General is authorized
to—
(a) Collect and make available through publications and other
appropriate means, information as to, and the practical applica-
tion of, such research and other activities;
(b) Make available research facilities of the Service to appro-
priate public authorities, and to health officials and scientists en-
gaged in special study;
[p. 15]
(c) Establish and maintain research fellowships in the Service
with such stipends and allowances, including traveling and sub-
sistence expenses, as he may deem necessary to procure the assist-
ance of the most brilliant and promising research fellows from the
United States and abroad;
(d) Make grants-in-aid to universities, hospitals, laboratories,
and other public or private institutions, and to individuals for
such research or research training projects as are recommended
by the National Advisory Health Council, or, with respect to can-
cer, recommended by the National Advisory Cancer Council, or,
with respect to mental health, recommended by the National Advi-
sory Mental Health Council, or with respect to heart diseases,
recommended by the National Advisory Heart Council, or, with
respect to dental diseases and conditions, recommended by the
National Advisory Dental Research Council, and include in the
grants for any such project grants of penicillin and other anti-
biotic compounds for use in such project; and make, upon recom-
mendation of the National Advisory Health Council, grants-in-aid
to public or nonprofit universities, hospitals, laboratories, and
other institutions for the general support of their research and
research training programs: Provided, That such uniform per-
centage, not to exceed 15 per centum, as the Surgeon General may
determine, of the amounts provided for grants for research or
research training projects for any fiscal year through the appro-
priations for the National Institutes of Health may be transferred
from such appropriations to a separate account to be available for
-------
1436 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
such research and research training program grants-in-aid for
such fiscal year;
(e) Secure from time to time and for such periods as he deems
advisable, the assistance and advice of experts, scholars, and con-
sultants from the United States or abroad;
(f) For purposes of study, admit and treat at institutions, hos-
pitals, and stations of the Service, persons not otherwise eligible
for such treatment;
(g) Make available, to health officials, scientists, and appropri-
ate public and other nonprofit institutions and organizations, tech-
nical advice and assistance on the application of statistical meth-
ods to experiments, studies, and surveys in health and medical
fields; [and]
(h) Enter into contracts during the fiscal year ending June 30,
1966, and each of the two succeeding fiscal years, involving an
expenditure of not more than $4-3,000,000 for any such fiscal year,
including contracts for research in accordance with and subject to
the provisions of law applicable to contracts entered into by the
military departments under title 10, United States Code, sections
2353 and 2354, except that determination, approval, and certifica-
tion required thereby shall be by the Secretary of Health, Educa-
tion, and Welfare; and
[ (h) ] (i) Adopt, upon recommendation of the National Advi-
sory Health Council, or, with respect to cancer, upon recommenda-
tion of the National Advisory Cancer Council, or with respect to
mental health, upon recommendation of the National Advisory
Mental Health Council, or, with respect to heart diseases, upon
recommendation of the National Advisory Heart Council, or, with
respect to dental diseases and conditions, upon recommendations
of the National Advisory Dental Research Council, such additional
means as he deems necessary or appropriate to carry out the
purposes of this section.
[P. 6]
SECTIONS 2353 AND 2354 OP TITLE 10, UNITED STATES CODE
§ 2353. Contracts: acquisition, construction, or furnishing of test
facilities and equipment
(a) A contract of a military department for research or devel-
opment, or both, may provide for the acquisition or construction
by, or furnishing to, the contractor, of research, developmental, or
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1437
test facilities and equipment that the Secretary of the military
department concerned determines to be necessary for the perform-
ance of the contract. The facilities and equipment, and specialized
housing for them, may be acquired or constructed at the expense
of the United States, and may be lent or leased to the contractor
with or without reimbursement, or may be sold to him at fair
value. This subsection does not authorize new construction or im-
provements having general utility.
(b) Facilities that would not be readily removable or separable
without unreasonable expense or unreasonable loss of value may
not be installed or constructed under this section on property not
owned by the United States, unless the contract contains—
(1) a provision for reimbursing the United States for the
fair value of the facilities at the completion or termination of
the contract or within a reasonable time thereafter;
[p. 19]
(2) an option in the United States to acquire the underly-
ing land; or
(3) an alternative provision that the Secretary concerned
considers to be adequate to protect the interests of the United
States in the facilities.
(c) Proceeds of sales or reimbursements under this section shall
be paid into the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts, except to the
extent otherwise authorized by law with respect to property ac-
quired by the contractor.
§ 2354. Contracts: indemnification provisions
(a) With the approval of the Secretary of the military depart-
ment concerned, any contract of a military department for re-
search or development, or both, may provide that the United
States will indemnify the contractor against either or both of the
following, but only to the extent that they arise out of the direct
performance of the contract and to the extent not compensated by
insurance or otherwise:
(1) Claims (including reasonable expenses of litigation or
settlement) by third persons, including employees of the con-
tractor, for death, bodily injury, or loss of or damage to
property, from a risk that the contract defines as unusually
hazardous.
(2) Loss of our damage to property of the contractor from
a risk that the contract defines as unusually hazardous.
-------
1438 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
(b) A contract, made under subsection (a), that provides for
indemnification must also provide for—
(1) notice to the United States of any claim or suit against
the contractor for the death, bodily injury, or loss of or dam-
age to property; and
(2) control of or assistance in the defense by the United
States, at its election, of that suit or claim.
(c) No payment may be made under subsection (a) unless the
Secretary of the department concerned, or an officer or official of
his department designated by him, certifies that the amount is just
and reasonable.
(d) Upon approval by the Secretary concerned, payments under
subsection (a) may be made from—
(1) funds obligated for the performance of the contract
concerned;
(2) funds available for research or development, or both,
and not otherwise obligated; or
(3) funds appropriated for those payments.
[p. 20]
1.12v (2) SENATE COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND
PUBLIC WELFARE
S. REP. No. 367, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. (1965)
HEALTH RESEARCH FACILITIES AMENDMENTS OF 1965
JUNE 24, 1965.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. HILL, from the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, sub-
mitted the following
REPORT
Together with
INDIVIDUAL VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 2984]
The Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, to whom was
referred the bill (H.R. 2984) to amend the Public Health Service
Act provisions for construction of health research facilities by
extending the expiration date thereof and providing increased
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1439
support for the program, to authorize additional Assistant Secre-
taries in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and
for other purposes, having considered the same, report favorably
thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill as
amended do pass.
SUMMARY
H.R. 2984, as reported by this committee, would:
[p. i]
Research contract authority
The legislation provides authority for the Public Health Service
to enter into contracts for research and would also authorize the
Public Health Service to utilize certain research contract authori-
ties available to the Department of Defense. At the present time,
the Public Health Service Act does not provide authority for the
making of research contracts in the conduct of PHS research
programs. The research contract authority utilized by the Public
Health Service is provided in "point of order" language which
appears in the annual appropriation act.
This increase in research contracts can be directly related to the
great expansion in the supply of fundamental knowledge in the
biomedical field—an expansion that has been stimulated and nur-
tured by the rapid rise in Federal support for health-related re-
search. The progress in the advance of basic knowledge—largely
financed through research grants—has created the potential for
the undertaking of a variety of deliberate developmental and ap-
plied research activities. While the grant mechanism has been
appropriate for the support of research projects which are aimed
at increasing the broad base of biomedical knowledge and which
are initiated by nonprofit educational and research institutions,
research activities of a developmental or applied research nature
can be more effectively financed through research contracts. The
contract mechanism allows greater control over the course of tech-
nical activity and access to new kinds of engineering and scientific
talent.
Examples of research activities which can be most effectively
pursued through the use of research contracts are the development
of vaccines for respiratory diseases, the furtherance of applied
research in the viral etiology of cancer, and the design and devel-
opment of artificial organs such as the mechanical heart and arti-
-------
1440 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
ficial lung, improved methods of hemodialysis to save lives threat-
ened by diseased kidneys, and development of new means for cop-
ing with environmental hazards.
The search for chemical agents which fight the spread of cancer,
large coordinated studies aimed at identifying the causes of birth
defects, the development of automated hospital systems, and the
use of computers in clinical testing are other examples where hope
exists that developmental and applied research activities can pro-
duce practical results.
As developmental opportunities such as these evolve, the Public
Health Service will need to draw more heavily upon the kind of
technical capability industry has brought to bear in other fields,
such as the aerospace and defense-related programs. Since it is the
considered policy of the Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare, based on past experience, that contracts are the most
desirable means of financing research activities in profit organiza-
[p. 5]
tions, further PHS exploitation of industrial capabilities in
health-related fields will require use of adequate research contract
authority.
Increased access to these industrial capabilities through the con-
tract mechanism will become more important because of the grow-
ing awareness that advances in the physical sciences and related
engineering and technological capabilities have great significance
for further progress in health-related research. The scope of po-
tential contributions to health and medicine from these fields is
very broad, ranging from new materials, instrumentation, and
electronics to the application of computer technology and systems
analysis concepts.
In providing support for medical research, the Congress has
given high priority to seeking the solution to the health problems
of the American people. This committee believes that adequate
research contract authority is an essential component of the effort
against disease, and we believe that the health research area will
benefit from increased use of the research contract mechanism.
Strong evidence of the effectiveness of contracts in financing re-
search and development activities is given by the extensive use of
contracts by the other major Federal research supporting agen-
cies. The Public Health Service should be afforded equivalent flexi-
bility in the choice of the most effective financing mechanism.
The bill also provides the Public Health Service with access to
two additional research contract authorities presently available to
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1441
the Department of Defense. The first of these authorities would
permit payment of the costs of construction determined to be
necessary in the performance of a research contract. Some re-
search contracts require highly specialized facilities as an integral
part of the research program. A current example is the special
protective facilities required for continued work with dangerous
and infectious agents encountered in the important research effort
investigating the cancer-virus relationship. Without such author-
ity, these research contracts must be administered within restric-
tions based on superficial distinctions between "temporary" and
"permanent" improvements. These artificial distinctions result in
the expenditure of additional money with no productive effect on
the performance of the contract.
The second authority requested would provide for the indemni-
fication of contractors against claims which arise out of direct
performance of the contract and which are the result of a risk
which the contract defines as unusually hazardous. This type of
contract provision is often required if a contractor is to be induced
to undertake work which involves the handling of live viruses or
the exposure to poisonous compounds. This authority has been
available to the Public Health Service for a number of years
through temporary point-of-order language in the appropriation
act.
Under the new subsection (h) of section 301 of the Public
Health Service Act, research or development contracts could con-
tain provisions to indemnify contractors against claims by third
persons from the risks that the contract defines as unusually haz-
ardous and against loss of or damage to property from a risk
defined as unusually hazardous. So as not to substitute Federal
indemnity for the contractor's normal insurance or self-insurance
programs, it is the intent of the committee that the governmental
indemnity extended to Public Health Service contractors not be
[p. 6]
substituted for the insurance or self-insurance programs normally
maintained by such contractors. Indemnity should not be provided
in lieu of available private insurance.
[p. 7]
AMENDMENT
The amendment adopted by the committee would strike out all
after the enacting clause and insert new matter.
-------
1442 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
The differences between H.R. 2984 as passed by the House of
Representatives and H.R. 2984 as reported by this committee are
as follows:
Section 3 of H.R. 2984 as reported by this committee would
eliminate the 3-year time limitation and the annual appropriation
authorization of $43 million with respect to the authority of the
Public Health Service to enter contracts for the performance of
research and development.
The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare has advised
the committee that $79 million will be obligated this year by the
Public Health Service through negotiated contracts. In fiscal year
1966 the obligations are expected to increase to $94 million.
A limitation on the use of research contracts by the Public
Health Service would have the very serious effect of preventing
the most productive pursuit of some of the exciting prospects for
the application of scientific knowledge to the reduction of human
death and suffering. Specifically, such a limitation would practi-
cally eliminate further involvement of industrial firms in the
health-related programs which are the responsibility of the Public
Health Service. Since these firms have much to offer in the future
evolution of the national medical research effort, and since the
industries are expressing increased interest in applying their cap-
abilities to these problems, the wisest course would seem to be to
seek maximum utilization of this vast potential in achieving the
health objectives set forth for the Public Health Service in its
basic enabling legislation. Because the contract is the only mecha-
nism appropriate for the financing of research in profitmaking
firms, increased use of contracts by the PHS is totally consistent
with present program trends and farsighted program direction.
[P. 8]
Section 3 of the reported bill would insert immediately before
the last paragraph of section 301 of the Public Health Service Act
a new paragraph.
This new paragraph would clarify existing authority under sec-
tion 301 by specifically authorizing the Surgeon General to enter
into contracts in carrying out the duties imposed upon him by
such section 301. Those duties are to conduct in the Public Health
Service, and encourage, cooperate with, and render assistance to
other appropriate public authorities, scientific institutions, and
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1443
scientists in the conduct of, and promote the coordination of, re-
search, investigations, experiments, demonstrations, and studies
relating to the causes, diagnosis, treatment, control, and preven-
tion of physical and mental diseases and impairments of man,
including water purification, sewage treatment, and pollution of
lakes and streams. In addition, this paragraph would give the
Surgeon General research contract authority similar to that which
is possessed by the heads of military departments under the provi-
sions of sections 2353 and 2354 of title 10 of the United States
Code. Similar authority in the past has been given to the Surgeon
General in appropriation acts. Under this authority, a contract for
research could provide for the acquisition or construction by, or
furnishing to, the contractor, of research facilities and equipment
that the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare determines
to be necessary for performance of the contract. The facilities and
equipment, and specialized housing for them, could be acquired or
constructed at the expense of the United States, and could be lent
or leased to the contractor with or without reimbursement, or
could be sold to him at fair value. No new construction or im-
provement having general utility could be carried out under this
authority. Facilities that could not be readily removable or separa-
ble without unreasonable expense or unreasonable loss of value
could not be installed or constructed unless special provisions were
included in the contract to protect the interests of the United
States.
Under this proposed new paragraph, such contracts could also,
with the approval of the Secretary of Health, Education, and
[p. 13]
Welfare, contain provisions that the United States would indem-
nify the contractor against (1) claims (including reasonable ex-
penses of litigation or settlement) by third persons, including
employees of the contractor, for death, bodily injury, or loss of or
damage to property, from a risk that the contract defines as unu-
sually hazardous, and (2) loss of or damage to property of the
contractor from a risk that the contract defines as unusually haz-
ardous, but only to the extent that they arise out of the direct
performance of the contract and to the extent not compensated by
insurance or otherwise. Any contract having such indemnification
provisions would also have to provide for notice to the United
States of any claim or suit against the contractor for a claim
covered by such provisions and control of or assistance in the
defense of such suit or claim by the United States, at its election.
-------
1444 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
No indemnity payment could be made unless the Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare, or an officer or employee of the
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare designated by him,
certified that the amount of the payment was just and reasonable.
Indemnification payments under such contracts would be made
from (1) funds obligated for the performance of the contract
concerned, (2) funds available for research and not otherwise
obligated, or (3) funds appropriated for such payments.
*******
[p. 14]
PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT
TITLE III—GENERAL POWERS AND DUTIES OF PUBLIC
HEALTH SERVICE
PART A—RESEARCH AND INVESTIGATION
IN GENERAL
SEC. 301. * * *
(g) Make available, to health officials, scientists, and appropri-
ate public and other nonprofit institutions and organizations, tech-
nical advice and assistance on the application of statistical meth-
ods to experiments, studies, and surveys in health and medical
fields; [and]
(h) Enter into contracts, including contracts for research in
accordance with and subject to the provisions of law applicable to
contracts entered into by the military departments under title 10,
United States Code, sections 2353 and 2354, except that determi-
nation, approval, and certification required thereby shall be by the
Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare; and
[(h)](i) Adopt, upon recommendation of the National Advi-
sory Health Council, or, with respect to cancer, upon recommenda-
tion of the National Advisory Cancer Council, or with respect to
mental health, upon recommendation of the National Advisory
Mental Health Council, or, with respect to heart diseases, upon
recommendation of the National Advisory Heart Council, or, with
respect to dental diseases and conditions, upon recommendations
of the National Advisory Dental Research Council, such additional
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1445
means as he deems necessary or appropriate to carry out the
purposes of this section.
*******
[p. 15]
1.12v(3) COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE
H.R. REP. No. 677, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. (1965)
HEALTH RESEARCH FACILITIES AMENDMENTS OF 1965
JULY 23,1965.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. HARRIS, from the committee of conference, submitted the fol-
lowing
CONFERENCE REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 2984]
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two
Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 2984) to
amend the Public Health Service Act provisions for construction
of health research facilities by extending the expiration date
thereof and providing increased support for the program, to au-
thorize additional Assistant Secretaries in the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare, and for other purposes, having
met, after full and free conference, have agreed to recommend and
do recommend to their respective Houses as follows:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment
of the Senate and agree to the same with an amendment as fol-
lows:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate
amendment insert the following:
That this Act may be cited as the "Health Research Facilities
Amendments of 1965".
Contract Authority
Sec. 3. Section 301 of the Act is amended by striking out "and"
at the end of subsection (g), by redesignating subsection (h) as
[p. 1]
-------
1446
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
subsection (i), and by inserting immediately before such subsec-
tion the followimg new subsection:
" (h) Enter into contracts during the fiscal year ending June 30,
1966, and each of the two succeeding fiscal years, including con-
tracts for research in accordance with and subject to the provi-
sions of law applicable to contracts entered into by the military
departments under title 10, United States Code, sections 2353 and
2354, except that determination, approval, and certification re-
quired thereby shall be by the Secretary of Health, Education, and
Welfare; and".
*******
And the Senate agree to the same.
OREN HARRIS,
LEO W. O'BRIEN,
PAUL G. ROGERS,
DAVID E. SATTERFIELD III,
JAMES A. MACKAY
JOHN J. GILLIGAN,
WILLIAM L. SPRINGER,
ANCHER NELSEN,
TIM LEE CARTER,
Managers on the Part of the House.
LISTER HILL,
RALPH W. YARBOROUGH,
HARRISON WILLIAMS,
CLAIBORNE PELL,
EDWARD KENNEDY,
J. JAVITS,
GEORGE L. MURPHY,
Managers on the Part of the Senate.
[p. 2]
1.12v (4) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. Ill (1965)
1.12v (4) (a) May 10: Debated, amended and passed House, pp.
9958, 9960-9962
Mr. HARRIS.
*****
In addition, Mr. Chairman, we put
another restriction insofar as concerns
the contractual authority contained in
the bill, and that is a limitation of $43
million to be obligated during any one
fiscal year.
Mr. Chairman, this proviso will
come in for some discussion. The com-
mittee received information that the
present program was working very
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1447
well and the amount of contractual au-
thority for 1964 was $43 million. Since
then, it has developed that this infor-
mation was incorrect and that the
NIH had entered into contracts obli-
gating the total sum of $46,259,000,
and for the entire program under the
Public Health Service Act it was $57,-
419,000. For this fiscal year the total
sum of all of these services for con-
tractual authority is proposed to be at
the level of $79,366,000. Therefore, we
did not obtain the correct information
on the extent of the program and even
the present status of it but neverthe-
less the committee did include an
amendment with this restriction which
was offered by our distinguished col-
league and ranking minority Member,
the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
SPRINGER] .
Mr. Chairman, it developed later
that we did not have the proper infor-
mation, but we decided that it would
be better to proceed with it and this
matter could be given further atten-
tion as the bill progresses through the
Congress. We thought, or at least I
thought, it would be better to go ahead
with the legislation and that we could
get more precise information on the
program and straighten it up as we go
along.
The Public Health Service has had
this contract authority ever since 1957,
obtained through "point of order"
language contained in the annual
appropriation bill. Therefore, this
authorization provided through
amendment to permanent legislation,
actually constitutes an extension of
existing law with limitations which
are not today present in the language
contained in the appropriation acts.
I intend to discuss this program at
greater length later on in my remarks.
[p. 9958]
Mr. HARRIS.
HEALTH RESEARCH FACILITIES
Mr. Chairman, this bill authorizes
an extension of the current health re-
search facilities program. In 1956, this
program was initially authorized. At
that time, the total national expendi-
tures for medical and health-related
research were slightly over $300 mil-
lion. In 1964 almost six times as much
was spent throughout the United
States for this purpose or a. total of
approximately $1.7 billion.
The demand for these facilities in-
creases each year. Our report, on
pages 24 and 25, shows the profes-
sional disciplines covered by projects
awarded through December 31 of last
year, and the types of institutions
which have received these awards. The
majority of the grants for the con-
struction of these facilities insofar as
concerns numbers of requests are by
universities or colleges, which have re-
ceived 325 projects during the life of
the program, at a total cost in excess
of $68 million. The second largest
category of institutions which have
received awards, and the largest
in terms of dollar amounts, are
schools of medicine, which have re-
ceived 278 projects at a total cost to
the Federal Government of $160 mil-
lion. In addition, projects have been
awarded to schools of dentistry,
pharmacy, and schools of veterinary
medicine, and other institutions.
A total of 179 projects have been
awarded to hospitals and 113 to re-
search institutes. There have been a
total of 1,263 construction grants
made under the program to date total-
ing $320 million. These awards have
been made to 399 institutions in every
State, the District of Columbia and
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
For every Federal dollar that has been
spent, more than $1.50 has been pro-
vided from non-Federal funds. The
-------
1448
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
total cost of the research construction
aided with assistance under this pro-
gram has totaled $819 million, of
which $320 million has been furnished
through Federal funds.
This program is an extremely im-
portant and vital one, and our com-
mittee unanimously recommends its
continuation with the modifications
contained in the bill.
RESEARCH CONTRACT AUTHORITY
Section 3 of the bill, as I mentioned
before, is an extension of the existing
program under which the Public
Health Service is authorized to enter
into contracts to carry out the pur-
poses of section 301 of the Public
Health Service Act.
This section contains broad general
authority to the Surgeon General to
deal with his responsibilities under
the act. It provides:
The Surgeon General shall conduct in the
Service, and encourage, cooperate with, and
render assistance to other appropriate pub-
lic authorities, scientific institutions, and
scientists in the conduct of, and promote
the coordination of, research, investigations,
experiments, demonstrations, and studies re-
lating to the causes, diagnosis, treatment,
control, and prevention of physical and men-
tal diseases and impairments of man, in-
cluding water purification, sewage treatment,
and pollution of lakes and streams.
The amendment made by section 3
of the bill will add a new subsection to
section 301 which will provide that the
Surgeon General may, in carrying out
his duties, under section 301, use the
mechanism of entering into contracts
including contracts for research or de-
velopment under authority similar to
that possessed by the heads of military
departments under title 10 of the
United States Code. The sections of
title 10 referred to are set out for the
information of Members of the House
on pages 19 and 20 of the committee
report.
Under these sections, a contract for
research could provide for acquisition
or construction by, or furnishing to,
the contractor of research facilities
and equipment which the Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare deter-
mines to be necessary for performance
of the contract. The facilities that
could not be readily removable or
separable without unreasonable ex-
pense could not be installed unless
special provisions were included in
the contract to protect the interests of
the United States. In addition, such
contracts could also contain provisions
to indemnify contractors against
claims by third persons from risks
that the contract defines as unusually
hazardous and against loss of or dam-
age to property from a risk defined
as unusually hazardous.
Members may have noted that the
authority in section 301, which is
[p. 9960]
amended by the bill, is extremely
broad. In providing permanent author-
ization for contract authority, our
committee has provided a limitation on
this authority so that the administra-
tion will have to return in 3 years and
justify the continuation of this pro-
gram. In addition, we have placed an
overall ceiling on the amount of obli-
gations which may be incurred during
any fiscal year pursuant to this new
authority. I expect that the obligations
under this contract authority both in
the past and in the future will be
looked into by the special subcommit-
tee headed by the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. ROGERS], and we will re-
view the legislative authorization 3
years from now when we receive the
expected request from the administra-
tion for the further extension of the
program.
* * * * #
CONCLUSION
Mr. Chairman, this bill was the sub-
ject of 4 days of hearings before our
committee; was considered in great
detail; was amended fairly substan-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1449
tially by the committee; and I might
add, in my opinion, the amendments
strengthened the bill greatly. The bill
was ordered reported to the House by
a unanimous vote of the committee.
We recommend its enactment.
Mr. NELSEN. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. HARRIS. I shall be glad to
yield to the gentleman from Minne-
sota.
Mr. NELSEN. I note from the com-
mittee report, the Wooldridge report,
the review group, in its language in-
dicated some dissatisfaction relative to
contractual work that had been done.
We discussed this in the committee
and there is included in the report
some recommendations. I wonder if
you want to touch on that for the pur-
pose of legislative history, which
might be a little incentive to this op-
eration, that is, to sharpen it up a bit.
Mr. HARRIS. I will be glad to dis-
cuss this.
We are, of course, aware that there
has been some criticism of the re-
search contract mechanism used by
the Public Health Service. That is one
of the reasons we provided a 3-year
limitation on this authority and have
placed a ceiling on the funds which
may be obligated under this program.
In the summer of 1963, President
Kennedy directed that the Office of
Science and Technology implement an
investigation of the National Insti-
tutes of Health. On February 17, 1965,
the President made public the report
of the NIH Study Committee which
conducted this study, under the chair-
manship of Dr. Dean E. Wooldridge.
As a part of this report, the com-
mittee expressed some criticism of the
collaborative research programs con-
ducted by the National Institutes of
Health.
The review panel of the Committee
which studied the NIH collaborative
programs expressed some criticism of
the contractual mechanism for re-
search, directed in large measure to
the administration of these contracts.
The review panel, however, recognized
that the research contract is desirable
under some circumstances, and stated
—-page 88 of the Wooldridge report:
In general, then, we recognize the ubeful-
ness of the contract mechanism for those sit-
uations in which a concerted developmental
effort is indicated.
The committee expects to study the
matters raised in the Wooldridge re-
port in the near future, and particu-
larly operations under the contract
authority as carried out in the past
and as extended in this legislation.
Pending the completion of the com-
mittee's proposed study of this and
other matters relating to the Public
Health Service, the committee has ex-
tended the contract authority re-
quested by the Department for 3 years
at fiscal 1964 levels of appropriations
utilized for the National Institutes of
Health.
Mr. Chairman, the committee re-
ported this bill unanimously, and we
hope it will be adopted.
Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, I
yield myself such time as I may con-
sume.
In the year 1956, only 3 years after
the Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare was organized, a system
of grants for health research facilities
was instituted. Starting off modestly,
it enjoyed such success with the uni-
versities, the medical schools, and the
scientific community generally that by
1961 these grants amounted to $50
million a year. Research in the health
field has always been an inherent ac-
tivity where medical education was
taking place. Most of the important
medical discoveries of recent times
have come from our universities pro-
ducing graduate doctors. The princi-
ple has become so well accepted that
no medical school is complete without
a broad and meaningful research pro-
gram.
-------
1450
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
The 88th Congress passed the medi-
cal education bill, the purpose of which
was to provide more facilities for the
education of doctors and other medical
professionals. There is every indica-
tion that this program will pay off as
planned. As more facilities are
created for the education of doctors,
more research facilities are also
needed. At the present time there is a
backlog of approved projects amount-
ing to $80 million. As the bill came to
the committee it contained no ceiling
on expenditures and would have con-
tinued for 5 more years. In keeping
with precedent, the committee limited
the program to 3 years and placed an
overall ceiling of $280 million for the
period. This should take care of the
bulge created by the expansion in med-
ical education. Although it is generally
understood, it should be said that the
main purpose of health research fa-
cilities is not to give research experi-
ence to students and professors, but to
produce basic knowledge and new pro-
cedures to combat the diseases of man-
kind.
The bill also provides for authority
to make contracts for the conduct of
research and other purposes. The De-
partment has been exercising this kind
of authority for several years by
virtue of language in the appropria-
tions bill. I am informed that the Ap-
propriations Committee had given
notice that this practice could not con-
tinue and that proper legislative au-
thority should be obtained. The request
itself was very simple, but trying to
discover exactly how the authority had
been used turned out to be very diffi-
cult. The budget language was so
mushy that no specific figure could be
determined. As far as one could tell
from examination of the budget sub-
mission and the conclusion drawn by
the Wooldridge report, the contracts
authority had been used almost en-
tirely for cancer research and the de-
velopment of vaccines by NIH. A book
[p.9961]
containing all of the outstanding con-
tracts of this kind was submitted, and
it appeared that $43 million would
cover the activity. Later we discovered
that the Department had intended to
expand the use of the contract device
and would spend over $60 million in
the next year and about $90 million
in the following year.
Examination of the report to the
President, called "Biomedical Science
and its Administration," otherwise
known as "the Wooldridge report,"
disclosed that the use of the contract
authority for health research projects
is the weakest spot in NIH adminis-
tration. It suggests further examina-
tion of the subject. It does, however,
indicate that the use of this device to
obtain health research has much to be
said for it when properly handled.
A great deal of the research in the
health area can be and is done through
grants to institutions and individuals.
The success of this device depends en-
tirely upon the desire of the individual
scientists or the group of scientists to
pursue the line of research suggested.
There are many kinds of activities
which will require intensive and con-
tinuing research under the supervi-
sion and control of the Public Health
Service. This can best be done by con-
tracts with industry.
A good example of research activity
conduct under contract is the opera-
tion of Oak Ridge for the Atomic
Energy Commission by the Union
Carbide Co. I do not feel that there is
any need for concern at the present
time about granting this authority.
There does need to be more explana-
tion and considerably more light on
the entire subject. I have no doubt
that this entire operation will now be
well ventilated. Meanwhile the com-
mittee has recommended that the au-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1451
thority be reexamined in 3 years and
that during this period the use of the
contract authority for all purposes
within HEW be limited to $43 million
per year. This will avoid the possible
cutting back of desirable projects al-
ready well underway, but will prevent
any expansion in this area until we
can learn more about it.
An entirely different and unrelated
subject contained in this bill would
allow for the appointment of three
new Assistant Secretaries within the
Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare. I am sure there is some feel-
ing within the Committee and else-
where that the justification for these
positions is weak. It has been demon-
strated many times in Government
that the right people with the wrong
organization can do nearly anything,
while the wrong people with the per-
fect organization accomplish little.
There are strong arguments for the
general proposition that HEW needs
more leadership at the policy level.
The Department has grown tremen-
dously and the emphasis on health and
education in the legislation of recent
years has multiplied the workload of
HEW by many times. This factor and
a comparison with other departments
would seem to justify the existence of
policymaking personnel responsible to
the Secretary. There has been some
tendency in this particular Depart-
ment, however, to use Assistant Secre-
taries as dumping grounds for
assorted programs. There is a definite
need for better compartmentalization
and unification of related activities.
We are willing to go along with the
request, but we are watching with in-
terest the way these new positions are
used.
I recommend the passage of H.R.
2984.
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield
such time as he may desire to the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. ROGERS] .
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Mr. Chair-
man, I rise in support of this legisla-
tion. This extension of a program
which the Congress has already wisely
acted upon is needed to continue the
success already accomplished through
State and Federal cooperation. As a
member of the Interstate and Foreign
Commerce Committee, I have followed
the measure before the House closely,
and urge favorable House action on it.
H.R. 2984 does allow a 3-year exten-
sion of the health research facilities
program instead of allowing a stand-
ing authority for annual appropria-
tions of up to $50 million per year. It
also allows for 3 years of authority of
the Public Health Service to enter into
research contracts instead of the ex-
isting authorizations now allowed each
year.
This new basis should give clear di-
rection in these programs, and set
down guidelines of congressional in-
tent in a positive way.
The increasing demands for medical
research, along with the rapid changes
in research methods, give logic for
closer coordination between these pro-
grams and the Congress. I am hopeful
that the Congress will support the
committee's amendments as presented
in this legislation.
Mr. CLEVELAND. Mr. Chairman,
I am pleased to support H.R. 2984,
which will extend the present program
for construction of health research fa-
cilities for 3 additional years and pro-
vide the necessary new means for
carrying out the program with the
greatest efficiency.
The health research facilities pro-
gram is administered by the Depart-
ment of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare, which was created by President
Eisenhower in 1953. The health re-
search program itself was created
under the Eisenhower administration
in 1956. The wisdom and foresight of
this action is providing great rewards
in the battle against disease and afflic-
tion. The demands for new facilities
-------
1452
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
are rising at a rapid pace and it is
proper that we now revise the pro-
gram in keeping with present and
future requirements.
Modern medical research is ex-
tremely complex and very expensive.
Modern laboratories are miracles of
engineering and modern experimental
work requires controls and equipment
of a precision unattainable only a few
years ago. The refinements of research
today are matched by the need for
effective supervision and coordination.
The old, rigid divisions of science are
collapsing as we find underlying laws
and principles applying to physics,
medicine, biology, chemistry, and the
other fields alike.
As on who served on the Select Com-
mittee on Government Research of the
88th Congress, I have an education on
these problems unavailable to most
laymen and I believe this legislation
will help the Federal Government to
improve its vital supporting role in
scientific research. I congratulate the
Interstate and Foreign Commerce
Committee for the excellence of its
work on this bill. I urge the House to
pass it.
The CHAIRMAN. There being no
further requests for time, pursuant to
the rule the Clerk will read the sub-
stitute committee amendment printed
in the report on the bill as an original
bill for the purpose of amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 2984
Be it enacted by the Senate and House
of Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, That this Act
may be cited as the "Health Research Facili-
ties Amendments of 1965".
CONTRACTS FOR RESEARCH
SEC. 3. Section 301 of the Act is amended
by striking out "and" at the end of subsec-
tion (g), by redesignating subsection (h)
as subsection (i), and by inserting immedi-
ately before such subsection the following
new subsection:
"(h) Enter into contracts during the fiscal
year ending June 80, 1966, and each of the
two succeeding fiscal years, involving obli-
gations of not more than $43,000,000 for any
such fiscal year, including contracts for re-
search in accordance with and subject to the
provisions of law applicable to contracts en-
tered into by the military departments under
title 10, United States Code, sections 2363
and 2354, except that determination, ap-
proval, and certification required thereby
shall be by the Secretary of Health, Educa-
tion, and Welfare; and".
[p. 9962]
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike out the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I wish to comment
further on the limitation of $43 mil-
lion on the expenditures for research
contracts. I should like for just a mo-
ment to make some comparisons of the
limitation with the current budget.
Should the limit of $43 million that is
placed on expenditures by the Public
Service Act for research and develop-
ment contracts during fiscal years
1966, 1967, and 1968 remain, the effect
on the current public health research
program and on plans for the further
development of these programs would
be widespread and significant.
The figure $43 million represents the
applications by the National Institute
of Health for research contracts dur-
ing fiscal year 1964. Since the pro-
posed limit would apply to all bureaus
of the Public Health Service and
would apply to fiscal years 1966
through 1968, the limit would have the
effect of forcing a major reduction in
the public health service research con-
tract programs.
I intend to obtain permission when
we get back in the House to include at
this point in the RECORD a table which
will give the factual situation for our
own use and information as this
matter 'developed.
Then I will discuss the effect on tht
current contract program on the fu-
ture program development; on the re-
striction of the choice of financing
mechanism and the restriction on the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1453
use of industrial capability applicable
to health programs.
It would be my purpose to have all
this information in the RECORD because
of the apparent misunderstanding to
which I alluded earlier and the gentle-
man from Illinois [Mr. SPRINGER] re-
ferred to a moment ago, in order that
we can have the factual information
regarding this for such use as we
might need it for as this matter pro-
gresses through the Congress.
I will also put into the RECORD at
the appropriate place a full discussion,
Mr. Chairman, of the research con-
tract authority for these programs of
the Public Health Service. I think it
is important because the gentleman
from Florida [Mr. ROGERS] and his
special subcommittee will go into all
of these problems. They are making
an objective study of the entire orga-
nizational setup of the Department. In
view of the fact that we had the
Wooldridge report which the gentle-
man from Minnesota [Mr. NELSEN]
inquired about, and other reports in-
cluding several congressional commit-
tee reports, and in view of all of the
work of this great and important De-
partment of our great Government, we
intend to conduct a full and thorough
study of the problems. All this infor-
mation should be made available in
connection with the study and for our
use as these programs are considered.
Mr. Chairman, I include the mate-
rial referred to above at this point:
THE EFFECT ON PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE RE-
SEARCH PROGRAMS of LIMITATION ON EX-
PENDITURES FOR RESEARCH CONTRACTS
COMPARISON OF LIMITATION WITH CURRENT
BUDGET
If a limit of $43 million is placed on ex-
penditures by the Public Health Service for
research and development contracts during
fiscal years 1966, 1967, and 1968, the effects
on current PHS research programs and on
plans for the further development of these
programs will be widespread and significant.
The figure of $43 million represents the ob-
ligations by the National Institutes of Health
for research contracts during fiscal year 1964.
Since the proposed limit would apply to all
bureaus of the Public Health Service and
would apply to fiscal years 1966 through
1968, the limit would have the effect of forc-
ing a major reduction in PHS research con-
tract programs.
The following table gives the total obliga-
tions for PHS-negotiated contracts1 for fiscal
year 1964, the estimated obligations for the
current fiscal year, and estimated obligations
for fiscal year 1966 based on the President's
budget request:
[In thousands of dollars]
Public Health Service
operating bureaus
Fiscal
year
1964
Fiscal
year
1965
Fiscal
year
1966
Bureau of State Services.
Community health 5,611 11,895 21,189
Environmental health 4,624 6,263 8,028
National Institutes of Health... 46,259 60,090 63,398
National Center for Health
Statistics 390 362 541
National Library of Medicine... 535 756 976
PHS total 57,419 79,366 94,132
EFFECT ON CURRENT CONTRACT PROGRAMS
The cutback resulting from the proposed
limitation would require curtailment or
limitation of a number of current PHS re-
search activities which are heavily dependent
on research contracts. Prominent examples
are:
1. The National Cancer Institute is cur-
rently launching a special program aimed at
a systematic exploration of the possible virus-
leukemia relationship. For fiscal year 1965,
the Congress added a special $10 million ap-
propriation to start this program. One pos-
sible payoff of this activity is the develop-
ment of a vaccine effective against some types
of leukemia.
2. The cancer chemotherapy program
seeks to identify chemical agents which are
effective against various forms of cancer.
The program procures large numbers of
chemical agents and tests them for anti-
cancer effects. Contracts are used to support
the drug development and evaluation phases
of the program up to the clinical level.
3. The environmental health sciences pro-
gram includes a group of contractual com-
munity studies on pesticides in which the
communities were selected to provide a range
of different pesticide exposure situations by
geographical area, type of pesticide, method
of application, and other factors.
4. The National Institutes of Allergy and
Infectious Diseases utilized contracts in its
virus reagents programs which has assumed
increasing importance in the research effort
against respiratory diseases of vital causa-
-------
1454
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
tion. This program makes available stand-
1 Negotiated contracts are used for the pro-
curement of property and services outside
formal advertised bidding. Such negotia-
tion is authorized under the circumstances
enumerated in sec. 302(2) of the Federal
Property and Administrative Services Act of
1949 (41 U.S.C. 251-260).
ardized reagents for numerous agents im-
portant in human infections including in-
fluenza. A contract has been awarded for
the establishment of a reagent storage and
distribution center. The NIAID also uses
contracts in carrying out its program of vac-
cine development in the area of respiratory
disease.
These are only a few examples of the
many scientific and technical activities of the
Public Health Service carried out largely
through contracts.
Since the ceiling of $43 million is approxj
mately $36 million below the current level
of PHS research contract obligations, the
PHS would be forced to cut off or drastically
retrench the important activities describee-
above, as well as in other valuable contract
programs.
EFFECTS ON FUTURE PKOGKAM DEVELOPMENT
As serious as the cuts in current programs
would be, a more profound effect of the ceil-
ing and its continuation through fiscal year
1968 would be the limitation placed on the
ability of the Public Health Service to
effectively exploit new opportunities pre-
sented by the advances in biomedical sci-
ences and the potential application to health
problems of new capabilities derived from
the physical sciences and related engineering
and technological fields. Some of the most
exciting prospects for the application of
scientific knowledge to the reduction of human
death and suffering will depend on extensive
use of the contract mechanism, especially
when the use of industrial capability is in-
volved.
The opportunities are particularly bright at
this time because of the increasing interesl
of industrial firms in the aerospace and elec-
tronic fields in applying their sophisticatet
technology to problems in the health area
During the summer of 1964, senior NIH staff
reviewed developmental research needs in
the health area to identify specific projects
which might put to high priority use the
industrial B. & D. capabilities expected to
become excess to Department of Defens
needs. This effort was stimulated and co
ordinated by an interagency committee on
Possibilities and Policies for Industrial Con
version, headed by Mr. Arthur Barber, Deputy
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Arms Con
trol.
The objectives of this effort were threefold
^irst, to encourage aerospace and other de-
ense-oriented industries to diversify their
nterests, and thereby minimize the impact
if defense cuts on individual companies and
in the geographic area dependent on these
:ompanies for employment; second, to hold
.ogether the industrial, scientific, and engi-
neering teams that had already contributed
much to the Nation and still offered
unique competencies; and third (the basis
for NIH participation), to improve the qual-
ty of existing Federal programs by bringing
,o them the insights and proven techniques
of advanced industrial research—particularly
:he systems approach.
NIH scientists identified many promising
uses for these R. & D. capabilities in the
health research area. From the many pro-
posals made, eight project areas involving a
first-year expenditure totaling $17 million
and a second-year level of $75 million plus
were selected for submission to the Barber
Committee. A more detailed description of
these opportunities has been supplied to the
House Appropriation Committee as a part of
the hearings of the budget for fiscal year
1966. A listing of these projects is attached.
The conduct of all of these activities was
predicated on the use of research contract
authority.
RESTRICTION ON THE CHOICE OF FINANCING
MECHANISM
One of the serious effects of the ceiling
on the use of research contracts would be
[p. 9963]
the restriction placed on program managers
in choosing the financing mechanism most
appropriate for effective conduct of a given
research or development program. The rapid
increase during recent years in the use of
research contracts by the PHS is the cumu-
lative result of individual program decisions
that the contract was the preferable mecha-
nism for carrying out the particular program
purpose. This trend also reflected the ma-
turing of the biomedical sciences as develop-
mental opportunities, aimed at applying
knowledge to health problems, became more
common. The increased use of contracts
also reflected the growing involvement of in-
dustrial capability in PHS programs.
If the use of contracts is restricted, the
choice of mechanism may in fact be the
determinant factor in program decisions.
We believe that the missions of the PHS
can be more efficiently carried out if the
choice of mechanism results from rather
than determines the program decision.
RESTRICTION ON THE USB OF INDUSTRIAL CA-
PABILITY APPLICABLE TO HEALTH PROBLEMS
The most specific and potentially the most
serious problem presented by a limitation
on the use of research contracts would he
practical elimination of further involvement
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1455
of industrial firms in the health-related pro-
grams which are the responsibility of the
PHS. Since the pharmaceutical firms, the
aerospace industries, and electronic and com-
puter firms have so much to offer in the
future evolution of the national medical re-
search effort, and since the industries are
expressing increased interest in applying
their capabilities to these problems, the wis-
est course would seem to be to seek maxi-
mum utilization of this vast potential in
achieving the health objectives set forth for
the Public Health Service in its basic en-
abling legislation. Because the contract is
the only mechanism appropriate for the fi-
nancing of research in profitmaking firms,
increased use of contracts by the PHS is
totally consistent with present program
trends and farsighted program direction.
The Public Health Service should be in a
position to draw on the creativity of Amer-
ican free enterprise in seeking the solution
to the health problems which have been
given high priority by this administration
and the Congress. In so doing, the PHS
•would be following the productive pattern
of collaboration between Government and
industry which is already firmly established
in the other major fields of research and de-
velopment receiving significant support from
the Federal Government.
THE IMPORTANCE OF RESEARCH CONTRACT AU-
THORITY FOR THE PROGRAMS OF THE PUBLIC
HEALTH SEBVJCB
THE EXPANSION OF THE KNOWLEDGE BASE
In the first 15 years, a strong foundation
of quality research activities in the sciences
related to health has been developed, largely
through the rapid rise in Federal support
for health-related research. During this peri-
od, the major emphasis of Public Health
Service research support programs has been
the strengthening of the research and re-
search-training capabilities of universities,
medical schools, and other nonprofit re-
search institutions in the health-related sci-
ences. Federal research support directed
toward the development and continued func-
tioning of this broadly based research struc-
ture in the biomedical sciences has been pro-
vided primarily through the grant-in-aid
mechanism. This instrument is most respon-
sive to the initiatives and priorities set by the
scientists in these non-Federal institutions.
THE EMERGING OPPORTUNITIES FOB
DEVELOPMENTAL EFFORTS
The productivity of these non-Federal re-
search programs, supported in the public
interest by PHS funds, has contributed in
many ways to our understanding of basic dis-
ease and life processes as well as our ability
to alleviate suffering and forestall death.
The progress in the advance of baaic knowl*
edge has created the potential for the under-
taking of a variety of deliberate develop-
mental and applied research activities. The
development of vaccines for respiratory di-
seases, the furtherance of applied research
in the viral etiology of cancer, and the design
and development of artificial organs such as
the mechanical heart and artificial lung, im-
proved methods of hemodialysis to save lives
threatened by diseased kidneys, and develop-
ment of new means for coping with environ-
mental hazards are examples of the current
direction of research activities which prog-
ress in the basic sciences has made possible.
The search for chemical agents which fight
the spread of cancer, large coordinated stud-
ies aimed at identifying the causes of birth
defects, the development of automated hos-
pital systems, and the use of computers in
clinical testing are other examples where
hope exists that developmental and applied
research activities can produce practical re-
sults.
In the areas just cited, information is at
hand that will permit relatively precise de-
finition and specification of the nature and
dynamics of biological processes, both normal
and pathological. With such specifications,
it is possible to explore the development of
support or replacement systems for physio-
logical processes and organs on the one hand
and on the other to pursue in a deliberate
manner specific diagnostic and therapeutic
approaches to certain disease problems. These
approaches will involve intensive exploratory
and advanced developmental effort before such
concepts can be brought to practical result.
Another trend which creates the potential
for productive developmental efforts is a
growing awareness of the significance of ad-
vances in the physical sciences and related
engineering and technological capability to
medical research and health services. The
scope of potential contributions to health
and medicine from these fields is very broad,
ranging from new materials, intrumentation,
and electronics to the application of com-
puter technology and systems analysis con-
cepts. The current biomedical scene is
marked by an accelerating interplay between
the life sciences and the technology and con-
cepts of the physical sciences. New areas of
effort characterized as biomedical engineer-
ing, medical electronics, bioinstrumentation,
etc., have emerged.
The stage of this development is such that
opportunity for a major exploitation of this
new capability in the furtherance of the
medical sciences and clinical medicine seems
clearly at hand. The conduct of programs
of this character involves greater control over
the course of technical activity and more co-
ordination and integration of the various
parts of the developmental program. These
types of activities also require access to new
-------
1456
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
levels of scientific and technical talent. I
THE RESULTANT NEED FOR CONTRACTING
CAPABILITY
In order to take advantage of the oppor-
tunities to improve the Nation's health,
which are presented by these emerging fields,
it is vital that the Public Health Service have
access to adequate research contract author-
ity. The contract enables the program man-
ager to exert the necessary degree of control
and coordination over the conduct of the
parts of the developmental program. An
example is the need to establish uniform
protocols in a number of contracts which
comprise a coordinated program so that
meaningful comparisons can be made among
the results of the various contracts. In the
absence of adequate research contract au-
thority, the program leader in important
PHS activities is limited to the use of re-
search grants to finance the desired research
undertaking. Because the nature of the
grant mechanism puts emphasis on the pur-
poses and initiative of the non-Federal
scientific investigator and provides terms and
conditions most suitable for the free pursuit
of new research leads, it is most appropriate
for the support of unstructured research ac-
tivities, such as those found in the academic
environment. In these more fundamental
research activities, the end result to be
achieved is often unknown at the start of the
research project, and any attempt to struc-
ture the research so as to reach a predeter-
mined goal may involve a waste of effort
since the goal itself is often a product of the
course of the research project. For the fi-
nancing, however, of developmental activi-
ties where the theoretical capability is al-
ready known, the contract is the superior in-
strument to the grant-in-aid. In fact, as
the House Select Committee on Government
Research has pointed out, the grant mecha-
nism is already in need of being rescued from
the morass of administrative detail in which
it appears to be drowning, and should be
restored to its intended function as a valu-
able research instrument. The broader and
more critical use of research contracts by
the PHS for financing developmental and
applied research activities will preserve the
important distinctions between the grant
and the contract and their respective roles
as instruments for Federal support of re-
search.
THE IMPORTANCE OP ACCESS TO THE RESEARCH
CAPABILITY OF PRIVATE INDUSTRY
The most effective conduct of these devel-
opmental efforts also requires the Public
Health Service to draw upon new kinds of
engineering and scientific talents of the type
often found in industrial firms. As develop-
mental opportunities evolve, the PHS wil
need to draw heavily upon the kind of tech-
nical capability industry has brought to bear
in other fields, such as the aerospace and
defense-related programs. A special inter-
agency committee, chaired by Mr. Arthur
Barber, Deputy Assistant Secretary of De-
fense for Arms Control, has already been
ooking into the possibilities of utilizing in
other fields of Government interest the in-
dustrial research and development capabil-
ities expected to become excess to Defense
Department needs. The PHS has reviewed
developmental research needs in the health
area and has identified several projects which
might utilize such capabilities, including such
projects as development of artificial hearts,
automated clinical laboratory systems, and the
development of special facilities for use in
hazardous work on viruses. Fruitful colla-
boration with the pharmaceutical industry
already being carried out in several fields
related to cancer research. Since it is the
considered policy of the Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare, based on past expe-
rience, that contracts are the most desirable
means of financing research activities in
profit organizations, further PHS exploita-
tion of industrial capabilities in health-
related will require use of adequate research
contract authority.
Contracts are also of increasing importance
in the procurement of highly specialized sub-
stances, not ordinarily available in the open
market, which are essential for the conduct
of certain types of research and development
activities. Such substances, which include
viral reagents and chemicals synthesized to
very specific standards, can be efficiently de-
veloped and produced through a contract,
thereby freeing individual investigators from
the laborious process of producing these sub-
stances in minute quantities for use in their
own projects. Contracts are also the best
means for procuring the data processing serv-
[p. 9964]
ices that have become an integral part of
many research and development programs.
THE IMPORTANCE OP CONTRACTS IN THE RESEARCH
PROGRAMS OF OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES
The effectiveness of contracts in financing
developmental and applied research activities
can be illustrated by the extensive use of R.
& D. contracts by other Federal research sup-
porting agencies. Attachment A shows the
extent to which other agencies use R. & D.
contracts in that portion of their programs
that represents health-related research. These
agencies also have access to grant authority
for the support of basic research (under
Public Law 85-934), but the attachment
shows that the program managers involved
have made widespread use of contracts in
carrying out the developmental and applied
research missions of their agency. The im-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1457
portance of the health-related research sup-
ported by the FHS has been recognized by the
Congress in the form of greatly increased ap-
propriations over the past 15 years. In order
to provide the directors of these programs
with the flexibility necessary for the most
effective utilization of these public funds, it
is important to give them access to the type
of contract authority that has proven so use-
ful in the conduct of other Federal research
programs.
PRESENT SOURCE OF PHS CONTRACT AUTHORITY
The Public Health Service Act as it now
stands does not provide authority for the
making of research contracts in the conduct
of the Service's research programs. The re-
search contract authority utilized by the
Public Health Service is based on point-of-
order language which appears annually in
the appropriation statute. In order to take
advantage of the opportunities presently ex-
isting for productive developmental and ap-
plied research programs, the PHS needs to
have permanent research contract authority,
which is adequate for the achievement of im-
portant health goals. In addition to basic
authority to enter into research contracts,
the PHS needs access to certain types of con-
tract authority presently available to the De-
partment of Defense in title 10 of the United
States Code.
The flrst of these authorities would permit
payment of the costs of construction deter-
mined to be necessary in the performance of
a research contract. Some research contracts
require highly specialized facilities as an in-
tegral part of the research program. A cur-
rent example is the special protective facili-
ties required for continued work with dan-
gerous and infectious agents encountered in
the important research effort investigating
the cancer-virus relationship. Without such
authority, these research contracts must be
administered within restrictions based on
superficial distinctions between temporary
and permanent improvements. These artifi-
cial distinctions result in the expenditure of
additional money with no productive effect
on the performance of the contract.
The second authority would provide for
the indemnification of contractors against
claims which arise out of direct performance
of the contract and which are the result of a
risk which the contract defines as unusually
hazardous. This type of contract provision
is often required if a contractor is to be in-
duced to undertake work which involves the
handling of live viruses or the exposure to
poisonous compounds.
Given these authorities, the Public Health
Service will be in a position to make the
choice of financing mechanism grow out of
the program decision instead of being forced,
through limitations in authority, to distort
the program to fit the available mechanism.
In the absence of adequate contract author-
ity, the use by the PHS of the extensive re-
search capabilities of private industry in the
field of medical research, will be virtually
denied.
ATTACHMENT A.—FEDERAL CONTRACT SUPPORT FOR MEDICAL AND HEALTH-RELATED RESEARCH,
1964 AND 1965
[In thousands]
Obligations for research contracts
Agency
Total . .
Atomic Energy Commission . .
National Space and Aeronautics Administration ....
National Science Foundation
Veterans Administration
Department of Agriculture . .
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
Public Health Service
National Institutes of Health
Department of Interior
Department of State
1?
Amount
. . .. J177.303
72,157
23,700
10
1,050
358
29,167
50,298
. . (49,441)
(41,845)
224
339
164
Percent
of agency
support for
extramural
research
22.8
100.0
69.7
0
96.1
5.6
92.3
8.3
(8.5)
(7.7)
100.0
100.0
19
Amount
$210,943
79,618
42,800
907
3,264
27,209
56,440
(55,612)
(45,006)
255
450
165
Percent
of agency
support for
extramural
research
24.4
100.0
78.4
97.6
32.1
91.9
8.5
(8.7)
(7.6)
100.0
100.0
Source: National Institutes of Health 1964 survey of Federal agencies on obligations for medical and health-related
research and development.
-------
1458
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE FUNDS FOR NEGOTIATED
CONTRACTS,' ALL PROGRAMS
[In thousands of dollars]
Presi-
Esti- dent's
Public Health Service Actual, mated, budget,
operating bureaus fiscal fiscal fiscal
year year year
1964 1965 1966
Bureau of State Services:
Community health 5,611 11,895 21,189
Environmental health 4,624 6,263 9,028
National Institutes of Health... 46,259 60,090 63,398
National Center for Health
Statistics 390 362 541
National Library of Medicine... 535 756 976
Public Health Service
total 57,419 79,366 94,132
1 Negotiated contracts are used for the procurement
of property and services outside formal advertised bid-
ding. Such negotiation is authorized under the circum-
stances enumerated in sec. 302(2) of the Federal Property
and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 251-
260).
The CHAIRMAN. Without objec-
tion, it is so ordered.
There was no objection.
[p. 9965]
1.12v (4) (b) June 28: Debated, amended, and passed Senate, p.
14952, 14953, 14954
CONSTRUCTION OF HEALTH
RESEARCH FACILITIES
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that the Sen-
ate proceed to the consideration of
Calendar No. 356, H.R. 2984, and that
it be made the pending business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
bill will be stated by title.
The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. A bill
(H.R. 2984) to amend the Public
Health Service Act provisions for
construction of health research facili-
ties by extending the expiration date
thereof and to authorize additional
Assistant Secretaries in the Depart-
ment of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare, and for other purposes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is
there objection to the request of the
Senator from Montana?
There being no objection, the Senate
proceeded to consider the bill, which
had been reported from the Commit-
tee on Labor and Public Welfare, with
an amendment, to strike out all after
the enacting clause and insert:
That this Act may be cited as the "Health
Research Facilities Amendments of 1966".
CONTRACTS FOR RESEARCH
SEC. 3. Section 301 of this Act is amended
by striking out "and" at the end of subsec-
tion (g), by redesigmating subsection (h) as
subsection (i), and by inserting immediately
before such subsection the following new
subsection:
"(h) Enter into contracts, including con-
tracts for research in accordance with and
subject to the provisions of law applicable to
contracts entered into by the military de-
partments under title 10, United State Code,
sections 2353 and 2354, except that deter-
mination, approval, and certification re-
quired thereby shall be by the Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare; and".
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the commit-
tee amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. HILL. Mr. President, H.R. 2984,
a part of the President's health pro-
gram, was approved by the House of
Representatives by a vote of 333 to 4.
As reported by the Committee on
Labor and Public Welfare, the legis-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1459
lation would permit the realization of
four major objectives:
*****
[p. 14952]
CONTRACT AUTHORITY
Third, the legislation provides au-
thority for the Public Health Service
to enter into contracts for research.
The research contract authority of the
Public Health Service is now provided
in "point of order" language in the
annual appropriation act.
While the research grant mechan-
ism has been appropriate for projects
of nonprofit educational and research
institutions, research activities of a
developmental or applied research
nature can be more effectively financed
through research contracts. Contracts
allow greater control over the course
of technical activity and access to new
kinds of engineering and scientific
talent.
Examples of research activities
which can be most effectively pursued
through the use of research contracts
are the development of vaccines for
respiratory diseases, the furtherance
of applied research in the viral causes
of cancer, and the design and develop-
ment of artificial organs such as the
mechanical heart and artificial lung,
and improved methods of hemodialysis
to save lives threatened by diseased
kidneys.
The bill also provides the Public
Health Service with access to two ad-
ditional research contract authorities
presently available to the Department
of Defense. The first of these authori-
ties would permit payment of the costs
of construction determined to be nec-
essary in the performance of a re-
search contract. A current example is
the special protective facilities re-
quired for continued work with dan-
gerous and infectious agents encoun-
tered in the important research effort
investigating the cancer-virus rela-
tionship.
The secondary authority requested
would provide for the indemnification
of contractors against claims which
arise out of direct performance of the
contract and which are the result of a
risk which the contract defines as un-
usually hazardous. This type of con-
tract provision is often required if a
contractor is to be induced to under-
take work which involves the handling
of live viruses or the exposure to
poisonous compounds. This authority
has been available to the Public
Health Service for a number of years
through temporary point-of-order lan-
guage in the appropriation act.
Section 3 of H.R. 2984 as passed by
the House would specify a 3-year time
limitation and an annual appropria-
tion authorization of $43 million with
respect to the authority of the Public
Health Service to enter contracts for
the performance of research and de-
velopment.
The Department of Health, Educa-
tion, and Welfare has advised the
committee that $79 million will be ob-
ligated this year by the Public Health
Service through negotiated contracts.
In fiscal year 1966 the obligations are
expected to increase to $94 million.
*****
[p. 14953]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on the engrossment of the
amendment and the third reading of
the bill.
The amendment was ordered to be
engrossed and the bill to be read a
third time.
The bill was read the third time, and
passed.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President,
-------
1460
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
I move to reconsider the vote by which
the bill was passed.
Mr. HILL. Mr. President, I move to
lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
[p. 14954]
1.12v (4) (c) July 26: Conference report agreed to in Senate, p.
18215
HEALTH RESEARCH FACILITIES
AMENDMENTS OP 1965—
CONFERENCE REPORT
Mr. HILL. Mr. President, I submit
a report of the committee of confer-
ence on the disagreeing votes of the
two Houses on the amendment of the
Senate to the bill (H.R. 2984) to
amend the Public Health Service Act
provisions for construction of health
research facilities by extending the ex-
piration date thereof and providing in-
creased support for the program, to
authorize additional Assistant Secre-
taries in the Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare, and for other
purposes. I ask unanimous consent for
the present consideration of the re-
port.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
report will be read for the informa-
tion of the Senate.
The legislative clerk read the report.
(For conference report, see House
proceedings of July 27, 1965, p. 18427,
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is
there objection to the present consid-
eration of the report?
There being no objection, the Sen-
ate proceeded to consider the report.
Mr. HILL.
As passed by the House, H.R. 2984
authorized the Surgeon General of the
Public Health Service to enter into
contracts, including contracts for re-
search subject to certain provisions of
law applicable to the military depart-
ments and subject to an overall ceiling
of $43 million on annual appropria-
tions for the fiscal years 1966, 1967,
and 1968. The conferees agreed to de-
lete the $43 million limitation on ap-
propriations. This action of the con-
ferees recognizes that many research
activities can be pursued most effec-
tively through contracts and through
utilizing industrial capabilities. It is
clearly in the best public interest to
allow the Public Health Service access
to nongovernment capabilities through
contracts as an alternative to dupli-
cating existing resources and develop-
ing them as Federal activities.
*****
The conference report is signed by
all the conferees on the part of the
Senate and by all of the conferees on
the part on the House.
Mr. President, I move the adoption
of the report.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the confer-
ence report.
The report was agreed to.
[p. 18215]
1.12v (4) (d) July 27: Conference report agreed to in House, p.
18428
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I move
the previous question on the confer-
ence report.
The previous question was ordered.
The conference report was agreed
to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on
the table.
[p. 18428]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1461
1.12w 1966 REORGANIZATION PLAN NO. 3
§§ 1, 3, 80 Stat. 1610
Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1966
Prepared by the President and transmitted to the Senate and the
House of Representatives in Congress assembled, April 25,
1966, pursuant to the provisions of the Reorganization Act of
1949, 63 Stat. 203, as amended.
PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE
SECTION 1. Transfer of functions, (a) Except as otherwise pro-
vided in subsection (b) of this section, there are hereby trans-
ferred to the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare (herein-
after referred to as the Secretary) all functions of the Public
Health Service, of the Surgeon General of the Public Health Serv-
ice, and of all other officers and employees of the Public Health
Service, and all functions of all agencies of or in the Public Health
Service.
(b) This section shall not apply to the functions vested by law
in any advisory council, board, or committee of or in the Public
Health Service which is established by law or is required by law to
be established.
SEC. 3. Abolitions, (a) The following agencies of the Public
Health Service are hereby abolished:
(1) The Bureau of Medical Services, including the office of Chief
of the Bureau of Medical Services.
(2) The Bureau of State Services, including the office of Chief
of the Bureau of State Services.
(3) The agency designated as the National Institutes of Health
(42 U.S.C. 203), including the office of Director of the National
Institutes of Health (42 U.S.C. 206 (b)) but excluding the several
research Institutes in the agency designated as the National Insti-
tutes of Health.
(4) The agency designated as the Office of the Surgeon General
(42 U.S.C. 203(1)), together with the office held by the Deputy
Surgeon General (42 U.S.C. 206 (a)).
(b) The Secretary shall make such provisions as he shall deem
necessary respecting the winding up of any outstanding affairs of
the agencies abolished by the provisions of this section.
[p. 1610]
-------
1462 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
1.12w (1) MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT
TRANSMITTING REORGANIZATION PLAN NO. 3
1966, H. Doc. No. 428, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. (1966)
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
To the Congress of the United States:
I transmit herewith Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1966, pre-
pared in accordance with the Reorganization Act of 1949, as
amended, and providing for reorganization of health functions of
the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
I
Today we face new challenges and unparalleled opportunities in
the field of health. Building on the progress of the past several
years, we have truly begun to match the achievements of our
medicine to the needs of our people.
The task ahead is immense. As a nation, we will unceasingly
pursue our research and learning, our training and building, our
testing and treatment. But now our concern must also turn to the
organization of our Federal health programs.
As citizens we are entitled to the very best health services our
resources can provide.
As taxpayers, we demand the most efficient and economic health
organizations that can be devised.
I ask the Congress to approve a reorganization plan to bring
new strength to the administration of Federal health programs.
I propose a series of changes in the organization of the Public
Health Service that will bring to all Americans a structure mod-
ern in design, more efficient in operation and better prepared to
meet the great and growing needs of the future. Through such
improvements we can achieve the full promise of the landmark
health legislation enacted by the 89th Congress.
I do not propose these changes lightly. They follow a period of
careful deliberation. For many months the Secretary of Health,
Education, and Welfare and the Surgeon General have consulted
leading experts in the Nation—physicians, administrators, scien-
tists, and public health specialists. They have confirmed my belief
that modernization and reorganization of the Public Health Serv-
ice are urgently required and long overdue.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1463
II
The Public Health Service is an operating agency of the Depart-
ment of Health, Education, and Welfare. It is the principal arm of
the Federal Government in the field of health. Its programs are
among those most vital to our well-being.
Since 1953 more than 50 new programs have been placed in the
Public Health Service. Its budget over the past 12 years has in-
creased tenfold—from $250 million to $2.4 billion.
Today the organization of the Public Health Service is clearly
obsolete. The requirement that new and expanding programs be
[p.i]
administered through an organizational structure established by
law more than two decades ago stands as a major obstacle to the
fulfillment of our Nation's health goals.
As presently constituted, the Public Health Service is composed
of four major components:
National Institutes of Health.
Bureau of State Services.
Bureau of Medical Services.
Office of the Surgeon General.
Under present law, Public Health Service functions must be as-
signed only to these four components.
This structure was designed to provide separate administrative
arrangements for health research, programs of State and local
aid, health services, and executive staff resources. At a time when
these functions could be neatly compartmentalized, the structure
was adequate. But today the situation is different.
Under recent legislation many new programs provide for an
integrated attack on specific disease problems or health hazards in
the environment by combining health services, State and local aid,
and research. Each new program of this type necessarily is as-
signed to one of the three operating components of the Public
Health Service. Yet none of these components is intended to ad-
minister programs involving such a variety of approaches.
Our health problems are difficult enough without having them
complicated by outmoded organizational arrangements.
But if we merely take the step of integrating the four agencies
within the Public Health Service we will not go far enough. More
is required.
-------
1464 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
III
The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare performs
major health or health-related functions which are not carried out
through the Public Health Service, although they are closely re-
lated to its functions. Among these are:
Health insurance for the aged, administered through the
Social Security Administration;
Medical assistance for the needy, administered through the
Welfare Administration;
Regulation of the manufacture, labeling, and distribution
of drugs, carried out through the Food and Drug Administra-
tion ; and
Grants-in-aid to States for vocational rehabilitation of the
handicapped, administered by the Vocational Rehabilitation
Administration.
Expenditures for health and health-related programs of the De-
partment administered outside the Public Health Service have in-
creased from $44 million in 1953 to an estimated $5.4 billion in
1967.
As the head of the Department, the Secretary of Health, Educa-
tion, and Welfare is responsible for the administration and coordi-
nation of all the Department's health functions. He has clear au-
thority over the programs I have just mentioned.
But today he lacks this essential authority over the Public
Health Service. The functions of that agency are vested in the
Surgeon General and not in the Secretary.
This diffusion of responsibility is unsound and unwise.
[p. 2]
To secure the highest possible level of health services for the
American people the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare
must be given the authority to establish—and modify as necessary
—the organizational structure for Public Health Service pro-
grams.
He must also have the authority to coordinate health functions
throughout the Department. The reorganization plan I propose
will accomplish these purposes. It will provide the Secretary with
the flexibility to create new and responsive organizational ar-
rangements to keep pace with the changing and dynamic nature of
our health programs.
My views in this respect follow a basic principle of good govern-
ment set by the Hoover Commission in 1949 when it recommended
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1465
that "the Department head should be given authority to determine
the organization within his Department."
IV
In summary, the reorganization plan would:
Transfer to the Secretary of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare the functions now vested in the Surgeon General of the
Public Health Service and in its various subordinate units
(this transfer will not affect certain statutory advisory bodies
such as the National Advisory Cancer and Heart Councils) ;
Abolish the four principal statutory components of the
Public Health Service, including the offices held by their
heads (the Bureau of Medical Services, the Bureau of State
Services, the National Institutes of Health exclusive of its
several research institutes such as the National Cancer and
Heart Institutes, and the Office of the Surgeon General) ; and
Authorize the Secretary to assign the functions transferred
to him by the plan to officials and entities of the Public Health
Service and to other agencies of the Department as he deems
appropriate.
Thus, the Secretary would be—
Enabled to assure that all health functions of the Department
are carried out as effectively and economically as possible;
Given authority commensurate with his responsibility; and
Made responsible in fact for matters for which he is now, in
any case, held accountable by the President, the Congress, and
the people.
V
I have found, after investigation, that each reorganization in-
cluded in the accompanying reorganization plan is necessary to
accomplish one or more of the purposes set forth in section 2 (a)
of the Reorganization Act of 1949, as amended.
Should the reorganizations in the accompanying reorganization
plan take effect, they will make possible more effective and
efficient administration of the affected health programs. It is, how-
ever, not practicable at this time to itemize the reductions in
expenditures which may result.
I strongly recommend that the Congress allow the reorganiza-
tion plan to become effective.
LYNDON B. JOHNSON.
THE WHITE HOUSE, April 25,1966.
[p. 3]
-------
1466 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
1.12x COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH PLANNING AND
PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES AMENDMENTS OF 1966
November 3, 1966, P.L. 89-749, §§ 3, 5, 80 Stat. 1181
GRANTS FOR COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH PLANNING AND PUBLIC
HEALTH SERVICES
SEC. 3. Section 314 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
246) is amended to read as follows:
GRANTS FOR COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH PLANNING AND PUBLIC
HEALTH SERVICES
"Grants to States for Comprehensive State Health Planning
"SEC. 314. (a) (1) AUTHORIZATION.—In order to assist the
States in comprehensive and continuing planning for their current
and future health needs, the Surgeon General is authorized during
the period beginning July 1, 1966, and ending June 30, 1968, to
make grants to States which have submitted, and had approved by
the Surgeon General, State plans for comprehensive State health
planning. For the purposes of carrying out this subsection, there
are hereby authorized to be appropriated $2,500,000 for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1967, and $5,000,000 for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1968.
"(2) STATE PLANS FOR COMPREHENSIVE STATE HEALTH PLAN-
NING.—In order to be approved for purposes of this subsection, a
State plan for comprehensive State health planning must—
"(A) designate, or provide for the establishment of, a sin-
gle State agency, which may be an interdepartmental agency,
as the sole agency for administering or supervising the ad-
ministration of the State's health planning functions under
the plan;
"(B) provide for the establishment of a State health plan-
ning council, which shall include representatives of State and
local agencies and nongovernmental organizations and groups
concerned with health, and of consumers of health services, to
advise such State agency in carrying out its functions under
the plan, and a majority of the membership of such council
shall consist of representatives of consumers of health serv-
ices;
"(C) set forth policies and procedures for the expenditure
of funds under the plan, which, in the judgment of the Sur-
geon General, are designed to provide for comprehensive
State planning for health services (both public and private),
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1467
including the facilities and persons required for the provision
of such services, to meet the health needs of the people of the
State;
"(D) provide for encouraging cooperative efforts among
governmental or nongovernmental agencies, organizations
and groups concerned with health services, facilities, or man-
power, and for cooperative efforts between such agencies, or-
[p. 1181]
ganizations, and groups and similar agencies, organizations,
and groups in the fields of education, welfare, and rehabilita-
tion;
" (E) contain or be supported by assurances satisfactory to
the Surgeon General that the funds paid under this subsection
will be used to supplement and, to the extent practicable, to
increase the level of funds that would otherwise be made
available by the State for the purpose of comprehensive
health planning and not to supplant such non-Federal funds;
"(F) provide such methods of administration (including
methods relating to the establishment and maintenance of
personnel standards on a merit basis, except that the Surgeon
General shall exercise no authority with respect to the selec-
tion, tenure of office, and compensation of any individual em-
ployed in accordance with such methods) as are found by the
Surgeon General to be necessary for the proper and efficient
operation of the plan;
" (G) provide that the State agency will make such reports,
in such form and containing such information, as the Surgeon
General may from time to time reasonably require, and will
keep such records and afford such access thereto as the Sur-
geon General finds necessary to assure the correctness and
verification of such reports;
"(H) provide that the State agency will from time to time,
but not less often than annually, review its State plan ap-
proved under this subsection and submit to the Surgeon Gen-
eral appropriate modifications thereof;
"(I) provide for such fiscal control and fund accounting
procedures as may be necessary to assure proper disburse-
ment of and accounting for funds paid to the State under this
subsection; and
"(J) contain such additional information and assurances as
the Surgeon General may find necessary to carry out the
purposes of this subsection.
-------
1468 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
"(3) (A) STATE ALLOTMENTS.—From the sums appropriated
for such purpose for each fiscal year, the several States shall be
entitled to allotments determined, in accordance with regulations,
on the basis of the population and the per capita income of the
respective States; except that no such allotment to any State for
any fiscal year shall be less than 1 per centum of the sum appro-
priated for such fiscal year pursuant to paragraph (1). Any such
allotment to a State for a fiscal year shall remain available for
obligation by the State, in accordance with the provisions of this
subsection and the State's plan approved thereunder, until the
close of the succeeding fiscal year.
"(B) The amount of any allotment to a State under subpara-
graph (A) for any fiscal year which the Surgeon General deter-
mines will not be required by the State, during the period for
which it is available, for the purposes for which allotted shall be
available for reallotment by the Surgeon General from time to
time, on such date or dates as he may fix, to other States with
respect to which such a determination has not been made, in
proportion to the original allotments to such States under subpar-
[p. 1182]
agraph (A) for such fiscal year, but with such proportionate
amount for any of such other States being reduced to the extent it
exceeds the sum the Surgeon General estimates such State needs
and will be able to use during such period; and the total of such
reductions shall be similarly reallotted among the States whose
proportionate amounts were not so reduced. Any amount so real-
lotted to a State from funds appropriated pursuant to this subsec-
tion for a fiscal year shall be deemed part of its allotment under
subparagraph (A) for such fiscal year.
"(4) PAYMENTS TO STATES.—From each State's allotment for a
fiscal year under this subsection, the State shall from time to time
be paid the Federal share of the expenditures incurred during that
year or the succeeding year pursuant to its State plan approved
under this subsection. Such payments shall be made on the basis of
estimates by the Surgeon General of the sums the State will need
in order to perform the planning under its approved State plan
under this subsection, but with such adjustments as may be neces-
sary to take account of previously made underpayments or over-
payments. The 'Federal share' for any State for purposes of this
subsection shall be all, or such part as the Surgeon General may
determine, of the cost of such planning.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1469
"Project Grants for Areawide Health Planning
"(b) The Surgeon General is authorized, during the period be-
ginning July 1, 1966, and ending June 30, 1968, to make, with the
approval of the State agency administering or supervising the
administration of the State plan approved under subsection (a),
project grants to any other public or nonprofit private agency or
organization to cover not to exceed 75 per centum of the costs of
projects for developing (and from time to time revising) compre-
hensive regional, metropolitan area, or other local area plans for
coordination of existing and planned health services, including the
facilities and persons required for provision of such services; ex-
cept that in the case of project grants made in any State prior to
July 1, 1968, approval of such State agency shall be required only
if such State has such a State plan in effect at the time of such
grants. For the purpose of carrying out this subsection, there are
hereby authorized to be appropriated $5,000,000 for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1967, and $7,500,000 for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1968.
"Project Grants for Training, Studies, and Demonstrations
"(c) The Surgeon General is also authorized, during the period
beginning July 1, 1966, and ending June 30, 1968, to make grants
to any public or nonprofit private agency, institution, or other
organization to cover all or any part of the cost of projects for
training, studies, or demonstrations looking toward the develop-
ment of improved or more effective comprehensive health planning
throughout the Nation. For the purposes of carrying out this
[p. 1183]
subsection, there are hereby authorized to be appropriated $1,500,-
000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1967, and $2,500,000 for
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968.
"Grants for Comprehensive Public Health Services
"(d)(l) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are au-
thorized to be appropriated $62,500,000 for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1968, to enable the Surgeon General to make grants to
State health or mental health authorities to assist the States in
establishing and maintaining adequate public health services, in-
cluding the training of personnel for State and local health work.
The sums so appropriated shall be used for making payments to
-------
1470 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
States which have submitted, and had approved by the Surgeon
General, State plans for provision of public health services.
" (2) STATE PLANS FOR PROVISION OF PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES.—
In order to be approved under this subsection, a State plan for
provision of public health services must—
"(A) provide for administration or supervision of admin-
istration by the State health authority or, with respect to
mental health services, the State mental health authority;
"(B) set forth the policies and procedures to be followed
in the expenditure of the funds paid under this subsection;
"(C) contain or be supported by assurances satisfactory
to the Surgeon General that (i) the funds paid to the State
under this subsection will be used to make a significant con-
tribution toward providing and strengthening public health
services in the various political subdivisions in order to im-
prove the health of the people; (ii) such funds will be made
available to other public or nonprofit private agencies, insti-
tutions, and organizations, in accordance with criteria which
the Surgeon General determines are designed to secure maxi-
mum participation of local, regional, or metropolitan agencies
and groups in the provision of such services; and (iii) such
funds will be used to supplement and, to the extent practical,
to increase the level of funds that would otherwise be made
available for the purposes for which the Federal funds are
provided and not to supplant such non-Federal funds;
"(D) provide for the furnishing of public health services
under the State plan in accordance with such plans as have
been developed pursuant to subsection (a) ;
"(E) provide that public health services furnished under
the plan will be in accordance with standards prescribed by
regulations, including standards as to the scope and quality
of such services;
"(F) provide such methods of administration (including
methods relating to the establishment and maintenance of
personnel standards on a merit basis, except that the Surgeon
General shall exercise no authority with respect to the selec-
tion, tenure of office, and compensation of any individual
employed in accordance with such methods) as are found by
the Surgeon General to be necessary for the proper and effi-
cient operation of the plan;
"(G) provide that the State health authority or, with re-
spect to mental health services, the State mental health au-
thority, will from time to time, but not less often than annu-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1471
ally, review and evaluate its State plan approved under this
subsection and submit to the Surgeon General appropriate
modifications thereof;
[p. 1184]
"(H) provide that the State health authority or, with re-
spect to mental health services, the State mental health au-
thority, will make such reports, in such form and containing
such information, as the Surgeon General may from time to
time reasonably require, and will keep such records and af-
ford such access thereto as the Surgeon General finds neces-
sary to assure the correctness and verification of such re-
ports ;
"(I) provide for such fiscal control and fund accounting
procedures as may be necessary to assure the proper disburse-
ment of and accounting for funds paid to the State under this
subsection; and
" (J) contain such additional information and assurances as
the Surgeon General may find necessary to carry out the
purposes of this subsection.
"(3) STATE ALLOTMENTS.—From the sums appropriated to
carry out the provisions of this subsection the several States shall
be entitled for each fiscal year to allotments determined, in accord-
ance with regulations, on the basis of the population and financial
need of the respective States, except that no State's allotment shall
be less for any year than the total amounts allotted to such State
under formula grants for cancer control, plus other allotments
under this section, for the fiscal year ending June 30,1967.
"(4) (A) PAYMENTS TO STATES.—From each State's allotment
under this subsection for a fiscal year, the State shall be paid the
Federal share of the expenditures incurred during such year
under its State plan approved under this subsection. Such pay-
ments shall be made from time to time in advance on the basis of
estimates by the Surgeon General of the sums the State will ex-
pend under the State plan, except that such adjustments as may be
necessary shall be made on account of previously made underpay-
ments or overpayments under this subsection.
"(B) For the purpose of determining the Federal share for any
State, expenditures by nonprofit private agencies, organizations,
and groups shall, subject to such limitations and conditions as may
be prescribed by regulations, be regarded as expenditures by such
State or a political subdivision thereof.
"(5) FEDERAL SHARE.—The 'Federal share' for any State for
-------
1472 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
purposes of this subsection shall be 100 per centum less that per-
centage which bears the same ratio to 50 per centum as the per
capita income of such State bears to the per capita income of the
United States; except that in no case shall such percentage be less
than 331/3 per centum or more than 66% per centum, and except
that the Federal share for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,
Guam, American Samoa, and the Virgin Islands shall be 66% per
centum.
"(6) DETERMINATION OF FEDERAL SHARES.—The Federal shares
shall be determined by the Surgeon General between July 1 and
September 1 of each year, on the basis of the average per capita
incomes of each of the States and of the United States for the
most recent year for which satisfactory data are available from
the Department of Commerce, and such determination shall be
conclusive for the fiscal year beginning on the next July 1. The
populations of the several States shall be determined on the basis
of the latest figures for the population of the several States availa-
ble from the Department of Commerce.
"(7) ALLOCATION OF FUNDS WITHIN THE STATES.—At least 15
per centum of a State's allotment under this subsection shall be
available only to the State mental health authority for the provi-
sion under the State plan of mental health services.
[p. 1185]
"Project Grants for Health Services Development
"(e) There are authorized to be appropriated $62,500,000 for
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968, for grants to any public or
nonprofit private agency, institution, or organization to cover part
of the cost of (1) providing services to meet health needs of
limited geographic scope or of specialized regional or national
significance, (2) stimulating and supporting for an initial period
new programs of health services, or (3) undertaking studies, dem-
onstrations, or training designed to develop new methods or im-
prove existing methods of providing health services. Such grants
may be made pursuant to clause (1) or (2) of the preceding
sentence with respect to projects involving the furnishing of pub-
lic health services only if such services are provided in accordance
with such plans as have been developed pursuant to subsection
(a).
"Interchange of Personnel With States
"(f) (1) For the purposes of this subsection, the term 'State'
means a State or a political subdivision of a State, or any agency
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1473
of either of the foregoing engaged in any activities related to
health or designated or established pursuant to subparagraph (A)
of paragraph (2) of subsection (a) ; the term 'Secretary' means
(except when used in paragraph (3) (D) ) the Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare; and the term 'Department'
means the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
"(2) The Secretary is authorized, through agreements or other-
wise, to arrange for assignment of officers and employees of States
to the Department and assignment to States of officers and em-
ployees in the Department engaged in work related to health, for
work which the Secretary determines will aid the Department in
more effective discharge of its responsibilities in the field of health
as authorized by law, including cooperation with States and the
provision of technical or other assistance. The period of assign-
ment of any officer or employee under an arrangement shall not
exceed two years.
"(3) (A) Officers and employees in the Department assigned to
any State pursuant to this subsection shall be considered, during
such assignment, to be (i) on detail to a regular work assignment
in the Department, or (ii) on leave without pay from their posi-
tions in the Department.
"(B) Persons considered to be so detailed shall remain as
officers or employees, as the case may be, in the Department for all
purposes, except that the supervision of their duties during the
period of detail may be governed by agreement between the De-
partment and the State involved.
"(C) In the case of persons so assigned and on leave without
pay—
"(i) if the rate of compensation (including allowances) for
their employment by the State is less than the rate of compen-
sation (including allowances) they would be receiving had
they continued in their regular assignment in the Depart-
ment, they may receive supplemental salary payments from
the Department in the amount considered by the Secretary to
be justified, but not at a rate in excess of the difference
between the State rate and the Department rate; and
"(ii) they may be granted annual leave and sick leave to
the extent authorized by law, but only in circumstances con-
sidered by the Secretary to justify approval of such leave.
Such officers and employees on leave without pay shall, notwith-
standing any other provision of law, be entitled—
-------
1474 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
(Hi) to continuation of their insurance under the Federal
Employees' Group Life Insurance Act of 1954, and coverage
[p. 1186]
under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Act of 1959, so
long as the Department continues to collect the employee's
contribution from the officer or employee involved and to
transmit for timely deposit into the funds created under such
Acts the amount of the employee's contributions and the Gov-
ernment's contribution from appropriations of the Depart-
ment ; and
"(iv) (I) in the case of commissioned officers of the Serv-
ice, to have their service during their assignment treated as
provided in section 214 (d) for such officers on leave without
pay, or (II) in the case of other officers and employees in the
Department, to credit the period of their assignment under
the arrangement under this subsection toward periodic or
longevity step increases and for retention and leave accrual
purposes, and, upon payment into the civil service retirement
and disability fund of the percentage of their State salary,
and of their supplemental salary payments, if any, which
would have been deducted from a like Federal salary for the
period of such assignment and payment by the Secretary into
such fund of the amount which would have been payable by
him during the period of such assignment with respect to a
like Federal salary, to treat (notwithstanding the provisions
of the Independent Offices Appropriation Act, 1959, under the
head 'Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund') their
service during such period as service within the meaning of
the Civil Service Retirement Act;
except that no officer or employee or his beneficiary may receive
any benefits under the Civil Service Retirement Act, the Federal
Employees Health Benefits Act of 1959, or the Federal Employees'
Group Life Insurance Act of 1954, based on service during an
assignment hereunder for which the officer or employee or (if he
dies without making such election) his beneficiary elects to receive
benefits, under any State retirement or insurance law or program,
which the Civil Service Commission determines to be similar. The
Department shall deposit currently in the funds created under the
Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance Act of 1954, the Federal
Employees Health Benefits Act of 1959, and the civil service re-
tirement and disability fund, respectively, the amount of the Gov-
ernment's contribution under these Acts on account of service
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1475
with respect to which employee contributions are collected as pro-
vided in subparagraph (iii) and the amount of the Government's
contribution under the Civil Service Retirement Act on account of
service with respect to which payments (of the amount which
would have been deducted under that Act) referred to in subpara-
graph (iv) are made to such civil service retirement and disability
fund.
"(D) Any such officer or employee on leave without pay (other
than a commissioned officer of the Service) who suffers disability
or death as a result of personal injury sustained while in the
performance of his duty during an assignment hereunder, shall be
treated, for the purposes of the Federal Employees' Compensation
Act, as though he were an employee, as defined in such Act, who
had sustained such injury in the performance of duty. When such
person (or his dependents, in case of death) entitled by reason of
injury or death to benefits under that Act is also entitled to bene-
fits from a State for the same injury or death, he (or his depend-
ents in case of death) shall elect which benefits he will receive.
Such election shall be made within one year after the injury or
death, or such further time as the Secretary of Labor may for
good cause allow, and when made shall be irrevocable unless other-
wise provided by law.
"(4) Assignment of any officer or employee in the Department
to a State under this subsection may be made with or without
[p. 1187]
reimbursement by the State for the compensation (or supplemen-
tary compensation), travel and transportation expenses (to or
from the place of assignment), and allowances, or any part
thereof, of such officer or employee during the period of assign-
ment, and any such reimbursement shall be credited to the appro-
priation utilized for paying such compensation, travel or transpor-
tation expenses, or allowances.
" (5) Appropriations to the Department shall be available, in
accordance with the standardized Government travel regulations
or, with respect to commissioned officers of the Service, the joint
travel regulations, the expenses of travel of officers and employees
assigned to States under an arrangement under this subsection on
either a detail or leave-without-pay basis and, in accordance with
applicable law, orders, and regulations, for expenses of transpor-
tation of their immediate families and expenses of transportation
of their household goods and personal effects, in connection with
-------
1476 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
the travel of such officers and employees to the location of their
posts of assignment and their return to their official stations.
"(6) Officers and employees of States who are assigned to the
Department under an arrangement under this subsection may (A)
be given appointments in the Department covering the periods of
such assignments, or (B) be considered to be on detail to the
Department. Appointments of persons so assigned may be made
without regard to the civil service laws. Persons so appointed in
the Department shall be paid at rates of compensation determined
in accordance with the Classification Act of 1949, and shall not be
considered to be officers or employees of the Service for the pur-
poses of (A) the Civil Service Retirement Act, (B) the Federal
Employees' Group Life Insurance Act of 1954, or (C) unless their
appointments result in the loss of coverage in a group health
benefits plan whose premium has been paid in whole or in part by
a State contribution, the Federal Employees Health Benefits Act
of 1959. State officers and employees who are assigned to the
Department without appointment shall not be considered to be
officers or employees of the Department, except as provided in
subsection (7), nor shall they be paid a salary or wage by the
Service during the period of their assignment. The supervision of
the duties of such persons during the assignment may be governed
by agreement between the Secretary and the State involved.
"(7) (A) Any State officer or employee who is assigned to the
Department without appointment shall nevertheless be subject to
the provisions of sections 203, 205, 207, 208, and 209 of title 18 of
the United States Code.
"(B) Any State officer or employee who is given an appoint-
ment while assigned to the Department, or who is assigned to the
Department without appointment, under an arrangement under
this subsection, and who suffers disability or death as a result of
personal injury sustained while in the performance of his duty
during such assignment shall be treated, for the purpose of the
Federal Employees' Compensation Act, as though he were an em-
ployee, as defined in such Act, who had sustained such injury in
the performance of duty. When such person (or his dependents, in
case of death) entitled by reason of injury or death to benefits
under that Act is also entitled to benefits from a State for the
same injury or death, he (or his dependents, in case of death)
shall elect which benefits he will receive. Such election shall be
made within one year after the injury or death, or such further
time as the Secretary of Labor may for good cause allow, and
when made shall be irrevocable unless otherwise provided by law.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1477
"(8) The appropriations to the Department shall be available,
in accordance with the standardized Government travel regula-
[p. 1188]
tions, during the period of assignment and in the case of travel to
and from their places of assignment or appointment, for the pay-
ment of expenses of travel of persons assigned to, or given ap-
pointments by, the Service tinder an arrangement under this
subsection.
"(9) All arrangements under this subsection for assignment of
officers or employees in the Department to States or for assign-
ment of officers or employees of States to the Department shall be
made in accordance with regulations of the Secretary.
"General
"(g) (1) All regulations and amendments thereto with respect
to grants to States under subsection (a) shall be made after con-
sultation with a conference of the State health planning agencies
designated or established pursuant to subparagraph (A) of para-
graph (2) of subsection (a). All regulations and amendments
thereto with respect to grants to States under subsection (d) shall
be made after consultation with a conference of State health au-
thorities and, in the case of regulations and amendments which
relate to or in any way affect grants for services or other activi-
ties in the field of mental health, the State mental health authori-
ties. Insofar as practicable, the Surgeon General shall obtain the
agreement, prior to the issuance of such regulations or amend-
ments, of the State authorities or agencies with whom such con-
sultation is required.
"(2) The Surgeon General, at the request of any recipient of a
grant under this section, may reduce the payments to such recipi-
ent by the fair market value of any equipment or supplies fur-
nished to such recipient and by the amount of the pay, allowances,
traveling expenses, and any other costs in connection with the
detail of an officer or employee to the recipient when such furnish-
ing or such detail, as the case may be, is for the convenience of
and at the request of such recipient and for the purpose of carry-
ing out the State plan or the project with respect to which the
grant under this section is made. The amount by which such
payments are so reduced shall be available for payment of such
costs (including the costs of such equipment and supplies) by the
Surgeon General, but shall, for purposes of determining the Fed-
-------
1478 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
eral share under subsection (a) or (d), be deemed to have been
paid to the State.
"(3) Whenever the Surgeon General, after reasonable notice
and opportunity for hearing to the health authority or, where
appropriate, the mental health authority of a State or a State
health planning agency designated or established pursuant to sub-
paragraph (A) of paragraph (2) of subsection (a), finds that,
with respect to money paid to the State out of appropriations
under subsection (a) or (d), there is a failure to comply substan-
tially with either—
" (A) the applicable provisions of this section;
"(B) the State plan submitted under such subsection; or
"(C) applicable regulations under this section;
the Surgeon General shall notify such State health authority, men-
tal health authority, or health planning agency, as the case may
be, that further payments will not be made to the State from
appropriations under such subsection (or in his discretion that
further payments will not be made to the State from such appro-
priations for activities in which there is such failure), until he is
satisfied that there will no longer be such failure. Until he is so
satisfied, the Surgeon General shall make no payment to such
State from appropriations under such subsection, or shall limit
payment to activities in which there is no such failure.
" (4) For the purposes of this section—
" (A) The term 'nonprofit' as applied to any private agency,
institution, or organization means one which is a corporation
[p. 1189]
or association, or is owned and operated by one or more
corporations or associations, no part of the net earnings of
which inures, or may lawfully inure, to the benefit of any
private shareholder or individual; and
"(B) The term 'State' includes the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, and
the District of Columbia and the term 'United States' means
the fifty States and the District of Columbia."
CONTINUATION OP AUTHORIZATION FOR TRAINING OF PERSONNEL FOR
STATE AND LOCAL HEALTH WORK; COOPERATION BETWEEN THE
STATES
SEC. 5. (a) Effective July 1, 1966, section 311 of the Public
Health Service Act is amended by inserting "(a)" after "311."
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1479
and by adding at the end of such section the following new sub-
section :
"(b) The Surgeon General shall encourage cooperative activi-
ties between the States with respect to comprehensive and con-
tinuing planning as to their current and future health needs, the
establishment and maintenance of adequate public health services,
and otherwise carrying out the purposes of section 314."
(b) Effective July 1, 1967, section 311 of the Public Health
Service Act is further amended by adding at the end of subsection
(b) thereof the following new sentence: "The Surgeon General is
also authorized to train personnel for State and local health
work."
[p. 1190]
1.12x (1) SENATE COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND
PUBLIC WELFARE
S. REP. No. 1665, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. (1966)
COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH PLANNING AND PUBLIC
HEALTH SERVICES AMENDMENTS OF 1966
SEPTEMBER 29,1966.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. HILL, from the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, sub-
mitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany S. 3008]
The Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, to which was
referred the bill (S. 3008) to amend the Public Health Service Act
to promote and assist in the extension and improvement of com-
prehensive health planning and public health services, to provide
for a more effective use of available Federal funds for such plan-
ning and services, and for other purposes, having considered the
same, reports favorably thereon with amendments and recom-
mends that the bill (as amended) do pass.
SUMMARY
The bill would (a) extend to public health programs the concept
-------
1480 LEGAL COMPILATION— GENERAL
of comprehensive planning that has been effectively used in the
Hill-Burton program, (6) strengthen and improve the existing
programs of grants-in-aid for public health services, and (c) pro-
vide Federal assistance for the mentally retarded and other handi-
capped children.
Specifically, the bill would :
(1) Authorize formula grants to the States and project
grants to communities to assist in financing comprehensive
health planning that would identify public health problems
and establish priorities for health services ;
(2) Authorize project grants for training, studies, and
demonstrations in comprehensive health planning;
(3) Consolidate the existing formula grants now awarded
to States for combating specific diseases and public health
[p-i]
problems into a single grant to be awarded on a matching
basis to aid in meeting the public health needs identified
through the comprehensive planning ;
(4) Continue and expand the existing program of project
grants to public and nonprofit organizations and agencies,
(a) providing services to meet health needs of limited geo-
graphical scope or of special significance, (b) stimulating and
initially supporting new health service programs, and (c)
undertaking studies, demonstrations, or training designed to
develop new improved methods of providing health services;
(5) Authorize grants-in-aid to assist in financing the costs
initiating new services at facilities for the mentally retarded ;
(6) Authorize financial assistance for research, demonstra-
tions, and training in the fields of physical education and
recreation for mentally retarded and other handicapped chil-
dren;
(7) Provide for the interchange of Federal and State and
local health workers and continue the existing program of
formal grants for schools of public health.
[p. 2]
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH
PLANNING AND PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES AMENDMENTS OF 1966
SECTION 4
This section amends section 314 of the Public Health Service
Act (42 U.S.C. 246) by substituting a new section 314 (entitled
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1481
"Grants for Comprehensive Health Planning and Public Health
Services") which contains the following subsections:
SUBSECTION (A) : GRANTS TO STATES FOR COMPREHENSIVE STATE
HEALTH PLANNING
Paragraph (1)—Authorization
This paragraph authorizes the Surgeon General, during the
fiscal years 1967 through 1972, to make grants to States which
have submitted, and had approved by the Surgeon General, State
plans for comprehensive State health planning. There are author-
ized to be appropriated $2,500,000 for the fiscal year ending June
30, 1967, $5 million for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968, $10
million for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1969, and $20 million
each for the next 3 fiscal years.
[p. 15]
SECTION 6
This section adds a new subsection to section 311 of the Public
Health Service Act to encourage cooperation among States with
respect to comprehensive planning. The section also adds a new
sentence at the end of section 311 of the Public Health Service
Act, effective July 1, 1967, to authorize the Surgeon General to
train personnel for State and local health work. (Such authoriza-
tion is currently included in the provisions for categorical grants
in section 314 and is being added to section 311 in view of the
repeal of the current text of section 314.)
[p. 20]
Project Grants for Areawide Health Planning
(b) The Surgeon General is authorized, during the period begin-
ning July 1,1966, and ending June 30,1972, to make, with the ap-
proval of the State agency administering or supervising the ad-
ministration of the State plan approved under subsection (a),
project grants to any other public or nonprofit private agency or
organization to cover not to exceed 75 per centum of the costs of
projects for developing (and from time to time revising) compre-
hensive regional, metropolitan area, or other local area plans for
coordination of existing and planned health services, including the
facilities and persons required for provision of such services; ex-
cept that in the case of project grants made in any State prior to
[p. 28]
-------
1482 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
July 1, 1968, approval of such State agency shall be required only
if such State has such a State plan in effect at the time of such
grants. For the purposes of carrying out this subsection, there are
hereby authorized to be appropriated $5,000,000 for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1967, $10,000,000 each for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1968 and the fiscal year ending June 30, 1969, and
$15,000,000 each for the next three fiscal years.
Project Grants for Training, Studies, and Demonstrations
(c) The Surgeon General is also authorized, during the period
beginning July 1,1966, and ending June 30, 1972, to make grants
to any public or nonprofit private agency, institution, or other
organization to cover all or any part of the cost of projects for
training, studies, or demonstrations looking toward the develop-
ment of improved or more effective comprehensive health planning
throughout the nation. For the purposes of carrying out this sub-
section, there are hereby authorized to be appropriated $1,500,000
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1967, $5,000,000 each for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1968, and the fiscal year ending June
30,1969, and $10,000,000 each for the next three fiscal years.
Grants for Comprehensive Public Health Service
(d)(l) Authorization of appropriations.—There are author-
ized to be appropriated, $170,500,000 for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1968, $230,700,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1969, $292,600,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970,
$297,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971, and $300,-
000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30,1972, to enable the Sur-
geon General to make grants to State health or mental health au-
thorities to assist the States in estalishing and maintaining ade-
quate public health services, including the training of personnel
for State and local health work. The sums so appropriated shall be
used for making payments to States which have submitted, and
had approved by the Surgeon General, State plans for provision of
public health services.
(2) State plans for provision of public health services.—In
order to be approved under this subsection, a State plan for
provision of public health services must—
(A) provide for administration or supervision of adminis-
tration by the State health authority or, with respect to men-
tal health services, the State mental health authority;
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1483
(B) set forth the policies and procedures to be followed in
the expenditure of the funds paid under this subsection;
(C) contain or be supported by assurances satisfactory to
the Surgeon General that (i) the funds paid to the State
under this subsection will be used to make a significant con-
tribution toward providing and strengthening public health
services in the various political subdivisions in order to im-
prove the health of the people; (ii) such funds will be made
available to other public or nonprofit private agencies, institu-
tions, and organizations, in accordance with criteria which
the Surgeon General determines are designed to secure maxi-
mum participation of local, regional, or metropolitan agencies
and groups in the provision of such services; (Hi) such funds
will be used to supplement and, to the extent practical, to in-
crease the level of funds that would otherwise be made avail-
able for the purposes for which the Federal funds are pro-
vided and not to supplant such non-Federal funds; and (iv)
public health services under the plan will be established and
maintained, and will be expanded and extended, in an orderly
manner, * * *.
[p. 29]
1.12x (2) HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND
FOREIGN COMMERCE
H.R. REP. No. 2271, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. (1966)
COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH PLANNING AND PUBLIC
HEALTH SERVICES AMENDMENTS OF 1966
OCTOBER 13, 1966.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
MR. STAGGERS, from the Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce, submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 18231]
The Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, to whom
was referred the bill (H.R. 18231) to amend the Public Health
Service Act to promote and assist in the extension and improve-
-------
1484 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
ment of comprehensive health planning and public health services,
to provide for a more effective use of available Federal funds for
such planning and services, and for other purposes, having consid-
ered the same, reports favorably thereon with amendments and
recommends that the bill (as amended) do pass.
[P.I]
PURPOSES OF LEGISLATION
The bill would establish the process of comprehensive health
planning, and strengthen and improve the existing programs for
public health service grants-in-aid, by—
(1) Authorizing formula grants to the States and areawide
project grants to assist in financing comprehensive health
planning that would identify public health needs and establish
priorities for health services;
(2) Authorizing project grants for training, studies, and
demonstrations in comprehensive health planning;
(3) Consolidating the existing formula grants now
awarded to States for combating specific diseases and public
health problems into a flexible single grant to be awarded on
a matching basis to assist in meeting the public health needs
identified through the comprehensive planning;
(4) Continuing and extending the existing program of pro-
ject grants to public and nonprofit organizations and agencies
for—
(a) Providing services to meet health needs of limited
geographical scope or of special significance;
(6) Stimulating and initially supporting new health
service programs; and
(c) Undertaking studies, demonstrations, or training
designed to develop new or improved methods of provid-
ing health services.
(5) Providing for the interchange of Federal and State and
local health workers and continue the existing program of
formula grants for schools of public health.
Nothing in the bill authorizes any Federal officer or employee to
interfere with, supervise, or control the private practice of medi-
cine, dentistry, or related healing arts, or to interfere with the
selection, tenure, or compensation of any officer or employee of
any institution, agency, or person providing health services.
[p. 2]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1485
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH
PLANNING AND PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES AMENDMENTS OF 1966
Section 3
This section amends section 314 of the Public Health Service
Act (42 U.S.C. 246) by substituting a new section 314 (entitled
"Grants for Comprehensive Health Planning and Public Health
Services") which contains the following subsections:
Subsection (a). Grants to States for comprehensive State health
planning
(1) Authorization.—This paragraph authorizes the Surgeon
General, during the fiscal years 1967 and 1968, to make grants to
States which have submitted, and had approved by the Surgeon
General, State plans for comprehensive State health planning.
(2) State plans for comprehensive State health planning.—This
paragraph sets forth the prerequisites for acceptance of a State
plan for comprehensive State health planning. Such a plan must
designate or establish a single State agency (which may be an
existing agency) as the sole agency for administering the State's
health planning functions under the plan and a State health plan-
ning council (which shall include representatives of State and
local and nonprofit private agencies and groups concerned with
health, and of consumers) to advise such State agency. A majority
[P. 11]
of the membership of this agency must consist of representatives
of consumers. In addition, the plan must set forth policies and
procedures for the expenditure of funds under the plan for com-
prehensive State planning for health services (both public and
private), including health facilities and manpower; and it must
provide for cooperative efforts among governmental or nongovern-
mental health agencies and groups and also for cooperative efforts
between them and similar agencies and groups in the fields of
education, welfare, and rehabilitation. Each plan must contain or
be supported by assurances that the funds paid will not diminish
the level of funds that would otherwise be made available by the
State for the purpose of comprehensive health planning. Provision
must be made in the plan for adequate methods of administration,
fiscal control, and recordkeeping. The State agency must give as-
surances in the plan that it will review its approved State plan not
less often than once annually and submit appropriate modifica-
tions.
-------
1486 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
(3) State allotments.—This paragraph provides that the States
shall be entitled to allotments for each fiscal year, from the sums
appropriated. These allotments are to be determined, in accord-
ance with regulations, on the basis of the population and the per
capita income of the States, but the minimum allotment per State
per fiscal year will be 1 percent of the sum appropriated for that
fiscal year. The paragraph further provides that a State's allot-
ment for a fiscal year is to remain available for obligation by the
State until the close of the succeeding fiscal year, and that the
Surgeon General may reallot to other States the amount of any
allotment to a State for any fiscal year which will not be required
by the State.
(4) Payments to States.—This paragraph provides for payment
to a State, periodically, from its allotment for a fiscal year, of the
Federal share of the expenditures incurred pursuant to its ap-
proved plan during that year or the succeeding year. For fiscal
years 1967 and 1968 such "Federal share" may be all, or such part
as the Surgeon General may determine, of the cost of the planning
contemplated in the approved plan.
Subsection (b). Project grants for areawide health planning
This subsection authorizes the Surgeon General, during the
fiscal years 1967 and 1968, to make project grants to any public or
nonprofit private agency or organization, other than the State
health planning agency under subsection (a), to cover not more
than 75 percent of the costs of projects for developing (and revis-
ing) comprehensive regional, metropolitan area, or other local
area plans (as distinguished from statewide plans) for coordina-
tion of health services, facilities, and manpower. The subsection
requires that each such grant made on or after July 1, 1968, be
approved by the State health planning agency, and that such ap-
proval also be obtained as to grants made before that time if the
State has a plan in effect under subsection (a) at that time.
Subsection (c). Project grants for training, studies, and demon-
strations.
This subsection authorizes the Surgeon General, during the
fiscal years 1967 and 1968, to make grants to any public or non-
profit private agency, institution, or other organization to cover all
or any part of the cost of projects for training, studies, or demon-
strations for the development of comprehensive health planning
throughout the Nation.
[P. 12]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1487
Subsection (d). Grants for comprehensive public health services
(1) Authorization of appropriations.—This paragraph author-
izes $62,500,000 to be appropriated for the fiscal year 1968 to
enable the Surgeon General to make grants to health or mental
health authorities of States which have submitted, and had ap-
proved by the Surgeon General, State plans for provision of public
health services. The grants are to assist States in providing ade-
quate public health services, including the training of health per-
sonnel.
(2) State plans for provision of public health services.—This
paragraph sets forth the prerequisites for acceptance of a State
plan for provision of public health services. Such a plan must
provide for administration by the State health authority (or, with
respect to mental health services, the State mental health author-
ity) and must set forth the policies and procedures to be followed
in the expenditure of the Federal funds. The funds must be used
to make a significant contribution toward providing public health
services in the various political subdivisions of the State and must
be made available by the State authorities to other public or non-
profit private agencies and organizations to secure maximum par-
ticipation on local, regional, or metropolitan levels. Assurance
must be afforded that funds will not diminish the level of funds
that would otherwise be made available for public health services.
The plan must also provide for the furnishing of public health
services in accordance with such plans as have been developed
pursuant to subsection (a). The plan under subsection (d) must
provide that public health services furnished under such plan will
be in accordance with standards prescribed by regulations, includ-
ing standards as to the scope and quality of such services. The
plan must also provide for adequate methods of administration,
fiscal control, and recordkeeping. In addition, the plan must con-
tain assurances that the State health (or mental health) authority
will review its approved State plan not less often that once an-
nually and submit appropriate modifications.
(3) State allotments.—This paragraph provides that the States
shall be entitled for each fiscal year to allotments determined, in
accordance with regulations, on the basis of their population and
financial need, and not less than allotted to each State for fiscal
year 1967.
(4) Payments to States.—This paragraph provides for payment
to a State, periodically, from its allotment, of the Federal share of
the expenditures incurred during each fiscal year under its ap-
proved State plan. It further provides that, for the purpose of
-------
1488 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
determining the Federal share for any State, expenditures by non-
profit private agencies, organizations, and groups shall, subject to
regulations, be regarded as expenditures by such State or its polit-
ical subdivisions.
(5) Federal share.—This paragraph sets the "Federal share"
for any State for purposes of this subsection at 100 percent less
that percentage which bears the same ratio to 50 percent as the
per capita income of such State bears to the per capita income of
the United States; except that such percentage may not be less
than 33Va percent or more than 66% percent. The Federal share
for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa,
and the Virgin Islands is set at 66% percent.
(6) Determination of Federal shares.—This paragraph states
that the Federal shares are to be determined by the Surgeon
General annually between July 1 and September 1, using the aver-
[p. 131
age per capita incomes of the States for the most recent year for
which satisfactory data are available from the Department of
Commerce. The populations of the States are to be determined on
the basis of the latest figures available from the Department of
Commerce.
(7) Allocation of funds within the States.—This paragraph
specifies that at least 15 percent of a State's allotment under
subsection (d) shall be available only to the State mental health
authority for the provision under the State plan of mental health
services.
Subsection (e). Project grants for health services development
This subsection authorizes $62,500,000 to be appropriated for
fiscal year 1968 for grants to any public or nonprofit private
agency, institution, or organization to cover part (i.e., less than
100 percent) of the cost of (1) providing services to meet health
needs of limited geographic scope or of specialized regional or
national significance, (2) stimulating and supporting for an initial
period new programs of health services, or (3) undertaking stud-
ies, demonstrations, or training to improve methods of providing
health services. Grants made for the purposes described in clauses
(1) or (2) with respect to projects involving the furnishing of
public health services may be made only if all such health services
in accordance with such plans as have been developed pursuant to
subsection (a).
Subsection (/). Interchange of personnel with States
This subsection authorizes the Secretary of Health, Education,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1489
and Welfare to arrange for assignment of officers and employees
of States (and of political subdivisions and State or local health or
health planning agencies) to the Department of Health, Educa-
tion, and Welfare and assignment to States (and to political subdi-
visions and State or local health or health planning agencies) or
officers and employees in the Department engaged in work related
to health, for work which the Secretary determines will aid the
Department in more effective discharge of its responsibilities in
the field of health, including cooperation with States and the pro-
vision of technical or other assistance. The period of assignment
of any officer or employee under an arrangement may not exceed 2
years. Detailed provisions are set forth in this subsection concern-
ing compensation, leave, and other benefits, and reimbursement of
expenses, of personnel so assigned.
Subsection (g). General
This subsection contains various provisions of general applica-
bility to the health planning and services to be provided pursuant
to the preceding subsections.
Paragraph (1) specifies that all regulations (and amendments
thereto) with respect to grants under subsection (a) shall be
made after consultation with a conference of the State health
planning agencies, and that all regulations (and amendments
thereto) with respect to grants under subsection (d) shall be
made after consultation with a conference of State health author-
ties (and, in the case of regulations relating to mental health, the
State mental health authorities).
Paragraph (2) empowers the Surgeon General, at the request
of any recipient of a grant under this section, to reduce the pay-
ments to such recipient by the fair market value of any equipment
or supplies furnished to such recipient and by the amount of the
pay, allowances, traveling expenses, and any other costs in connec-
tion with the detail of an officer or employee to the recipient. The
[p. 14]
paragraph further provides that amount by which such payments
are so reduced shall, for purposes of determining the Federal share
under subsection (a) or (d), be deemed to have been paid to the
State.
Paragraph (3) enables the Surgeon General, after reasonable
notice and opportunity for hearing to the health authority (or,
where appropriate, the mental health authority) of a State or a
State health planning agency to withhold further payments to a
State (or with respect to affected activities within a State) when-
-------
1490
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
ever he finds that, with respect to money paid to the State out of
appropriations under subsection (a) or (d), there is a failure to
comply substantially with either the applicable provisions of sec-
tion 314, the State plan submitted under subsection (a) or (d), or
applicable regulations.
Paragraph (4) sets forth the definition of the terms "nonprofit"
and "State," for purposes of the section.
Section 5
This section adds a new sentence at the end of section 311 of the
Public Health Service Act, effective July 1, 1967, to authorize the
Surgeon General to train personnel for State and local health
work. (Such authorization is currently included in the provisions
for categorical grants in section 314 and is being added to section
311 in view of the repeal of the current text of section 314.)
[P. 15]
1.12x (3) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 112 (1966)
1.12x (3) (a) Oct. 3: Amended and passed Senate, pp. 24764-24766,
24768
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I
have discussed this amendment with
the chairman. It occurs to me that the
program is entirely too long. The ac-
celeration of funds from present levels
up to 1972, as carried in the report
which accompanies this measure,
really goes right up to the sky. Dr.
Cohen has indicated that he wants
ample flexibility not only with respect
to authority but also with respect to
funds.
I therefore reassert that we are on
the threshold of a billion-dollar pro-
gram. If that language which has
now been stricken had not been cured,
this would probably be socialized medi-
cine of a kind with an absolute ven-
geance.
The amendment I offer would cut
this back and make it a 4-year pro-
gram. It would cut back the funds. I
point out to the Senate that on page
13 of the report, when we start with
1967 for all items which include plan-
ning grants, health service formula
grants, health service project grants,
grants to schools of public health and
mental retardation services, and rec-
reation personnel, we start with $10
million, but by 1968 we jump up to
$304.5 million. By 1969, we go up to
$401.2 million. By 1970, it escalates
to $507.1 million. In 1971 it goes to
$557 million. In 1972, because three of
the items have been removed from
consideration, it diminishes to $545
million.
However, we have got all of the
major programs on the books that will
have been authorized, particularly the
planning grants to States and the local
areas, and for demonstrations, and so
forth, and that carries the seed of
escalation in it. It is only a question of
a little while before this will be in
orbit itself.
My amendment proposes to make
this a 4-year program, to cut back at
least that much. I cannot quite indi-
cate the exact amount that would be
cut back. It should be something in ex-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1491
cess of $100 million. I have never had
such difficulty in ascertaining what
new money is carried in the bill. We
have tried since last Friday in nearly
every corner to find out about it, and
have not been able to do so. The best
I can tell at the moment, this
*****
Standing in this Chamber before the
Senate on a pair of crutches, with
eleven 6-inch spikes in my hip, I would
be the last man every to deny anyone
health services, or ever to speak
against further exploration in the field
of maladies and diseases which take
their toll of the American people.
But, as I indicated, they are not
ready for it. It will be a while before
the surveys, studies, and investiga-
tions can adduce anything as a proper
foundation on which to build an ap-
propriation estimate.
For that reason, this amendment
should be adopted.
Mr. HILL. Mr. President, I yield
myself 10 minutes.
Last Friday I sought to explain the
bill. I shall not go into details today.
One of the committee amendments ex-
pressly stresses that Federal financial
assistance must be directed to support
the marshaling of all health resources,
"but without interference with exist-
ing patterns of private professional
practice of medicine, dentistry, and
related healing arts."
In other words, the language put in
the bill by the committee is specifically
to make sure that these health pro-
grams are public health programs and
do not interfere with the private prac-
tice of medicine, dentistry, or related
healing arts.
The bill, as I said on Friday, would
extend to public health programs the
concept of comprehensive planning
that has been effectively used in the
Hill-Burton program, strengthen and
improve the existing programs of
grant-in-aid for public health services,
and provide Federal assistance for the
mentally retarded and other handi-
capped children.
In the last session we passed legisla-
tion to grant initial staffing assistance
to community mental health centers.
This bill would provide for the same
type of Federal aid for mental re-
tardation facilities.
[p. 24764]
Since 1936 the States have received
Federal grants-in-aid to support pub-
lice health services. There are now
some 15 different formula and project
grants being awarded to combat
cancer, chronic illness, heart disease,
mental illness, tuberculosis, venereal
diseases, dental disease, neurological
diseases, and mental retardation. In
addition, the grants contribute to the
general support of public health pro-
grams, community health services,
radiological health programs, and the
training of personnel for home health
services.
Under the bill, the funds appropri-
ated for each of these specific cate-
gories may not be transferred to any
other of the specified categories and
may not be used to combat any other
public health problem, even one that
represents a more serious threat to
health and is more deserving of atten-
tion.
The lack of flexibility in the use of
Federal funds for public health activi-
ties is a matter of increasing concern
to States, counties, and cities because
of expanding responsibilities in the
field of public health. The role of
health departments has been expanded
by medical research that has yielded
the knowledge to prevent and control
additional diseases, by environmental
pollution that has created new hazards
to health, and by population growth.
As an alternative to authorizing
new categorical programs of assist-
ance directed against additional spe-
cific diseases or health problems, this
bill provides for a flexible and re-
-------
1492
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
sponsive program of financial assist-
ance for public health activities.
The bill has been endorsed by Gov-
ernors, by most State health officers,
and also by other respresentatives of
State and local governments. For in-
stance, the Council of State Govern-
ments wrote the committee as follows:
For many years both the national Gover-
nors' Conference and the National Associa-
tion of State Budget Officers have been in-
terested in bringing about a greater measure
of flexibility in the purposes for which grantg-
in-aid of various health purposes might be
expended. It appears to us that the bill you
have introduced serves this purpose admir-
ably . . . All in all, it appears to us that
enactment of the proposed legislation would
aid materially in achieving better organiza-
tion and administration of public health pro-
grams.
For example, the Advisory Commis-
sion on Intergovernmental Relations
also wrote in support of the bill and
stated:
The Commission believes that S. 3003 rep-
resents a major improvement in intergovern-
mental relations in the field of public health
and in grant-in-aid administration generally.
These reforms to permit greater flexibility in
the use of grant funds for the provision of
community health services are long overdue
and should result in more effective use of
scarce financial resources of the Nation.
In addition, the National Associa-
tion of Counties wrote:
I should like to express our support of S.
3008 . . . The concepts embodied in this leg-
islation are in keeping with the American
County platform, the official policy statement
of our Association, especially our position on
regional cooperation and county planning.
The legislation is also supported by
the American Dental Association,
American Heart Association, Ameri-
can Hospital Association, American
Nurses' Association, American Op-
tometric Association, American Psy-
chiatric Association, American Public
Health Association, American Social
Health Association, Association of
Schools of Public Health, Association
of State and Territorial Health Of-
ficers, National Association of Re-
tarded Children, National Association
of State Mental Health Program Di-
rectors, National Tuberculosis Asso-
ciation, and the North American As-
sociation of Alcoholism Programs.
I have also received a telegram from
the Association of State and Terri-
torial Health Officers, stating that the
bill is strongly endorsed by the Asso-
ciation of State and Territorial Health
Officers.
I have a good many telegrams I
could offer for the record. I have one
here from Delaware, one from Florida,
others from many other States
throughout the Nation, supporting the
program. It is a bill which is directed
to support the marshaling of all health
resources, without clashing with pri-
vate professional practice of medicine,
dentistry, or other health professions.
The effect of the amendment of the
Senator from Illinois would simply
limit the program to 4 years. So that
for the first year, except for mental
retardation services, there would be
planning. So there would be 1 year for
planning and 3 years for the projects,
with 4 years for the mental retarda-
tion services. There should be at least
that much time for the mental retarda-
tion services because the bill passed in
the last Congress provides initial
staffing assistance for mental health
centers for 51 months. There should be
at least 4 years of support for mental
retardation services. Therefore, under
the language proposed by the Senator
from Illinois, I do not oppose the
amendment of the Senator from Illi-
nois.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I
have only one comment. There is
hardly any health director throughout
the States of the Union who has not
endorsed the bill. Likewise that is true
of the associations. There is only one
thought. The amendatory language I
pointed out on page 11 may or may not
have been in the bill at the time we
received the endorsements, because the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1493
endorsements of the Governors and the
State officers came in March, 25 days
after the bill was introduced, but it
was not sent to the Senate Calendar
until September, and I wonder if they
were aware of the language that has
now been modified.
My own Governor endorsed it in
March. This is likewise true of the di-
rector of the health department. So I
suspect these modifications to the text
of the bill came after the endorse-
ments, before they were submitted to
Congress or the committee. I do not
quarrel; I only say this went too far,
and I felt compelled to suggest the
amendments that are before the Sen-
ate, the one already adopted and the
one before us now.
I trust the chairman can see fit to
take this amendment. By so doing, we
will probably reduce the amount in-
volved rather substantially.
Mr. HILL. Mr. President, I said we
would accept the amendment.
I wish to state that many of these
telegrams have come in quite recently.
For instance, the telegram I referred
to from the president of the Associa-
tion of State and Territorial Health
Officers came in September 30, just two
days ago. I have telegrams that have
come in only this morning, a number
of them, dated October 2 and October
3.
The language to which the Senator
referred, as Senators know, has been
stricken out, and language in the form
of the amendment has been agreed to
in lieu of the stricken language.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, indi-
cative of the scope of this measure is
the fact that by adopting this amend-
ment we have saved the taxpayers of
the United States over $1 billion.
Mr. President, if it is agreeable, at
this time I yield back the remainder of
my time.
Mr. HILL. I have no objection tc
the Senator's request. I am sure the
Senator means how much we might
save in authorizations.
Mr. DIRKSEN. That is right.
Mr. HILL. Of course, we will have
an opportunity later to extend the pro-
grams if we see fit to do so.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Oh, indeed, we will.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does
the Senator yield back the remainder
of his time?
Mr. HILL. I yield 2 minutes to my
distinguished friend from Virginia.
Mr. BYRD of Virginia. I wish to
comment, Mr. President, on the report
from the Committee on Appropria-
tions, which report was submitted by
the distinguished senior Senator from
Alabama [Mr. HILL].
That report, Mr. President, made it
clear that HEW was going beyond
what Congress had intended and what
the Senate had intended when HEW
submitted its so-called revised guide-
lines for integration of schools and
hospitals.
I think the statement of the com-
mittee incorporated in the report is a
very significant one. I think there is
additional significance in the fact that,
despite the efforts of the senior Sen-
ator from New York, the Senate did
not in any way exonerate HEW from
the charges which were made in the
report by the Committee on Appro-
priations.
The action of the committee and of
the Senate itself sustains my protests
to HEW Secretary Gardner. I com-
mend the Senate committee for speak-
ing so forthrightly.
A reading of the CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD of June 4, 1964, when the cur-
rent Civil Rights Act was being de-
bated, makes clear that HEW has
gone far beyond what the Congress
intended it to do.
A review of the floor discussion be-
tween Senators favoring the bill and
Senators opposing the bill clearly re-
veals a legislative intent entirely con-
-------
1494
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
trary to the interpretation cited by the '
Office of Education.
[p. 24765]
I concur in the committee report
that complaints have indicated an at-
titude of harassment rather than
helpfulness on the part of HEW
officials.
I hope the Senate action will stop
further harassment by officials in
Washington. We have too much inter-
ference already in local affairs.
I thank the distinguished Senator
from Alabama.
Mr. HILL. May I say, as to the rec-
ord of the distinguished Senator from
Virginia, his every act has been in
support of the very thoughts he has
expressed here today. He has been 100
percent in his support of the thoughts
he has expressed.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I
yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
majority leader.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President,
in view of the question that has been
raised by the statement of the junior
Senator from Virginia [Mr. BYRD], I
feel that I should make a few remarks
going back to my statement on Sep-
tember 28.
The HEW desegregation guidelines
in the fields of education and hospitals
are still in effect. The law has not been
rescinded. The law is still on the books,
and will be enforced.
The Senate addressed itself last
Tuesday to the special medical cases
that may arise as a result of the de-
segregation of hospitals. Our action
emphasized the individuality and pe-
culiarity of each patient and the in-
tegrity and good faith of the medical
profession. It did not negate or even
dilute the standards or goals of the
1964 act. It did, however, address it-
self to a procedural point in effectuat-
ing the implementation of the 1964
act to hospitals over the next 8%
months after which that appropriation
oill's life will expire and with it any
provisos therein.
The allowances provided in that
amendment become effective upon the
specific finding of the attending physi-
cian and the hospital administrator—a
finding that the case is special and un-
usual and necessary for the health of
the patient. We anticipate no abuse
because of this procedure, but if abuse
does occur and patterns develop, cor-
rective action still could be taken by
HEW and if necessary by the
Congress.
I think that we ought to emphasize
that the action was not and is not to
be considered a reversal of the policy
of title VI of the 1964 act.
Thus the Senate's action was an at-
tempt to specify in the Labor-HEW
appropriations bill its recognition of
the individuality and the pecularity of
each patient under care, and to give
discretion on a case-by-case basis, to
attending physicians in determining
proper treatment. The question was
primarily, even solely, on the proce-
dure to be used in determining com-
pliance with the law. There was no
intention to get around the intent of
the 1964 act, which is the law.
We declared anew that the policy
of segregation in these facilities is
unlawful, but the Senate did presume
a policy of good faith on the part of
the physicians and hospital adminis-
trators during the 8 or 9 months'
period, and affirms its confidence in
the great integrity of the medical pro-
fession. If experience should prove our
confidence has been misplaced, I re-
peat, corrective action could be taken
by HEW, or, if necessary, by Cong-
ress.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is all
time yielded back?
Mr. DIRKSEN. I yield back the re-
mainder of my time, Mr. President.
Mr. HILL. Mr. President, I yield to
the Senator from Maryland.
Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, I
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1495
should like to address a question to the
distinguished chairman, the Senator
from Alabama. Under the language of
S. 3008, is it the legislative intent of
the act to permit grants to State and
local health departments in the field
of family planning? For example,
could the Baltimore City Health De-
partment request project aid for a
family planning information and med-
ical assistance center, for individuals
who desire these services but who can-
not afford to obtain them otherwise?
Mr. HILL. The bill does make such
grants possible. In fact, on page 11 of
the report, we find the following lan-
guage :
The proposed authority would permit proj-
ect grants for program support, program de-
velopment and demonstration purposes for
these kinds of targets, and for other areas
such as dental health, urban health, nar-
cotics and drug addiction, rural health serv-
ices, family planning, and alcoholism.
I think it is made very definite and
clear in the report.
Mr. TYDINGS. I thank the distin-
guished chairman, and I appreciate
the answer. I commend the committee
for their work.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does
the Senator from Alabama yield back
his time? The Senator from Illinois
has already yielded back his time.
Mr. HILL. I now yield back the re-
mainder of my time, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All
time having been yielded back, the
question is on agreeing to the amend-
ment of the Senator from Illinois.
The amendment was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
bill is open to further amendment. If
there be no further amendment to be
proposed, the question is on the en-
grossment and third reading of the
bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed
for a third reading and was read the
third time.
[p. 24766]
Mr. HILL. Mr. President, I yield
back the remainder of my time on the
bill.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I
yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All
time on the bill having been yielded
back, the question is, Shall it pass?
So the bill (S. 3008) was passed.
Mr. HILL. Mr. President, I move to
reconsider the vote by which the bill
was passed.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion was agreed to.
Subsequently the following proceed-
ings were had:
Mr. HILL. Mr. President, the dis-
tinguished junior Senator from Illi-
nois [Mr. DIRKSEN] offered an amend-
ment which I agreed to as chairman
of the committee and manager of the
bill. We found in the examination of
the amendment, after the amendment
had been agreed to, that the amend-
ment did not carry out the intent and
purpose of the junior Senator from
Illinois or my intent and purpose.
The amendment as drafted left out
any authorization for any health pro-
gram for the year 1969. The intent
and purpose of the Dirksen amend-
ment, as agreed upon, was that
these programs should be authorized
through 1970.
I have consulted with the junior
Senator from Illinois. He said that, if
need be, he would come on the floor.
He authorized me to speak on the
matter.
I ask unanimous consent that the
Senate reconsider the vote by which
the motion to lay on the table the
motion to reconsider the passage of
S. 3008 was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HILL. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the Senate
reconsider the votes on the third read-
ing and passage of S. 3008; and I also
-------
1496
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
ask unanimous consent that the Senate
reconsider the vote by which the Dirk-
sen amendment was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HILL. Mr. President, I offer an
amendment to make corrections in the
amendment of the Senator from Illi-
nois so as to carry out the intent
agreed upon in the debate and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be stated.
The legislative clerk proceeded to
state the amendment.
Mr. HILL. Mr. President, I ask un-
animous consent that further reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered, and the
amendment will be printed in the
RECORD.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 3, line 22, insert "each" after
$10,000,000".
On page 3, lines 23 and 24, strike out
"$20,000,000 each for the next three fiscal
years" and insert "for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1970".
On page 9, beginning with "1968" on line
3, strike out all through "years" on line
5, and insert "1968, for the fiscal year end-
ing June 30, 1969, and for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1970."
On page 9, beginning with "1968" on line
17, strike out all through "years" on line
19, and insert "1968, for the fiscal year end-
ing June 30, 1969, and for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1970".
Beginning with "1968" on page 9, line 23,
strike out all through "1972" on page 10,
line 4, and insert "1968, and for each of the
next two fiscal years $230,700,000".
On page 15, line 18, insert "each" after
"$123,000,000".
On page 15, beginning with "$150,000,000"
on line 19, strike out all through "years" on
line 20, and insert "and for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1970".
On page 32, beginning with "1968" on line
18, strike out all through "necessary" on
line 22, and insert "1968, $12,000,000 each
for the fiscal year ending June 80, 1969, and
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970".
On page 34, beginning with "1969" on line
7, strike out all through "$3,000,000" on line
8, and insert "1969, and for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1970, $2,000,000 each".
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend-
ment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
bill is open to further amendment. If
there be no further amendment to be
proposed, the question is on the en-
grossment and third reading of the
bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed
for a third reading and was read the
third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
bill having been read the third time,
the question is, Shall it pass?
So the bill (S. 3008) was
passed. * * *
[p. 24768]
1.12x (3) (b) Oct. 17: Amended and passed House, pp. 27081, 27085-
27086, 27088-27092
COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH PLANNING
AND PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES
AMENDMENTS OF 1966
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Speaker, I
move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 18231) to amend section
314 of the Public Health Service Act
to promote and assist in the extension
and improvement of comprehensive
health planning and public health
services, to provide for a more effec-
tive use of available Federal funds for
such planning and services, and for
other purposes, as amended.
[p. 27081]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1497
The SPEAKER. Is a second de-
manded?
Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Speaker, I de-
mand a second.
The SPEAKER. Without objection,
a second will be considered as ordered.
There was no objection.
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Speaker, this
bill was an administration proposal
originally providing a 6-year program
of grants to the States for comprehen-
sive health planning and for grants to
the States for health services.
The Senate passed a 4-year version
of this bill on October 4. There was
not time for our committee to have the
full hearings this subject needs, so
this bill was introduced, and as re-
ported to the House today, follows
the Senate bill very closely except that
it provides authorizations only for the
current fiscal year for planning and
for the fiscal year 1968 for both plan-
ning and for formula grants and
project grants for health services in
the States.
Existing authorizations for formula
grants expire at the end of the current
fiscal year, and this bill extends this
authorization for an additional year,
and provides a modest increase in the
amounts.
The bill also abolishes the so-called
categorical formula grants, so as to
provide flexibility for the States in
determining the type of health serv-
ices they will provide. It also author-
izes project grants to the States for
1968 in amounts slightly above exist-
ing authorizations.
Our committee intends to go into
this entire subject thoroughly during
the next Congress. Pending that thor-
ough study, this is a stopgap measure.
The bill was reported out of our
committee unanimously and we rec-
ommend its passage to the House.
Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Speaker, I
yield myself such time as I may con-
sume.
Mr. Speaker, for many years the
Federal Government has assisted
State and local entities in creating and
maintaining organizations to promote
and carry out public health activities.
The history of this effort goes back as
far as 1918. Over the years the need
for efforts in new areas and new cate-
gories has resulted in the piecemeal
addition of grant programs to support
State and local efforts to combat these
additional diseases and health prob-
lems. As a result there are now 16
different formula and project grants,
including such categories as cancer,
dental disease, mental illness, tubercu-
losis and venereal disease.
It has been the feeling within the
Halls of Congress, in the executive de-
partments concerned and in the State
governments that eventually these
fragmented efforts should be brought
together and handled in a consolidated
and flexible fashion. Studies have been
underway for some years attempting
to visualize and work out the details of
such a consolidation. To track down
the various provisions of law which
support these programs has become
very difficult. Some of them have spe-
cific rnon-iy authorizations from the
appropriate committee. Many of them
have open-end authorizations which
leave the entire matter of funding to
the appropriations process. This, in
itself, is bad business.
In the 1st session of the 89th Con-
gress the authorizations under section
314(c) of the Public Health Service
Act were extended for 1 year in the
amount of $60 million. This repre-
sented the same authorization to be
found in the act at that time. It was
fully expected when this extension was
granted that before the 89th Congress
adjourned a complete study of this
situation would be available to assist
the committee in working out an en-
tirely new and long-range program.
Unfortunately, this did not happen.
Bills to create such a new program
were introduced in both Houses of
-------
1498
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
Congress, and eventually the other
body did come forth with a bill which
would provide money for comprehen-
sive planning and at the same time
authorize funds for such a program
for a period of 4 years. By the time
this bill reached the House it was en-
tirely too late in the session to give it
adequate study and consideration.
The principle of comprehensive
planning is good. The principle of
consolidation of the myriad health
programs is also good. We are not
ready, however, to embark on a full
scale program without a great deal of
study and consideration.
As an example of the problems still
remaining we find that various seg-
ments of the health community wish
to have special recognition. They want
varying percentages of the funds ear-
marked for particular efforts. This is
exactly what we are trying to elimi-
nate.
The bill which the committee brings
to the House recognizes the principles
of comprehensive planning and pro-
gram consolidation. Its main thrust,
however, is on the planning phase. It
provides $9 million for this year and
$15 million for next year to promote
and accelerate the comprehensive
health plans of the States and other
governmental entities. Meanwhile, it
provides the sum of $125 million to
finance formula grants and project
grants covering the categories now in
being. It is in this regard merely an
extension of present authority for an
additional year.
In this manner we fervently hope
that great effort will be made in the
States in consultation with, and with
the assistance of, local governments,
professional groups, and users of these
services to create comprehensive plans
for the use of health services. We are
fully aware that these plans will vary
greatly from State to State. We can-
not expect all plans to be completed.
A few good examples of plans to be
used under this new system will be
most helpful in the creation of the
long-range legislation which the Com-
mittee will consider at great length
beginning early next year.
Another issue was the one example
of earmarking in the bill—the setting
aside of 15 percent of the total funds
for mental health activities. It may
seem like a contradiction. We find,
however, that at the present time 42
States have separate mental health
organizations and public health orga-
nizations. The reasons for this devel-
opment are not particularly pertinent
here. It is because of this existing
situation, however, that the set-aside
seems to be necessary. The percentage
was determined by comparing the
amounts now being spent in the mental
health area against the total amounts
being spent for all of these activities.
This issue, too, will be thoroughly ex-
plored during the next Congress.
For these reasons I commend this
legislation to the House of Represen-
tatives and recommend that it be
passed.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as
he may consume to the gentleman
from California [Mr. YOUNGER].
Mr. YOUNGER. Mr. Speaker, I
thank the gentleman from Illinois for
yielding this time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the
chairman of the Committee on Inter-
state and Foreign Commerce, the gen-
tleman from West Virginia, [Mr.
STAGGERS], a question.
In regard to the provision to the
effect that in addition to medicine
and dentistry we can provide services
in the healing arts insofar as the
States are concerned, will that include
optometry, if in the States they de-
cide they want to spend some of this
money for the training of optome-
trists?
Mr. STAGGERS. Yes; I would say
in reply to the gentleman from Cali-
fornia that in my opinion it certainly
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1499
would, and that I am sure is the inten-
tion of the committee.
So long as the program is a public
health program and conforms to regu-
lations, the States may determine the
programs they are to carry out. It is a
State responsibility.
Mr. YOUNGER. In other words, we
are not trying to dictate to the States?
Mr. STAGGERS. That is right.
Mr. YOUNGER. We are not trying
to dictate to the States how this money
shall be used?
Mr. STAGGERS. That is correct.
That is one of the big changes in the
bill that we are allowing the States
more flexibility in the use of their
money.
Mr. YOUNGER. Thank you.
Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Speaker, there
is one further thing I did not mention
in my previous remarks, and that was
the removal of the categorical limita-
tions on formula grants. It is our
belief, and I think it has proved itself
out over the last few years, that there
ought to be more flexibility in the
public health programs undertaken by
these States. By removing the cate-
gorical grants we are making it possi-
[p. 27085]
ble for the States to have more flexible
programs. We retained the 15 percent
minimum for mental health however.
Our experience with that program has
been good in the past, and it was our
belief that in this limited area, we
should retain some earmarking. The
whole subject will be looked at again
next year.
Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield to
the gentleman from Missouri [Mr.
HALL].
Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, I appreci-
ate the gentleman yielding to me. As
the gentleman said in his responding
remarks to the distinguished chairman
from West Virginia, and indeed, as
the report states, there has not been
time for full hearings. I commend the
committee for cutting back and re-
trenching in lieu thereof, as much as
they have.
But I am concerned that hasty ac-
tion, even for a 2-year period for fiscal
years 1967 and 1968, in the amount
of $154 million, might be taken at a
time when we are again, as stated in
the report, fragmenting the public
health concept of State and common-
wealth public health service require-
ments. This is being fragmented.
Do either one of the gentlemen, for
example, know about the new Office of
Equal Health Opportunity established
under the Department of Health, Edu-
cation, and Welfare?
Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Speaker, I do
not have particular knowledge of that
myself. Perhaps the chairman of the
committee could give an answer to
that.
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Speaker, I
must confess I do not know about that,
either.
Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, I certainly
did not mean to embarrass the dis-
tinguished chairman and the ranking
minority member, but I know that
these gentleman do not have knowl-
edge of this because it was brought to
my attention only on Friday last.
But there has been established, with-
out congressional authorization, under
the Secretary of Health, Education,
and Welfare, an equal health opportu-
nity program which is, first, rated as
top priority in the U.S. Public Health
Service at the present time, and, sec-
ond, public services have been frozen
in connection with their clinical serv-
ices and State health department re-
lated services, and third, in the
Institutes of Health.
I know that this comes as a surprise
and as a shock to the Committee on
Interstate and Foreign Commerce. It
has been related and referred by me
to the Subcommittee on Appropria-
tions only because the Secretary has
failed to go to any congressional im-
-------
1500
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
piemented funds with which to do this.
So what did it do for this purpose?
One, they detailed personnel to the
OEHO—the Office of Equal Health
Opportunity from the Health, Edu-
cation, and Welfare work in clinical
services, the research services, the
State-related services, the Public
Health Service headquarters, the re-
gional districts. And this might be per-
fectly all right, and I presume that it
is the opinion of counsel somewhere in
the Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare that there is authority
to do this, but the statement has
been made that the money to be used
to finance this program will come out
of the service agencies, the Public
Health Service, the National Commit-
tee on Health, the Bureau of Medical
Services, the Division of Hospital
Health, the Division of Indian Health,
until such time as they can get it au-
thorized. And those detailed in there,
whether on a voluntary or involuntary
basis, regardless of their time in serv-
ice, regardless of whether they are on
clinical services, are left dangling, and
many of them are away on this work
for the OEHO as much as several
months at a time. I submit to the
gentlemen that the clinical services
and the research services and the
funds therefor are being preempted
and used erroneously in this regard.
I certainly think that we should
curtail such action. High officials in-
cluding the Assistant Surgeon General
have stated that this program will go
regardless of what effort the Congress
makes about it. Those who refuse as-
signment to OEHO, may resign. This
reminds me of what I said before your
distinguished committee a year ago in
April. The question is whether the uni-
formed U.S. Public Health Service
will survive and be governed by pro-
fessional people who are dedicated to
good clinical service and quality medi-
cal care in Government, and whether
this uniformed service that has made
such a proud record in the history of
the merchant marine and the Mari-
time Commission is going to be emas-
culated and run by social workers.
It has been stated that American
tradition must go. That the status quo
must go; that the Hippocratic oath of
physicians must go and that they—
social workers—are going to run this
service regardless of what the Con-
gress has to say about it.
This is ruining the morale of the
Public Health Service and indeed in
many areas of the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare.
I strongly submit, and I have here
supporting copies of the travel author-
ization for this detailed staff in the
OEHO sending people from different
existing agencies after an "orientation
course" in Dallas, Atlanta, or Kansas
City, for other communities, OEHO
priorities, guidelines, evidence re-
quired for adequate hearing, com-
munity surveys to be made by these
people. This long questionnaire to be
filled out and followed by a com-
munity profile to determine or prove
that the man who filled out the inter-
view in the Public Health Service was
telling the truth or not.
I think I have made my point, Mr.
Speaker. I simply want to say when
your report says that without ade-
quate hearings we are spending an-
other $154 million on a fragmented
program and we have admitted this in
the report that is in front of us, maybe
this is the time for some caution.
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Speaker, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. HALL. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. STAGGERS. Of course, if the
gentleman from Missouri could give
me the information he has with him,
we will get a letter out to the Depart-
ment tomorrow and ask what this is
all about and go into it fully. Of
course, we want to know and I think
the Congress would like to know.
But this has nothing to do with the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1501
bill that is before us today. This bill
is an extension of authority provided
by laws passed in previous Congresses.
We are just trying to pass a limited
revision for 1 year so that we can have
adequate hearings next year.
Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, I am de-
lighted with the assurance of the gen-
tleman. I certainly want to assure him
that nothing has been closer to my
heart than getting this information
here at the earliest possible moment.
We would have had it up before us on
Friday had it not been necessary to
meet in joint Committee on Appropri-
ations conference, with this body and
the other body and to meet that after-
noon on the same subject.
But just to say further, the report
on page 3 says, for example, so far as
the relation of this bill to others is
concerned, that this will permit—or I
will read from the report itself on
page 3:
The bill « * * has adopted also the provi-
sions of the Senate bill permitting the inter-
change of personnel of the Public Health
Service with personnel of State agencies, and
the provisions of the Senate bill authorizing
training of personnel.
So it is not quite fair, is it, to say
that it is completely disassociated so
far as this bill is concerned with the
other efforts of the Department at this
time.
Mr. STAGGERS. The bill does per-
mit interchange of health personnel,
that is true. I would say, of course,
that anything that has to do with
health is related somewhat and there
is a relationship, I can assure the
gentleman.
Mr. HALL. Of course, Mr. Speaker,
the President's reorganization bill
which he sent down and I believe was
referred to the Committee on Govern-
ment Operations, in effect, eliminated
the Surgeon General, U.S. Public
Health Service, and simply is making
that service another department of the
Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare itself. That, of course, went
into effective law under the Reorga-
nization Act of 1949 because neither
our committee nor the other body ob-
jected to it within the 30-day limita-
tion after printing in the Federal
Register. It gives further credence to
the control of the Public Health Serv-
ice by social workers or an appointed
officer of a Cabinet bureau rather than
the Surgeon General or the Public
Health Service who as an appointee
has been in the Department of In-
terior, or a separate agency reporting
directly to the President of the United
States, and finally a separate Depart-
ment of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare, has been to establish that such
has been placed under a different au-
thority or a different status of another
commission. Is that not correct?
Mr. STAGGERS. That is correct.
Mr. SPRINGER. May I say in reply
to my distinguished colleague, the
gentleman from Missouri, that we had
a special subcommittee this year on
health which went into all aspects of
the HEW in an effort to come up with
some kind of system "makes it difficult
[p. 27086]
for the States to balance their own
fiscal and administrative activities."
At frequent intervals since then, stud-
ies by committees set up at the several
levels and branches of government
have pointed in the same direction.
Again and again attention has been
called to the difficulties imposed by the
lack of flexibility of categorical grants
and by the variety of formulas under
which they are made.
Sixteen years ago Dr. Joseph W.
Mountin—a pioneer in public health—
wrote, "While accepting emphasis on
categories as a necessary transition
from the orthodox concept of public
health based on environmental sanita-
tion and communicable disease control
to the emerging one of personal health
service, let us all recognize the need,
-------
1502
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
at some time, of putting public health
together again."
We would probably all agree that
most of the gains that have been made
in the health fields over the past 30
years or so were made possible by
specialization, and that the categorical
grants were a reflection of that spec-
ialization. But more and more we are
being forced to face the fact that the
other side of the coin is fragmentation.
In speaking before the White House
Conference on Health about this time
last year, I said that there is a con-
necting thread between all of our
many and diverse efforts to protect
the health of our people—and it is that
there exists an interrelatedness and
interdependence between every one of
them. This is just another way of
agreeing with Joe Mountain that the
time has come "to put public health
together again."
Furthermore, I know that this view
is shared by many health authorities
who have first responsibility for ad-
ministering health programs in the
States and communities. I have talked
with many of these people on this sub-
ject, including Dr. Joseph Cannon,
health director from my own State of
Rhode Island. In addition to being
daily involved in the business of run-
ning a State program, Dr. Cannon
participated in a joint task force in-
volving spokesmen for the State health
offices, the mental health authorities,
and the Public Health Service—a task
force charged with reviewing the
overall grants structure of the Public
Health Service. Many of the basic
principles in the amendments before
you today were set forth in the rec-
ommendations of this task force.
Finally, I would say this: The re-
alinement of services to provide com-
prehensive care focused on the
individual and his family in the com-
munity in which they live will not
only produce better health care, but it
will give us more for our money. And
in the long run this point could easily
be the difference between success and
failure.
For we are now spending about 6
percent of our gross national product
on health and medical care. Special-
ists in the field estimate that it may
go as high as 8 or 10 percent. Obvi-
ously, there is a limit somewhere.
These amendments provide a fun-
damental revision in the Federal
approach to support for public health.
They are sound in principle and vital
to our ultimate success in advancing
the cause of health. They deserve our
wholehearted support.
The SPEAKER. The question is on
the motion of the gentleman from
West Virginia that the House suspend
the rules and pass the bill H.R. 18231.
The question was taken; and (two-
thirds having voted in favor thereof)
the rules were suspended and the bill
was passed.
Without objection, a motion to re-
consider was laid on the table.
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Speaker, I
ask unanimous consent to take from
the Speaker's table the Senate bill (S.
3008) to amend the Public Health
Service Act to promote and assist in
the extension and improvement of
comprehensive health planning and
public health services, to provide for
a more effective use of available Fed-
eral funds for such planning and serv-
ices, and for other purposes, strike out
all after the enacting clause and insert
in lieu thereof the provisions of H.R.
18231 just passed.
The Clerk read the title of the Sen-
ate bill.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
West Virginia?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read as follows:
S. 3008
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled. That this
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1503
Act may be cited as the "Comprehensive
Health Planning and Public Health Services
Amendments of 1966".
FINDINGS AND DECLARATION OP PURPOSE
SEC. 2. (a) The Congress declares that ful-
fillment of our national purpose depends on
promoting and assuring the highest level of
health attainable for every person, in an
environment which contributes positively to
healthful individual and family living; that
attainment of this goal depends on an effec-
tive partnership, involving close intergov-
ernmental collaboration, official and volun-
tary efforts, and participation of individuals
and organizations; that Federal financial as-
sistance must be directed to support the
marshaling of all health resources—national,
State, and local—to assure comprehensive
health services of high quality for every per-
son, but without interference with existing
patterns of private professional practice of
medicine, dentistry, and related healing arts.
(b) To carry out such purpose, and recog-
nizing the changing character of health
problems, the Congress finds that compre-
hensive planning for health services, health
manpower, and health facilities is essential
at every level of government; that desirable
administration requires strengthening the
leadership and capacities of State health
agencies; and that support of health services
provided people in their communities should
be broadened and made more flexible.
NATIONAL HEALTH POLICY
SEC. 3. In order to assure planning and
direction on the national level leading to
the construction of a national health policy,
the Surgeon General is authorized during
the period beginning July 1, 1966, and end-
ing June 30, 1972, to conduct studies, re-
search, and investigations to establish a
coherent set of national health goals and
to formulate comprehensive guidelines to
assist States in developing health plans con-
sistent with the purposes of this Act.
GRANTS FOR COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH PLANNING
AND PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES
SEC. 4. Section 314 of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 246) is amended to
read as follows:
"GRANTS FOR COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH
PLANNING AND PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES
"Grants to States for comprehensive State
health -planning
"SEC, 314. (a)(l) AUTHORIZATION.—In or-
der to assist the States in comprehensive
and continuing planning for their current
and future health needs, the Surgeon Gen-
eral is authorized during the period begin-
ning July 1, 1966, and ending June 30, 1972,
to make grants to States which have sub-
mitted, and had approved by the Surgeon
General, State plans for comprehensive State
health planning. For the purposes of carrying
out this subsection, there are hereby author-
ized to be appropriated $2,500,000 for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1967, $5,000,000
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968,
$10,000,000 each for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1969, and for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1970.
" (2) STATE PLANS FOR COMPREHENSIVE
STATE HEALTH PLANNING.—In order to be
approved for purposes of this subsection, a
State plan for comprehensive State health
planning must—
" (A) designate, or provide for the estab-
lishment of, a single State agency, which
may be an interdepartmental agency, as the
sole agency for administering or supervising
the administration of the State's health plan-
ning functions under the plan;
" (B) provide for the establishment of a
State health planning council, which shall
include representatives of State and local
agencies and nongovernmental organizations
and groups concerned with health, and of
consumers of health services, to advise such
State agency in carrying out its functions
under the plan;
"(G) set forth policies and procedures for
the expenditure of funds under the plan,
which, in the judgment of the Surgeon Gen-
eral, are designed to provide for comprehen-
sive State planning for health services (both
public and private), including the facilities
and persons required for the provision of
such services, to meet the health needs of the
people of the State;
" (D) provide for encouraging cooperative
efforts among governmental or nongovern-
mental agencies, organizations and groups
concerned with health services, facilities, or
manpower, and for cooperative efforts be-
tween such agencies, organizations, and
groups and similar agencies, organizations,
and groups in the fields of education, welfare,
and rehabilitation;
"(E) contain or be supported by assurances
satisfactory to the Surgeon General that the
funds paid under this subsection will be used
to supplement and, to the extent practicable,
to increase the level of funds that would other-
wise be made available by the 'State for the pur-
pose of comprehensive health planning and
not to supplant such non-Federal funds;
" (F) provide such methods of administra-
tion (including methods relating to the estab-
lishment and maintenance of personnel stand-
ards on a merit basis, except that the Surgeon
General shall exercise no authority with re-
spect to the selection, tenure of office, and
compensation of any individual employed in
accordance with such methods) as are found
-------
1504
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
by the Surgeon General to be necessary for the
proper and efficient operation of the plan;
" (G) provide that the State agency will
make such reports, in such form and contain- ,
ing such information, as the Surgeon General
[p.27088]
may from time to time reasonably require, and
will keep such records and afford such access
thereto as the Surgeon General finds neces-
sary to assure the correctness and verification
of such reports;
" (H) provide that the State agency will
from time to time, but not less often than
annually, review its State plan approved under
this subsection and submit to the Surgeon Gen-
eral appropriate modifications thereof;
"(I) provide for such fiscal control and fund
accounting procedures as may be necessary to
assure proper disbursement of and accounting
for funds paid to the State under this subsec-
tion; and
" (J) contain such additional information
and assurances as the Surgeon General may
find necessary to carry out the purposes of this
subsection.
"(3) (A) STATE ALLOTMENTS.—From the
sums appropriated for such purpose for each
fiscal year, the several States shall be entitled
to allotments determined, in accordance with
regulations, on the basis of the population and
the per capita income of the respective States;
except that no such allotment to any State for
any fiscal year shall be less than 1 per centum
of the sum appropriated for such fiscal year
pursuant to paragraph (1). Any such allot-
ment to a State for a fiscal year shall remain
available for obligation by the State, in accord-
ance with the provisions of this subsection and
the State's plan approved thereunder, until the
close of the succeeding fiscal year.
" (B) The amount of any allotment to a
State under subparagraph (A) for any fiscal
year which the Surgeon General determines
will not be required by the State, during the
period for which it is available, for the pur-
poses for which allotted shall be available for
reallotment by the Surgeon General from time
to time, on such date or dates as he may fix,
to other States with respect to which such a
determination has not been made, in propor-
tion to the original allotments to such States
under subparagraph (A) for such fiscal year.
but with such proportionate amount for any of
such other States being reduced to the extent
it exceeds the sum the Surgeon General esti-
mates such State needs and will be able to use
during such period; and the total of such re-
ductions shall be similarly reallotted among the
States whose proportionate amounts were not
so reduced. Any amount so reallotted to a
State from funds appropriated pursuant to
this subsection for a fiscal year shall be deemed
part of its allotment under subparagraph (A)
for such fiscal year.
" (4) PAYMENTS TO STATES.—From each
State's allotment for a fiscal year under this
subsection, the State shall from time to time
be paid the Federal share of the expenditures
incurred during that year or the succeeding
year pursuant to its State plan approved un-
der this subsection. Such payments shall be
made on the basis of estimates by the Surgeon
General of the sums the State will need in
order to perform the planning under its ap-
proved State plan under this subsection, but
with such adjustments as may be necessary to
take account of previously made underpay-
ments or overpayments. The 'Federal share' for
any State for purposes of this subsection shall
be all, or such part as the Surgeon General
may determine, of the cost of such planning,
except that in the case of the allotments for
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970, and for
each of the next two fiscal years, it shall not
exceed 75 per centum of such cost.
"Project grants for areawide health
planning
" (b) The Surgeon General is authorized
during the period beginning July 1, 1966, and
ending June 30, 1972, to make, with the ap-
proval of the Sitate agency administering or
supervising the administration of the State
plan approved under subsection (a), project
grants to any other public or nonprofit private
agency or organization to cover not to exceed
75 per centum of the costs of projects for de-
veloping (and from time to time revising)
comprehensive regional, metropolitan area, or
other local area plans for coordination of exist-
ing and planned health services, including: the
facilities and persons required for provision of
such services; except that in the case of proj-
ect grants made in any State prior to July 1,
1968, approval of such State agency shall be
required only if such State has such a State
plan in effect at the time of such grants. For
the purposes of carrying out this subsection,
there are hereby authorized to be appropriated
$5,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1967, $10,000,000 each for the fiscal year end-
ing June 30, 1968, for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1969, and for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1970.
"Project grants for training, studies, and
demonstrations
"(c) The Surgeon General is also authorized,
during the period beginning July 1, 1966, and
ending June 30, 1972, to make grants to any
public or nonprofit private agency, institution,
or other organization to cover all or any part
of the cost of projects for training, studies, or
demonstrations looking: toward the development
of improved or more effective comprehensive
health planning throughout the nation. For
the purposes of carrying out this subsection,
there are hereby authorized to be appropriated
$1,500,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1505
1967, $5,000,000 each for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1968, for the fiscal year ending June
30, 1969, and for the fiscal year ending June
30, 1970.
"Grants for comprehensive public health
services
" (d) (1) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
—There are authorized to be appropriated,
$170,500,000 for the fiscal year ending June
30, 1968, and for each of the next two fiscal
years $230,700,000 to enable the Surgeon Gen-
eral to make grants to State health or mental
health authorities to assist the States in estab-
lishing and maintaining adequate public health
services, including the training of personnel
for State and local health work. The sums so
appropriated shall be used for making pay-
ments to States which have submitted, and had
approved by the Surgeon General, State plans
for provision of public health services.
"(2) STATE PLANS FOR PROVISION OF PUBLIC
HEALTH SERVICES.—In order to be approved
under this subsection, a State plan for provi-
sion of public health services must—
"(A) provide for administration or super-
vision of administration by the State health
authority or, with respect to mental health
services, the State mental health authority;
"(B) set forth the policies and procedures
to be followed in the expenditure of the funds
paid under this subsection;
"(C) contain or be supported by assurances
satisfactory to the Surgeon General that (i)
the funds paid to the State under this subsec-
tion will be used to make a significant contri-
bution toward providing and strengthening
public health services in the various political
subdivisions in order to improve the health of
the people; (ii) such funds will be made avail-
able to other public or nonprofit private agen-
cies, institutions, and organizations, in accord-
ance with criteria which the Surgeon General
determines are designed to secure maximum
participation of local, regional, or metropoli-
tan agencies and groups in the provision of
such services; (iii) such funds will be used to
supplement and, to the extent practical, to
increase the level of funds that would other-
wise be made available for the purposes for
which the Federal funds are provided and not
to supplant such non-Federal funds; and (iv)
public health services under the plan will be
established and maintained for individuals con-
fined to institutions for the mentally ill and
mentally retarded.
"(D) provide for the furnishing of public
health services under the State plan in ac-
cordance with such plans as have been devel-
oped pursuant to subsection (a) and, effective
July 1, 1970, provide that except to the extent
permitted in regulations, such services will be
provided thereunder only to the extent in-
cluded in and in accordance with the plans so
developed;
"(E) provide that public health services fur-
nished under the plan will be in accordance
with standards prescribed by regulations, in-
cluding standards as to the scope and quality
of such services;
" (F) provide such methods of administra-
tion (including methods relating to the estab-
lishment and maintenance of personnel stand-
ards on a merit basis, except that the Surgeon
General shall exercise no authority with respect
to the selection, tenure of office, and compen-
sation of any individual employed in accord-
ance with such methods) as are found by the
Surgeon General to be necessary for the proper
and efficient operation of the plan;
"(G) provide that the State health authority
or, with respect to mental health services, the
State mental health authority, will from time
to time, but not less often than annually, re-
view and evaluate its State plan approved un-
der this subsection and submit to the Surgeon
General appropriate modifications thereof;
"(H) provide that the State health authority
or, with respect to mental health services, the
State mental health authority, will make such
reports, in such form and containing such
information, as the Surgeon General may from
time to time reasonably require, and will keep
such rcords and afford such access thereto as
the Surgeon General finds necessary to assure
the correctness and verification of such reports;
"(I) provide for each fiscal control and fund
accounting procedures as may be necessary to
assure the proper disbursement of an account-
ing for funds paid to the State under this sub-
section; and
" (J) contain such additional information
and assurances as the Surgeon General may
fi nd necessary to carry out the purposes of
this subsection.
" (3) STATE ALLOTMENTS.—From the sums
appropriated to carry out the provisions of
this subsection the several States shall be en-
titled for each fiscal year to allotments deter-
mined, in accordance with regulations, on the
basis of the population and financial need of
the respective States.
"(4) (A) PAYMENTS TO STATES.—From each
State's allotment under this subsection for a
fiscal year, the State shall be paid the Federal
share of the expenditures incurred during such
year under its State plan approved under this
subsection. Such payments shall be made from
time to time in advance on the basis of esti-
mates by the Surgeon General of the sums the
State will expend under the State plan, except
that such adjustments as may be necessary
shall be made on account of previously made
u nderpayments or overpayments under this
subsection.
"(B) For the purpose of determining the
Federal share for any State, expenditures by
nonprofit private agencies, organizations, and
groups shall, subject to such limitations and
conditions as may be prescribed by regulations,
-------
1506
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
be regarded as expenditures by such State or
a political subdivision thereof.
" (5) FEDERAL SHARE.—The 'Federal share'
for any State for purposes of this subsection
shall be 100 per centum less than percentage
which bears the same ratio to 50 per centum
as the per capita income of such State bears
to the per capita income of the United States;
except that in no case shall such percentage
be less than 33 Vs per centum or more than 66%
[p. 27089]
per centum, and except that the Federal share
for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam,
American Samoa, and the Virgin Islands shall
be 66% per centum.
"(6) DETERMINATION OF FEDERAL SHARES.—
The Federal shares shall be determined by the
Surgeon General between July 1 and September
1 of each year, on the basis of the average
per capita incomes of each of the States and
of the United States for the most recent year
for which satisfactory data are available from
the Department of Commerce, and such deter-
mination shall be conclusive for the fiscal year
beginning on the next July 1. The populations
of the several States shall be determined on
the basis of the latest figures for the popula-
tion of the several States available from the
Department of Commerce.
" (7) ALLOCATION OF FUNDS WITHIN THE
STATES.—At least 15 per centum of a State's
allotment under this subsection shall be avail-
able only to the State mental health author-
ity for the provision under the State plan of
mental health services. At least 70 per centum
of such amount and at least 70 per centum of
the remainder of a State's allotment under this
subsection shall be available only for the pro-
vision under that State plan of services in the
communities of the State.
"Project grants for health services
development
"(e) There are authorized to be appropri-
ated $100,000,000 for the fiscal year ending
July 30, 1968, $125,000,000 each for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1969, and for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1970, for grants to any
public or nonprofit private agency, institution,
or organization to cover part of the cost of
(1) providing services to meet health needs of
limited geographic scope or of specialized re-
gional or national significance, (2) stimulat-
ing and supporting for an initial period new
programs of health services, or (3) undertak-
ing studies, demonstrations, or training de-
signed to develop new methods or improve
existing methods of providing health services.
Such grants may be made pursuant to clause
(1) or (2) of the preceding sentence with re-
spect to projects involving the furnishing of
public health services only if such services are
provided in accordance with such plans as
have been developed pursuant to subsection
(a) and, effective July 1, 1970, except to the
extent permitted in regulations, only to the
extent such services are included in and are
furnished in accordance with plans so de-
veloped.
"Interchange of personnel with States
"(f) (1) For the purposes of this subsection,
the term 'State' means a State or a political
subdivision of a State, or any agency of either
of the foregoing engaged in any activities re-
lated to health or designated or established
pursuant to subparagraph (A) of paragraph
(2) of subsection (a); the term 'Secretary'
means (except when used in paragraph (3)
(D>) the Secretary of Health, Education, and
Welfare; and the term 'Department* means the
Department of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare.
" (2) The Secretary is authorized, through
agreements or otherwise, to arrange for as-
signment of officers and employees of States to
the Department and assignment to States of
officers and employees in the Department en-
gaged in work related to health, for work
which the Secretary determines will aid the
Department in more effective discharge of its
responsibilities in the field of health as author-
ised by law, including cooperation with States
and the provision of technical or other assist-
ance. The period of assignment of any officer
or employee under an arrangement shall not
exceed two years.
"(3) (A) Officers and employees in the De-
partment assigned to any State pursuant to
this subsection shall
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1507
Such officers and employees on leave -without
pay shall, notwithstanding any other provi-
sion of law, be entitled-—
"(iii) to continuation of their insurance un-
der the Federal Employees' Group Life Insur-
ance Act of 1954, and coverage under the
Federal Employees Health Benefits Act of 1959,
so long as the Department continues to collect
the employee's contribution from the officer or
employee involved and to transmit for timely
deposit into the funds created under such Acts
the amount of the employee's contributions and
the Government's contribution from appropria-
tions of the Department; and
"(iv) (I) in the case of commissioned officers
of the Service, to have their service during
their assignment treated as provided in sec-
tion 214 (d) for such officers on leave without
pay, or (II) in the case of other officers and
employees in the Department, to credit the
period of their assignment under the arrange-
ment under this subsection toward periodic or
longevity step increases and for retention and
leave accrual purposes, and, upon payment
into the civil service retirement and disability
fund of the percentage of their State salary,
and of their supplemental salary payments, if
any, which would have been deducted from a
like Federal salary for the period of such as-
signment and payment by the Secretary into
such fund of the amount which would have
been payable by him during the period of such
assignment with respect to a like Federal
salary, to treat (notwithstanding the provi-
sions of the Independent Offices Appropriation
Act, 1959, under the head 'Civil Service Re-
tirement and Disability Fund') their service
during such period as service within the mean-
ing of the Civil Service Retirement Act;
except that no officer or employee or His bene-
ficiary may receive any benefits under the Civil
Service Retirement Act, the Federal Employees
Heath Benefits Act of 1959, or the Federal Em-
ployees* Group Life Insurance Act of 1954,
based on service during an assignment here-
under for which the officer or employee or (if
he dies without making such election) his
beneficiary elects to receive benefits, under any
State retirement or insurance law or program,
which the Civil Service Commission determines
to be similar. The Department shall deposit
currently in the funds created under the Fed-
eral Employees* Group Life Insurance Act of
1954, the Federal Employees Health Benefits
Act of 1959, and the civil service retirement
and disability fund, respectively, the amount
of the Government's contribution under these
Acts on account of service with respect to
which employee contributions are collected as
provided in subparagraph (iii) and the amount
of the Government's contribution under the
Civil Service Retirement Act on account of
service with respect to which payments (of
the amount which would have been deducted
under that Act) referred to in subparagraph
(iv) are made to such civil service retirement
and disability fund.
"(D) Any such officer or employee on leave
without pay (other than a commissioned offi-
cer of the Service) who suffers disability or
death as a result of personal injury sustained
while in the performance of this duty during
an assignment hereunder, shall be treated, for
the purposes of the Federal Employees' Com-
pensation Act, as though he were an employee,
as defined in such Act, who had sustained such
injury in the performance of duty. When such
person (or his dependents, in case of death)
entitled by reason of injury or death to bene-
fits under that Act is also entitled to benefits
from a State for the same injury or death, he
(or his dependents in case of death) shall elect
which benefits he will receive. Such election
shall be made within one year after the injury
or death, or such further time as the Secre-
tary of Labor may for good cause allow, and
when made shall be irrevocable unless other-
wise provided by law.
"(4) Assignment of any officer or employee
in the Department to a State under this sub-
section may be made with or without reim-
bursement by the State for the compensation
(or supplementary compensation), travel and
transportation expenses (to or from the place
of assignment), and allowances, or any part
thereof, of such officer or employee during the
period of assignment, and any such reimburse-
ment shall be credited to the appropriation
utilized for paying such compensation, travel
or transportation expenses, or allowances.
"(5) Appropriations to the Department shall
be available, in accordance with the standard-
ized Government travel regulations or, with
respect to commissioned officers of the Service,
the joint travel regulations, the expenses of
travel of officers and employees assigned to
States under an arrangement under this sub-
section on either a detail or leave-without-pay
basis, in accordance with applicable law,
orders, and regulations, for expenses of trans-
portation of their immediate families and ex-
penses of transportation of their household
goods and personal effects, in connection with
the travel of such officers and employees to the
location of their posts of assignment and their
return to their official stations.
"(6) Officers and employees of States who
are assigned to the Department under an ar-
rangement under this subsection may (A) be
given appointments in the Department cover-
ing the periods of such assignments, or (B) be
considered to be on detail to the Department.
Appointments of persons so assigned may be
made without regard to the civil service laws.
Persons so appointed in the Department shall
be paid at rates of compensation determined
in accordance with the Classification Act of
1949, and shall not be considered to be officers
or employees of the Service for the purposes
of (A) the Civil Service Retirement Act, (B)
-------
1508
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
the Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance
Act of 1954, or (C) unless their appointments
result in the loss of coverage in a group health
benefits plan whose premium has been paid in
whole or in part by a State contribution, the
Federal Employees Health Benefits Act of
1959. State officers and employees who are as-
signed to the Department without appoint-
ment shall not be considered to be considered
to be officers or employees of the Department,
except as provided in subsection (7), nor
shall they be paid a salary or wage by the
Service during the period of their assignment.
The supervision of the duties of such persons
during the assignment may be governed by
agreement between the Secretary and the
State involved.
[p.27090]
"(7) (A) Any State officer or employee who
is assigned to the Department without appoint-
ment shall nevertheless be subject to the pro-
visions of sections 203, 205, 207, 208, and 209
of title 18 of the United States Code.
"(JEJ) Any State officer or employee who is
given an appointment while assigned to the
Department, or who is assigned to the Depart-
ment without appointment, under an arrange-
ment under this subsection, and who suffers
disability or death as a result of personal in-
jury sustained while in the performance of his
duty during such assignment shall be treated,
for the purpose of the Federal Employees'
Compensation Act, as though he were an
employee, as defined in such Act, who had
sustained such injury in the performance of
duty. When such person (or his dependents,
in case of death) entitled by reason of injury
or death to benefits under that Act is also en-
titled to benefits from a State for the same
injury or death, he (or his dependents, in case
of death) shall elect which benefits he will
receive. Such election shall be made within
one year after the injury or death, or such
further time as the Secretary of Labor may for
good cause allow, and when made shall be
irrevocable unless otherwise provided by law.
"(8) The appropriations to the Department
shall be available, in accordance with the
standardized Government travel regulations,
during the period of assignment and in the
case of travel to and from their places of as-
signment or appointment, for the payment of
expenses of travel of persons assigned to, or
given appointments by, the Service under an
arrangement under this subsection.
"(9) All arrangements under this subsection
for assignment of officers or employees in the
Department to States or for assignments of
officers or employees of States to the Departs
ment shall be made in accordance with regula-
tions of the Secretary.
"General
"(g) (1) All regulations and amendments
thereto with respect to grants to States under
subsection (a) shall be made after consulta-
tion with a conference of the State health
planning agencies designated or established
pursuant to subparagraph (A) of paragraph
(2) of subsection (a). All regulations and
amendments thereto with respect to grants to
States under subsection (d) shall be made
after consultation with a conference of State
health authorities and, in the case of regula-
tions and amendments which relate to or in
any way affect grants for services or other ac-
tivities in the field of mental health, the State
mental health authorities. Insofar as practica-
ble, the Surgeon General shall obtain the
agreement, prior to the issuance of such regu-
lations or amendments, of the State author-
ities or agencies with whom such consultation
is required.
"(2) The Surgeon General, at the request
of any recipient of a grant under this section,
ma/ reduce the payments to such recipient by
the fair market value of any equipment or
supplies furnished to such recipient and by the
amount of the pay, allowances, traveling ex-
penses, and any other costs in connection with
the detail of an officer or employee to the
recipient when such furnishing or such detail,
as the case may be, is for the convenience of
and at the request of such recipient and for
the purpose of carrying out the State plan or
the project with respect to which the grant
under this section is made. The amount by
which such payments are so reduced shall be
available for payment of such costs (including1
the costs of such equipment and supplies) by
the Surgeon General, but shall, for purposes
of determining the Federal share under subsec-
tion (a) or (d), be deemed to have been paid
to the State.
"(3) Whenever the Surgeon General, after
reasonable notice and opportunity for hearing
to the health authority or, where appropriate,
the mental health authority of a State or a
State health planning agency designated or
established pursuant to subparagraph (A) of
paragraph (2) of subsection (a), finds that,
with respect to money paid to the State out of
appropriations under subsection (a) or (d),
there is a failure to comply substantially with
either—
"(A) the applicable provisions of this sec-
tion;
"(B) the State plan submitted under such
subsection; or
"(C) applicable regulations under this sec-
tion;
the Surgeon General shall notify such State
health authority, mental health authority, or
health planning agency, as the case may be,
that further payments will not be made to the
State from appropriations under such subsec-
tion (or in his discretion that further pay-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1509
ments will not be made to the State from BUeh
appropriations for activities in which there is
such failure), until he is satisfied that there
will no longer be such failure. Until he is so
satisfied, the Surgeon General shall make no
payment to such State from appropriations
under such subsection, or shall limit payment
to activities in which there is no such failure.
"(4) For the purposes of this section—
"(A) The term 'nonprofit1 as applied to any
private agency, institution, or organization
means one which is a corporation or associa-
tion, or is owned and operated by one or
more corporations or associations, no part of
the net earnings of which inures, or may law-
fully inure, to the benefit of any private share-
holder or individual; and
"(B) The term 'State' includes the Com-
monwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American
Samoa, the Virgin Islands, and the District of
Columbia; and the term 'United States' means
the fifty States and the District of Columbia."
Continuation of Authorization for Training of
Personnel for State and Local Health Work;
Cooperation Between the States
SEC. 6. (a) Effective July 1, 1966, section
311 of the Public Health Service Act is
amended by inserting "(a)" after "311." and
by adding at the end of such section the fol-
lowing new subsection:
"(b) The Surgeon General shall encourage
cooperative activities between the States with
respect to comprehensive and continuing plan-
ning as to their current and future health
needs, the establishment and maintenance of
adequate public health services, and otherwise
carrying out the purposes of section 314."
(b) Effective July 1, 1967, section 311 of the
Public Health Service Act is further amended
by adding at the end of subsection (b) there-
of the following new sentence: "The Surgeon
General is also authorized to train personnel
for State and local health work."
Effective Date and Repealer
SEC. 7. The amendments made by section 4
shall become effective, and section 318 of the
Public Health Service Act shall be repealed,
as of July 1, 1966, except that the provisions
of section 314 of the Public Health Service
Act as in effect prior to the enactment of this
Act shall be effective until July 1, 1967, in
lieu of the provisions of subsections (d) and
(e), and the provisions of subsection (g) in-
sofar as they relate to such subsections (d)
and (e), of section 314 of the Public Health
Service Act as amended by this Act. Effective
July 1, 1967, section 316 of the Public Health
Service Act is repealed.
[p. 27091]
The SPEAKER. The Clerk will re-
port the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. STAGGERS: Strike
out all after the enacting clause and insert
the provisions of H.R. 18231, just passed.
The amendment was agreed to.
The Senate bill was ordered to be
read a third time, was read the third
time, and passed, and a motion to re-
consider was laid on the table.
A similar House bill was laid on the
table.
[p. 27092]
1.12x(3)(c) Oct. 18: Senate concurs in House amendments, pp.
27381-27385
AMENDMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH
SERVICE ACT TO ASSIST IN THE
EXTENSION AND IMPROVEMENT OF
HEALTH PLANNING AND SERVICES
Mr. HILL. Mr. President, I ask that
the Chair lay before the Senate the
amendment of the House to S. 3008,
The PRESIDING OFFICER laid
before the Senate the amendment of
the House of Representatives to the
bill (S. 3008) to amend the Public
Health Service Act to promote and
assist in the extension and improve-
ment of comprehensive health plan-
ning and public health services, to
provide for a more effective use of
available Federal funds for such plan-
ning and services, and for other pur-
poses, which was, to strike out all
after the enacting clause and insert:
That this Act may be cited as the "Compre-
hensive Health Planning and Public Health
Services Amendments of 1966".
-------
1510
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
FINDINGS AND DECLARATION OF PURPOSE
SEC. 2. (a) The Congress declares that ful-
fillment of our national purpose depends on
promoting and assuring the highest level of
health attainable for every person, in an en-
vironment which contributes positively to
healthful individual and family living; that at-
tainment of this goal depends on an effective
partnership, involving close intergovernmental
collaboration, official and voluntary efforts,
and participation of individuals and organiza-
tions; that Federal financial assistance must be
directed to support the marshaling of all health
resources—national, State, and local—to as-
sure comprehensive health services of high
quality for every person, but without interfer-
ence with existing patterns of private profes-
sional practice of medicine, dentistry, and re-
lated healing arts.
(b) To carry out such purpose, and recog-
nizing the changing character of health prob-
lems, the Congress finds that comprehensive
planning for health services, health manpower,
and health facilities is essential at every level
of government; that desirable administration
requires strengthening the leadership and
capacities of State health agencies; and that
support of health services provided people in
their communities should be broadened and
made more flexible.
GRANTS FOR COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH PLANNING
AND PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES
SEC. 3. Section 314 of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 246) is amended to
read as follows:
"GRANTS FOR COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH PLAN-
NING AND PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES
"Grants to States for Comprehensive State
Health Planning
"SEC. 314. (a) (1) AUTHORIZATION.—In order
to assist the States in comprehensive and con-
tinuing planning for their current and future
health needs, the Surgeon General is author-
ized during the period beginning July 1, 1966,
and ending June 30, 1968, to make grants to
States which have submitted, and had ap-
proved by the Surgeon General, State plans
for comprehensive State health planning. For
the pruposes of carrying out this subsection,
there are hereby authorized to be appropriated
$2,500,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1967, and $5,000,000 for the fiscal year end-
ing June 30, 1968.
"(2) STATE PLANS FOR COMPREHENSIVE STATE
HEALTH PLANNING.—In order to be approved
for purposes of this subsection, a State plan
for comprehensive State health planning
must—
"(A) designate, or provide for the establish-
ment of, a single State agency, which may be
an interdepartmental agency, as the sole
agency for administering or supervising the
administration of the State's health planning
functions under the plan;
" (B) provide for the establishment of a
State health planning council, which shall in-
clude representatives of State and local agen-
cies and nongovernmental organizations and
groups concerned with health, and of consum-
ers of health services, to advise such State
agency in carrying out its functions under the
plan, and a majority of the membership of
such council shall consist of representatives of
consumers of health services;
[p. 27381]
" (C) set forth policies and procedures for
the expenditure of funds under the plan,
which, in the judgment of the Surgeon Gen-
eral, are designed to provide for comprehen-
sive State planning for health services (both
public and private), including the facilities
and persons required for the provision of such
services, to meet the health needs of the
people of the State;
" (D) provide for encouraging cooperative
efforts among governmental or nongovern-
mental agencies, organizations and groups
concerned with health services, facilities, or
manpower, and for cooperative efforts between
such agencies, organizations, and groups and
similar agencies, organizations, and groups in
the fields of education, welfare, and rehabilita-
tion;
"(E) contain or be supported by assurances
satisfactory to the Surgeon General that the
funds paid under this subsection will be used
to supplement and, to the extent practicable,
to increase the level of funds that would
otherwise be made available by the State for
the purpose of comprehensive health planning
and not to supplant such non-Federal funds;
" (F) provide such methods of administra-
tion (including methods relating to the estab-
lishment and maintenance of personnel stand-
ards on a merit basis, except that the Surgeon
General shall exercise no authority with re-
spect to the selection, tenure of office, and
compensation of any individual employed in
accordance with such methods) as are found
by the Surgeon General to be necessary for
the proper and efficient operation of the plan;
" (G) provide that the State agency wiU
make such reports, in such form and contain-
ing such information, as the Surgeon General
may from time to time reasonably require, and
will keep such records and afford such access
thereto as the Surgeon General finds necessary
to assure the correctness and verification of
such reports;
"(H) provide that the State agency will
from time to time, but not less often than an-
nually, review its State plan approved under
this subsection and submit to the Surgeon
General appropriate modifications thereof;
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1511
"(I) provide for such fiscal control and fund
accounting procedures as may be necessary to
assure proper disbursement of and accounting
for funds paid to the State under this subsec-
tion; and
" (J) contain such additional information
and assurances as the Surgeon General may
find necessary to carry out the purposes of
this subsection.
" (3) (A) STATE ALLOTMENTS.—Prom the (Sums
appropriated for such purposes for each fiscal
year, the several States shall be entitled to
allotments determined, in accordance with
regulations, on the basis of the population and
the per capita income of the respective States;
except that no such allotment to any State
for any fiscal year shall be less than 1 per
centum of the sum appropriated for such
fiscal year pursuant to paragraph (1). Any
such allotment to a State for a fiscal year
shall remain available for obligation by the
State, in accordance with the provisions of
this subsection and the State's plan approved
thereunder, until the close of the succeeding
fiscal year.
" (B) The amount of any allotment to a
State under subparagraph (A) for any fiscal
year which the Surgeon General determines
will not be required by the State, during the
period for which it is available, for the pur-
poses for which allotted shall he available for
reallotment by the Surgeon General from time
to time, on such date or dates as he may fix,
to other States with respect to which such a
determination has not been made, in propor-
tion to the original allotments to such States
under subparagraph (A) for such fiscal year,
but with such proportionate amount for any
of such other States being reduced to the ex-
tent it exceeds the sum the Surgeon General
estimates such State needs and will be able to
use during such period; and the total of such
reductions shall be similarly reallotted among
the States whose proportionate amounts were
not so reduced. Any amount so reallotted to a
State from funds appropriated pursuant to
this subsection for a fiscal year shall be
deemed part of its allotment under subpara-
graph (A) for such fiscal year.
" (4) PAYMENTS TO STATES.—From each
State's allotment for a fiscal year under this
subsection, the State shall from time to time
be paid the Federal share of the expenditures
incurred during that year or the succeeding
year pursuant to its State plan approved un-
der this subsection. Such payments shall be
made on the basis of estimates by the Surgeon
General of the sums the State will need in
order to perform the planning under its ap-
proved State plan under this subsection, but
with such adjustments as may be necessary to
take account of previously made underpay-
ments or overpayments. The 'Federal share'
for any State for purposes of this subsection
shall be all, or such part as the Surgeon Gen-
eral may determine, of the cost of such plan-
ning.
"Project grants for a/reawide health, -planning
" (b) The Surgeon General is authorized,
during the period beginning July 1, 1966, and
ending June 30, 1968, to make, with the ap-
proval of the State agency administering or
supervising the administration of the State
plan approved under subsection (a), project
grants to any other public or nonprofit pri-
vate agency or organization to cover not to
exceed 75 per centum of the costs of projects
for developing (and from time to time revis-
ing) comprehensive regional, metropolitan
area, or other local area plans for coordina-
tion of existing and planned health services,
including the facilities and persons required
for provision of such services; except that in
the case of project grants made in any State
prior to July 1, 1968, approval of such State
agency shall be required only if such State
has such a State plan in effect at the time of
such grants. For the purposes of carrying out
this subsection, there are hereby authorized to
be appropriated $5,000,000 for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1967, and $7,500,000 for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1968.
"Project grants for training, studies, and
demonstrations
" (c) The Surgeon General is also author-
ized, during the period beginning July 1, 1966,
and ending June 30, 1968, to make grants to
any public or nonprofit private agency, insti-
tution, or other organization to cover all or
any part of the cost of projects for training,
studies, or demonstrations looking toward the
development of improved or more effective
comprehensive health planning throughout the
Nation. For the purposes of carrying out this
subsection, there are hereby authorized to be
appropriated $1,500,000 for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1967, and $2,500,000 for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1968.
"Grants for comprehensive public health
services
"(d)(l) AUTHORIZATION OP APPROPRIATIONS.
—There are authorized to be appropriated
$62,500,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1968, to enable the Surgeon General to make
grants to State health or mental health au-
thorities to assist the States in establishing
and maintaining adequate public health serv-
ices, including the training of personnel for
State and local health work. The sums so ap-
propriated shall be used for making payments
to States which have submitted, and had ap-
proved by the Surgeon General, State plans
for provision of public health services.
"(2) STATE PLANS FOB PROVISION or PUBLIC
HEALTH SERVICES.—In order to be approved
under this subsection, a State plan for pro-
vision of public health services must—
-------
1512
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
"(A) provide for administration or super-
vision of administration by the State health
authority or, with respect to mental health
services, the State mental health authority;
" (B) set forth the policies and procedures
to be followed in the expenditure of the funds
paid under this subsection;
"(C) contain or be supported by assurances
satisfactory to the Surgeon General that (i)
the funds paid to the State under this sub-
section will be used to make a significant con-
tribution toward providing and strengthening
public health services in the various political
subdivisions in order to improve the health of
the people; (ii) such funds will be made avail-
able to other public or nonprofit private agen-
cies, institutions, and organizations, in accord-
ance with criteria which the Surgeon General
determines are designed to secure maximum
participation of local, regional, or metropoli-
tan agencies and groups in the provision of
such services; and (iii) such funds will be
used to supplement and, to the extent prac-
tical to increase the level of funds that would
otherwise be made available for the purposes
for which the Federal funds are provided and
not to supplant such non-Federal funds;
" (D) provide for the furnishing of public
health services under the State plan in accord-
ance with such plans as have been developed
pursuant to subsection (a);
"(E) provide that public health services
furnished under the plan will be in accord-
ance with standards prescribed by regulations,
including standards as to the scope and qual-
ity of such services;
" (F) provide such methods of administra-
tion (including methods relating to the estab-
lishment and maintenance of personnel stand-
ards on a merit basis, except that the Surgeon
General shall exercise no authority with re-
spect to the selection, tenure of office, and com-
pensation of any individual employed in ac-
cordance with such methods) as are found by
the Surgeon General to be necessary for the
proper and efficient operation of the plan;
"(G) provide that the State health author-
ity or, with respect to mental health services,
the State mental health authority, will from
time to time, but not less often than annually,
review and evaluate its State plan approved
under this subsection and submit to the Surgeon
General appropriate modifications thereof;
"(H) provide that the State health author-
ity or, with respect to mental health services,
the State mental health authority, will make
such reports, in such form and containing such
information, as the Surgeon General may from
time to time reasonably require, and will keep
such records and afford such access thereto as
the Surgeon General finds necessary to assure
the correctness and verification of such re-
ports;
" (I) provide for such fiscal control and
fund accounting procedures as may be neces-
sary to assure the proper disbursement of and
accounting for funds paid to the State under
this subsection; and
" (J) contain such additional information
and assurances as the Surgeon General may
find necessary to carry out the purposes of
this subsection.
' (3) STATE ALLOTMENTS.—From the sums
appropriated to carry out the provisions of
this subsection the several States shall be en-
titled for each fiscal year to allotments deter-
mined, in accordance with regulations, on the
basis of the population and financial need of
the respective States, except that no State's
allotment shall be less for any year than the
total amounts allotted to such State under
formula grants for cancer control, plus other
allotments under this section, for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1967.
[p. 27382]
"(4) (A) PAYMENTS TO STATES.—From each
State's allotment under this subsection for a.
fiscal year the State shall be paid the Federal
share of the expenditures incurred during such
year under its State plan approved under this
subsection. Such payments shall be made from
time to time in advance on the basis of esti-
mates by the Surgeon General of the sums the
State will expend under the State plan, except
that such adjustments as may be necessary
shall be made on account of previously made
underpayments or overpayments under this
subsection.
" (B) For the purpose of determining the
Federal share for any State, expenditures by
nonprofit private agencies, organizations, and
groups shall, subject to such limitations and
conditions as may be prescribed by regula-
tions, be regarded as expenditures by such
State or a political subdivision thereof.
" (5) FEDERAL SHARE.—The 'Federal share*
for any State for purposes of this subsection
shall be 100 per centum less that percentage
which bears the same ratio to 50 per centum
as the per capita income of such State bears
to the per capita income of the United States;
except that in no case shall such percentage
be less than 33i^ per centum or more than
66% per centum, and except that the Federal
share for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,
Guam, American Samoa, and the Virgin Is-
lands shall be 66% per centum.
"(6) DETERMINATION OP FEDERAL SHARES.—
The Federal shares shall be determined by the
Surgeon General between July 1 and Septem-
ber 1 of each year, on the basis of the average
per capita incomes of each of the States and
of the United States for the most recent year
for which satisfactory data are available from
the Department of Commerce, and such deter-
mination shall be conclusive for the fiscal year
beginning on the next July 1. The populations
of the several States shall be determined on
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1513
the basis of the latest figures for the popula-
tion of the several States available from the
Department of Commerce.
" (7) ALLOCATION OF FUNDS WITHIN THE
STATES.—At least 15 per centum of a State's
allotment under this subsection shall be avail-
able only to the State mental health authority
for the provision under the State plan of
mental health services.
"Project, grants for health services
development
"(e) There are authorized to be appropri-
ated $62,500,000 for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1968, for grants to any public or
nonprofit private agency, institution, or orga-
nization to cover part of the cost of (1) pro-
viding services to meet health needs of limited
geographic scope or of specialized regional or
national significance, (2) stimulating and
supporting for an initial period new programs
of health services, or (3) undertaking studies,
demonstrations, or training designed to develop
new methods or improve existing methods of
providing health services. Such grants may be
made pursuant to clause (1) or (2) of the
preceding sentence with respect to projects
involving the furnishing of public health serv-
ices only if such services are provided in ac-
cordance with such plans as have been devel-
oped pursuant to subsection (a).
"Interchange of personnel with States
"(f) (1) For the purposes of this subsec-
tion, the term 'State' means a State or a poli-
tical subdivision of a State, or any agency of
either of the foregoing engaged in any activ-
ities related to health or designated or estab-
lished pursuant to subparagraph (A) of para-
graph (2) of subsection (a); the term 'Sec-
retary' means (except when used in para-
graph (3) (D)) the Secretary of Health, Edu-
cation, and Welfare; and the term 'Depart-
ment' means the Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare.
"(2) The Secretary is authorized, through
agreements or otherwise, to arrange for as-
signment of officers and employees of States
to the Department and assignment to States
of officers and employees in the Department
engaged in work related to health, for work
which the Secretary determines will aid the
Department in more effective discharge of its
responsibilities in the field of health as author-
ized by law, including cooperation with States
and the provision of technical or other assist-
ance. The period of assignment of any officer
or employee under an arrangement shall not
exceed two years.
"(3) (A) Officers and employees in the De-
partment assigned to any State pursuant to
this subsection shall be considered, during such
assignment, to be (i) on detail to a regular
work assignment in the Department, or (ii)
on leave without pay from their positions in
the Department.
"(B) Persons considered to be so detailed
shall remain as officers or employees, as the
case may be, in the Department for all pur-
poses, except that the supervision of their
duties during the period of detail may be
governed by agreement between the Depart-
ment and the State involved.
" (C) In the case of persons so assigned
and on leave without pay—
"(i) if the rate of compensation (including
allowances) for their employment by the State
is less than the rate of compensation (includ-
ing allowances) they would be receiving had
they continued in their regular assignment in
the Department, they may receive supple-
mental salary payments from the Department
in the amount considered by the Secretary to
be justified, but not at a rate in excess of the
difference between the State rate and the De-
partment rate; and
"(ii) they may be granted annual leave and
sick leave to the extent authorized by law, but
only in circumstances considered by the Secre-
tary to justify approval of such leave.
Such officers and employees on leave without
pay shall, notwithstanding any other provi-
sion of law, be entitled—-
" (iii) to continuation of their insurance
under the Federal Employees' Group Life In-
surance Act of 1954, and coverage under the
Federal Employees Health Benefits Act of
1959, so long as the Department continues to
collect the employee's contribution from the
officer or employee involved and to transmit
for timely deposit into the funds created un-
der such Acts the amount of the employee's
contributions and the Government's contribu-
tion from appropriations of the Department;
and
"(iv) (I) in the case of commissioned offi-
cers of the Service, to have their service dur-
ing their assignment treated as provided in
section 214 (d) for such officers on leave with-
out pay, or (II) in the case of other officers
and employees in the Department, to credit
the period of their assignment under the ar-
rangement under this subsection toward peri-
odic or longevity step increases and for reten-
tion and leave accrual purposes, and, upon
payment into the civil service retirement and
disability fund of the percentage of their
State salary, and of their supplemental salary
payments, if any, which would have been de-
ducted from a like Federal salary for the
period of such assignment and payment by
the Secretary into such fund of the amount
which would ha.ve been payable by him during
the period of such assignment with respect to
a like Federal salary, to treat (notwithstand-
ing the provisions of the Independent Officers
Appropriation Act, 1959, under the head 'Civil
Service Retirement and Disability Fund') their
-------
1514
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
services during" such period as service within
the meaning of the Civil Service Retirement
Act;
except that no officer or employee or his bene-
ficiary may receive any benefits under the
Civil Service Retirement Act, the Federal Em-
ployees Health Benefits Act of 1959, or the
Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance Act
of 1954, based on service during an assign-
ment hereunder for which the officer or em-
ployee or (if he dies without making such
election) his beneficiary elects to receive bene-
fits, under any State retirement or insurance
law or program, which the Civil Service Com-
mission determines to be similar. The Depart-
ment shall deposit currently in the funds cre-
ated under the Federal Employees' Group Life
Insurance Act of 1954, the Federal Employees
Health Benefits Act of 1959, and the civil
service retirement and disability fund, respec-
tively, the amount of the Government's con-
tribution under these Acts on account of serv-
ice with respect to which employee contribu-
tions are collected as provided in subpara-
graph (iii) and the amount of the Govern-
ment's contribution under the Civil Service
Retirement Act on account of service with re-
spect to which payments (of the amount which
would have been deducted under that Act)
referred to in subparagravh (iv) are made
to such civil service retirement and disability
fund.
"(D) Any such officer or employee on leave
without pay (other than a commissioned offi-
cer of the Service) who suffers disability or
death as a result of personal injury sustained
while in the performance of his duty during
an assignment hereunder, shall be treated, for
the purposes of the Federal Employees' Com-
pensation Act, as though he were an em-
ployee, as defined in such Act, who had sus-
tained such injury in the performance of duty.
When such person (or his dependents, in case
of death) entitled by reason of injury or
death to benefits under that Act is also en-
titled to benefits from a State for the same
injury or death, he (or his dependents in case
of death) shall elect which benefits he will re-
ceive. Such election shall be made within one
year after the injury or death, or such further
time as the Secretary of Labor may for good
cause allow, and when made shall be irrevoc-
able unless otherwise provided by law.
"(4) Assignment of any officer or employee
in the Department to a State under this sub-
section may be made with or without reim-
bursement by the State for the compensation
(or supplementary compensation), travel and
transportation expenses (to or from the place
of assignment), and allowances, or any parl
thereof, of such officer or employee during the
period of assignment, and any such reimburse
ment shall be credited to the appropriation
utilized for paying such compensation, trave!
or transportation expenses, or allowances.
" (5) Appropriations to the Department
,hall be available, in accordance with the
standardized Government travel regulations
or, with respect to commissioned officers of
the Service, the joint travel regulations, the
expenses of travel of officers and employees
assigned to States under an arrangment under
this subsection on either a detail or leave-
without-pay basis and, in accordance with ap-
plicable law, orders, and regulations, for ex-
penses of transportation of their immediate
"amilies and expenses of transportation of
;heir household goods and personal effects, in
connection with the travel of such officers and
employees to the location of their posts of as-
signment and their return to their official
stations.
"(6) Officers and employees of States who
are assigned to the Department under an ar-
rangement under this subsection may (A) be
given appointments in the Department cover-
ing the periods of such assignments, or (B)
be considered to be on detail to the Depart-
ment. Appointments of persons so assigned
may be made without regard to the civil serv-
ice laws. Persons so appointed in the Depart-
ment shall be paid at rates of compensation
determined in accordance with the Classifica-
tion Act of 1949, and shall not be considered
to be officers or employees of the Service for
the purposes of (A) the Civil Service Retire-
[p. 27383]
ment Act, (B) the Federal Employees' Group
Life Insurance Act of 1954, or (C) unless
their appointments result in the loss of cover-
age in a group health benefits plan whose
premium has been paid in whole or in part
by a State contribution, the Federal Employees
Health Benefits Act of 1959. State officers and
employees who are assigned to the Depart-
ment without appointment shall not be con-
sidered to be officers or employees of the De-
partment, except as provided in subsection
(7), nor shall they be paid a salary or wage
by the Service during the period of their as-
signment. The supervision of the duties of
such persons during the assignment may be
governed by agreement between the Secretary
and the State involved.
"(7) (A) Any State officer or employee who
is assigned to the Department without ap-
pointment shall nevertheless be subject to the
provisions of sections 203, 205, 207, 208, and
209 of title 18 of the United States Code.
"(B) Any State officer or employee who is
given an appointment while assigned to the
Department, or who is assigned to the De-
partment without appointment, under an ar-
rangement under this subsection, and who
suffers disability or death as a result of per-
sonal injury sustained while in the perform-
ance of his duty during such assignment shall
be treated, for the purpose of the Federal Em-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1515
ployees' Compensation Act, as though he were
an employee, as defined in such Act, who had
sustained such injury in the performance of
duty. When such person (or his dependents,
in case of death) entitled by reason of injury
or death to benefits during that Act is also
entitled to benefits from a State for the same
injury or death, he (or his dependents, in case
of death) shall elect which benefits he will re-
ceive. Such election shall be made within one
year after the injury or death, or such further
time as the Secretary of Labor may for good
cause allow, and when made shall be irrevoc-
able unless otherwise provided by law.
"(8) The appropriations to the Department
shall be available, in accordance with the
standardized Government travel regulations,
during the period of assignment and in the
case of travel to and from their places of as-
signment or appointment, for the payment of
expenses of travel of persons assigned to, or
given appointments by, the Service under an
arrangement under this subsection.
" (9) All arrangements under this subsec-
tion for assignment of officers or employees in
the Department to States or for assignment
of officers or employees of States to the De-
partment shall be made in accordance with
regulations of the Secretary.
"General
"(g) (1) All regulations and amendments
thereto with respect to grants to States under
subsection (a) shall be made after consulta-
tion with a conference of the State health
planning agencies designated or established
pursuant to subparagraph (A) of paragraph
(2) of subsection (a). All regulations and
amendments thereto with respect to grants to
States under subsection (d) shall be made
after consultation with a conference of State
health authorities and, in the case of regula-
tions and amendments which relate to or in
any way affect grants for services or other ac-
tivities in the field of mental health, the State
mental health authorities. Insofar as practic-
able, the Surgeon General shall obtain the
agreement, prior to the issuance of such regu-
lations or amendments, of the State author-
ities or agencies with whom such consultation
is required.
"(2) The Surgeon General, at the request
of any recipient of a grant under this section,
may reduce the payments to such recipient
by the fair market value of any equipment or
supplies furnished to such recipient and by
the amount of the pay, allowances, traveling
expenses, and any other costs in connection
with the detail of an officer or employee to the
recipient when such furnishing or such detail,
as the case may be, is for the convenience of
and at the request of such recipient and for
the purpose of carrying out the State plan or
the project with respect to which the grant
under this section is made. The amount by
which such payments are so reduced shall be
available for payment of such costs (including
the costs of such equipment and supplies) by
the Surgeon General, but shall, for purposes
of determining the Federal share under sub-
section (a) or (d), be deemed to have been
paid to the State.
"(3) Whenever the Surgeon General, after
reasonable notice and opportunity for hear-
ing to the health authority or, where appro-
priate, the mental health authority of a State
or a State health planning agency designated
or established pursuant to subparagraph (A)
of paragraph (2) of subsection (a), finds
that, with respect to money paid to the State
out of appropriations under subsection (a) or
(d), there is a failure to comply substantially
with either—
" (A) the applicable provisions of this sec-
tion;
" (B) the State plan submitted under such
subsection; or
" (C) applicable regulations under this sec-
tion; the Surgeon General shall notify such
State health authority, mental health author-
ity, or health planning agency, as the case
may be, that further payments will not be
made to the State from appropriations under
such subsection (or in his discretion that fur-
ther payments will not be made to the State
from such appropriations for activities in
which there is such failure), until he is satis-
fied that there will no longer be such failure.
Until he is so satisfied, the Surgeon General
shall make no payment to such State from
appropriations under such subsection, or shall
limit payment to activities in which there is
no such failure.
"(4) For the purposes of this section—
" (A) The term 'nonprofit* as applied to
any private agency, institution, or organiza-
tion means one which is a corporation or as-
sociation, or is owned and operated by one or
more corporations or associations, no part of
the net earnings of which inures, or may law-
fully inure, to the benefit of any private share-
holder or individual; and
" (B) The term 'State* includes the Com-
monwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American
Samoa, the Virgin Islands, and the District of
Columbia and the term 'United States' means
the fifty States and the District of Columbia."
CONTINUATION OF AUTHORIZATION FOR TRAINING
OF PERSONNEL FOR STATE AND LOCAL HEALTH
WORK; COOPERATION BETWEEN THE STATES
SEC. 5. (a) Effective July 1, 1966, section
311 of the Public Health Service Act is
amended by inserting "(a)" after "811." and
by adding at the end of such section the fol-
lowing new subsection:
"(b) The Surgeon General shall encourage
cooperative activities between the States with
respect to comprehensive and continuing plan-
-------
1516
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
ning as to their current and future health
needs, the establishment and maintenance oi
adequate public health services, and otherwise
carrying out the purposes of section 314."
(b) Effective July 1, 1967, section 311 of the
Public Health Service Act is further amended
by adding at the end of subsection Ob) thereof
the following new sentence: "The Surgeon
General is also authorized to train personnel
for State and local health work."
EFFECTIVE DATE AND REPEALER
SEC. 6. The amendments made by section 3
shall become effective as of July 1, 1966, ex-
cept that the provisions of section 314 of the
Public Health Service Act as in effect prior to
the enactment of this Act shall be effective
until July 1, 1967, in ]ieu of the provisions of
subsections (d) and (e), and the provisions
of subsection (g) insofar as they relate to
such subsections (d) and (e), of section 314
of the Public Health Service Act as amended
by this Act. Effective July 1, 1967, sections
316 and 318 of the Public Health Service Act
are repealed.
REORGANIZATION PLAN
SEC 7. The provisions enacted by this Act
shall be subject to the provisions of Reorga-
nization Plan Numbered 3 of 1966.
Mr. HILL. Mr. President, since
1936 the Federal Government has sup-
ported public health activities in the
States and communities through
grants-in-aid. Through the years the
Congress has provided new authorities
and programs of assistance so that
today there are a total of 9 formula
and 6 project grants awarded, in these
categories :
Formula grants: cancer, chronic
illness, dental disease, general health
services, heart disease, home health
services, mental illness, radiological
health, and tuberculosis.
Project grants: cancer, chronic ill-
ness, mental retardation, neurological
diseases, tuberculosis, and venereal
diseases.
The funds appropriated for each of
these specific categories may not be
transferred to any other of the speci-
fied categories and may not be used to
combat any other public health prob-
lem, even one that represents a more
serious threat to health and is more
deserving of attention.
The lack of flexibility in the use of
Federal funds for public health activi-
ties is a matter of increasing concern
to States, counties, and cities because
of expanding responsibilities in the
field for public health. The role of
health departments has been expanded
by medical research that has yielded
the knowledge to prevent and control
additional diseases, by environmental
pollution that has created new hazards
to health, and by population growth.
As an alternative to authorizing
new categorical programs of assist-
ance directed against additional spe-
cific diseases or health problems, S.
[p. 27384]
3008 provides for a flexible and re-
sponsive program of financial assist-
ance for public health activities.
The new program of financial as-
sistance would extend the Hill-Burton
concept of comprehensive planning to
other public health activities so that
States and communities could evaluate
public health needs and establish
priorities for the allocation of ex-
tremely limited health resources.
As passed by the Senate, S. 3008 au-
thorized a maximum of $1.1 billion in
appropriations to cover the costs of
comprehensive planning and grants-in-
aid for public health services over the
entire 4 fiscal years 1967-70.
This total was $108 million below
the administration request for the
same 4 years 1967-70 and $1.2 billion
below the original recommendations of
the administration for a 6-year pro-
gram covering 1967-72.
In addition, the Senate in approving
S. 3008 authorized, first, a total of $32
million in appropriations over the 4
years 1967-70 for grants to mental
retardation facilities to assist in ex-
panding and initiating services for the
mentally retarded, and second, a total
of $9 million in appropriations over
the 3 years 1968-70 for training and
research in the field of recreation for
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1517
mentally retarded and other handi-
capped children.
In the House of Representatives, the
legislation was referred to the Com-
mittee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce. That committee has re-
ported that it did not have time to
fully consider the legislation. The
House has approved a substantially
modified version of the measure.
As passed by the House, the legisla-
tion authorizes a total of $154 million
in appropriations to cover 2 years of
comprehensive health planning and 1
year of grants-in-aid for public health
services. The House did not approve
the Senate provisions that authorized
grants, first, for initiating and ex-
panding services at facilities for the
mentally retarded, or second, for
training and research in recreation
for the mentally retarded and other
handicapped children.
During the course of hearings in the
House and in reporting the legislation,
the Committee on Interstate and For-
eign Commerce noted that time did not
permit full hearings this year and
stated that it would consider the sub-
ject matter again early next year.
Accordingly, I recommend that the
Senate accept the amendments of the
House of Representatives. I do so with
the understanding that the House ac-
tion does not represent final action. I
look forward to further consideration
of the legislation next year in both the
Senate and House of Representatives.
In the case of comprehensive health
planning and grants for public health
services, the House action at least ini-
tiates the programs in accord with the
new approach to flexible financing that
is endorsed by the Council of State
Governments, the Advisory Commis-
sion on Intergovernmental Relations
and the National Association of Coun-
ties. Pull funding can come later.
More serious, however, is the fact
that the legislation as passed by the
House completely eliminates the pro-
visions relating to assistance for the
mentally retarded. I want to assure
the membership of the National Asso-
ciation for Retarded Children that we
will recommend again next year the
enactment of legislation to authorize
grants for initiating and expanding
services at facilities for the mentally
retarded and legislation to finance
training and research in recreation
for the mentally retarded and other
handicapped children.
The grants for facilities for the
mentally retarded are similar to the
assistance authorized under existing
law to cover the costs of initial staffing
at community mental health centers,
rehabilitation facilities, and sheltered
workshops. The funds for training and
research in recreation for the mentally
retarded and the handicapped children
are urgently needed. I believe, how-
ever, that the 1-year delay will not
seriously interfere with the progress
we will achieve through these new
programs.
Mr. President, I have consulted
with the ranking minority member
of the Committee on Labor and Pub-
lic Welfare, the senior Senator from
New York [Mr. JAVITS]. He and I are
in agreement. The Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare is in
full agreement. The only practical
thing to do at this time is to agree to
the House amendment, since adjourn-
ment is so close.
Although the House reduced rather
substantially the amount of money to
be provided, we have laid the ground-
work for further consideration next
year. As stated in the House report
that accompanied the bill:
The subject embraced by the bill is an
extremely important one, and the committee
intends to go into the subject thoroughly as
early as, practicable in the next Congress.
As approved by the House, the leg-
islation will permit the initiation of
comprehensive health planning and a
more flexible approach to financing
-------
1518
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
both formula and project grants for
public health programs. The planning
will be started in 1967 and, as stated
in the House report, the Committee on
Interstate and Foreign Commerce will
again go into the subject thoroughly
as early as practicable in the next
Congress. Congress convenes in Janu-
ary and they will then take up the
matter of this legislation.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous
consent to have printed at this point
in the RECORD a letter addressed to me
under date of October 11, 1966 by
Ralph K. Huitt, Assistant Secretary
for Legislation of the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare. In
this letter, Mr. Huitt, on behalf of the
Department, recommends the accept-
ance of the House amendment to S.
3008.
There being no objection, the letter
was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,
EDUCATION, AND WELFARE,
Washington, D.C., October 17, 1S66.
Hon. LISTER HILL,
Chairman, Committee on Labor and Public
Welfare, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN : As I promised over
the telephone, I am sending you a comparison
of S. 3008 and H.R. 18231, which are respec-
tive versions of the Comprehensive Health
Planning and Public Health Services bill.
As you know, we much prefer the Senate
bill but we recognize that the limitations on
time mean that the more restricted bill is all
we can get from the House this year. We be-
lieve it will let us get the comprehensive health
planning started and establish the new struc-
ture for formula and project grants. Therefore
we hope that you and your Committee will de-
cide that you can take the House bill without
a conference.
We deeply appreciate your passing S. 3008
which we think is a splendid bill.
Sincerely,
RALPH K. HUITT,
Assistant Secretary for Legislation.
Mr. HILL. Mr. President, I move
that the Senate concur in the House
amendment to S. 3008.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. HILL. Mr. President, I move to
reconsider the vote by which the Sen-
ate concurred in the amendment of the
House.
Mr. KUCHEL. Mr. President, I
move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
[p. 27385]
1.12y PARTNERSHIP FOR HEALTH AMENDMENTS OF
1967
December 5, 1967, P.L. 90-174, §§ 2(a)—(f), 3(b)(2), 4, 8(a) (b), 9,
12(d),81 Stat. 533
GRANTS FOR COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH PLANNING AND PUBLIC
HEALTH SERVICES
SEC. 2. (a) (1) Subsection (a) (1) of section 314 of the Public
Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 246, as amended by section 3 of the
Comprehensive Health Planning and Public Health Services
Amendments of 1966, Public Law 89-749) is amended (1) by
striking out "1968" the first time it appears and inserting in lieu
thereof "1970" and (2) by striking out "and $5,000,000 for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1968" and inserting in lieu thereof
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1519
"$7,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968, $10,000,000
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1969, and $15,000,000 for the
fiscal year ending June 30,1970".
(2) Subsection (a) (2) of such section is amended by redesig-
nating subparagraphs (I) and (J) as subparagraphs (J) and
(K), respectively, and by inserting after subparagraph (H) the
following new paragraph:
"(I) effective July 1, 1968, (i) provide for assisting
each health care facility in the State to develop a pro-
gram for capital expenditures for replacement, moderni-
zation, and expansion which is consistent with an overall
State plan developed in accordance with criteria estab-
lished by the Secretary after consultation with the State
which will meet the needs of the State for health care
facilities, equipment, and services without duplication
and otherwise in the most efficient and economical man-
ner, and (ii) provide that the State agency furnishing
such assistance will periodically review the program (de-
veloped pursuant to clause (i)) of each health care facil-
ity in the State and recommend appropriate modification
thereof;".
(3) The last sentence of subsection (a) (4) of such section is
amended by inserting before the period at the end thereof ",
except that in the case of the allotments for the fiscal year ending
June 30,1970, it shall not exceed 75 per centum of such cost".
(b) (1) Subsection (b) of such section is amended by striking
out "1968" the first time it appears and inserting in lieu thereof
"1970" and by striking out "and $7,500,000 for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1968", and inserting in lieu thereof "$7,500,000
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968, $10,000,000 for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1969, and $15,000,000 for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1970".
(2) Such subsection (b) is further amended by inserting imme-
diately after "project grants to any other public or nonprofit pri-
vate agency or organization" the following: "(but with appropri-
ate representation of the interests of local government where the
recipient of the grant is not a local government or combination
thereof or an agency of such government or combination)".
(c) Subsection (c) of such section is amended by striking out
"1968" the first time it appears and inserting in lieu thereof
[p. 533]
-------
1520 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
"1970" and by striking out "and $2,500,000 for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1968" and inserting in lieu thereof "$2,500,000
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968, $5,000,000 for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1969, and $7,500,000 for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1970".
(d) (1) Subsection (d) (1) of such section is amended by strik-
ing out "$62,500,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968," and
inserting in lieu thereof "$70,000,000 for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1968, $90,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1969, and $100,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970,".
(2) Effective July 1, 1968, subsection (d) (5) of such section is
amended by inserting "the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands,"
after "American Samoa,".
(3) Subsection (d) (7) of such section is amended by adding at
the end thereof the following new sentence: "Effective with re-
spect to allotments under this subsection for fiscal years ending
after June 30, 1968, at least 70 per centum of such amount re-
served for mental health services and at least 70 per centum of the
remainder of a State's allotment under this subsection shall be
available only for the provision under the State plan of services in
communities of the State."
(e) Subsection (e) of such section is amended by striking out
"$62,500,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968," and insert-
ing in lieu thereof "$90,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1968, $95,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1969, and
$80,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970,".
(f) Effective July 1, 1968, subsection (g) (4) (B) of such sec-
tion is amended by inserting "the Trust Territory of the Pacific
Islands," after "American Samoa,".
(g) Effective July 1, 1967, subsection (c) of section 309 of such
Act (42 U.S.C. 242g(c)), as amended by section 4 of the Compre-
hensive Health Planning and Public Health Services Amendments
of 1966 (Public Law 89-749), is amended by striking out "each"
after "$5,000,000" and by inserting after "the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1968," the following: "$6,000,000 for the fiscal year end-
ing June 30, 1969, and $7,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June
30, 1970,".
RESEARCH AND DEMONSTRATIONS RELATING TO HEALTH FACILITIES
AND SERVICES
*******
[p. 534]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1521
SEC. 3.
*******
(b) Effective with respect to appropriations for fiscal years
ending after June 30,1967—
*******
(2) the first sentence of section 314 (e) of such Act is
amended by inserting "or" at the end of clause (1), by striking
out clause
*******
[p. 535]
COOPERATION WITH STATES IN EMERGENCIES
SEC. 4. Section 311 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
243) is amended by inserting at the end thereof the following new
subsection:
"(c) The Secretary may enter into agreements providing for
cooperative planning between Public Health Service medical facili-
ties and community health facilities to cope with health problems
resulting from disasters, and for participation by Public Health
Service medical facilities in carrying out such planning. He may
also, at the request of the appropriate State or local authority,
extend temporary (not in excess of forty-five days) assistance to
States or localities in meeting health emergencies of such a nature
as to warrant Federal assistance. The Secretary may require such
reimbursement of the United States for aid (other than planning)
under the preceding sentences of this subsection as he may deter-
mine to be reasonable under the circumstances. Any reimburse-
ment so paid shall be credited to the applicable appropriation of
the Public Health Service for the year in which such reimburse-
ment is received."
[p. 536]
PROGRAM EVALUATION
SEC. 8. (a) Paragraph (1) of section 314 (d) of the Public
Health Service Act is amended by inserting before the period at
the end thereof the following: ", except that, for any fiscal year
ending after June 30, 1968, such portion of such sums as the
Secretary may determine, but not exceeding 1 per centum thereof,
shall be available to the Secretary for evaluation (directly or by
grants or contracts) of the program authorized by this subsection
and the amount available for allotments hereunder shall be re-
duced accordingly".
(b) Section 314 (e) of such Act is amended by inserting at the
-------
1522 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
end thereof the following new sentence: "For any fiscal year end-
ing after June 30, 1968, such portion of the appropriations for
grants under this subsection as the Secretary may determine, but
not exceeding 1 per centum thereof, shall be available to the Secre-
tary for evaluation (directly or by grants or contracts) of the
program authorized by this subsection."
RESEARCH CONTRACT AUTHORITY
SEC. 9. Paragraph (h) of section 301 of the Public Health Serv-
ice Act (42 U.S.C. 241) is amended by striking out "two succeed-
ing fiscal years" and by inserting in lieu thereof "five succeeding
fiscal years".
[p. 540]
MINOR OR TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS
SEC. 12
*******
(d) Section 314 (f) of such Act is amended by—
(1) inserting "for" before "the expenses of travel" in para-
graph (5) ;
(2) striking out "Service" and inserting in lieu thereof
"Department" in paragraphs (6) and (8).
[p. 541]
1.12y (1) HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND
FOREIGN COMMERCE
H.R. REP. No. 538, 90th Cong., 1st Sess. (1967)
PARTNERSHIP FOR HEALTH AMENDMENTS OF 1967
AUGUST 3, 1967.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. STAGGERS, from the Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce, submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 6418]
The Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, to whom
was referred the bill (H.R. 6418) to amend the Public Health
Service Act to extend and expand the authorizations for grants
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1523
for comprehensive health planning and services, to broaden and
improve the authorization for research and demonstrations relat-
ing to the delivery of health services, to improve the performance
of clinical laboratories, and to authorize cooperative activities be-
tween the Public Health Service hospitals and community facili-
ties, and for other purposes, having considered the same, report
favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that the
bill as amended do pass.
The amendment is as follows:
Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu thereof
the following:
That this Act may be cited as the "Partnership for Health Amendments of
1967".
GRANTS FOR COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH PLANNING AND PUBLIC HEALTH
SERVICES
SEC. 2. (a) (1) Subsection (a) (1) of section 314 of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 246, as amended by section 3 of the Comprehensive
Health Planning and Public Health Services Amendments of 1966, Public
Law 89-749) is amended (1) by striking out "1968" the first time it appears
and inserting in lieu thereof "1971" and (2) by striking out "and $5,000,000
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968" and inserting in lieu thereof
"$7,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968, $10,000,000 for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1969, $15,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1970, and $20,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971".
(2) Subsection (a) (2) of such section is amended by redesignating sub-
paragraphs (I) and (J) as subparagraphs (J) and (K), respectively, and
by inserting after subparagraph (H) the following new paragraph:
"(I) effective July 1, 1968 (i) provide for assisting each health
care facility in the State to develop a program for capital expenditures
[p. 1]
for replacement, modernization, and expansion which is consistent with
an overall State plan developed in accordance with criteria established
by the Secretary after consultation with the State which will meet the
needs of the State for health care facilities, equipment, and services
without duplication and otherwise in the most efficient and economical
manner, and (ii) provide that the State agency furnishing such assist-
ance will periodically review the program (developed pursuant to
clause (i)) of each health care facility in the State and recom-
mend appropriate modification thereof:".
(3) The last sentence of subsection (a) (4) of such section is amended by
inserting before the period at the end thereof ", except that in the case of
the allotments for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970, and for the next fiscal
year, it shall not exceed 75 per centum of such cost".
(b) (1) Subsection (b) of such section is amended by striking out "1968"
the first time it appears and inserting in lieu thereof "1971" and by striking
-------
1524 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
out "and $7,500,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968", and inserting
in lieu thereof "$7,500,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968, $10,000,-
000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1969, and $15,000,000 each for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1970 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971".
(2) Such subsection (b) is further amended by inserting immediately after
"project grants to any other public or nonprofit private agency or organiza-
tion" the following: "(but with appropriate representation of the interests
of local government where the recipient of the grant is not a local government
or combination thereof or an agency of such government or combination)".
(c) Subsection (c) of such section is amended by striking out "1968" the
first time it appears and inserting in lieu thereof "1971" and by striking out
"and $2,500,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968" and inserting in lieu
thereof "$2,500,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968, $5,000,000 for
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1969, $7,500,000 for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1970, and $10,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971".
(d) (1) Subsection (d) (1) of such section is amended by striking out
"$62,500,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968," and inserting in lieu
thereof "$70,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968, $90,000,000
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1969, $100,000,000 for the fiscal year end-
ing June 30, 1970, and $110,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971,".
(2) Subsection (d) (7) of such section is amended by adding at the end
thereof the following new sentence: "Effective with respect to allotments
under this subsection for fiscal years ending after June 30, 1968, at least
70 per centum of such amount reserved for mental health services and at
least 70 per centum of the remainder of a State's allotment under this sub-
section shall be available only for the provision under the State plan of
services in communities of the State."
(c) Subsection (e) of such section is amended by striking out "$62,500,000
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968," and inserting in lieu thereof "$70,-
000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968, $75,000,000 for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1969, $80,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1970, $100,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971,".
(f) Effective July 1, 1967, subsection (c) of section 309 of such Act (42
U.S.C. 242g(c)), as amended by section 4 of the Comprehensive Health Plan-
ning and Public Health Services Amendments of 1966 (Public Law 89-749),
is amended by striking out "each" after "$5,000,000" and by inserting after
"the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968," the following: $6,000,000 for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1969, $7,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970,
and $8,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30,1971,".
RESEARCH AND DEMONSTRATIONS RELATING TO HEALTH FACILITIES AND SERVICES
SEC. 3.
*******
[p. 22]
(b) Effective with respect to appropriations for fiscal years ending after
June 30, 1967—
(1) section 624 of such Act is repealed; and
(2) the first sentence of section 314(c) of such Act is amended by
inserting "or" at the end of clause (1), by striking out clause (3), by
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1525
striking out ", or" at the end of clause (2), by inserting "(including
related training)" after "providing services" in clause (1), and by
amending clause (2) to read: "(2) developing and supporting for an
initial period new programs of health services (including related train-
ing)"; and
(3) the second sentence of such section 314(c) is amended by striking
out "or (2)".
Any sums appropriated for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968, for carrying
out such sections 624 and 314(c) (3) which remain unobligated on the date
of enactment of this Act shall be available for carrying out section 304 of the
Public Health Service Act, and the total of such sums (and any portion of
the appropriations for such year for such purpose obligated prior to such
date of enactment in carrying out such sections) shall be deducted from the
authorization for such year contained in such section 304.
COOPERATION WITH STATES IN EMERGENCIES
SEC. 4. Section 311 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 243) is
amended by inserting at the end thereof the following new subsection:
"(c) The Secretary may enter into agreements providing for cooperative
planning between Public Health Service medical facilities and community
[p. 3]
health facilities to cope with health problems resulting from disasters, and
for participation by Public Health Service medical facilities in carrying out
such planning. He may also, at the request of the appropriate State or local
authority, extend temporary (not in excess of forty-five days) assistance to
States or localities in meeting health emergencies of such a nature as to
warrant Federal assistance. The Secretary may require such reimbursement
of the United States for aid (other than planning) under the preceding
sentences of this subsection as he may determine to be reasonable under the
circumstances. Any reimbursement so paid shall be credited to the applicable
appropriation of the Public Health Service for the year in which such
reimbursement is received."
[p. 4]
PROGRAM EVALUATION
SEC. 8. (a) Paragraph (1) of section 314(d) of the Public Health Service
Act is amended by inserting before the period at the end thereof the follow-
ing: ", except that, for any fiscal year ending after June 30, 1968, such
portion of such sums as the Secretary may determine, but not exceeding 1
per centum thereof, shall be available to the Secretary for evaluation
(directly or by grants or contracts) of the program authorized by this sub-
section and the amount available for allotments hereunder shall be reduced
accordingly".
(b) Section 314 (e) of such Act is amended by inserting at the end thereof
the following new sentence: "For any fiscal year ending after June 30, 1968,
such portion of the appropriations for grants under this subsection as the
Secretary may determine, but not exceeding 1 per centum thereof, shall be
-------
1526 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
available to the Secretary for evaluation (directly or by grants or contracts)
of the program authorized by this subsection."
RESEARCH CONTRACT AUTHORITY
SEC. 9. Paragraph (h) of section 301 of the Public Health Service Act (42
U.S.C. 241) is amended by striking out "two succeeding fiscal years" and
inserting in lieu thereof "five succeeding fiscal years".
MEDICAL CAEE FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYEES AT REMOTE STATIONS OF THE SERVICE
SEC. 10. (a) Section 324 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 251) is
amended by inserting "(a)" immediately after "SEC. 324." and by redesig-
nating clauses (a) through (d) of such section, and references thereto, as
clauses (1) through (4).
(b) Section 324 of such Act is further amended by adding at the end
thereof the following new subsection:
"(b) The Secretary is authorized to provide medical, surgical, and dental
treatment and hospitalization and optometric care for Federal employees (as
defined in section 8901(1) of title 5 of the United States Code) and their de-
pendents at remote medical facilities of the Public Health Service where such
care and treatment are not otherwise available. Such employees and their
dependents who are not entitled to this care and treatment under any other
provision of law shall be charged for it at rates established by the Secretary
to reflect the reasonable cost of providing the care and treatment. Any pay-
ments pursuant to the preceding sentence shall be credited to the applicable
appropriation to the Public Health Service for the year in which such
payments are received."
(c) Paragraph (7) of subsection (a) of section 322 of such Act is amended
to read as follows:
"(7) Seamen-trainees, while participating in maritime training programs
to develop or enhance their employability in the maritime industry; and".
*#*###:!!
[p. 7]
PRINCIPAL PURPOSES OF THE BILL
The principal purposes of the bill are to extend and expand for
three additional years (until July 1, 1971), the appropriation au-
thorizations under the Public Health Service Act for formula and
project grants for public health services by the States, and for
grants for comprehensive health planning, and to establish an
expanded program for research into and demonstrations of new
methods of organization, delivery, and financing of health serv-
ices. The bill also establishes a program of aid for projects for
alterations, enlargement, or remodeling of, and additions to, exist-
ing hospitals having an average rate of occupancy exceeding rea-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1527
sonable capacity. In addition, the bill establishes a program for
licensing clinical laboratories which solicit or receive specimens in
interstate commerce.
OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE BILL
Other provisions of the bill would—
(1) Extend for 3 years (through fiscal year 1971) grants
to schools of public health;
(2) Strengthen the role of the Public Health Service in
assisting States and localities to cope with health emergencies
and disasters;
(3) Authorize the Secretary of Health, Education, and
Welfare to accept uncompensated services of volunteers in the
operation of health care facilities;
(4) Clarify and strengthen the authority of the Secretary
of Health, Education, and Welfare to enter into agreements
with health schools, hospitals, and other health care or train-
ing facilities for the interchange or cooperative sharing of
scarce or highly specialized health resources;
(5) Provide that not to exceed 1 percent of appropriated
funds for formula and project grants for public health serv-
ices—as well as grants to schools of public health—shall be
available to the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare
for program evaluation, analysis, and review;
(6) Extend to July 1, 1971, the contract authority in sec-
tion 301 (h) of the Public Health Service Act, which expires
June 30, 1968;
(7) Authorize provision of medical and other health care
to Federal employees at remote stations but only where care
other than that provided by the Public Health Service is not
available, and make certain seaman-trainees eligible for such
care;
(8) Allow assistance under the Hill-Burton hospital con-
struction program to be furnished to certain joint hospital
enterprises.
(9) Allow a loan to be made of up to % of the additional
costs of an experimental hospital construction project where
such costs have risen substantially after initial approval of
the project.
(10) For the purposes of partial reimbursement to diploma
nursing schools for the cost of training, make clear that stu-
-------
1528 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
dents receiving loans from the nurse student revolving fund
are "federally sponsored students" in the same sense as those
receiving loans from the capital contribution loan fund;
[P. HI
(11) Increase from 12 to 13 the number of members of the
National Advisory Council of Education for the Health Pro-
fessions required to be chosen from among leading authorities
in the field of higher education.
HEARINGS—COST
Hearings were held on the legislation on May 2, 3, and 4 and
June 20 and 22, 1967, and the legislation was considered in execu-
tive sessions for 7 days—June 27, 28, and 29, and July 13, 25, 26,
and 27.
The cost of the bill is shown in the following table:
NEW OBLIGATIONAL AUTHORITY
[In millions. Figures in parentheses represent amounts authorized under existing law]
1968 1969 1970 1971 Cumulative
total, NOA
Sec. 304 Research and demonstrations relating to health
facilities and services .
Sec 309- Grants to schools of public health
Sec. 314-
(1) Planning grants:
(a) 314(a). Comprehensive State planning
(b) 314(b). Areawide planning
(c) 314(c). Training, studies, and demonstrations
(2) Health service formula grants, 314(d)
(3) Health service project grants, 314(e)
(4) Critical hospital projects, 314
Sec. 323A- Experimental facilities
$8.0
2.0
7.5
7.5
58.0
3.5
($12.0)
(5.0)
(5.0)
(7.5)
(2.5)
(62.5)
(62.5)
$40
6
10
10
5
90
75
$60.0
7.0
15.0
15.0
7.5
100.0
80.0
$80
8
20
15
10
no
100
$188.0
21.0
47.0
40.0
22.5
307.5
262.5
58.0
Total . 86.5 (157.0) 236 284.5 343 950.0
BACKGROUND
The first Federal program authorizing grants to the States for
health programs was the Chamberlain-Kuhn Act of 1918, but the
first program established on a regular basis came in 1936 with the
enactment of the Social Security Act.
By 1966, programs of grants to the States for public health
services had been established under section 314 of the Public
Health Service Act, authorizing formula grants to the States
based upon population and per capita income, for specific categori-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1529
cal health programs. In addition a program of project grants,
again for specific categories of diseases, was regularly contained
in annual appropriation acts. These two programs had attained by
1966 a level totaling approximately $110 million annually, but
numerous administrative problems had arisen for the States aris-
ing out of the restriction of the use of funds to the specific cate-
gories of diseases named in the law. At times this inhibited the
best use of funds otherwise available for health programs.
Summary of Public Health Service project grant programs now included in
section SH(e) of PHS Act as amended by Public Law S9-7Jt9
Year of authorization: Program
1947 Venereal disease.
1960 Cancer.
1961 Radiological health.
1962 Tuberculosis; chronic illness and aged;
neurology and sensory diseases.
1964 Mental retardation.
[p. 12]
PROGRAM EVALUATION
The bill would authorize the Secretary to make up to 1 percent
of the funds appropriated for comprehensive health services, for
health services development, and for graduate training in public
health, available for evaluation of these programs. Continuing
evaluation of these programs is necessary to guarantee that the
best interests and needs of the public are being met. This section
would provide the Secretary with the flexibility to achieve the best
possible review of these programs. Such provisions are included
for evaluation of programs carried out under the authorities in
sections 304, 309, 314(d), and 314(e).
As a basic tool of program implementation and development,
evaluation is insurance that the health research, service, facilities,
demonstrations, and related activities proposed in this bill will
fully accomplish their purposes. The Secretary should insure that
the goals and objectives of these programs are kept sharply in
focus and that the best means for accomplishing objectives are
employed. Once these programs are in operation, followup on their
progress should be made. Evaluation studies and analyses should
be conducted to identify and extend the application of those pro-
gram methods and approaches which show high success and to
spot program weaknesses in time to permit steps to be taken to
improve program performance.
-------
1530 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
Assessment and comparison of different ways of accomplishing
program objectives should be made and the most effective ap-
proaches should be emphasized. The Secretary should develop ap-
propriate measures of the progress of programs to insure that
quality is maintained and that program achievements are made in
an economical way. The bill provides that the Secretary may per-
form evaluation either directly or through grants or contracts.
Although the funds available for evaluation will be a small frac-
tion of those available for the programs which are authorized, no
more than 1 percent, the committee feels that making these funds
available for evaluation will contribute substantially to the success
of the programs proposed in the bill. The committee will expect to
be kept informed from time to time of the progress of these
evaluation activities, and to have reports on such evaluation avail-
able for the use of the committee.
[p. 31]
CONTRACT AUTHORITY
Section 9 of the bill would extend until June 30, 1971, the
authority of the Public Health Service to enter into contracts for
the purpose of carrying out the broad authorities under section
301 of the Public Health Service Act. This contract authority
includes the authority to enter into research contracts which may
include the cost of acquiring facilities, or constructing new facili-
ties, not having general utility, necessary for the fulfillment of the
contract. Authority is also included for the indemnification of the
contractor against claims resulting from risks which are deter-
mined to be unusually hazardous. A very small percentage of the
research contracts would include these provisions, but as the Pub-
lic Health Service becomes increasingly involved in applied re-
search involving complex development and testing activities it is
vital that this authority be permitted.
[P. 32]
SECTION-BY-SECTION EXPLANATION OF THE BILL, As REPORTED
The bill (H.R. 6418) is reported with an amendment which
strikes out all after the enacting clause and inserts a new text.
The following is a section-by-section explanation of the commit-
tee's amendment in the nature of a substitute:
Section 1.—Short title
This section provides that this legislation may be cited as the
"Partnership for Health Amendments of 1967."
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1531
Section 2.—Grants for comprehensive health planning and public
health services
Paragraph (1) of subsection (a) of this section amends section
314 (a) (1) of the Public Health Service Act which provides for
authorization of appropriations for grants to States for compre-
hensive State health planning. Paragraph (1) would increase the
authorization for fiscal year 1968 from $5 million to $7 million,
would extend the program for 3 additional fiscal years (through
fiscal year 1971), and would authorize the appropriation of $10
million for fiscal year 1969, $15 million for fiscal year 1970, and
$20 million for fiscal year 1971.
Paragraph (2) would amend section 314 (a) (2) of the Public
Health Service Act which sets forth the requirements for State
plans for comprehensive State health planning. Under the amend-
ment, each State plan, effective July 1, 1968, would have to (1)
provide for assisting each State health care facility in the State to
develop a program for capital expenditures for replacement, mod-
ernization, and expansion which is consistent with an overall State
plan developed in accordance with criteria developed by the Secre-
tary after consultation with the State which will meet the needs of
the State for health care facilities, equipment, and .services with-
out duplication and otherwise in the most efficient and economical
manner and (2) require periodic review of this program and of
each health care facility in the State with recommendations of
appropriate modifications.
Under existing law, the Federal share for comprehensive State
health planning is all or such part of the overall cost as the
Secretary may determine. Paragraph (3) amends this provision
so that for fiscal years 1970 and 1971 the Federal share may not
exceed 75 per centum of the overall cost for comprehensive State
health planning in any State.
Paragraph (1) of subsection (b) amends section 314 (b) of the
Public Health Service Act which provides for project grants for
areawide health planning. This paragraph would extend that pro-
gram for 3 additional fiscal years (through fiscal year 1971) and
would authorize $10 million for fiscal year 1969 and $15 million
each for fiscal years 1970 and 1971.
Under existing law project grants for areawide health planning
may be made to public or nonprofit private agencies or organiza-
tions. Paragraph (2) of subsection (b) would amend the provi-
sions with respect to entities eligible to receive such project grants
so as to require appropriate representation of the interests of local
-------
1532 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
government where the recipient of the grants is not a local gov-
ernment or a combination of local governments or an agency of
such government or combination.
[p. 36]
Subsection (c) amends section 314 (c) of the Public Health
Service Act which provides for project grants for training, study,
and demonstrations looking toward the development of improved
or more effective comprehensive health planning throughout the
Nation. Subsection (c) would amend this section so as to extend
the program for 3 additional fiscal years (through fiscal year
1971) with authorizations of $5 million for fiscal year 1967,
$7,500,000 for fiscal year 1970, and $10 million for fiscal year
1971.
Paragraph (1) of subsection (d) amends section 314 (d) (1) of
the Public Health Service Act which provides for authorization of
appropriations for grants for comprehensive public health serv-
ices. This paragraph would amend this section of the act so as to
increase from $62,500,000 to $70 million the authorization for
fiscal year 1968, would extend the program for 3 additional years
(through fiscal year 1971), and would authorize the appropriation
of $90 million for fiscal year 1969, $100 million for fiscal year
1970, and $110 million for fiscal year 1971.
Section 314 (d) (7) of the Public Health Service Act provides
that of a State's allotment for comprehensive public health serv-
ices at least 15 percent must be available only to the State mental
health authority for the provision under the State plan for mental
health services. Subsection (d) (2) of this section of the bill would
amend that section of the Public Health Service Act, effective for
fiscal years beginning on or after July 1, 1968, so that at least 70
percent of the amount reserved for mental health services and at
least 70 percent of the remainder of a State's allotment for com-
prehensive public health services would have to be available only
for the provision under the State plan of services in communities
of the State.
Section 309 (c) of the Public Health Service Act authorizes ap-
propriations to enable the Secretary to make grants for provi-
sions, in accredited public or nonprofit private schools of public
health, of comprehensive professional training, specialized consul-
tive services, and technical assistance in the fields of public health
and in the administration of State or local public health programs.
Subsection (f) would amend this section so as to extend this
program for 3 additional fiscal years (through fiscal year 1971)
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1533
with authorization of appropriations of $6 million for fiscal year
1969, $7 million for fiscal year 1970, and $8 million for fiscal year
1971. These amendments would be effective July 1, 1967.
Section 3.—Research and demonstration relating to health facili-
ties and services
This section would add a new section 304 to the Public Health
Service Act, replacing the present obsolete section 304. This new
section would authorize $20 million for fiscal year 1968, $40 mil-
lion for fiscal year 1969, $60 million for fiscal year 1970, and $80
million for fiscal year 1971, to authorize the Secretary of Health,
Education, and Welfare (hereafter in this section-by-ssction ex-
planation referred to as the "Secretary") to make grants and
contracts for projects for the conduct of research, experiments, or
demonstrations (and related training) relating to the develop-
ment, utilization, quality, organization, and financing of services,
facilities, and resources of hospitals or other medical facilities,
[p.37]
agencies, institutions, or organizations or to development of new
methods or improvement of existing methods of organization, de-
livery, or financing of health services.
The amount of a grant or contract with respect to any project
for construction of a facility or for acquisition of equipment could
not provide for payment of more than 50 percent of so much of
the cost of the facility or equipment as the Secretary determines is
reasonably attributable to research, experimental, or demonstra-
tional purposes, unless the Secretary determines that unusual cir-
cumstances make a larger percentage necessary in order to effec-
tuate the purposes of the section. Any such grant or contract for a
project for construction of a facility or for acquisition of equip-
ment would be subject to the so-called Davis-Bacon provision and
such other conditions as the Secretary might determine.
For fiscal years beginning on or after July 1, 1968, the Secre-
tary would be authorized to utilize not to exceed 1 percent of the
amount appropriated under this section for any fiscal year for
evaluation (directly or by grants or contracts) of the program
authorized by this section.
The bill also makes necessary technical and conforming amend-
ments to reflect the existence of this new section 304 in the Public
Health Service Act, including the repeal of section 624 of the act
which provides for studies and demonstrations relating to coordi-
nated use of hospital facilities, a subject covered by this proposed
-------
1534 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
new section, and the repeal of section 314 (e) (2) of the act, which
is similarly covered by the new section.
Section 4-—Cooperation with States in emergencies
This section adds a new subsection (c) to section 311 of the
Public Health Service Act. Under this proposed new subsection,
the Secretary would be authorized to enter into agreements pro-
viding for cooperative planning between public health medical fa-
cilities and community health facilities to cope with health prob-
lems resulting from disasters, and for participation by Public
Health Service medical facilities in carrying out such planning. He
could also, at the request of appropriate State or local authority,
extend temporary (not in excess of 45 days) assistance to States
or localities in meeting health emergencies of such a nature as to
warrant Federal assistance. He could also require such reimburse-
ment of the United States for aid (other than planning) received
under this subsection as he determines to be reasonable under the
circumstances. Any such reimbursement would be credited to the
applicable appropriation of the Public Health Service.
[P. 38]
Section 8—Program evaluation
This section amends section 314 (d) (grants for comprehensive
public health services), 314(e) (project grants for health services
development), and 309(c) (grants to schools of public health for
comprehensive professional training, specialized consultive serv-
ices, and technical assistance) of the Public Health Services Act.
Each of these sections has been described at an earlier point in
this section-by-section explanation. Section 8 of the bill would
amend each of these sections so as to authorize the Secretary to
utilize up to 1 percent of the funds appropriated for evaluation
(directly or by grants or contracts) of the program carried on
under that section.
[p. 41]
Section 9.—Research contract authority
Section 301 (h) of the Public Health Service Act authorizes the
Secretary to enter into contracts, including research contracts, in
accordance with and subject to the provisions of law applicable to
contracts entered into by military departments under title 10,
United States Code, sections 2353 and 2354. Under existing law,
this authority would terminate on June 30, 1968. This section
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1535
extends this authority of the Secretary for 3 additional fiscal
years, through June 30,1971.
[p. 42]
Section 3 of H.R. 6418 would provide for the replacement of the
existing section 304 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
242b) with new provisions authorizing the Secretary, Department
of Health, Education, and Welfare (hereinafter referred to as the
Secretary) to make project grants to States and other public or
nonprofit organizations, and to enter into contracts with public or
private organizations, for the conduct of research, experiments, or
demonstrations relating to the development, utilization, and coor-
dination of new or existing services provided by medical facilities
and new or existing methods of organization, delivery, or financ-
ing of health services. The amount of any grant or contract for
construction or acquisition of equipment may not, except in unu-
sual circumstances, exceed 50 percent of the cost of the project as
determined by the Secretary.
We believe that the committee may wish to include in the bill
language, similar to that now provided in legislation applicable to
other construction grant programs now authorized by the Public
Health Service Act, to provide for the return to the Federal Gov-
ernment of all or a portion of the Federal grant assistance for the
construction or the purchase of facilities or equipment in the event
such facilities or equipment cease to be used for the purposes for
which constructed or purchased. For example, section 624, title
VI, Public Health Service Act (which would be repealed by section
3(b) of H.R. 6418) concerning studies and demonstrations relat-
ing to coordinated use of hospital facilities including the construc-
tion of units of hospitals or other medical facilities which involve
experimental architectural designs or functional layout, provides
for the recovery of a portion of the Federal participation if,
within 20 years after the completion of construction, the applicant
or other owner of the facility shall cease to be a public or other
nonprofit institution or organization, or the facility shall cease to
be used for the purposes for which it was constructed.
Section 4 of H.R. 6418 would authorize the Secretary, at the
request of the appropriate State or local authority, to extend tem-
porary (not in excess of 45 days) assistance to States or localities
in meeting health emergencies of such nature as to warrant Fed-
eral assistance. Also, this section provides that the Secretary may
require such reimbursement of the United States for aid as the
Secretary may determine to be reasonable under the circumstan-
-------
1536 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
ces. Rather than to leave this determination to the Secretary's
discretion, we believe that the committee may wish to amend the
bill to make it mandatory that the Secretary make a formal deter-
mination as to the amount, if any, of the reimbursement which
would be reasonable under the circumstances.
[p. 49]
1.12y (2) SENATE COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND
PUBLIC WELFARE
S. REP. No. 724, 90th Cong., 1st Sess. (1967)
PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT AMENDMENTS
NOVEMBER 4, 1967.—Ordered to be printed
Filed under authority of the order of the Senate of November 2,1967
M. HILL, FROM THE COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE,
SUBMITTED THE FOLLOWING
REPORT
Together with Individual Views
[To accompany H.R, 6418]
The Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, to which was
referred the bill (H.R. 6418) to amend the Public Health Service
Act to extend and expand the authorizations for grants for com-
prehensive health planning and services, to broaden and improve
the authorization for research and demonstrations relating to the
delivery of health services, to improve the performance of clinical
laboratories, and to authorize cooperative activities between the
Public Health Service hospitals and community facilities, and for
other purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably
thereon with amendments and recommends that the bill as
amended do pass.
SUMMARY
H.R. 6418 was approved by the House of Representatives by a
vote of 395 to 7. As approved by this committee, the measure
would—
(1) Extend and expand the existing program of formula
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1537
and project grants for comprehensive health planning and
public health services;
(2) Consolidate and expand existing authorities in the
Public Health Service Act for research and demonstrations
relating to the provision of health services;
(3) Establish a new program for licensing clinical labora-
tories that solicit or receive specimens in interstate com-
merce ;
(4) Extend and expand the existing program of grants for
schools of public health;
(5) Authorize Public Health Service health care facilities
to (a) accept the uncompensated services of volunteers, (b)
[P. 1]
cooperate in the interchange and sharing of scarce or highly
specialized health resources, (c) assist in community plan-
ning to meet health needs in the case of emergencies or disas-
ters, and (d) provide health services to Federal employees at
remote stations and to certain seamen-trainees;
(6) Permit the use of not to exceed 1 percent of funds
appropriated for certain grant programs to be used for pro-
gram evaluation purposes;
(7) Extend the existing contract authority of the Public
Health Service Act;
(8) Amend the Hill-Burton Act to authorize the loan of not
to exceed two-thirds of the additional costs of an experimen-
tal hospital construction project where costs have risen sub-
stantially following initial approval of the project;
(9) Amend the Nurse Training Act to define "federally
sponsored students" as including those nurse students
awarded loan funds from the nurse student revolving fund or
an educational opportunity grant payment;
(10) Increase from 12 to 13 the number of members of the
National Advisory Council on Education for the Health Pro-
fessions to be chosen from the fields of higher education;
(11) Add the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands to the
jurisdictions eligible for grant assistance under section 314 of
the Public Health Service Act;
(12) Establish a new position of Under Secretary of
Health in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
and redesignate the present position of Under Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare as Deputy Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare; and
-------
1538 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
(13) Authorize the Secretary of Health, Education, and
Welfare to make a comprehensive survey of serious hunger
and malnutrition and health problems related thereto in the
United States.
BACKGROUND
A major objective of this legislation is the extension and expan-
sion of the Comprehensive Health Planning and Public Health
Services Amendments of 1966 (Public Law 89-749), the legisla-
tion that extended to all public health programs the concept of
comprehensive planning that has been used so successfully in the
Hill-Burton program.
Prior to the enactment of Public Law 89-749 the formula and
project grants-in-aid for combating public health problems could
be used only for 16 specific health problems and to the extent that
funds were appropriated for each category each year. At present,
the formula and project grants may be used for attacking those
public health problems identified as most pressing at State and
local levels.
To identify the most pressing health problems the act authorizes
a program of formula grants to the States and project grants to
areawide agencies for comprehensive health planning.
This new approach to providing Federal assistance to States
and communities for public health purposes has received wide-
spread approval from State and local governments and from vol-
untary health agencies.
[P. 2]
The committee recognizes the urgent need for financial assist-
ance for the modernization of hospitals and other medical facili-
ties. It is not feasible to provide for this priority item in this
legislation but it is the intent of the committee to consider the
subject in the near future.
PLANNING GRANTS
H.R. 6418 would extend the grants in behalf of comprehensive
health planning that are authorized by subsections (a), (b), and
(c) of section 314 of the Public Health Service Act.
Formula grants to States (sec. 314-(a))
As of September 1967, 51 States and territories had designated
their comprehensive health planning agencies. Each agency will be
assisted by a State health planning council with representation
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1539
from nongovernmental organizations and groups concerned with
health and from consumers of health services. A majority of the
health council must consist of representatives of consumers of
health services.
The committee strongly believes that all State agencies adminis-
tering health programs should be involved in the activities of the
comprehensive health planning agency. Such Federal-State pro-
grams as public health, mental health, dental public health, mental
retardation and vocational rehabilitation as well as the agency
administering the medicaid program should be represented.
Similarly, voluntary health agencies should be involved if the
comprehensive health planning process is to be truly representa-
tive and effective.
In order to be approved, a State plan for comprehensive health
planning must meet certain criteria that are set forth as a part of
the act. H.R. 6418 would add a new criterion—the function of
making provision for the planning for capital expenditures for the
replacement, modernization, and expansion of health-care facili-
ties.
This new requirement is intended to provide for assistance in
the planning activities of health-care facilities, but is not intended
to serve as a vehicle for control of the capital expenditure plans of
any institution. The paragraph is designed to aid health-care facil-
ities in providing for more orderly planning so as to aid them in
eliminating duplications and overlaps between the services which
they provide and the services provided by other facilities serving
the same general area.
The committee feels that regional health facility planning
should operate to encourage innovation and potentially useful de-
velopments in the delivery of health-care services. The committee
wishes to encourage regional health facility planning that will
improve the utilization of our Nation's limited health resources.
During the course of hearings on this legislation the Association
of American Medical Colleges expressed concern that the new
program of comprehensive planning at the State and areawide
levels might interfere with the operations and missions of medical
colleges. Representatives of the Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare assured this committee that the act would not be
construed as vesting any new authority in Federal, State, or local
officials that would, in any way, limit the independence, curtail the
funding or circumscribe the activities of medical schools or their
affiliated teaching hospitals.
[p. 3]
-------
1540 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
It is not the aim of this legislation to submit the operational
activities of any health resource—whether it be medical school,
voluntary health agency, private practitioner, or State program
operator—to any additional Federal controls. Indeed, the purpose
of this legislation is to increase flexibility and local control of
programs and decisions without interfering with existing patterns
of private professional practice in medicine, dentistry, and related
healing arts.
The comprehensive health planning agency is expected to ad-
dress itself to a review of the total health programs and problems
of the State. Its function is not to develop operational plans for
health units within the State. Rather, it is to gather information,
assess needs and alternatives, and outline and recommend courses
of action that may be taken to achieve the health goals as identi-
fied and expressed by the public.
Through the years a number of legislative enactments have
encompassed the concept of comprehensive health planning within
a circumscribed area of interest. Foremost among these enact-
ments is the Hill-Burton program that provided for a continuing
survey of the needs and resources in the field of health-care facili-
ties. The same concept has been applied in the fields of mental
retardation, mental health, and in the program for combating
heart disease, cancer, and stroke. These programs of specialized
planning will complement the comprehensive health planning au-
thorized by this legislation.
The committee expects that the record keeping requirements
promulgated in regulations by the Department of Health, Educa-
tion, and Welfare in connection with the comprehensive health
planning and public health services program will require that
adequate cost records be maintained and that the records be made
available to representatives of the Department of Health, Educa-
tion, and Welfare and the Comptroller General of the United
States.
[P. 4]
TRUST TERRITORY OF THE PACIFIC ISLANDS
H.R. 6418 would add the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands
to provisions of the bill authorizing grants for health planning
purposes and for the support of State and local public health
services. These grant authorizations now apply to the 50 States
and five special jurisdictions, including Guam and American
Samoa. One part of the amendment would include the trust terri-
tory within the definition of the term "State," and the other would
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1541
include it among the jurisdictions for which a statutory "Federal
share" is prescribed.
The effective date of July 1, 1968, is proposed in order to allow
time for the necessary revision of grant regulations and to permit
the trust territory to develop plans and applications geared to the
terms and conditions outlined in section 314 of the Public Health
Service Act.
[p. 7]
CONTRACT AUTHORITY
H.R. 6418 would extend until June 30, 1971, the authority of the
Public Health Service to enter into contracts for the purpose of
carrying out the broad authorities under section 301 of the Public
Health Service Act. This contract authority includes the authority
to enter into research contracts which may include the cost of
acquiring facilities, or constructing new facilities, not having gen-
eral utility, necessary for the fulfillment of the contract. Authority
is also included for the indemnification of the contractor against
claims resulting from risks which are determined to be unusually
hazardous. A very small percentage of the research contracts
would include these provisions, but as the Public Health Service
becomes increasingly involved in applied research involving com-
plex development and testing activities it is vital that this author-
ity be permitted.
[p. 15]
SECTION-BY-SECTION EXPLANATION OF THE BILL, As REPORTED
Section 1. Short title
This section provides that this legislation may be cited as the
"Partnership for Health Amendments of 1967."
Section 2. Grants for comprehensive health planning and public
health services
Paragraph (1) of subsection (a) of this section amends section
314 (a) (1) of the Public Health Service Act which provides for
authorization of appropriations for grants to States for compre-
hensive State health planning. Paragraph (1) would increase the
authorization for fiscal year 1968 from $5 million to $7 million,
would extend the program for 2 additional fiscal years (through
fiscal year 1970), and would authorize the appropriation of $10
million for fiscal year 1969, $15 million for fiscal year 1970.
Paragraph (2) would amend section 314(a) (2) of the Public
-------
1542 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
Health Service Act which sets forth the requirements for State
plans for comprehensive State health planning. Under the amend-
[p. 22]
ment, each State plan, effective July 1, 1968, would have to (1)
provide for assisting each State health care facility in the State to
develop a program for capital expenditures for replacement, mod-
ernization, and expansion which is consistent with an overall State
plan developed in accordance with criteria developed by the Secre-
tary after consultation with the State which will meet the needs of
the State for health care facilities, equipment, and services with-
out duplication and otherwise in the most efficient and economical
manner and (2) require periodic review of this program and of
each health care facility in the State with recommendations of
appropriate modifications.
Under existing law, the Federal share for comprehensive State
health planning is all or such part of the overall cost as the
Secretary may determine. Paragraph (3) amends this provision
so that for fiscal year 1970 the Federal share may not exceed 75
percent of the overall cost for comprehensive State health plan-
ning in any State.
Paragraph (1) of subsection (b) amends section 314 (b) of the
Public Health Service Act which provides for project grants for
areawide health planning. This paragraph would extend that pro-
gram for 2 additional fiscal years (through fiscal year 1970) and
would authorize $10 million for fiscal year 1969 and $15 million
for fiscal year 1970.
Under existing law project grants for areawide health planning
may be made to public or nonprofit private agencies or organiza-
tions. Paragraph (2) of subsection (b) would amend the provi-
sions with respect to entities eligible to receive such project grants
so as to require appropriate representation of the interests of local
government where the recipient of the grants is not a local gov-
ernment or a combination of local governments or an agency of
such government or combination.
Subsection (c) amends section 314 (c) of the Public Health
Service Act which provides for project grants for training, study,
and demonstrations looking toward the development of improved
or more effective comprehensive health planning throughout the
Nation. Subsection (c) would amend this section so as to extend
the program for 2 additional fiscal years (through fiscal year
1970) with authorizations of $5 million for fiscal year 1969 and
$7,500,000 for fiscal year 1970.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1543
Paragraph (1) of subsection (d) amends section 314 (d) (1) of
the Public Health Service Act which provides for authorization of
appropriations for grants for comprehensive public health serv-
ices. This paragraph would amend this section of the act so as to
increase from $62,500,000 to $70 million the authorization for
fiscal year 1968, would extend the program for 2 additional years
(through fiscal year 1970), and would authorize the appropriation
of $90 million for fiscal year 1969 and $100 million for fiscal year
1970.
Paragraph (2) of subsection (d) would authorize a Federal
share of two-thirds for the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands
in the case of formula grants authorized by section 314(d) of the
Public Health Service Act.
Section 314 (d) (7) of the Public Health Service Act provides
that of a State's allotment for comprehensive public health serv-
ices at least 15 percent must be available only to the State mental
health authority for the provision under the State plan for mental
health services. Subsection (d) (2) of this section of the bill would
amend that section of the Public Health Service Act, effective for
[p. 23]
fiscal years beginning on or after July 1, 1968, so that at least 70
percent of the amount reserved for mental health services and at
least 70 percent of the remainder of a State's allotment for com-
prehensive public health services would have to be available only
for the provision under the State plan of services in communities
of the State.
Subsection (e) would amend subsection 314 (e) of the Public
Health Service Act to increase the authorization for appropria-
tions for project grants for health services development from
$62,500,000 for 1968 to $90 million. A 2-year extension is also
provided for with these authorizations; $95 million for 1969 and
$80 million for 1970.
Subsection (f) would amend subsection 314(g) (4) (B) of the
Public Health Service Act to define the Trust Territory of the
Pacific Islands as a "State", and eligible for grants authorized by
section 314, effective July 1, 1968.
Section 309 (c) of the Public Health Service Act authorizes ap-
propriations to enable the Secretary to make grants for provi-
sions, in accredited public or nonprofit private schools of public
health, of comprehensive professional training, specialized consul-
tive services, and technical assistance in the fields of public health
and in the administration of State or local public health programs.
-------
1544 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
Subsection (g) would amend this section so as to extend this
program for 2 additional fiscal years (through fiscal year 1970)
with authorization of appropriations of $6 million for fiscal year
1969, and $7 million for fiscal year 1970. These amendments would
be effective July 1, 1967.
Section 3. Research and demonstration relating to health facilities
and services
This section would add a new section 304 to the Public Health
Service Act, replacing the present obsolete section 304. This new
section would authorize $20 million for fiscal year 1968, $40 mil-
lion for fiscal year 1969, and $60 million for fiscal year 1970 to
authorize the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare (here-
after in this section-by-section explanation referred to as the
"Secretary") to make grants and contracts for projects for the
conduct of research, experiments, or demonstrations (and related
training) relating to the development, utilization, quality, organi-
zation, and financing of services, facilities, and resources of hospi-
tals or other medical facilities, agencies, institutions, or organiza-
tions or to development of new methods or improvement of exist-
ing methods of organization, delivery, or financing of health serv-
ices.
The amount of a grant or contract with respect to any project
for construction of a facility or for acquisition of equipment could
not provide for payment of more than 50 percent of so much of
the cost of the facility or equipment as the Secretary determines is
reasonably attributable to research, experimental, or demonstra-
tional purposes, unless the Secretary determines that unusual cir-
cumstances make a larger percentage necessary in order to effec-
tuate the purposes of the section. Any such grant or contract for a
project for construction of a facility or for acquisition of equip-
ment would be subject to the so-called Davis-Bacon provision and
such other conditions as the Secretary might determine.
For fiscal years beginning on or after July 1, 1968, the Secre-
tary would be authorized to utilize not to exceed 1 percent of the
amount appropriated under this section for any fiscal year for
evaluation (directly or by grants or contracts) of the program
authorized by this section.
[p. 24]
The bill also makes necessary technical and conforming amend-
ments to reflect the existence of this new section 304 in the Public
Health Service Act, including the repeal of section 624 of the act
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1545
which provides for studies and demonstrations relating to coordi-
nated use of hospital facilities, a subject covered by this proposed
new section, and the repeal of section 314 (e) (3) of the act, which
is similarly covered by the new section.
Section 4- Cooperation with States in emergencies
This section adds a new subsection (c) to section 311 of the
Public Health Service Act. Under this proposed new subsection,
the Secretary would be authorized to enter into agreements pro-
viding for cooperative planning between public health medical fa-
cilities and community health facilities to cope with health prob-
lems resulting from disasters, and for participation by Public
Health Service medical facilities in carrying out such planning. He
could also, at the request of appropriate State or local authority,
extend temporary (not in excess of 45 days) assistance to States
or localities in meeting health emergencies of such a nature as to
warrant Federal assistance. He could also require such reimburse-
ment of the United States for aid (other than planning) received
under this subsection as he determines to be reasonable under the
circumstances. Any such reimbursement would be credited to the
applicable appropriation of the Public Health Service.
[P. 25]
Section 8. Program evaluation
This section amends section 314 (d) (grants for comprehensive
public health services), 314 (e) (project grants for health services
development), and 309 (c) (grants to schools of public health for
comprehensive professional training, specialized consultative serv-
ices, and technical assistance) of the Public Health Services Act.
Each of these sections has been described at an earlier point in
this section-by-section explanation. Section 8 of the bill would
amend each of these sections so as to authorize the Secretary to
utilize up to 1 percent of the funds appropriated for evaluation
(directly or by grants or contracts) of the program carried on
under that section.
Section 9. Research contract authority
Section 301 (h) of the Public Health Service Act authorizes the
Secretary to enter into contracts, including research contracts, in
accordance with and subject to the provisions of law applicable to
contracts entered into by military departments under title 10,
United States Code, sections 2353 and 2354. Under existing law,
this authority would terminate on June 30, 1968. This section
-------
1546 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
extends this authority of the Secretary for 3 additional fiscal
years, through June 30,1971.
[p. 28]
1.12y (3) COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE
H.R. REP. No. 974, 90th Cong., 1st Sess. (1967)
PARTNERSHIP FOR HEALTH AMENDMENTS OF 1967
NOVEMBER 20,1967.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. STAGGERS, from the committee of conference, submitted the
following
CONFERENCE REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 6418]
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two
Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 6418) to
amend the Public Health Service Act to extend and expand the
authorizations for grants for comprehensive health planning and
services, to broaden and improve the authorization for research
and demonstrations relating to the delivery of health services, to
improve the performance of clinical laboratories, and to authorize
cooperative activities between the Public Health Service hospitals
and community facilities, and for other purposes, having met,
after full and free conference, have agreed to recommend and do
recommend to their respective Houses as follows:
That the Senate recede from its amendment numbered 32.
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amend-
ments of the Senate numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13,
14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, and 34,
and agree to the same.
Amendment numbered 19:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment
of the Senate numbered 19, and agree to the same with an amend-
ment as follows:
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1547
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate
amendment insert the following:, facilities for long-term care,
And the Senate agree to the same.
Amendment numbered 20:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment
of the Senate numbered 20, and agree to the same with an amend-
ment as follows:
[P. 1]
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate
amendment insert the following:,facilities for long-term care,
And the Senate agree to the same.
Amendment numbered 26:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment
of the Senate numbered 26, and agree to the same with an amend-
ment as follows:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate
amendment insert the following:
The provisions of this section requiring licensing shall not apply
to a clinical laboratory in a hospital accredited by the Joint Com-
mission on the Accreditation of Hospitals or by the American
Osteopathic Association, or a laboratory which has been inspected
and accredited by such commission or assaciation, by the Commis-
sion on Inspection and Accreditation of the College of American
Pathologists, or by any other national accreditation body approved
for the purpose by the Secretary, but only if the standards applied
by such commission, association, or other body in determining
whether or not to accredit such hospital or laboratory are equal to
or more stringent than the provisions of this section and the rules
and regulations issued under this section, and only if there is
adequate provision for assuring that such standards continue to be
met by such hospital or laboratory; provided that any such labora-
tory shall be treated as a licensed laboratory for all other purposes
of this section.
And the Senate agree to the same.
HARLEY 0. STAGGERS,
JOHN JARMAN,
PAUL G. ROGERS,
WILLIAM L. SPRINGER,
ANCHER NELSEN,
Managers on the Part of the House.
-------
1548 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
LISTER HILL,
RALPH W. YARBOROUGH,
HARRIISON WILLIAMS,
CLAIBORNE PELL,
EDWARD KENNEDY,
J. K. JAVITS,
GEORGE MURPHY,
PETER H. DOMINICK,
Managers on the Part of the Senate.
[P. 2]
STATEMENT OP THE MANAGERS ON THE PART OF THE
HOUSE
The managers on the part of the House at the conference on the
disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the
Senate to the bill (H.R. 6418) to amend the Public Health Service
Act to extend and expand the authorizations for grants for com-
prehensive health planning and services, to broaden and improve
the authorization for research and demonstrations relating to the
delivery of health services, to improve the performance of clinical
laboratories, and to authorize cooperative activities between the
Public Health Service hospitals and community facilities, and for
other purposes, submit the following statement in explanation of
the effect of the action agreed upon by the conferees and recom-
mended in the accompanying conference report:
1. Deputy Secretary for Health, Education, and Welfare; Under
Secretary for Health
Senate amendment No. 32 established a new position of Under
Secretary of Health to provide for more coordination of health
programs in the Department. The existing title of Under Secre-
tary of Health, Education, and Welfare was changed to Deputy
Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare.
The Senate recedes with respect to this amendment.
2. Fiscal year 1971 authorizations
The House bill authorized appropriations for the fiscal years
1968 through 1971, for certain comprehensive health planning and
public health programs. Senate amendments Nos. 1 through 14, 17
and 18, and 23 and 24 eliminated the authorizations for appropria-
tions for the fiscal year 1971, totaling $343 million.
The House recedes.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1549
The authorization for fiscal year 1971 for each program was as
follows:
(a) $20 million for grants to States for comprehensive
State health planning under section 314 (a) of the Public
Health Service Act.
(6) $15 million for project grants for areawide health
planning under section 314 (b) of such act.
(c) $10 million for project grants for training, studies, and
demonstrations under section 314 (c) of such act.
(d) $110 million for grants for comprehensive public
health services under section 314 (d) of such act.
(e) $100 million for project grants for health services de-
velopment under section 314 (e) of such act.
(/) $8 million for grants for the provision in schools of
public health of training consultive services and technical as-
sistance in public health under section 309 (c) of such act.
[P. 3]
*******
Senate amendments Nos. 19 through 22 provided that the re-
search and demonstration program would extend to the provision
of services, facilities, and resources in long-term facilities, to con-
struction of long-term care facilities in addition to hospitals, and
to health manpower research and demonstration projects.
The House recedes with clarifying amendments.
4. Technical amendments.
Senate amendments Nos. 15, 16, 25, 29, 30, 31, and 34 were
technical and clerical in nature.
The House recedes.
[p. 4]
7. Comprehensive survey
Senate amendment No. 33 authorized the Secretary of Health,
Education, and Welfare to conduct a 6-month comprehensive sur-
vey of serious hunger, malnutrition, and health problems related
thereto in the United States.
The House recedes.
HARLEY 0. STAGGERS,
JOHN JARMAN,
PAUL G. ROGERS,
WILLIAM L. SPRINGER,
ANCHER NELSEN,
Managers on the Part of the House.
[p. 5]
-------
1550
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
1.12y (4) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 113 (1967)
1.12y (4) (a) Sept. 20: Debated, amended, and passed House, pp.
26120-26132
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
1.12y (4) (b) Nov. 6: Debated, amended and passed Senate, pp.
31236-31238
PARTNERSHIP FOR HEALTH
AMENDMENTS OF 1967
Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. Presi-
dent, I move that the Senate now
proceed to consider H.R. 6418, Calen-
dar No. 708.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
bill will be stated by title.
The ASSISTANT LEGISLATIVE CLERK.
A bill (H.R. 6418) to amend the Pub-
lic Health Service Act to extend and
expand the authorizations for grants
for comprehensive health planning and
services, to broaden and improve the
authorization for research and dem-
onstrations relating to the delivery of
health services, to improve the per-
formance of clinical laboratories, and
to authorize cooperative activities be-
tween the Public Health Service hos-
pitals and community facilities, and
for other purposes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the motion
of the Senator from Louisiana.
The motion was agreed to; and the
Senate proceeded to consider the bill,
which had been reported from the
Committee on Labor and Public Wel-
fare, with amendments, on page 2,
line 8, after the word "thereof" strike
out " '1971' " and insert " '1970' "; in
line 12, after "June 30, 1969," insert
"and"; in line 13 after "June 30, 1970"
strike out the comma and "and $20,-
000,000 for the fiscal year ending June
30, 1971'."; on page 3, line 12, after
"June 30, 1970", strike out the comma
and "and for the next fiscal year,"; in
line 16, after the word "thereof"
strike out '"1971"' and insert
" '1970' "; in line 20, after "15,000,000"
strike out "each"; in line 21, after
1970" strike out the comma and "and
for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1971'"; on page 4, line 6, after the
word "thereof" strike out '"1971"'
and insert " '1970'"; in line 9, after
"June 30, 1969", insert "and"; in line
10, after "June 30, 1970", strike out
the comma and "and $10,000,000 for
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971' ";
in line 17, after "June 30, 1970", strike
out the comma and "and $110,000,000
for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1971,"; on page 5, line 9, after "June
30, 1969, insert "and"; in line 10,
after "June 30, 1970" strike out the
comma and "$100,000,000 for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1971,"; in line
12, after the word "subsection" strike
out "(h)" and insert "(g)"; in line
13, after the word "section" strike out
"(as redesignated by section 12(a)
of this Act)"; in line 23, after "1969"
insert "and"; in line 24, after "1970"
strike out the comma and "$8,000,000
for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1971,"; on page 6, line 19, after the
word "hospitals," insert "long-term
facilities"; on page 7, line 4, after the
word "hospitals," insert "long-term
care facilities"; in line 15, after the
word "services," insert "and" and the
following:
"(C) projects for research and demonstra-
tion in new careers in health manpower and
new ways of educating and utilizing health
manpower."
[p. 31236]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1551
Mr. HILL. Mr. President, I have the
honor to submit to the Senate the
Partnership for Health Amendments
of 1967, H.R. 6418. The legislation was
approved by the House of Representa-
tives by a vote of 395 to 7. It was ap-
proved by the Committee on Labor and
Public Welfare without a dissenting
vote.
H.R. 6418 would—
First. Extend and expand the ex-
isting program of formula and project
grants for comprehensive health plan-
ning and public services.
Second. Consolidate and expand ex-
isting authorities in the Public Health
Service Act for research and demon-
stration relating to the provision of
health services.
Third. Establish a new program for
licensing clinical laboratories that so-
licit or receive specimens in interstate
commerce.
Fourth. Extend and expand the ex-
isting program of grants for schools
of public health.
Fifth. Authorize Public Health
Service health care facilities to, first,
accept the uncompensated services of
volunteers; second, cooperate in the
interchange and sharing of scarce or
highly specialized health resources;
third, assist in community planning to
meet health needs in the case of
emergencies or disasters; and fourth,
provide health services to Federal em-
ployees at remote stations and to cer-
tain seamen trainees.
Sixth. Permit the use of, not to ex-
ceed, 1 percent of funds appropriated
for certain grant programs to be used
for program evaluation purposes.
Seventh. Extend the existing con-
tract authority of the Public Health
Service Act.
Eighth. Amend the Hill-Burton Act
to authorize the loan of not to exceed
two-thirds of the additional costs of an
experimental hospital construction
project where costs have risen sub-
stantially following initial approval of
the project.
Ninth. Amend the Nurse Training
Act to define "federally sponsored
students" as including those nurse
students awarded loan funds from the
nurse student revolving fund or an
educational opportunity grant pay-
ment.
Tenth. Increase from 12 to 13 the
number of members of the National
Advisory Council on Education for the
Health Professions to be chosen from
the fields of higher education.
Eleventh. Add the Trust Territory
of the Pacific Islands to the jurisdic-
tions eligible for grant assistance un-
der section 314 of the Public Health
Service Act.
Twelfth. Establish a new position
of Under Secretary of Health in the
Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare and redesignate the present
position of Under Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare as
Deputy Secretary of Health, Educa-
tion, and Welfare. And
Thirteenth. Authorize the Secretary
of Health, Education, and Welfare to
make a comprehensive survey of seri-
ous hunger and malnutrition and
health problems related thereto in the
United States.
A major objective of this legislation
is the extension of the Comprehensive
Health Planning and Public Health
Services Act of 1966 that I was privi-
leged to sponsor as S. 3008 last year.
The Senate will recall that the act
consolidated the existing 16 categorical
grants into block grants on a formula
and project basis. This new approach
to Federal-State cooperation for pub-
lice health purposes has been endorsed
by representatives of government at
all levels and also by voluntary health
agencies.
The Council of State Governments
wrote the committee, as follows:
For many years both the national Gover-
nors' Conference and the National Association
-------
1552
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
of State Budget Officers have been interested
in bringing about a greater measure of flexi-
bility in the purposes for which grants-in-aid
of various health purposes might be expended.
It appears to us that the bill you have intro-
duced serves this purpose admirably * * *. All
in all, it appears to us that enactment of the
proposed legislation would aid materially in
achieving better organization and administra-
tion of public health programs.
The Advisory Commission on Inter-
governmental Relations also wrote in
support of the bill and stated:
The Commission believes that S. 3008 repre-
sents a major improvement in intergovern-
mental relations in the field of public health
and in grant-in-aid administration generally.
These reforms to permit greater flexibility in
the use of grant funds for the provision of
community health services are long overdue
and should result in more effective use of
scarce financial resources of the Nation.
In addition, the National Association
of Counties wrote:
I should like to express our support of S.
3008 * « «. The concepts embodied in this leg-
islation are in keeping with the American
county platform, the official policy statement
of our Association, especially our position on
regional cooperation and county planning.
H.R. 6418 would extend the Com-
prehensive Health Planning and Pub-
lice Health Services Act through 1970.
Practically all of the States have
designated an agency for carrying out
the comprehensive planning. To assist
in the planning at the State level, the
legislation requires the appointment of
an advisory council that is broadly
representative of consumers and
health institutions and agencies. The
planning agency in cooperation with
the advisory council will identify pub-
lic health needs and identify priori-
ties in the provision of services.
Since the planning is not yet under
way, the committee decided to limit
the new authorization for appropria-
tions to the years 1968, 1969, and
1970. Prior to 1970 the comprehensive
planning efforts in States and com-
munities will be implemented and Con-
gress will be better informed regard-
ing adequate levels for appropriations
in 1971 and future years.
As passed by the House of Repre-
sentatives, H.R. 6418 exempted clinical
laboratories operated by pathologists
from the provisions that require the
Federal licensure of clinical laborator-
ies that operate in interstate com-
merce. During the course of hearings
before this committee, the exemption
was criticized as unfair by representa-
tives of several scientific disciplines
and by representatives of clinical lab-
oratories that are not operated by
pathologists. As an alternative to ex-
emption, the committee adopted an
amendment that would automatically
deem eligible for licensure those lab-
oratories accredited by a nationally
recognized body or bodies approved
for this purpose by the Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare, but
only if the accreditation standards of
such body or bodies are equal to or
more stringent than those promulgated
by the Secretary under the legislation.
As passed by the House of Repre-
sentatives H.R. 6418 amended the Hill-
Burton Act to authorize two or more
nonprofit hospitals to establish joint
hospital enterprises. The committee
deleted this provision since it deter-
mined it would be more appropriate to
defer action until the Hill-Burton Act
is extended. The Hill-Burton Act ex-
pires on June 30, 1969.
An amendment added by the com-
mittee would authorize the new posi-
tion of Under Secretary of Health in
the Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare to provide for increased
coordination of health programs in the
Department. Since 1961 a total of 36
new major health programs have been
enacted that provide for increased de-
partmental responsibilities in the field
of health. In addition, the title of the
Under Secretary of Health, Education,
and Welfare would be changed to
Deputy Secretary of Health, Educa-
tion, and Welfare.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1553
Another amendment authorizes the
Secretary of Health, Education, and
Welfare to conduct a 6-month compre-
hensive survey of serious hunger and
malnutrition and health problems in-
cident thereto in the United States.
In addition, H.R. 6418 was amended
to emphasize that research and demon-
strations relative to health facilities
and services extend to long-term care
facilities and projects relating to new
careers in health manpower and new
ways of educating and utilizing health
manpower.
Finally, the definition of "federally
sponsored" students under the Nurse
Training Act was expanded to include
nursing students awarded nursing
educational opportunity grant pay-
ments.
THE COST
H.R. 6418 as approved by the com-
mittee would provide for a total of
[p. 31237]
$589 million in new authorizations for
appropriations over the 3 fiscal years
1968-70.
This total is $124.5 million below the
amounts requested by the Department
of Health, Education, and Welfare for
the same fiscal years.
The House of Representatives ap-
proved a total of $932 million in
appropriation authorizations for the
4 fiscal years 1968-71.
SUPPORT FOR THE LEGISLATION
The enactment of H.R. 6418 is rec-
ommended by the Association of State
and Territorial Health Officers, the
American Dental Association, the
American Hospital Association, the
American Nurses Association, the
American Public Health Association,
the American Heart Association, the
Association of American Medical Col-
leges, the National Association of
Counties, the Health Insurance Asso-
ciation of America, the Blue Cross
Association, the National Association
of Mental Health, the National Tu-
berculosis Association, the National
League of Cities, and American Fed-
eration of Labor and Congress of In-
dustrial Organizations.
[p. 31238]
1.12y (4) (c) Nov. 21: House agrees to conference report, p. 33338
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
1.12y (4) (d) Nov. 21: Senate agrees to conference report, p. 33436
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
§3302
1.12z HEALTH MANPOWER ACT OF 1968
August 16,1968, P.L. 90-490, Title III, § 302(b), 82 Stat. 789
(b) (1) Section 306 (a) of the Public Health Service Act (42
U.S.C. 242d) is amended (1) by striking out "and" before
"$10,000,000" and by striking out "the succeeding fiscal year," and
-------
1554 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
inserting in lieu thereof "the two succeeding fiscal years, and
$14,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971", and (2) by
inserting "sanitarians," immediately after "nurses,".
(2) Section 306 (d) of such Act is amended by striking out
"$50" and inserting in lieu thereof "$100".
[p. 789]
1.12z (1) SENATE COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND
PUBLIC WELFARE
S. REP. No. 1307, 90th Cong., 2d Sess. (1968)
HEALTH MANPOWER ACT OF 1968
JUNE 21 (legislative day, JUNE 19), 1968.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. HILL, from the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, sub-
mitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany S. 3095]
The Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, to which was
referred the bill (S. 3095) to amend the Public Health Service Act
to extend and improve the programs relating to the training of
nursing and other health professions and allied health professions
personnel, the program relating to student aid for such personnel,
and the program relating to health research facilities, and for
other purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably
thereon with amendments and recommends that the bill as
amended do pass.
BACKGROUND
The proposed Health Manpower Act of 1968, S. 3095, consists of
three titles that would continue programs now authorized under
existing law for expanding and improving our training capacity
for health manpower and one title that would extend the health
research facilities construction program. The continuation of
these programs is urgent.
The present shortage of health manpower results from an un-
precedented expansion in the demand for health services, with
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1555
public and private health expenditures soaring from less than $13
billion in 1950 to more than $45 billion in 1966.
The increased demand for health services is in part the result of
recent advances in health research that have provided us with new
vaccines against disease, new and improved drugs, new knowledge
in preventing and treating illness, advances in surgery, and new
discoveries in the treatment of mental illness. This new medical
knowledge that is reducing disability and extending the span of
life will not be fully utilized in the absence of an adequate supply
of well-trained health personnel. Open-heart surgery, for example,
[P. 11
requires an operating room team of 20 or more medical specialists
and technical experts. Artificial-kidney machines also require a
staff of highly trained health personnel, as do coronary care units
of hospitals and community mental health centers.
The increased demand for health services and health personnel
is also associated with our rising standard of living, higher levels
of education and income, and with the growth in health insurance
and public medical care programs.
As a proportion of the civilian labor force, those employed in
the health occupations represented 2.3 percent in 1950. By 1960,
the proportion had increased to 3.7 percent and by 1975 it is
expected to exceed 4 percent.
If we are to educate the health manpower that is needed to meet
the mounting demands for health services and at the same time
provide the training opportunities for those interested in careers
in the health professions, it is essential that we continue to expand
and improve our educational resources in the field of health. The
enactment of this legislation would permit substantial progress in
this direction through its four titles:
Title I—Health Professions Training.
Title II—Nurse Training.
Title III—Allied Health Professions and Public Health Train-
ing.
Title IV—Health Research Facilities.
Oral testimony or prepared statements in support of the enact-
ment of S. 3095 have been presented to this committee by:
American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy.
American Association of Colleges of Podiatric Medicine.
American Association of Dental Schools.
American Dental Association.
American Dental Trade Association.
-------
1556 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
American Heart Association.
American Hospital Association.
American Medical Association.
American Nurses Association.
American Occupational Therapy Association.
American Optometric Association.
American Public Health Association.
American Veterinary Medical Association.
Animal Welfare Institute.
Association of American Medical Colleges.
Association of Teachers of Preventive Medicine.
Council of Physical Therapy School Directors.
National Association of Retail Druggists.
National Association of Sanitarians.
National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Col-
leges.
National Federation of Licensed Practical Nurses.
National League for Nursing.
Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association.
[p. 2]
PUBLIC HEALTH TRAINING
Title III of S. 3095 would also provide for the continuation of
public health training that is authorized by sections 306 and 309
of the Public Health Service Act.
Section 306 of the Public Health Service Act authorizes grants
for traineeships for support of graduate or specialized training in
public health for physicians, engineers, nurses, and other profes-
sional health personnel.
Since the program was initiated in 1956, it has been expanded
to provide short-term training to upgrade professional and special
skills for 12,000 annual trainees, 60 residencies in preventive med-
icine and dentistry, and 500 medical and dental public health ap-
prenticeships each year. By the end of 1968, more than 10,000
individuals will have received long-term academic training, 42,000
short-term training, 150 residency awards, and 1,500 apprentice-
ship awards.
Section 309 of the Public Health Service Act authorizes project
grants to schools of public health and to other public or nonprofit
institutions providing graduate or specialized training in public
health for the purpose of strengthening or expanding such public
health training. This project grant program, established by the
Congress in 1960, was designed to provide special institutional
[P. 10]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1557
support to schools of public health, nursing, and engineering to
initiate, strengthen, and expand specialized public health curricu-
lum offerings at the graduate level. In 1964 the program was
broadened to include other institutions offering such training.
Since the program was initiated in 1961, 218 project grant awards
have been made. Curriculum areas supported have included pre-
ventive medicine, medical care economics and administration,
health administration, environmental public health, public health
nursing, and preventive dentistry. The benefits derived from sup-
port of public health curriculums through these grants include
incorporation of newly developed curriculum offerings into the
regular offerings of the schools, addition of new faculty positions
not previously included in the schools' offerings, and revision and
reorientations of curriculums in recognition of the school's role as
a community resource to further community health needs.
In view of the critical importance of hospital management in
the utilization and extension of the Nation's health resources, and
the increasingly pivotal role of the community hospital, the com-
mittee calls attention to the provisions of sections 306 and 309 of
the Public Health Service Act and identifies the wording as estab-
lishing the eligibility for support of graduate programs in hospital
administration in all university settings.
The combined authorizations for appropriations of sections 306
and 309 under existing law total $19 million. This legislation that
extends the authorizations for 3 years would provide for appropri-
ations not to exceed $18.5 million in 1970, $26 million in 1971, and
$31 million in 1972.
[P. 11]
-------
1558 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
1.12z (2) HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND
FOREIGN COMMERCE
H.R. REP. No. 1634, 90th Cong., 2d Sess. (1968)
HEALTH MANPOWER ACT OF 1968
JULY 3, 1968.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State
of the Union and ordered to be printed
MR. STAGGERS, from the Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce, submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 15757]
The Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, to whom
was referred the bill (H.R. 15757) to amend the Public Health
Service Act to extend and improve the programs relating to the
training of nursing and other health professions and allied health
professions personnel, the program relating to student aid for
such personnel, and the program relating to health research facili-
ties, and for other purposes, having considered the same report
favorably thereon, with amendment, and recommend that the bill
as amended do pass.
The amendment strikes out all after the enacting clause and
inserts a new text as follows:
That this Act may be cited as the "Health Manpower Act of 1968".
SEC. 2. As used in the amendments made by this Act, the term "Secretary",
unless the context otherwise requires, means the Secretary of Health, Educa-
tion, and Welfare.
[p.l]
PUBLIC HEALTH TRAINING
SEC. 302
********
(b)(l) Section 306(a) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 242d)
is amended (1) by striking out "and" before "$10,000,000" and by striking
out "the succeeding fiscal year," and inserting in lieu thereof "the two
succeeding fiscal years, and $14,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30,
[p. 13]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1559
1971", and (2) by inserting "sanitarians," immediately after "nurses.".
(2) Section 306 (d) of such Act is amended by striking out "$50" and
inserting in lieu thereof "$100".
[p. 14]
PUBLIC HEALTH TRAINING
Project grants for graduate training of schools of public health
for professional public health personnel have made a significant
contribution to the expansion and improvement of public and com-
munity health training throughout the country and in increasing
the numbers of trained public health specialists so badly needed in
today's society. It has made possible special innovative programs
in schools of public health to provide them with the capacity to
become balanced centers of public health training and major pub-
lic health consultative and investigative resources for the Federal,
State, and local governments.
[p. 37]
Under the present law, the Secretary may make project grants
to schools of public health, to other public or nonprofit institutions
providing graduate or specialized training in public health, for the
purpose of strengthening or expanding such public health train-
ing. The present law further provides for traineeships for gradu-
ate or specialized public health training for physicians, engineers,
nurses, and other professional health personnel.
The bill would extend these provisions for 2 years (through
fiscal year 1971). It would also raise the per diem limit for mem-
bers of the expert Advisory Committee to $100 from the current
limit of $50 to conform with the statutory authorization for com-
pensation for members of other health manpower councils. This
expert Advisory Committee, composed of persons representative
of the principal health specialties in the field of public health
administration and training, advises the Secretary on both the
above programs.
Section 306 of the Public Health Service Act authorizes grants
for traineeships for support of graduate or specialized training in
public health for physicians, engineers, nurses, and other profes-
sional health personnel.
Since the program was initiated in 1956, it has been expanded
to provide short-term training to upgrade professional and special
skills for 12,000 annual trainees, 60 residencies in preventive med-
icine and dentistry, and 500 medical and dental public health ap-
prenticeships each year. By the end of 1968, more than 10,000
-------
1560 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
individuals will have received long-term academic training, 42,000
short-term training, 150 residency awards, and 1,500 apprentice-
ship awards.
Section 309 of the Public Health Service Act authorizes project
grants to schools of public health and to other public or nonprofit
institutions providing graduate or specialized training in public
health for the purpose of strengthening or expanding such public
health training. This project grant program, established by the
Congress in 1960, was designed to provide special institutional
support to schools of public health, nursing, and engineering to
initiate, strengthen, and expand specialized public health curricu-
lum offerings at the graduate level. In 1964 the program was
broadened to include other institutions offering such training.
Since the program was initiated in 1961, 218 project grant awards
have been made. Curriculum areas supported have included pre-
ventive medicine, medical care economics and administration,
health administration, environmental public health, nursing, and
preventive dentistry. The benefits derived from support of public
health curriculums through these grants include incorporation of
newly developed curriculum offerings into the regular offerings of
the schools, addition of new faculty positions not previously in-
cluded in the schools' offerings, and revision and reorientations of
curriculums in recognition of the school's role as a community
resource to further community health needs.
In view of the critical importance of hospital management in
the utilization and extension of the Nation's health resources, and
the increasingly pivotal role of the community hospital, the com-
mittee calls attention to the provisions of sections 306 and 309 of
the Public Health Service Act and identifies the wording as estab-
lishing the eligibility for support of graduate programs in hospital
administration in all university settings.
[P. 38]
Construction grant assistance is also available to schools of pub-
lic health under title I of the bill, and the committee expects that
the Department will give proper attention to the needs of such
schools.
[p. 39]
Section 302. Public health training
This section would authorize a 2-year extension, through the
fiscal year 1971, of (1) project grants for graduate training in
public health, and (2) traineeships for professional public health
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1561
personnel. The following amounts are authorized to be appropri-
ated for the purposes of project grants under section 309 of the
Public Health Service Act: $8,500,000 for fiscal year 1970 and $12
million for fiscal year 1971. The following amounts are authorized
to be appropriated for the purposes of traineeships under section
306 of the Public Health Service Act: $10 million for the fiscal
year 1970 and $14 million for the fiscal year 1971. In addition,
sanitarians are specifically named among the professionals eligible
for traineeships for training in public health under section 306.
The maximum per diem compensation of a member of the advi-
sory council on public health training would be increased from $50
to $100, in conformity with the maximum per diem rates estab-
lished for members of other health manpower councils.
[P. 52]
1.12z (3) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL, 114 (1968)
1.12z (3) (a) June 24: Amended and passed Senate, p. 18422
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
1.12z (3) (b) Aug. 1: Amended and passed House, p. 24801
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
1.12z (3) (c) Aug. 2: Senate concurs in House amendments, p. 24982
Mr. HILL. Mr. President, the
Health Manpower Act of 1963, S.
3095, was reported by the Committee
on Labor and Public Welfare, of
which the distinguished occupant of
the chair [Mr. CLARK], is a member.
It was unanimously approved by the
Senate on June 24, 1968. It was ap-
proved with amendments by the House
yesterday by a vote of 350 yeas and
no nays.
This legislation would extend the
Health Professions Education Assist-
ance Act, the Nurses Training Act,
the Allied Health Professions Person-
nel Training Act, the Health Research
Facilities Act, and the public health
training authorities of the Public
Health Service Act in sections 306
and 309.
The enactment of this legislation is
essential if we are to overcome the
shortages that now prevail among all
categories of health manpower. By
the year 1975 we will need an addi-
tional 80,000 physicians, 25,000 den-
tists, 3,000 optometrists, 6,000 pharma-
cists, and 200,000 nurses according to
the estimates of the Department of
Labor. This legislation would assist in
the expansion of our training capacity
for health personnel through construe-
-------
1562
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
tion grants, institutional grants,
special project grants, scholarships,
and student loans.
As approved by the Senate the leg-
islation authorized a 3 year extension
of the programs, with the exception of
the Allied Health Professions Person-
nel Training' Act. The House approved
only 2-year extensions with a total ap-
propriation authorization of $531 mil-
lion for 1970, as compared to a Senate
figure of $542 million, and an appro-
priation authorization of $646 million
for 1971, as compared to a Senate fig-
ure of $672 million.
Since the differences in the author-
izations for appropriations are rela-
tively small for the years 1970 and
1971, I move that the Senate concur
in the House amendments to S. 3095
so that the legislation can be for-
warded to the President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the motion
of the Senator from Alabama.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. HILL. Mr. President, I move to
reconsider the vote by which the mo-
tion was agreed to.
Mr. THURMOND. I move to lay
that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
(At this point, Mr. MANSFIELD as-
sumed the chair.)
[p. 24982]
1.12aa PUBLIC HEALTH TRAINING GRANTS ACT
March 12, 1970, P.L. 91-208, § 3, 84 Stat. 52
SEC. 3. Section 306 (a) of the Public Health Services Act is
amended by striking out "and $14,000,000 for the fiscal year end-
ing June 30, 1971" and inserting in lieu thereof "$14,000,000 for
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971, $16,000,000 for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1972, and $18,000,000 for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1973".
Approved March 12, 1970.
[p. 52]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1563
1.12aa (1) SENATE COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND
PUBLIC WELFARE
S. REP. No. 91-586, 91st Cong., 1st Sess. (1969)
PUBLIC HEALTH TRAINING
DECEMBER 9, 1969.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. YARBOROUGH, from the Committee on Labor and Public Wel-
fare, submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany S. 2809]
The Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, to which was
referred the bill (S. 2809) to amend the Public Health Service Act
so as to extend for an additional period, the authority to make
formula grants to schools of public health, having considered the
same, reports favorably thereon with amendments and recom-
mends that the bill as amended do pass.
SUMMARY
As reported by the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, S.
2809 would extend until June 30, 1975, three authorities of the
Public Health Service that have as their objective the training of
additional and better-prepared public health personnel. The provi-
sions of this bill as amended by the committee have the support of
the Association of Schools of Public Health, the American Public
Health Association, and the Association of State and Territorial
Health Officers.
The bill, as amended, would extend the existing programs of
formula grants for schools of public health, section 309 (c) of the
Public Health Service Act, project grants for graduate training in
public health, section 309 (a) of the Public Health Service Act, and
traineeships for professional public health personnel, section 306
of the Public Health Service Act.
These three programs are not new. The traineeships were au-
thorized in 1957, the formula grants in 1958 and the project
grants in 1960.
[p.i]
-------
1564 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
AMENDMENTS
As introduced, S. 2809 would have extended and expanded the
existing program of formula grants for graduate schools of public
health under section 309 (c) of the Public Health Service Act that
is scheduled to expire on June 30, 1970.
These formula grants are one of three basic, closely related
sources of support for the training of public health personnel. The
other two are section 306 of the Public Health Service Act that
authorizes appropriations for traineeships for professional public
health personnel and section 309 (a) of the Public Health Service
Act that authorizes appropriations for project grants for graduate
training in public health. Both of the latter two authorizations
expire June 30, 1971.
The common objective of these formula grants, project grants,
and traineeships is to increase the supply of well-trained public
health personnel. These sources of financial support are closely
related.
It is recommended, therefore, that the formula grants, project
grants, and traineeships be given a common expiration date of
June 30, 1975.
[P. 2]
BACKGROUND
The formula grants for graduate schools of public health assist
in providing comprehensive programs of graduate training in
public health professions. These grants are awarded on a formula
basis. The formula provides that one-third of the total appropria-
tions be divided among the schools equally. The remaining two-
thirds is divided among the schools according to the number of
Federally sponsored students enrolled. Formula grants are entitle-
ment grants available only to the accredited schools of public
health which the schools can use for administrative and direct
educational purposes. They reflect the unique situation of these
schools as a national resource with a substantial proportion of
federally sponsored students.
The project grants are available to support graduate public
health training proposals recommended by the National Advisory
Public Health Training Council as having a high national priority
after competitive review. The grants are used for projects related
to development, innovation, and otherwise for strengthening and
expanding graduate public health curriculums in colleges and
universities including schools of public health, medical and dental
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1565
schools, engineering colleges, schools of nursing, and similar insti-
tutions.
Traineeships for professional public health personnel are
awarded through grants to individuals and grants to training
institutions which then select the individuals to receive support.
Formula grants
The program of formula grants for graduate schools of public
health was originally enacted in 1958 as Public Law 85-544. It
provided the first formal recognition by Congress of the Federal
responsibility for schools of public health as a national resource.
At that time there were 11 schools of public health eligible for
grants. Since that time five new schools of public health have been
accredited and several more are in various stages of development.
Proposals to establish new schools of public health are under con-
sideration in Alabama, Illinois, Ohio, and Washington.
At the present time, schools of public health are located at the
following universities:
California Hawaii Oklahoma
(Berkeley) Johns Hospital Pittsburgh
California Loma Linda Puerto Rico
(Los Angeles) Michigan Texas
Columbia Minnesota Tulane
Harvard North Carolina Yale
The authorization for appropriations has increased from $1 mil-
lion in 1958 to $7 million in 1970.
It must be emphasized that the 16 schools of public health, nine
of which are in State universities, have the responsibility for
providing graduates capable of duty in the health services of all
the 50 States, the territories and the Federal Government, as well
as for international activities of the United States and the inter-
[p.3]
national agencies. Thus, each school has had to be concerned with
an area far beyond that of its ordinary university range of influ-
ence. It has been pointed out that the schools of public health are
analogous to national service academies in that they must prepare
students for public service anywhere in the country. This point is
particularly significant in the State schools since State legisla-
tures, faced with mounting costs in all fields, customarily sharply
restrict out-of-State registrants.
More than 90 percent of the graduates of schools of public
-------
1566 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
health enter public service and hold the key posts in local, city,
State, National, and international agencies. The character of pro-
fessional leadership in the teaching of public health in the United
States has been reflected in the frequency with which faculty
members are called on for consultation abroad. Moreover, schools
of public health on the American pattern have been formed in
many countries elsewhere in the world, thus making it possible for
students of those countries to see more directly applied the princi-
ples taught in our schools of public health.
Schools of public health have found it necessary to enlarge fac-
ulty to bring new skills in order to pay proper attention to the
many teaching programs which have had to be added. Some index
of the scope of a school of public health in 1969 may be gained
from listing the programs of study offered at the school of public
health of the University of Michigan:
Air Pollution Hospital Administration
Biostatisties Industrial Hygiene
Chronic Diseases, Adult Maternal and Child Health
Health and Aging Medical Care Organization
Dental Public Health Mental Health
Environmental Health— Nutrition
Food Contact Occupational Medicine
Environmental Health— Population Planning
General Public Health Administration
Environmental Health— Public Health Laboratory
Water Contact Practice
Epidemiology Public Health Nursing
Health Education Radiological Health
Health Planning
A study conducted by the Association of Schools of Public
Health covering the years since the formula grant legislation was
approved disclosed the following improvements since 1958:
A doubling in the number of graduate degrees award;
A tripling in the number of students' enrolled;
An increase in the number of accredited schools from 11 to
16;
A tripling in the number of federally sponsored students
attending schools of public health; and
The addition of hundreds of courses in the schools to meet
the health needs of our changing society.
This study also showed that formula grants met only 12 percent
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1567
of the total costs of basic operations and teaching in 1968 as
compared to 16 percent in 1963.
This same study revealed that the existing 16 schools of public
health estimated that substantial increases in the formula grants
[p. 4]
would be required. To meet expanding student enrollments, teach-
ing programs, and increases in basic operating costs they esti-
mated the need for the following appropriations in formula
grants:
Fiscal year 1971 $12,500,000
Fiscal year 1972 16,800,000
Fiscal year 1973 21,600,000
Project grants
The program of project grants for graduate training in public
health was originally enacted in 1960 as Public Law 86-720. The
legislation was extended in 1964 and the authorization for appro-
priations has been increased from $2 million in 1961 to $8.5 mil-
lion in 1970. The major change in the legislation came in 1964
when the eligibility for grants was broadened from schools of
public health, engineering, and nursing which provide graduate or
specialized training in public health to include all public or private
nonprofit institutions which provide such training.
This program, coupled with the student traineeships authorized
in section 306 of the Public Health Service Act, has made a signif-
icant contribution to the expansion and improvement of public and
community health training throughout the country, and to increas-
ing the numbers of trained public health specialists so badly
needed in today's society. It has made possible:
(a) special innovative programs in schools of public health to
provide them with the capacity to become balanced centers of
public health training and major public health consultative and
investigative resources for the Federal, State, and local govern-
ments ;
(b) the initiation of specialized preventive medicine and public
health graduate training programs in schools of nursing to pre-
pare well-qualified nurses for public health nursing positions;
(c) the strengthening and broadening of graduate training pro-
grams in environmental public health engineering so critical in
view of contemporary problems of urban environmental hazards;
and
(d) the development, expansion and strengthening of programs
-------
1568 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
of community-preventive medicine and dentistry in medical and
dental schools with the result of making young physicians and
dentists more aware of careers in public health.
During the period from fiscal year 1961, when the program was
initiated, through fiscal year 1968, 779 project grant awards were
made: 270 in schools of public health, 156 in schools of nursing,
and 189 in schools of engineering. Effective with fiscal year 1965
eligibility for the grants was extended to departments of medicine
and dentistry. In fiscal years 1965 through 1968, 112 grants were
awarded in schools of medicine, and 52 in schools of dentistry.
The 1968 awards represent 15 major curriculum areas, includ-
ing medical care economics and administration, public health nurs-
ing, environmental health, chronic diseases, and preventive medi-
cine and dentistry. These projects are often administered in con-
junction with public health traineeship grants, which provide sup-
port for students trained in these specialized areas.
During the period 1961-65, 49 new faculty positions had been
added through this program, including such disciples as air pollu-
tion engineering, pharmacology, environmental chemistry, bioen-
gineering, environmental biology, and microbiology.
[p. 5]
In schools of medicine, the project grants have been used to
revise curricula in departments of preventive medicine. In 1967
alone, approximately 5,000 medical students were exposed to the
expanded teaching of preventive and community medicine.
TABLE 1.—SUMMARY OF PROJECT GRANTS FOR GRADUATE PUBLIC HEALTH TRAINING AWARDED IN FISCAL YEAR
1958
Number of
Type of school schools Number Amount
awarded of grants of grants
grants
Total _ 91 124 $4,498,950
Public health
Nursing
Engineering
Medicine
Dentistry
14
. ... ... 13
13
34
17
43
14
14
36
17
1,880,816
419,989
284,294
1,286,658
627,193
[p. 6]
CHANGES : IN EXISTING LAW
In compliance with subsection (4) of rule XXIX of the Stand-
ing Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by the bill,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1569
as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be
omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in
italic, existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in
roman):
PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT
TITLE III—GENERAL POWERS AND DUTIES OF PUBLIC HEALTH
SERVICE
PART A—RESEARCH AND INVESTIGATION
*******
TRAINEESHIPS FOR PROFESSIONAL PUBLIC HEALTH PERSONNEL
SEC. 306. (a) There are hereby authorized to be appropriated
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1957, and for each of the next
twelve fiscal years, such sums as the Congress may determine, but
not to exceed $4,500,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1965,
$7,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1966, $8,000,000 for
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1967, $10,000,000 each for the fiscal
year ending June 30,1968, and the two succeeding fiscal years, [and
$14,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971] $14,000,000
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971, $18,000,000 for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1972, $22,000,000 for the fiscal year ending
June 30,1973, $26,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30,1974
and $30,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1975, to cover
the cost of traineeships for graduate or specialized training in
public health for physicians, engineers, nurses, sanitarians, and
other professional health personnel.
[P. 8]
-------
1570 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
1.12aa (2) HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND
FOREIGN COMMERCE
H.R. REP. No. 91-712, 91st Cong., 1st Sess. (1969)
FORMULA GRANTS TO SCHOOLS OF PUBLIC HEALTH
DECEMBER 9, 1969.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to he printed
Mr. STAGGERS, from the Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce, submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 14790]
The Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, to whom
was referred the bill (H.R. 14790) to amend the Public Health
Service Act so as to extend for an additional period the authority
to make formula grants to schools of public health, having consid-
ered the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment and
recommend that the bill as amended do pass.
[p.l]
1.12aa (3) COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE
H.R. REP. No. 91-855, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970)
PUBLIC HEALTH TRAINING
FEBRUARY 25, 1970.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. STAGGERS, from the committee of conference, submitted the
following
CONFERENCE REPORT
[To accompany S. 2809]
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two
Houses on the amendment of the House to the bill (S. 2809) to
amend the Public Health Service Act so as to extend for an addi-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1571
tional period the authority to make formula grants to schools of
public health, project grants for graduate training in public health
and traineeships for professional public health personnel, having
met, after full and free conference, have agreed to recommend and
do recommend to their respective Houses as follows:
That the Senate recede from its disagreement to the amendment
of the House and agree to the same with an amendment as fol-
lows:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the House
amendment insert the following:
SEC. 3. Section 306 (a) of the Public Health Service Act is
amended by striking out "and $14,000,000 for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1971" and inserting in lieu thereof "$14,000,000 for the
fiscal year
[P. 1]
ending June 30, 1971, $16,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June
30,1972, and $18,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30,1973".
And the House agree to the same.
HARLEY 0. STAGGERS,
JOHN JARMAN,
PAUL G. ROGERS,
DAVID E. SATTERFIELD,
WILLIAM L. SPRINGER,
ANCHER NELSEN,
TIM LEE CARTER,
Managers on the Part of the House.
RALPH YARBOROUGH,
HARRISON WILLIAMS,
EDWARD M. KENNEDY,
GAYLORD NELSON,
THOMAS F. EAGLETON,
ALAN CRANSTON,
HAROLD E. HUGHES,
PETER DOMINICK,
JACOB K. JAVITS,
GEORGE MURPHY,
WINSTON PROUTY,
TIM B. SAXBE,
Managers on the Part of the Senate.
[p. 2]
-------
1572
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
1.12aa (4) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
1.12aa (4) (a) Vol. 115 (1969), Dec. 11: Amended and passed Senate,
pp. 37457,38460
PUBLIC HEALTH TRAINING
The Senate proceeded to consider
the bill (S. 2809), to amend the
Health Service Act so as to extend
for an additional period the authority
to make formula grants to schools of
public health, which had been re-
ported from the Committee on Labor
and Public Welfare with amend-
ments, on page 2, after line 5, insert
a new section, as follows:
And, after line 13, insert a new
section as follows:
SEC. 3. Section 306(a) of the Public Health
Service Act is amended by striking out "and
$14,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1971" and inserting in lieu thereof: "$14,000,-
000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971,
$18,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1972, $22,000,000 for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1973, $26,000,000 for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1974, and $30,000,000 for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1976".
So as to make the bill read:
S. 2809
Be it enacted by the Senate and House
of Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled. That section
309 (c) of the Public Health Service Act is
amended by striking out "$5,000,000 for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1968, $6,000,000 for
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1969, and $7,-
000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1970" and inserting in lieu thereof: "$7,000,-
000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970,
$9,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1971, $12,000,000 for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1972, $15,000,000 for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1973. $18,000.000 for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1974, and $20,000,000 for
the fiscal year ending June 80, 1975".
SEC. 3. Section 306 (a) of the Public Health
Service Act is amended by striking out "and
$14,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June
30, 1971" and inserting in lieu thereof: $14,-
000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1971, $18,000,000 for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1972, $22,000,000 for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1973, $26,000,000 for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1974, and $30,000,000 for
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1975".
[p. 38457]
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President,
I ask unanimous consent that the
committee amendments be considered
en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, the amendments are
considered and agreed to en bloc.
The bill is open to further amend-
ment. If there is no further amend-
ment to be proposed, the question is
on the engrossment and third read-
ing of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be en-
grossed for a third reading, was read
the third time, and passed.
The title was amended, so as to
read: "A bill to amend the Public
Health Service Act so as to extend
for an additional period the authority
to make formula grants to schools of
public health, project grants for
graduate training in public health
and traineeships for professional
public health personnel."
[p. 38460]
1.12aa (4) (b) Vol. 115 (1969), Dec. 16: Amended and passed House,
pp. 39418-39420
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1573
1.12aa (4) (c) Vol. 116 (1970), Feb. 26: Senate agrees to conference
report, p. 5084
PUBLIC HEALTH TRAINING—CONFER-
ENCE REPORT
Mr. YARBOROUGH. Mr. Presi-
dent, I submit a report of the com-
mittee of conference on the disagree-
ing votes of the two Houses on the
amendment of the House to the bill
(S. 2809) to amend the Public Health
Service Act so as to extend for an
additional period the authority to
make formula grants to schools of
public health, project grants for grad-
uate training in public health and
traineeships for professional public
health personnel. I ask unanimous
consent for the present consideration
of the report.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
report will be read for the informa-
tion of the Senate.
The legislative clerk read the re-
port.
(For conference report, see House
proceedings of February 25, 1970,
page 4725. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is
there objection to the present consid-
eration of the report?
There being no objection, the Sen-
ate proceeded to consider the report.
Mr. YARBOROUGH. Mr. Presi-
dent, the House agreed to this con-
ference report today. The conferees
have agreed on amendments to the
Public Health Service Act that deal
with public health training, S. 2809.
During the debate in 1958 on Public
Law 85-544, which originally pro-
vided formula grants to schools of
public health, it was pointed out that
the schools of public health were, in
affect, the public health equivalent of
West Point, Annapolis, and the Air
Force Academy in providing profes-
sional health training and leadership
for the Nation. Most graduates of
these schools go into the public health
service in staffing essential public
health positions in municipal, county,
State, and Federal Government levels.
The serious financial crisis facing
schools of public health during the
next several years poses a growing
threat for the 1970's in their ability
to supply the increasing demands by
health agencies for trained profes-
sional health manpower. Vacancies
already exist in key health positions
at all levels of government despite the
tremendous increase in the numbers
of skilled health personnel being
trained each year by the schools of
public health.
The conferees agreed that authori-
zation for funding of the traineeship
for professional public health person-
nel program should be increased to
$16 million in fiscal year 1972 and
$18 million in fiscal year 1973. These
funds will be used to cover the cost of
traineeships for graduate or special-
ized training in public health for phy-
sicians, engineers, nurses, sanitarians,
and other professional health person-
nel.
The conferees agreed that authori-
zation for funding of the project
grants for training in public health
programs should be increased to $14
million from $12 million for fiscal
year 1971, to $15 million in fiscal year
1972, and to $16 million for fiscal
year 1973. These funds will be used
for project grants to schools of public
health and other public or nonprofit
private institutions providing grad-
uate or specialized training in public
health to expand or strengthen such
training in such schools and other
institutions.
In the case of the program of form-
ula grants for schools of public
health, the conferees agreed to the
Senate authorization figures. This will
provide an authorization of $9 million
for fiscal year 1971, $12 million for
-------
1574
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
fiscal year 1972, and $15 million for
fiscal year 1973. These funds will be
used for grants to provide, in accred-
ited public or nonprofit private schools
of public health, comprehensive pro-
fessional training, specialized consul-
tive services, and technical assistance
in the public health field and in ad-
ministration of State or local public
health programs.
It is clear that, since the schools of
public health are the only source to
train these vitally needed health pro-
fessionals, our national needs can
only be met by increasing the appro-
priations level. Only then can our
Nation be assured of meeting our
National, State, and local health man-
power requirements.
Mr. President, I move the adoption
of the conference report.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the motion
of the Senator from Texas.
The motion was agreed to.
[p. 5084]
1.12aa (4) (d) Vol. 116 (1970), Feb. 26: House agrees to conference
report, pp. 5094-5095
CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 2809,
PUBLIC HEALTH TRAINING
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Speaker, I
call up the conference report on the
bill (S. 2809) to amend the Public
Health Service Act so as to extend
for an additional period the authority
to make formula grants to schools of
public health, project grants for
graduate training in public health
and traineeships for professional pub-
lic health personnel, and ask unani-
mous consent that the statement of
the managers on the part of the
House be read in lieu of the report.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is
there objection to the request of the
gentleman from West Virginia?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the statement.
(For conference report and state-
ment, see proceedings of the House of
February 25, 1970.)
Mr. STAGGERS (during the read-
ing). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that further reading of the
statement be dispensed with.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is
there objection to the request of the
gentleman from West Virginia?
There was no objection.
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Speaker, the
conference report before the House
today provides for a 3-year extension
of the existing program under which
formula grants are made to schools
of public health to reimburse them
for a portion of the costs which they
incur in training federally sponsored
students at these schools.
The Senate proposed to extend this
program for 5 years, at a higher level
of funding, but in conference this ex-
tension was limited to 3 years, but at
the level of funding recommended by
the Senate. We felt this added money
was necessary because of the develop-
ment ol a number of new schools of
public health in recent years.
The Senate bill also provided for a
4-year extension of the existing pro-
gram under which traineeships are
provided for professional public
health personnel, and the program of
project grants to schools of public
health for the costs of new programs,
or improvements in existing programs
at those schools.
The conference agreement limits
the extension of these two programs
[p. 5094]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1575
to 2 years, at authorizations reduced
below the level contained in the Sen-
ate bill.
As a result of this legislation, all
programs of grants specifically orien-
ted to schools of public health will
terminate simultaneously hereafter,
so that these programs can be con-
sidered together in the future.
The managers on the part of the
House are unanimous in recommend-
ing that the House adopt this con-
ference report.
Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Speaker, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. STAGGERS. I yield to the
gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Speaker, the
conference report before us at this
time concerns grant assistance to the
few schools organized to prepare pro-
fessionals for the field of public health
which is becoming increasingly im-
portant as we expand the services of-
fered to our citizens. It is not a new
program, and the House version mere-
ly extended the formula grants which
run to the schools to support general
expenses. We had provided authoriza-
tions of $7, $9 and $12 million for the
next 3 fiscal years. As the bill came
to conference it had an additional
year added and somewhat larger
funds for each year. We report back
to you a conference version which
limits the program to 3 years and
splits the funding differences, result-
ing in authorizations of $9, $12 and
$18 million for the next 3 fiscal years.
There are two other programs
which affect schools of public health
and which will be expiring next year.
They provide traineeships for public
health training of people already
committed to the health professions,
and project grants to encourage and
assist schools of public health to
create new and better graduate
courses in this field. The House did
not include an extension of these pro-
grams at this time, but the other
body did.
Since there is no quarrel with either
program the conference accepted the
inclusion of these additional programs
in this bill limiting, however, both of
them to 3 years and reducing some-
what the authorizations included in
the version which passed the other
body. As a result we are recommend-
ing authorizations for the trainee-
ships at $14, $16, and $18 million for
the next 3 years, and $14, $15, and
$16 million for project grants. Since
authorizations were already available
for the last two programs for fiscal
1971, the extensions are for a total of
3 years but only two of these are new.
This makes all three programs term-
inate simultaneously which should ex-
pedite and make their consideration
more logical in the future.
I recommend that the House adopt
the conference report.
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Speaker, I
move the previous question on the
conference report.
The previous question was ordered.
The conference report was agreed
to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on
the table.
[p. 5095]
-------
1576 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
1.12ab MEDICAL FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION AND
MODERNIZATION AMENDMENTS OF 1970
June 30, 1970, P.L. 91-296, Title I, §lll(b), Title IV, §401(b)(A)(l),
(C), (D), 84 Stat. 340, 352
AREA WIDE AND STATE HEALTH PLANNING AGENCIES
SEC. III.
*******
(b) Section 3U(b) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 246) is amended by
adding after the first sentence the following new sentence: "No
grant may be made under this subsection after June 30, 1970, to
any agency or organization to develop or revise health plans for
an area unless the Secretary determines that such agency or orga-
nization provides means for appropriate representation of the in-
terests of the hospitals, other health care facilities, and practicing
physicians serving such area, and the general public."
[p. 340]
TITLE IV—EVALUATION OF HEALTH PROGRAMS
SEC. 401. (a) Title V of the Public Health Service Act is
amended by inserting at the end thereof the following new sec-
tion:
EVALUATION OP PROGRAMS
SEC. 513.
(b) (1) Effective with respect to appropriations for fiscal years
beginning after June 30,1970—
(A) section 304 (d) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
242b) is amended by striking out "; except that for any fiscal
year ending after June 30, 1968" and all that follows down to but
not including the period;
*******
(C) section 314(d)(l) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 246) is
amended by striking out ", except that, for any fiscal year ending
after June 30,1968" and all that follows down to but not including
the period;
(D) section 314 (e) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 246) is amended by
striking out the last sentence;
***••••
[p. 352]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1577
1.12ab (1) HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND
FOREIGN COMMERCE
H.R. REP. No. 91-262, 91st Cong., 1st Sess. (1969)
MEDICAL FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION AND MODERNIZA-
TION AMENDMENTS OF 1969
MAY 20, 1969.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State
of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. STAGGERS, from the Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce, submitted the following
REPORT
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 11102]
The Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, to whom
was referred the bill (H.R. 11102) to amend the provisions of the
Public Health Service Act relating to the construction and mod-
ernization of hospitals and other medical facilities by providing
separate authorizations of appropriations for new construction
and for modernization of facilities, authorizing Federal guaran-
tees of loans for such construction and modernization and Federal
payment of part of the interest thereon, authorizing grants for
modernization of emergency rooms of general hospitals, and ex-
tending and making other improvements in the program author-
ized by these provisions, having considered the same, report favor-
ably thereon with amendments and recommend that the bill as
amended do pass.
The amendments (with page and line number references to the
bill as reported) are as follows:
PRINCIPAL PURPOSE OP THE BILL
The bill would extend for 3 years the present program of match-
ing grants to the States for construction and modernization of
hospitals and other health facilities, with some modifications in
-------
1578 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
the program to reflect the experience with the program over the
past two decades, and would also establish a new program of
Federal guarantees for loans made for the construction or mod-
ernization of public or nonprofit private hospitals and other health
facilities, with an added provision for an interest subsidy on such
loans.
HEARINGS: COST
Hearings were held on March 25, 26, 27, and 28,1969, on bills to
provide for an extension of the program together with a program
of guaranteed loans. During the hearings the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare proposed a revision of the pro-
gram, which would have eliminated the grant program for hospi-
tal construction and modernization; would have established a new
program of project grants for new and innovative health facility
construction; and would have established a program of guaranteed
loans, with a fee being charged for the guarantee, with no interest
subsidy. All other witnesses favored the approach of the bills.
The bill was considered in three executive sessions by the Sub-
committee on Public Health and Welfare, and in two executive
sessions by the full Committee on Interstate and Foreign Com-
merce, and was ordered reported to the House on May 14,1969.
The cost of the reported bill is shown in the following table:
[In millions of dollars]
New hospital construction
Long-term care facilities
Diagnostic and treatment facilities
Rehabilitation facilities
Modernization of facilities
Emergency room modernization..
Interest subsidies
1971
135.0
70.0
20.0
10.0
50.0
10.0
3.6
1972
135.0
70.0
20.0
10.0
55.0
10.0
12.7
1973
135
70
20
10
60
10
21
Total
405.0
210.0
60.0
30.0
165.0
30.0
37.3
Total 298.6 312.7 326 937.3
irTs]
Section 13. Areawide and State Health Planning Agencies
The amendment made by subsection (a) of this section relates
to the findings that the Secretary must make before he may ap-
prove an application for assistance under a title VI program.
Under the amendment, the Secretary may not approve an applica-
tion unless he finds that the appropriate areawide health planning
agency (authorized under sec. 314 (b) of the Act) or, if there is no
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1579
such agency, the appropriate State comprehensive health planning
agency (authorized under sec; 314(a) of the Act), has had an
opportunity to consider the project for which the application is
made.
The amendment made by subsection (b) of this section prohib-
its grants to any areawide health planning agency under section
314 (b) of the Act unless it provides means for appropriate repre-
sentation of the interests of the general public in the area of such
agency and the health facilities and physicians who serve such
area.
[P. 21]
1.12ab(2) SENATE COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND
PUBLIC WELFARE
S. REP. No. 91-657, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970)
HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION
AND MODERNIZATION AMENDMENTS OF 1969
FEBRUARY 5, 1970.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. YARBOROUGH, from the Committee on Labor and Public Wel-
fare, submitted the following
REPORT
Together with
INDIVIDUAL VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 11102]
The Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, to which was
referred the bills (S. 2182, S. 1733, S. 269, H.R. 11102, and related
bills) to amend the Public Health Service Act to revise, extend,
and improve the program established by title VI of such act and
for other purposes, reports favorably on H.R. 11102 with an
amendment in the nature of a substitute and a title amendment
and recommends that the bill as amended do pass.
-------
1580 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
PRINCIPAL PURPOSE OP THE BILL
The bill would extend for 5 years the present program of grants
to the States for construction and modernization of hospitals and
other health facilities, with modifications reflecting the experience
gained by the program over the past two decades. The bill would
also establish a new program of Federal loan guarantees, com-
mencing in fiscal year ending June 30, 1970, with interest subsidies
for the construction or modernization of nonprofit private health
facilities, but without interest subsidies for the construction or
modernization of publicly owned health facilities, and a new 5-
year program of direct Federal loans for the construction and
modernization of publicly owned health facilities. The bill would
also provide a 5-year authority to administer a new program of
project grants to assist in the construction or modernization of
emergency rooms of general hospitals, communications networks,
and transportation systems.
[P. i]
AREAWIDE HEALTH PLANNING AGENCIES
In an effort to further improve the coordination required as a
part of comprehensive health planning on the State and commu-
nity level the committee considered testimony which, in several
ways, would insure that the efforts of comprehensive health plan-
ning and those of this program were mutually complementary. It
was decided that this objective could be best accomplished by
providing the 314 (b) (areawide health planning agency) an op-
portunity to consider each application for assistance before it was
approved. This approach should encourage the development of a
coordinated and interrelated community-level system of health-
care facilities, avoiding at the same time duplicatory planning.
Furthermore, the committee decided that the State plan of any
State shall be in accordance with such plans as have been devel-
oped by the 314 (a) agency after the Secretary determines that
such 314 (a) agency plans are consistent with the purposes stated
in section 600 of the Public Health Service Act and that the
314 (a) agency is operating in accordance with such standards as
the Secretary shall establish.
[p. 13]
EVALUATION OP PROGRAMS
Title V would encourage the Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare to embark on a systematic and thorough evaluation
of all health programs. The committee feels that if judicious deci-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1581
sions are to be made in regard to the future direction of health
programs, we must learn which programs are successful, which
are not, and why. The committee has authorized a 1-percent set-a-
side across the board in health programs to obviate the need for
consideration of the various existing authorizations and separate
appropriations for evaluation purposes and believes this provision
would fulfill the intent and desire of the Congress for health pro-
gram evaluation; carried out by the agencies within the frame-
work of an annual evaluation plan approved by the Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare.
[p. 14]
SECTION 111. AREA WIDE HEALTH PLANNING AGENCIES
The amendment made by this section relates to the findings that
the Secretary must make before he may approve an application
for assistance under a title VI program. Under the amendment,
the Secretary may not approve an application unless he finds that
the appropriate areawide health planning agency (authorized
under sec. 314 (b) of the act) has had an opportunity to consider
the project for which the application is made.
[p. 17]
SECTION 401. GRANTS FOR CONSTRUCTION OR MODERNIZATION OF
EMERGENCY ROOMS OF GENERAL HOSPITALS
This section adds to title VI a new program of project grants
for construction and modernization of emergency rooms of general
hospitals, which is described as follows:
Section 6J>1. Authorization of grants.—Over a period of 5 years
(beginning with the fiscal year 1971) the Secretary is authorized
to make special project grants for the construction or moderniza-
tion of emergency rooms at the level of $20 million for each year.
Section 642. Eligibility for grants.—A grant in excess of 50
percent of the cost of any given project may not be made. Require-
ments for eligibility for grants are to be prescribed by regulations.
The regulations are to be designed to provide assistance for proj-
ects (1) for which adequate assistance is not readily available
from other sources, (2) for emergency room service in areas
which have a special need therefor, and (3) which otherwise will
furnish modern, efficient, and effective emergency room service.
Such assistance will also be extended for the provision or replace-
ment of communications systems and medical transportation facil-
ities. Such facilities to include helicopters which have been demon-
-------
1582 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
strated to be a fast and effective way of transporting emergency
patients where other means of transportation would be too slow or
could not reach the patient due to problems of accessibility. In
addition, the committee expects that such regulations will provide
for maximum State agency involvement in the administration of
this program, including the development of a State plan for emer-
gency care services as part of their State health facilities plan
required under this act.
Section 643. Payments.—Grants under the new program are to
be paid in advance or by way of reimbursement, in such install-
ments and on such conditions, as in the judgment of the Secretary
will best carry out the purposes of the program.
[P. 25]
1.12ab (3) COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE
H.R. REP. No. 91-1167, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970)
HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION
AND MODERNIZATION AMENDMENTS OF 1970
JUNE 9, 1970.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. STAGGERS, from the committee of conference, submitted the
following
CONFERENCE REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 11102]
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two
Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 11102)
to amend the provisions of the Public Health Service Act relating
to the construction and modernization of hospitals and other medi-
cal facilities by providing separate authorizations of appropria-
tions for new construction and for modernization of facilities,
authorizing Federal guarantees of loans for such construction and
modernization and Federal payment of part of the interest there-
on, authorizing grants for modernization of emergency rooms of
general hospitals, and extending and making other improvements
in the program authorized by these provisions, having met, after
full and free conference, have agreed to recommend and do recom-
mend to their respective Houses as follows:
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1583
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment
of the Senate to the text of the bill and agree to the same with an
amendment as follows :
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate
amendment insert the following :
SHORT TITLE ; DEFINITION
SECTION 1. (a) This Act may be cited as the "Medical Facilities
Construction and Modernization Amendments of 1970".
(b) As used in the amendments made by this Act, the term
"Secretary", unless the context otherwise requires, means the Sec-
retary of Health, Education, and Welfare.
AREA WIDE AND STATE HEALTH PLANNING AGENCIES
SEC. 111.
*******
(b) Section 314 (b) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 246) is amended by
adding after the first sentence the following new sentence : "No
grant may be made under this subsection after June 30, 1970, to
any agency or organization to develop or revise health plans for an
area unless the Secretary determines that such agency or organi-
zation provides means for appropriate representation of the inter-
ests of the hospitals, other health care facilities, and practicing
physicians serving such area, and the general public."
[p. 5]
1.12ab (4) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
1.12ab (4) (a) Vol. 115 (1969), June 4: Amended and passed House,
pp. 14654,14659,14664,
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
1.12ab (4) (b) Vol. 116 (1970), April 7: Amended and passed Sen-
ate, pp. 10542,10546
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
-------
1584 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
1.12ab (4) (c) Vol. 116 (1970), June 8: Senate agreed to conference
report, pp. 18757,18758,18761
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
1.12ab (4) (d) Vol. 116 (1970), June 10: House agreed to confer-
ence report, p. 19199
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
1.12ac PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE DRUG ABUSE
RESEARCH
October 27,1970, P.L. 91-513, Title I, § 3(b), 84 Stat. 1241
RESEARCH UNDER THE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT IN DRUG USE,
ABUSE, AND ADDICTION
SEC. 3.
*******
(b) Section 314 (d) (2) of the Public Health Service Act is
amended—
(1) by striking out "and" at the end of subparagraph (I) ;
(2) by striking out the period at the end of subparagraph
(J) and inserting in lieu thereof "; and"; and
(3) by adding after subparagraph (J) the following new
subparagraph:
" (K) provide for services for the prevention and treatment
of drug abuse and drug dependence, commensurate with the
extent of the problem."
*******
[p.1241]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1585
1.12ac (1) SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
S. REP. No. 91-613, 91st Cong., 1st Sess. (1969)
CONTROLLED DANGEROUS SUBSTANCES ACT OF 1969
DECEMBER 16, 1969.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. DODD, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the
following
REPORT
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
[To accompany S. 3246]
The Committee on the Judiciary, having under consideration
legislation to protect the public health and safety by amending the
narcotic, depressant, stimulant and hallucinogenic drug laws, and
for other purposes, reports an original bill and recommends that it
do pass.
[p-i]
1.12ac (2) HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND
FOREIGN COMMERCE
H.R. REP. No. 91-1444, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970)
COMPREHENSIVE DRUG ABUSE PREVENTION AND CON-
TROL ACT OF 1970
SEPTEMBER 10, 1970.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. STAGGERS, from the Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce, submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 18583]
The Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, to whom
was referred the bill (H.R. 18583) to amend the Public Health
Service Act and other laws to provide increased research into, and
-------
1586 LEGAL COMPILATION— GENERAL
prevention of, drug abuse and drug dependence; to provide for
treatment and rehabilitation of drug abusers and drug dependent
persons ; and to strengthen existing law enforcement authority in
the field of drug abuse, having considered the same, report favora-
bly thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill as
amended do pass.
The amendment strikes out all after the enacting clause and
inserts a new text, which is set forth in italic in the repc rted bill.
Section 3 (a) of this title grants the Secretary of Health, Educa-
tion, and Welfare a much needed authority to protect the privacy
of drug research subjects by nondisclosure of identification data of
such individuals. It enables the researcher, when authorized by the
Secretary, to assure research subjects complete anonymity, with
immunity from prosecution for withholding this identifying infor-
mation. This authority is not limited to research conducted or
supported by the Federal Government.
Subsection (b) of this section amends section 507 of the Public
Health Service Act to permit funds that are available (1) under
the Public Health Service Act or (2) under the Community Men-
tal Health Centers Act, for programs relating to drug dependence,
drug abuse, and alcoholism, to be used for 100 percent grants to
Veterans' Administration hospitals, Saint Elizabeths Hospital,
and hospitals of the Public Health Service and the Bureau of
Prisons, for such purposes.
[p. 28]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1587
1.12ac (3) COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE
H.R. REP. No. 91-1603, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970)
COMPREHENSIVE DRUG ABUSE PREVENTION AND CON-
TROL ACT OF 1970
OCTOBER 13,1970.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. STAGGERS, from the committee of conference, submitted the
following
CONFERENCE REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 18583]
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two
Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 18583)
to amend the Public Health Service Act and other laws to provide
increased research into, and prevention of, drug abuse and drug
dependence; to provide for treatment and rehabilitation of drug
abusers and drug dependent persons; and to strengthen existing
law enforcement authority in the field of drug abuse, having met,
after full and free conference, have agreed to recommend and do
recommend to their respective Houses as follows :
That the Senate recede from its amendments numbered 1, 6, 7,
8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 20.
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amend-
ments of the Senate numbered 2 and 21, and agree to the same.
Amendment numbered 3 :
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment
of the Senate numbered 3, and agree to the same with an amend-
ment, as follows :
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate
amendment insert the following :
RESEARCH UNDER THE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT IN DRUG USE,
ABUSE, AND ADDICTION
Sec. 3. (a) Section 303 (a) of the Public Health Service Act (42
U.S.C. 242a(a)) is amended by adding after and below paragraph
(2) the following: "The Secretary may authorize persons engaged
-------
1588 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
in research on the use and effect of drugs to protect the privacy
of individuals who are the subject of such research by withholding
from all persons not connected with the conduct of such research
the names or other identifying characteristics of such individuals.
Persons so authorized to protect the privacy of such individuals
may not be compelled in any Federal, State, or local civil, criminal,
administrative, legislative, or other proceedings to identify such
individuals."
(b) Section 3H(d)(2) of the Public Health Service Act is
amended—
(1) by striking out "and" at the end of subparagraph (I);
(2) by striking out the period at the end of subparagraph
(J) and inserting in lieu thereof " ;and"; and
(3) by adding after subparagraph (J) the following new
subparagraph:
"(K) -provide for services for the prevention and treatment
of drug abuse and drug dependence, commensurate with the
extent of the problem."
[P. 5]
1.12ac (4) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 116 (1970)
1.12ac (4) (a) Jan. 28: Amended and passed Senate, p. 1647
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
1.12ac (4) (b) Sept. 24: Amended and passed House, p. 33603
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
1.12ac (4) (c) Oct. 14: House agreed to conference report,
p. 36651
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
1.12ac (4) (d) Oct. 14: Senate agreed to conference report,
p. 36880
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1589
1.12ad HEART DISEASE, CANCER, STROKE AND
KIDNEY DISEASE AMENDMENTS OF 1970
October 30, 1970, P.L. 91-515, Title II, §§201—203, 210, 220, 230, 240, 250,
260(a), (b), (c)(l), 270, 280, 282, 292, Title VI, §601(b)(2), 84 Stat.
1301,1303—1308, 1311
TITLE II—AMENDMENTS TO TITLE III OF THE PUBLIC
HEALTH SERVICE ACT
PART A—RESEARCH AND DEMONSTRATIONS RELATING To HEALTH
FACILITIES AND SERVICES
SEC. 201. (a) (1) Section 304 (a) of the Public Health Service
Act is amended—
(A) by inserting "(1)" immediately after "SEC. 304. (a)";
(B) by redesignating clauses (1) and (2) as clauses (A)
and (B), respectively; and
(C) by redesignating clauses (A), (B),and (C) as clauses
(i), (ii), and (Hi), respectively.
(2) Section 304 (b) of such Act is amended—
(A) by striking out "(b)" and inserting in lieu thereof
"(2)";and
(B) by striking out "this section" each place it appears
therein and inserting in lieu thereof "this subsection".
(3) Section 304 (c) of such Act is amended—
(A) by striking out "(c)" and inserting in lieu thereof
"(3)";and
(B) by striking out "this section" each place it appears
therein and inserting in lieu thereof "this subsection".
(b) Section 304 of such Act is further amended by adding after
the provision thereof redesignated as paragraph (3) by subsection
(a) (3) (A) of this section the following new subsection:
"Systems Analysis of National Health Care Plans
"(b) (1) (A) The Secretary shall develop, through utilization
of the systems analysis method, plans for health care systems
designed adequately to meet the health needs of the American
people. For purposes of the preceding sentence, the systems analy-
sis method means the analytical method by which various means
of obtaining a desired result or goal is associated with the costs
and benefits involved.
" (B) The Secretary shall complete the development of the plans
referred to in subparagraph (A), within such period as may be
necessary to enable him to submit to the Congress not later than
-------
1590 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
September 30, 1971, a report thereon which shall describe each
plan so developed in terms of—
"(i) the number of people who would be covered under the
plan;
"(ii) the kind and type of health care which would be
covered under the plan;
"(iii) the cost involved in carrying out the plan and how
such costs would be financed;
[p. 1301]
" (iv) the number of additional physicians and other health
care personnel and the number and type of health care facili-
ties needed to enable the plan to become fully effective;
"(v) the new and improved methods, if any, of delivery of
health care services which would be developed in order to
effectuate the plan;
"(vi) the accessibility of the benefits of such plan to var-
ious socioeconomic classes of persons;
"(vii) the relative effectiveness and efficiency of such plan
as compared to existing means of financing and delivering
health care; and
"(viii) the legislative, administrative, and other actions
which would be necessary to implement the plan.
" (C) In order to assure that the advice and service of experts in
the various fields concerned will be obtained in the plans author-
ized by this paragraph and that the purposes of this paragraph
will fully be carried out—
"(i) the Secretary shall utilize, whenever appropriate, per-
sonnel from the various agencies, bureaus, and other depart-
mental subdivisions of the Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare;
"(ii) the Secretary is authorized, with the consent of the
head of the department or agency involved, to utilize (on a
reimbursable basis) the personnel and other resources of
other departments and agencies of the Federal Government;
and
"(iii) the Secretary is authorized to consult with appro-
priate State or local public agencies, private organizations,
and individuals.
"Cost and Coverage Report on Existing Legislative Proposals
"(2) (A) The Secretary shall, in accordance with this para-
graph, conduct a study of each legislative proposal which is intro-
duced in the Senate or the House of Representatives during the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1591
Ninety-first Congress, and which undertakes to establish a na-
tional health insurance plan or similar plan designed to meet the
needs of health insurance or for health services of all or the
overwhelming majority of the people of the United States.
" (B) In conducting such study with respect to each such legisla-
tive proposal, the Secretary shall evaluate and analyze such pro-
posal with a view to determining—
" (i) the costs of carrying out the proposal; and
"(ii) the adequacy of the proposal in terms of (I) the
portion of the population covered by the proposal, (II) the
type health care provided, paid for, or insured against under
the proposal, (III) whether, and if so, to what extent, the
proposal provides for the development of new and improved
methods for the delivery of health care and services.
"(C) Not later than March 31, 1971, the Secretary shall submit
to the Congress a report on each legislative proposal which he has
been directed to study under this paragraph, together with an
analysis and evaluation of such proposal."
(c) Subsection (d) of section 304 of such Act is hereby redesig-
nated as subsection (c) and is amended to read as follows:
"(c) (1) There are authorized to be appropriated for payment
of grants or under contracts under subsection (a), and for pur-
poses of carrying out the provisions of subsection (b), $71,000,000
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971 (of which not less than
$2,000,000 shall be available only for purposes of carrying out the
provisions of subsection (b)), $82,000,000 for the fiscal year end-
[p. 1302]
ing June 30, 1972, and $94,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June
30, 1973.
"(2) In addition to the funds authorized to be appropriated
under paragraph (1) to carry out the provisions of subsection (b)
there are hereby authorized to be appropriated to carry out such
provisions for each fiscal year such sums as may be necessary."
(d) The amendments made by subsection (c) of this section
shall be effective only with respect to fiscal years ending after
June 30, 1970.
SEC. 202. That provision of section 304 of the Public Health
Service Act redesignated by section 201 (a) of this Act as para-
graph (3) of subsection (a) is further amended—
(1) by inserting " (A)" immediately after " (3)"; and
(2) by adding after and below such provision the following
new subparagraph:
-------
1592 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
"(B) The amounts otherwise payable to any person under a
grant or contract made under this subsection shall be reduced
by-
"(i) amounts equal to the fair market value of any equip-
ment or supplies furnished to such person by the Secretary
for the purpose of carrying out the project with respect to
which such grant or contract is made, and
"(ii) amounts equal to the pay, allowances, traveling ex-
penses, and related personnel expenses attributable to the
performance of services by an officer or employee of the Gov-
ernment in connection with such project, if such officer or
employee was assigned or detailed by the Secretary to per-
form such services,
but only if such person requested the Secretary to furnish such
equipment or supplies, or such services, as the case may be."
SEC. 203. That provision of section 304 of the Public Health
Service Act redesignated by section 201 (a) of this Act as para-
graph (1) of subsection (a) is further amended by—
(1) striking out the period at the end thereof and inserting
in lieu thereof ", and "; and
(2) adding after and below the clause thereof redesignated
by such section 201 (a) as clause (iii) the following new
clauses:
"(iv) projects for research, experiments, and demonstra-
tions dealing with the effective combination or coordination
of public, private, or combined public-private methods or sys-
tems for the delivery of health services at regional, State, or
local levels, and
"(v) projects for research and demonstrations in the provi-
sion of home health services."
PART B—NATIONAL HEALTH SURVEYS AND STUDIES
SEC. 210. (a) (1) Clause (1) of subsection (a) of section 305
of the Public Health Service Act is amended by striking out "and"
before "(E)", and by inserting after the semicolon at the end of
such clause the following: "(F) health care resources; (G) envi-
ronmental and social health hazards; and (H) family formation,
growth, and dissolution;".
(2) Such subsection is further amended by adding at the end
thereof the following new sentence: "No information obtained in
accordance with this paragraph may be used for any purpose
other than the statistical purposes for which it was supplied ex-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1593
cept pursuant to regulations of the Secretary; nor may any such
information be published if the particular establishment or person
supplying it is identifiable except with the consent of such estab-
lishment or person,"
(b) Section 305 is further amended by redesignating subsec-
tions (b), (c), and (d) as subsections (c), (d), and (e), respec-
tively, and by adding after subsection (a) the following new
subsection:
[p. 1303]
"(b) The Secretary is authorized, directly or by contract, to
undertake research, development, demonstration, and evaluation,
relating to the design and implementation of a cooperative system
for producing comparable and uniform health information and
statistics at the Federal, State, and local levels."
(c) The subsection of such section 305 redesignated (by subsec-
tion (b) of this section) as subsection (d) is amended to read as
follows:
" (d) There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
section $15,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971,
$20,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972, and
$25,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973."
PART C—GRANTS To STATES FOR COMPREHENSIVE STATE HEALTH
PLANNING
SEC. 220. (a) (1) The first sentence of section 314 (a) (1) of the
Public Health Service Act is amended by striking out "June 30,
1970" and inserting in lieu thereof "June 30, 1973".
(2) The second sentence of such section 314(a) (1) is amended
by striking out "and $15,000,000 for the fiscal year end'ng June
30, 1970" and inserting in lieu thereof the following: "$15,000,000
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970, $15,000,000 for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1971, $17,000,000 for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1972, and $20,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1973".
(b) Section 314(a) (2) (B) of such Act is amended by striking
out "State and local agencies" and inserting in lieu thereof "Fed-
eral, State, and local agencies (including as an ex officio member,
if there is located in such State one or more hospitals or other
health care facilities of the Veterans' Administration, the individ-
ual whom the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs shall have desig-
nated to serve on such council as the representative of the hospi-
-------
1594 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
tals or other health care facilities of such Administration which
are located in such State)".
(c) Section 314 (a) (2) (B) of such Act (as amended by subsec-
tion (b) of this section) is further amended by inserting "(includ-
ing representation of the regional medical program or programs
included in whole or in part within the State)" immediately after
"concerned with health".
(d) Section 314 (a) (2) (C) of such Act is amended (1) by in-
serting "and including home health care" immediately after "pri-
vate", and (2) by inserting immediately before the semicolon at
the end thereof the following: "and including environmental con-
siderations as they relate to public health".
PART D—PROJECT GRANTS FOR AREA WIDE HEALTH PLANNING
SEC. 230. Section 314 (b) of the Public Health Service Act is
amended—
(1) by striking out, in the first sentence thereof, "June 30,
1970" and inserting in lieu thereof "June 30, 1973";
(2) by inserting after the word "services" the second place
it appears therein, the phrase "and including the provision of
such services through home health care";
(3) by striking out, in the second sentence thereof, "and
$15,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970" and
inserting in lieu thereof the following: "$15,000,000 for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1970, $20,000,000 for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1971, $30,000,000 for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1972, and $40,000,000 for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1973";
(4) by inserting "(1) (A)" immediately after "(b)"; and
[p. 1304]
(5) by adding after and below the existing language con-
tained therein the following:
"(B) Project grants may be made by the Secretary under sub-
paragraph (A) to the State agency administering or supervising
the administration of the State plan approved under subsection
(a) with respect to a particular region or area, but only if (i) no
application for such a grant with respect to such region or area
has been filed by any other agency or organization qualified to
receive such a grant, and (ii) such State agency certifies, and the
Secretary finds, that ample opportunity has been afforded to quali-
fied agencies and organizations to file application for such a grant
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1595
with respect to such region or area and that it is improbable that,
in the foreseeable future, any agency or organization which is
qualified for such a grant will file application therefor.
"(2) (A) In order to be approved under this subsection, an
application for a grant under this subsection must contain or be
supported by reasonable assurances that there has been or will be
established, in or for the area with respect to which such grant is
sought, an areawide health planning council. The membership of
such council shall include representatives of public, voluntary, and
nonprofit private agencies, institutions, and organizations con-
cerned with health (including representatives of the interests of
local government of the regional medical program for such area,
and of consumers of health services). A majority of the members
of such council shall consist of representatives of consumers of
health services.
"(B) In addition, an application for a grant under this subsec-
tion must contain or be supported by reasonable assurances that
the areawide health planning agency has made provision for as-
sisting health care facilities in its area to develop a program for
capital expenditures for replacement, modernization, and expan-
sion which is consistent with an overall State plan which will meet
the needs of the State and the area for health care facilities,
equipment, and services without duplication and otherwise in the
most efficient and economical manner."
PART E—PROJECT GRANTS FOR TRAINING, STUDIES AND DEMON-
STRATIONS
SEC. 240. Section 314 (c) of the Public Health Service Act is
amended—
(1) by striking out, in the first sentence thereof, "June 30,
1970" and inserting in lieu thereof "June 30, 1973"; and
(2) by striking out, in the second sentence thereof, "and
$7,500,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970" and in-
serting in lieu thereof the following: "$7,500,000 for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1970, $8,000,000 for the fiscal year end-
ing June 30, 1971, $10,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June
30, 1972, and $12,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1973".
PART F—GRANTS FOR COMPREHENSIVE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES
SEC. 250. (a) Section 314 (d) (1) of the Public Health Service
Act is amended by striking out "and $100,000,000 for the fiscal
-------
1596 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
year ending June 30, 1970" and inserting in lieu thereof
"$100,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970,
$130,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971, $145,000,000
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972, and $165,000,000 for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1973".
(b) Section 314(d)(2)(C) of such Act is amended (1) by
striking out "and (iii)" and inserting in lieu thereof "(iii)" and
(2) by inserting before the semicolon at the end thereof the fol-
lowing: "; and (iv) the plan is compatible with the total health
program of the State".
[p. 1305]
PART G—PROJECT GRANTS FOR HEALTH SERVICES DEVELOPMENT
SEC. 260. (a) Section 314 (e) of the Public Health Service Act is
amended by striking out "and" immediately after "June 30, 1969,"
and by inserting after "June 30, 1970," the following:
"$109,500,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971,
$135,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972, and
$157,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973,".
(b) The first sentence of 314 (e) is further amended by insert-
ing immediately after "cost" the following: "(including equity
requirements and amortization of loans on facilities acquired from
the Office of Economic Opportunity or construction in connection
with any program or project transferred from the Office of Eco-
nomic Opportunity)".
"(c) (1) The second sentence of such section is amended to read
as follows: "Any grant made under this subsection may be made
only if the application for such grant has been referred for review
and comment to the appropriate areawide health planning agency
or agencies (or, if there is no such agency in the area, then to such
other public or nonprofit private agency or organization (if any)
which performs similar functions) and only if the services as-
sisted under such grant will be provided in accordance with such
plans as have been developed pursuant to subsection (a)."
*******
PART H—ADMINISTRATION OF GRANTS IN CERTAIN MULTIGRANT
PROJECTS
SEC. 270. Part A of title III of the Public Health Service Act is
amended by adding at the end thereof the following new section:
"Administration of Grants in Certain Multigrant Projects
"SEC. 310A. For the purpose of facilitating the administration
of, and expediting the carrying out of the purposes of, the pro-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1597
grams established by title IX, and sections 304, 314(a), 314(b),
314 (c), 314 (d), and 314 (e) of this Act in situations in which
grants are sought or made under two or more of such programs
with respect to a single project, the Secretary is authorized to
promulgate regulations—
"(1) under which the administrative functions under such
programs with respect to such project will be performed by a
single administrative unit which is the administrative unit
charged with the administration of any of such programs or
is the administrative unit charged with the supervision of two
or more of such programs;
"(2) designed to reduce the number of applications, re-
ports, and other materials required under such programs to
be submitted with respect to such project, and otherwise to
simplify, consolidate, and make uniform (to the extent feasi-
ble), the data and information required to be contained in
such applications, reports, and other materials; and
"(3) under which inconsistent or duplicative requirements
imposed by such programs will be revised and made uniform
with respect to such project;
except that nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize
the Secretary to waive or suspend, with respect to any such proj-
ect, any requirement with respect to any of such programs if
such requirement is imposed by law or by any regulation required
by law."
[p. 1306]
PART I—ANNUAL REPORT, NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL, ETC.
SEC. 280. Part A of title III of the Public Health Service Act is
further amended by adding after section 310A thereof (as added
by section 270 of this Act) the following new section:
"Annual Eeport
"310B. On or before January 1 of each year, the Secretary shall
transmit to the Congress a report of the activities carried on
under the provisions of title IX of this Act and sections 304, 305,
314(a), 314(b), 314(c), 314(d), and 314(e) of this title together
with (1) an evaluation of the effectiveness of such activities in
improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the research, plan-
ning, and delivery of health services in carrying out the purposes
for which such provisions were enacted, (2) a statement of the
relationship between Federal financing and financing from other
-------
1598 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
sources of the activities undertaken pursuant to such provisions
(including the possibilities for more efficient support of such ac-
tivities through use of alternate sources of financing after an
initial period of support under such provisions), and (3) such
recommendations with respect to such provisions as he deems ap-
propriate."
[p. 1307]
PART K—EXTENSION OF RESEARCH CONTRACT AUTHORITY
SEC. 292. Paragraph (h) of section 301 of the Puhlic Health
Service Act is amended by striking out "five succeeding fiscal
years" and inserting in lieu thereof "eight succeeding fiscal
years".
[p. 1308]
SEC. 601 (b)
*******
(2) The second sentence of subsection (d) of section 306, the
second sentence of subsection (d) of section 307, the first sentence
of paragraph (2) of subsection (f) of section 358, subsection (d)
of section 373, subsection (e) of section 641, subsection (d) of
section 703, subsection (d) of section 725, subsection (d) of sec-
tion 774, subsection (c) of section 841, and subsection (c) of
section 905 of such Act are deleted.
*******
[p. 1311]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1599
1.12ad (1) HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND
FOREIGN COMMERCE
H.R. REP. No. 91-1297, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970)
HEART DISEASE, CANCER, STROKE, AND KIDNEY DIS-
EASE AMENDMENTS OF 1970
JULY 13, 1970.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State
of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. STAGGERS, from the Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce, submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 17570]
The Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, to whom
was referred the bill (H.R. 17570) to amend title IX of the Public
Health Service Act so as to extend and improve the existing pro-
gram relating to education, research, training, and demonstrations
in the fields of heart disease, cancer, stroke, and other major
diseases and conditions, and for other purposes, having considered
the same, report favorably thereon with amendments and recom-
mend that the bill as amended do pass.
[P.I]
-------
1600 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
1.12ad(2) SENATE COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND
PUBLIC WELFARE
S. REP. No. 91-1090, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970)
THE HEALTH SERVICES IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1970
AUGUST 11, 1970.—Ordered to be printed
MR. YARBOROUGH, from the Committee on Labor and Public Wel-
fare, submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany S. 3355]
The Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, to which was
referred the bills (S. 3355 and related bills) to amend titles III
and IX of the Public Health Service Act so as to revise, extend,
and improve the programs of research, investigation, education,
training and demonstrations authorized thereunder, and for other
purposes having considered the same, reports favorably thereon
with amendments and recommends that the bill as amended do
pass.
SUMMARY
S. 3355 would extend for five years (fiscal year 1971 through
fiscal year 1975) certain of the authorities under titles III and IX
of the Public Health Service Act.
The bill would:
1. extend and improve the Regional Medical Programs authority
(Title IX).
2. extend and improve the Comprehensive Health Planning and
Services authority (section 314 of title III).
3. extend and improve the authority for the National Center for
Health Services Research and Development (section 304 of title
III).
4. improve the authority for the National Center for Health
Statistics (section 305 of title III).
5. permit for the joint administration of projects involving
more than one of the above mentioned authorities with the excep-
tion of section 305 (section 310a of title III).
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1601
6. require that the Secretary of HEW submit an annual report
concerning the effectiveness of these programs (section 310b of
title III).
[P. i]
7. create a National Council on Health Policy in the Executive
Office of the President to conduct studies, research, and investiga-
tions to set goals for a national health policy for the United
States.
8. enable the Secretary of HEW to authorize carriers participat-
ing in Federal health benefit programs for Federal employees to
person, whether or not such persons are Federal employees.
In order to carry out the purposes described above the Commit-
tee has authorized appropriations in the following amounts.
TABLE I.—AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS—S. 3355
[Amounts in thousands]
Regional medical programs . .
Comprehensive planning and services:
1. State planning (314a)
2 Areawide planning (314b)
3. Training of health planners (314c)
4. Public health services (314d)
5. Comprehensive health services development
(314e).
Health services research and development
National health council.
1971
150.0
15.0
20.0
8.0
130.0
109.5
84.0
.3
1972
200.0
17.0
30.0
9.0
145.0
135.0
85.0
.7
1973
250.0
20.0
40.0
10.0
165.0
157.0
94.0
1.0
1974
250.0
30.0
50.0
11.0
180.0
186.0
110.0
1.0
1975
250.0
35,0
60.0
12.0
200.0
213.0
130.0
1.0
Total
1,100.0
117.0
200.0
50.0
820.0
800.5
503.0
4.0
Total 516.8 621.7 737.0 818.0 901.0 3,594.5
HEARINGS
Public hearings were held by the Health Subcommittee of the
Committee on Labor and Public Welfare on February 17 and 18,
1970. Testimony in support of the bill and its overall purposes was
received from a wide variety of eminent health and medical pro-
fessionals, professional health and medical associations, and inter-
ested individuals. Additionally, a substantial number of state-
ments were submitted and made a part of the hearing record.
BACKGROUND AND PROGRAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS
*******
[p. 2]
-------
1602 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
The National Center for Health Services Research and Develop-
ment, which administers section 304 of the Public Health Service
Act, was established on May 2, 1968, to serve as the focus of
Federal efforts to improve health services nationally through re-
search and development. At that time, virtually all existing pro-
grams within DHEW for the specific support of health services
research and development were transferred to and became the
initial base for the National Center.
Section 304 contains all the authority for research and demon-
stration with respect to hospitals and hospital operation which
was previously contained in Section 624 of the Public Health Act.
Section 304, in addition, included the language of Section
314(e) (3) of the original "Partnership for Health" legislation,
which authorized grants for projects to develop new methods or
improve existing methods of providing health services, and related
training.
BUDGET HISTORY—GRANTS
1968 1969 1970
Funds authorized (sec. 304) 20,000,000 40,000,000 60,000,000
Funds appropriated, 30,670,000 41,030,000 44,975,000
Funds obligated 30,670,000 40,725,741 42,592,000
The accomplishments of the National Center for Health Serv-
ices Research and Development can be divided into seven major
categories: (1) Improvement of Health Services to the Disadvan-
taged, (2) Cost Containment R&D, (3) Health Services to Chil-
dren, (4) Development of Auxiliary and Substitute Manpower,
(5) Health Services Research Centers, (6) Technological Im-
provement in Health Services, and (7) Health Services Research
Training.
[P. 6]
(7) HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH TRAINING
The Training Program in Medical Care Organization being sup-
ported at the University of Michigan is concerned with the study
of the organizational arrangements through which medical care
services are made available to the population. In the program of
study leading to the Ph. D. degree in medical care organization,
these arrangements are studied from three perspectives: as ad-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1603
ministrative systems, as economic systems and as sociological sys-
tems.
The study of the administrative aspects of medical care organi-
zation is concerned with the types of services provided under such
arrangements as private medical practice, hospitals, group medi-
cal practice, public health agencies, public welfare medical care,
voluntary health agencies; the distribution of health personnel;
the utilization of services by different categories of the popula-
tion ; and administrative solutions to problems in the rational co-
ordination of services to meet new or unfilled needs.
The economic aspects of medical care focus on pricing mecha-
nisms in medical care, on factors affecting the cost of care, the
determinants of supply and demand for services and the analysis
of various payment arrangements such as private payment, volun-
tary health insurance and tax-based arrangements.
The sociological aspects of health arrangements are studied by
analyzing the relationship between the cultural and social ele-
ments of health organizations and the behavior of both patients
and practitioners.
Each student in the Program is required to concentrate in one
of the theoretical fields relevant to the study of medical care orga-
nization and financing such as sociology, economics or public ad-
ministration.
COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH PLANNING AND SERVICES
With the passage of Social Security Act of 1935, the Federal
government undertook for the first time on a continuing basis a
share of responsibility with the States in public health. For the
next thirty years financial assistance was provided to the States
through a series of formula grants. One was for general health
support and eight others were so-called categorical grants relating
to particular diseases or to some other defined segment of public
health. The tendency during these years was to initiate a new
Federal grant program to stimulate or assist State and localities
in coping with health needs on a problem-by-problem basis.
With the enactment in 1966 of Public Law 89-749 and in 1967
of Public Law 90-174, the Partnership for Health legislation, the
concept of joint Federal-State responsibility for health, came of
age. By providing for the first time, comprehensive planning as-
sistance and by consolidating nine categorical programs into a
single bloc grant which State Public Health and Mental Health
[P. 10]
-------
1604 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
authorities could use in accordance with their individual priorities
for establishing and maintaining adequate public health and men-
tal health services, the Congress encouraged State to initiate and
follow through on efforts to peg health needs, set health goals, and
start realistic achievement activities.
The project grants for health services development, also origi-
nated in categorical grants. Section 314 (e) of Public Law 89-749
replaced a project grant authorization (in former section 318 of
the Public Health Service Act) for new or improved out-of-hospi-
tal community health services as well as subsuming authorizations
in annual appropriation acts for certain disease control and other
continuing health support activities such as cancer control, mental
retardation, neuroradiological health problems. The new 314(e)
permitted project grants for program support, development, and
demonstration purposes not only for the former categories but
also for other areas such as dental health, urban health, narcotics
and drug addiction, rural health services, family planning, and
alcoholism.
FUNDS AUTHORIZED, APPROPRIATED, AND OBLIGATED FOR SEC. 314 PURPOSES
[In thousands of dollars]
Authorized Appropriated Obligated
314(a)-
1967
1968
1969
1970
314(b):
1967
1968
1969
1970
314(c):
1967
1968
1969 . ..
1970
314(d)'
1967
1968 . _ . .
1969
1970
314(e)-
1967
1968
1969
1970
2,500
7,000
10,000
15,000
5,000
7,500
10,000
15,000
1,500
... 2,500
5,000
7,500
70,000
90,000
100,000
.. 90,000
95,000
80,000
2,500
5,000
'7,375
8,175
7,500
7,000
7,700
1,500
2,500
4,125
4,125
52,250
60,250
66,032
100,000
58,000
62,500
79,000
80,000
4,800
7,356
3 031
6 983
1,738
3,656
59,648
65,737
56,421
77,077
i Budget authority reduced by $250,000—transferred to 314(e) for rubella immunization supplemental.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1605
(1) COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH PLANNING (314 (a) AND (b) )
The first State Comprehensive Health Planning grant (to Illi-
nois) was approved July 1967 and by July 1968 all 56 eligible
jurisdictions had been approved for formula grant assistance al-
though one State (Nevada) has dropped out of the program tem-
porarily.
State CHP agencies are in varying states of development but in
general they have moved through the organizational stages into
substantive planning. CHP agencies are demonstrating their
effectiveness in attacking inadequate health care and eliminating
duplication of resources including facilities and manpower.
For example, some State planning agencies have been instru-
mental in improving licensing requirements. Another was instru-
[p. HI
mental in transforming categorical care programs for mentally ill,
mentally retarded, and mebriate patients into multi-purpose re-
gional centers. One recommended consolidation of State agency
functions relating to health facilities to eliminate overlap and
unnecessary duplication. Another recommended discontinuance of
special hospitals for tuberculosis patients, which may have an
impact on the utilization of outmoded tuberculosis hospitals or the
merging of some hospitals. Another prepared a universal health
insurance proposal for the Governor who, in turn, submitted it to
the State Legislature. Another assessed areas of need for ambu-
lance services. One conducted a background study leading to the
State's adoption of the medicaid program.
Others have helped improve professional training resources.
And still others have moved toward filling gaps in environmental
health protection. As a service to the official clearing house (of
which it is a part) one was designated the official reviewing
agency for all health aspects of construction and planning grants,
in accordance with BOB Circular A-95.
The first appropriation for areawide comprehensive health plan-
ning was made by the Congress in November, 1967. A total of 113
areawide comprehensive health planning agencies are now receiv-
ing Federal support. At the end of the third funding period, ap-
proximately April 1, 1970, there were 13 areas receiving grants to
conduct areawide comprehensive health planning; that is, they
had completed their organizational period. The population in these
areas is approximately 16 million, or 8 percent of the national
population. At the end of fiscal 1970, there will be 36 areas receiv-
-------
1606 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
ing such planning grants, with a total population slightly over 31
million, or about 15 percent of the national population. By the end
of fiscal 1971, there will be over 95 agencies conducting areawide
comprehensive health planning, covering areas with over half the
national population.
It should be noted that many areawide comprehensive health
planning agencies still supported by grants for organizational pur-
poses conduct some planning activities in response to community
demand or opportunity.
Although only a few areawide agencies are as yet conducting
full planning programs, many have influenced area actions. Some
of these influences are expressed through the areawide planning
agencies' developing health planning components of Model Cities
plans. Another is expressed by the agency's arranging language-
training for health professionals serving Spanish-speaking poor.
In some instances, areawide CHP agencies have recommended a
moratorium on hospital building or expansion until needs can be
clearly determined. There have even been instances in which area-
wide CHP agencies have brought about mergers of formerly sepa-
rate hospitals. In most States and communities there is an interest
in the program and growing belief in its potential to improve the
effectiveness and economy of the organization and delivery of
health services.
(2) PROJECT GRANTS FOR TRAINING, STUDIES, AND DEMONSTRA-
TIONS (314 (c))
The first appropriation for grants to public and non-profit orga-
nizations for training, studies, and demonstrations to improve
comprehensive health planning was not available until late in Fis-
cal Year 1967. Under this program a total of 39 grants to public
and non-profit organizations currently are providing long-term
[p. 12]
graduate training to over 200 students, continuing education for
over 500 professional persons, and consumer education reaching
over 700 persons. Two more graduate programs are in a develop-
ing stage.
The long-term academic programs are geared to equipping stu-
dents who are new to the field with the principles and concepts
used by State and areawide comprehensive health planning agen-
cies so they will be able to operate effectively in this field.
Continuing education programs are aimed at "retreading" indi-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1607
viduals already involved with health planning to increase their
knowledge and skills in the concepts and techniques of comprehen-
sive health planning.
Consumer training has been directed principally toward orient-
ing the nonprofessional person in order that he may participate
more effectively in the comprehensive health planning process.
Eight studies and demonstrations are also being supported to
develop new tools and techniques for use by State and areawide
comprehensive health planning agencies.
(3) FORMULA GRANTS FOR COMPREHENSIVE PUBLIC HEALTH SERV-
ICES (314(d))
For over thirty years the Federal government provided financial
assistance in health matters to the States through a series of
formula grants. One was a general health grant and eight others
were so-called categorical grants relating to a particular disease or
to some other rather limited segment of public health. With the
enactment, in 1966, of PL 89-749 the nine categorical formula
grants were consolidated into a single block formula grant in
order to permit the States greater flexibility in using the Federal
assistance to meet their own health needs, goals and priorities.
State and Federal funds, as reported in the State Plans, support
such programs and services as chronic disease control, communi-
cable disease control (includingtuberculosis and venereal disease),
dental health, environmental health (including food and drug pro-
tection, occupational or industrial health, radiological health, and
sanitary engineering), laboratories, licensure and improvement of
standards, heart disease, home health, and mental health (includ-
ing alcoholism and various community health services). Encourag-
ing changes in regard to the use of formula grants are being
noted. While many States are continuing to support categorical
grant programs at the same or increased levels, some States are
also becoming increasingly concerned with systems and health
service delivery methods. They are directing programs and serv-
ices toward such "high risk groups" as the poor instead of follow-
ing stereotyped disease category lines.
Other significant differences are emerging in 1970 plans. States
are addressing themselves to individual priorities. Vermont and
New York, for example, place major emphasis on the expansion of
home health services. West Virginia gives high priorities to sys-
tematic State-wide expansion of services related to family plan-
ning, environmental health, and dental health. New Mexico re-
-------
1608 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
fleets some redirection toward suicide prevention and drug abuse,
as well as a broad effort to develop, promote, and integrate mental
health services. Increasingly States are distributing more funds to
[p. 13]
local health jurisdictions. It is evident from FY 1970 State Plans
that almost all States have developed methods and techniques for
channeling funds to local communities. A good many States have
developed formula grant mechanisms to facilitate the distribution
of both Federal and State funds to these communities. In some
cases States distribute funds on a project by project basis. There
are a few instances in which both techniques are employed. States
are also becoming more involved in the provision of technical
assistance and consultation to the urban areas within their bound-
aries.
(4) PROJECT GRANTS FOR HEALTH SERVICES DEVELOPMENT
(314(e))
The Project Grants for Health Services development alsc
evolved from categorical grant origin. Section 314 (e) of Public
Law 89-749 replaced project grant authorizations of Section 318
of the PHS Act (for new or improved out-of-hospital community
health services) as well as authorizations in annual appropriation
acts for certain disease control and other continuing health sup-
port activities (e.g. cancer, mental retardation, neurological and
sensory diseases, venereal disease, tuberculosis, dental health,
urban health programs).
Many of the categorical 314 (e) project grants are continuing,
but the trend is toward bringing them into a larger framework of
the organizaton and delivery of health services.
Non-categorical projects support comprehensive health service
programs or components thereof. A variety of different models are
being encouraged with respect to orientation, operation, and fund-
ing of comprehensive health services programs. However, focus is
on programs which assure accessible ambulatory care, which in-
corporate sound preventive health measures, which are predicated
on total family care and which are designed to insure continuity of
care. It is under this authority that HEW is absorbing responsibil-
ity for the "mature" neighborhood health centers transferred
from the Office of Economic Opportunity.
As of May 31, 1970, 318 categorical service projects, 50 compre-
hensive programs including 24 comprehensive health centers (and
26 developmental and component projects) were being supported.
[p. 14]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1609
TITLE II
Title II of the bill would extend and improve the authority for
the National Center for Health Services Research and Develop-
ment, the National Center for Health Statistics, and the Compre-
hensive Health Planning and Services Program. Title II would
also permit, in appropriate and limited circumstances, the joint
administration of the programs authorized in S. 3355, as well as
require the Secretary of HEW to report annually to the Congress
on the effectiveness of those programs.
Specifically, it would:
1. Require the Secretary of HEW to design and analyze alterna-
tive universal health care plans for the United States.
The purpose of new subsection (b) of Section 304 of the Public
Health Service Act is to provide the Congress with information on
alternative means of improving health care in the United States.
At present, the country has a health care industry which costs the
economy more than $60 billion a year, but which yet is not capable
of delivering adequate health to every American. The Committee
expects the systems analysis authorized in this new subsection to
produce comprehensive national health care plans which could
serve as viable alternatives to the present inefficient and ineffec-
tive non-system of health care.
The Secretary, under the provisions of new subsection
(b) (1) (A) would be expected to develop criteria as to the level of
health services needed to provide adequate health care and then
develop alternative national health care plans to meet those cri-
teria.
Each alternative plan which the Secretary develops would be
keyed to a different financing mechanism for the payment of
health care services.
Financing mechanisms which could serve as the basis of alter-
native plans should include the following:
a payroll deduction and general revenue plan, such as out-
lined in Senator Javits' bill, S. 3711;
a tax credit plan, such as outlined in Senator Fannin's bill,
S. 2705;
a Federal payment of private health insurance premiums
plan such as suggested by the Aetna Insurance Company;
and a plan for a regional mix of financing proposals to
utilize a different financing approach in various regions of the
country.
-------
1610 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
Each plan should describe the changes in methods of health
delivery, in health administration, and increases in health man-
power and numbers of health facilities, which would be required if
a particular financing plan was to be implemented. Upon comple-
tion of the alternative national health care plans, the Secretary
would submit them to the Congress in the terms described in
subsection (b) (1) (B). The Committee expects the legislative and
administrative changes required by each plan to be prepared as if
each plan was to be implemented.
[p. 22]
The Secretary is authorized to utilize whatever personnel is
necessary to implement his system analysis. It is expected that the
Secretary would designate a study task force consisting of Federal
personnel from concerned agencies, outside medical personnel,
lawyers and economists.
The National Center for Health Services Research and Develop-
ment would be expected to serve as the lead agency for the task
force.
New subsection (b) (2) (A) requires the Secretary to report to
Congress as to cost and to the degree of health coverage which
would be afforded to the population if various national health
insurance proposals introduced in the 91st Congress were enacted.
It is expected that the Secretary's evaluation of these proposals
will be less comprehensive than the systems study authorized and
will be in the form of an Executive Branch report on legislative
proposals. The Committee believes that it is necessary to know the
Executive Branch's evaluation of existing universal health care
proposals at an earlier date that the date for the completion of the
systems study in order that the Congress will not be excessively
delayed in its deliberations on similar health measures in the com-
ing session.
2. Authorize funds necessary to carry out the purposes of sec-
tion 304: $84,000,000 for fiscal year 1971; $85,000,000 for fiscal
year 1972; $94,000,000 for fiscal year 1973; $110,000,000 for fiscal
year 1974; $130,000,000 for fiscal year 1975.
3. Authorize projects dealing with research, experiments, and
demonstrations into the combination on coordination of health
care delivery systems.
The Administration recommended that the Congress adopt a
proposal reenacting the programs extended in the committee bill
in a single title of the Public Health Service Act, putting them
under the jurisdiction of a single advisory council, and otherwise
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1611
creating at least an appearance that the separate programs were
to be considered legally merged or administratively combined. The
Committee rejects that notion. The Committee feels strongly that
each of these programs has a particular contribution to make and
that any combination of them which might result in the submerg-
ence of the particular advantages of one in favor of those of
another is unwise at a time when these relatively new enterprises
are just beginning to realize some of the expectations which led to
their original establishment as distinct entities.
Yet short of the subsuming of one program by another, the
committee is convinced of the wisdom of further studies and dem-
onstrations as to how these activities may be more effectively
brought together and coordinated, especially at the local levels
where health manpower and other specialized health resources are
scarce and the premium on their optimum utilization correspond-
ingly high. The Committee therefore has provided a specific au-
thorization under section 304 of the bill, as amended, for research,
experiments and demonstrations dealing with the combination or
coordination of public, private, or mixed health services delivery
methods or systems at various jurisdictional and governmental
levels.
The committee believes these and other types of projects can
serve not only to improve health services delivery at the non-Fed-
eral level, but also to give the Administration and the Congress a
better understanding of how these inherently related grant pro-
grams may be made more mutually productive.
[p. 23]
4. Broaden the authority under which health studies and sur-
veys are conducted under section 305 of the Public Health Service
Act.
The most immediate effect of the section of the legislation deal-
ing with the research and development leading toward a coopera-
tive federal-state-local health statistics system would be the con-
struction of a model for a nationwide system linking the efforts of
localities, states, and the federal government in providing compre-
hensive statistics on health, health services, health resources, and
other related health matters.
Legislation and supporting policies for regional medical pro-
grams, comprehensive health planning agencies, vocational reha-
bilitation efforts, and numerous other health programs make clear
that the plans for these activities shall be based upon an objective
assessment of health needs in the states and communities. At the
-------
1612 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
present time much of this statistical base is missing. Authorities
granted under the National Health Survey Act of 1956, and older
legislation calling for national vital statistics, have within recent
years led to the establishment of prototype models of systems for
producing health statistics of a number of useful types. However,
these data suffer from their lack of the fine-grained detail, partic-
ularly lack of geographic detail, that is needed for establishment
of priorities and allocation of resources. Not only are the data
insufficient for identifying the health program needs peculiar to a
state or local jurisdiction, but they do not permit the sort of
pinpointed evaluation which is required for comparing changes in
health status between areas in which health services programs
have been developed and those being watched as controls. For
effective evaluation one needs to be able to make such comparisons
in order to draw conclusions about the results that can be attrib-
uted to new program activities.
A fully-developed system which would provide states and locali-
ties with uniform statistics on health and health services would
not only permit these jurisdictions to analyze the results of their
programs in the necessary detail, but it would provide a source of
statistical information for the use of the federal government in
marking progress toward national goals. The committee intends to
bring that system into being under the proposed broadened au-
thority.
5. Extend and improve the five-part Comprehensive Health
Planning and Services Program under section 314 of the Public
Health Service Act.
State Health Planning—section 314(a).—The bill would au-
thorize $15,000,000 for fiscal year 1971, $17,000,000 for fiscal year
1972, $20,000,000 for fiscal year 1973, $30,000,000 for fiscal year
1974, and $35,000,000 for fiscal year 1975 to enable the States to
continue, expand, and improve their statewide health planning
programs.
The Committee intends that the term "health care facility"
under section 314 (a) would not include facilities such as those
provided by the Christian Science Church, relying solely on spirit-
ual means through prayer for healing.
Areawide Health Planning—section 314(b).—The bill would
authorize $20,000,000 for fiscal year 1971, $30,000,000 for fiscal
year 1972, $40,000,000 for fiscal year 1973, $50,000,000 for fiscal
year 1974, and $60,000,000 for fiscal year 1975 in order to enable
additional areawide health planning programs to begin planning.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1613
Because of extreme geographic distances and isolation, or be-
cause the population base is too small to justify support for area-
[p. 24]
wide planning grants, it is not feasible for some areas, particu-
larly rural areas, to be included at this time in existing areawide
comprehensive health planning. Such areas cannot support, at-
tract, nor use full-time trained health planning talent. An alterna-
tive, therefore, is provided in the Committee bill which authorizes
project grants to State Comprehensive Health Planning agencies
for the purpose of assisting such handicapped areas in their com-
prehensive health planning. Project grants to State Comprehen-
sive Health Planning agencies would provide such areas the oppor-
tunity to organize their own comprehensive health planning coun-
cils and to have the benefit of expertise from the State staff. The
intent of such grants would be to assist areas of the State not
having an opportunity to be served by areawide planning agencies
to do their own planning, rather than to have the State plan for
them.
Present law requires the establishment of health planning coun-
cils with certain types of representation as a condition for award-
ing State comprehensive health planning grants but does not stat-
utorily require the same of areawide comprehensive health plan-
ning grants, although the concept is essentially equally applicable.
This Bill would remedy this inadequacy in present law by requir-
ing the establishment of areawide health planning councils with
representation generally comparable to that required for State
health planning councils.
Training, Studies, and Demonstration—section 314(c).—The
Committee bill extends for five years and increases the authoriza-
tion levels for programs supporting training, studies or demon-
strations which will help to improve or make more effective com-
prehensive health planning throughout the Nation. The committee
understands that training funds may be made available under this
authorization to begin to develop the statistical manpower essen-
tial to the successful design and implementation of the cooperative
health information and statistics system for which initial author-
ity is granted under section 210 (b) of the bill.
The bill would authorize $8,000,000 for fiscal year 1971,
$9,000,000 for fiscal year 1972, $10,000,000 for fiscal year 1973,
$11,000,000 for fiscal year 1974, and $12,000,000 for fiscal year
1975.
-------
1614 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
Public Health Services—section 314(d).—The bill would au-
thorize $130,000,000 for fiscal year 1971, $145,000,000 for fiscal
year 1972, $165,000,000 for fiscal year 1973, $180,000,000 for fiscal
year 1974, and $200,000,000 for fiscal year 1975 so as to continue
supporting state departments of Health and Mental Health in the
provision of needed public health services.
Health Services Development—section 314(e).—The bill would
authorize $109,500,000 for fiscal year 1971, $135,000,000 for fiscal
year 1972, $157,000,000 for fiscal year 1973, $186,000,000 for fiscal
year 1974, and $213,000,000 for fiscal year 1975 to improve and
enhance the program of project grants for health services develop-
ment.
The Committee finds that the Department of Health, Education
and Welfare will assume support for selected, mature neighbor-
hood health service centers previously funded by the Office of
Economic Opportunity. The addition of these health center pro-
grams, created originally to serve poor populations, is consistent
with the Department's commitment and plan to develop systems of
primary health care for the poor and to work toward extending
that strategy to the health care needs of the total population.
[p. 25]
President Nixon transferred $30,000,000 in his budget this year
from the Office of Economic Opportunity to the Department of
Health, Education and Welfare for this purpose.
The Committee finds, however, that whereas the Office of Eco-
nomic Opportunity is authorized to pay, as part of the costs of
such projects, equity requirements and amortization of loans on
facilities, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare lacks
any clear such authorization under section 314. S. 3355 will rem-
edy this barrier to the transfer of appropriate projects by author-
izing the payment of equity requirements and amortization of
loans on facilities as part of the costs of project grants for com-
prehensive health services. Equity requirements includes the dif-
ference between the total estimated replacement cost of a facility,
including movable equipment, and the mortgage amount. Amorti-
zation of loans on facilities includes principle and interest costs,
mortgage insurance premiums, if any, real estate taxes, if any,
insurance premiums, special assessments and ground rents, if any.
The Committee believes that the present provision in the law
requiring Project Grants for Health Services Development to be in
accordance with such plans as have been developed pursuant to
State comprehensive health planning does not provide Area-wide
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1615
comprehensive health planning agencies an opportunity to review
and comment on applications for project grants for health services
development in their respective areas. The Committee's bill reme-
dies that situation by affording the areawide planning agency an
opportunity to review and comment on applications for grants for
health services development in their respective areas.
The Committee notes with concern the fact that a large propor-
tion of the programs funded under section 314 (e) continue to be
too narrowly focused rather than focused upon the broader area of
the organization and delivery of health services. In large part, of
course, this is attributable to the fact that the states have not been
as willing as the Congress had hoped, in funding these vitally
important though narrower projects with funds made available
under the bloc grant program, 314 (d). The Congress is in the
process of responding to this problem. The Senate has passed and
the House will soon take up the Communicable Disease Control
and Vaccination Assistance Amendments of 1969 which, if en-
acted, would authorize separate categorical project grant author-
ity for these programs. At that time the Committee intends that
HEW will, as rapidly as possible, insure that the projects funded
under section 314 (e) be primarily intended to grapple with the
organization and delivery of comprehensive health services.
6. Authorize in appropriate and limited circumstances the joint
administration of projects involving more than one of the pro-
grams included in S. 3355 as reported.
As attention is increasingly focused upon various critical areas
of need for health services, it can be anticipated that funds to deal
with these needs will be converging from several sources of sup-
port. In the committee bill, for example, matters such as medical
care delivery systems development and coordination, home health
services, and manpower training and utilization are emphasized
under more than one program.
[p. 26]
In order to facilitate and expedite joint administration of proj-
ects in which there are costs eligible for assistance from more
than one program for which funds are authorized by the bill, a
provision has been added authorizing the Secretary to promulgate
regulations pursuant to which a single administrative unit may
perform the necessary administrative functions for all the pro-
grams, reducing and simplifying the numbers and types of sepa-
rate forms, reports and data requests which have to be submitted,
and revising and making uniform any inconsistent or duplicative
-------
1616 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
program requirements. The Secretary would not be authorized^
however, to waive or suspend any requirement imposed by law or
by any regulation required by law. Additionally, the bill limits the
single administrative unit to either the unit which administers one
of the programs covered by S. 3355 or the administrative unit
charged with the supervision of two or more of such programs.
Under current HEW organization that would have the effect of
limiting the designation of such a unit to the Regional Medical
Program Service, the Community Health Service, the National
Center for Health Services Research and Development, or the
Health Services and Mental Health Administration.
7. Require the Secretary of HEW to annually transmit to the
Congress a report concerning the effectiveness of the programs
contained in S. 3355 as well as a statement of the relationship
between them and the financing of health services.
[P. 27]
COMMENTS APPLICABLE TO BOTH TITLES I AND II OF S. 3355
1. Home Health Care
Experience and recent research have shown that home health
care programs can accelerate the rate of recovery from illness, can
prevent or postpone disability, can reduce the time of hospitaliza-
tion, and can achieve these results at lower costs than the same
services provided in an institutional setting. Benefits to the patient
are considerable: economically in terms of reduced cost of care
and psychologically in terms of a comfortable recovery in a nonin-
stitutional, familiar, home environment. Greater utilization of
home care programs can also relieve overcrowding in hospitals,
and can release sorely needed hospital beds for the patient await-
ing elective surgery, as well as for the critically ill emergency
case.
The Committee believes home health care has a great potential
in alleviating some of the problems besetting the nation's health
system. S. 3355 has provided for the inclusion of home health care
programs in the development of Regional Medical Programs, State
and areawide health planning and research in the area of health
services delivery. Amendments to Title IX emphasize that home
health care is an important method of care in the critical diseases
which are the major concern of Regional Medical Programs.
Amendments to Sections 314 (a) and (b) identify home health
care as a service that should be included in planning for health
services at both the state and area level. Inclusion of home health
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1617
care as a specific research area for research and development
grants in health services under section 304, the Committee feels,
will place home health care in its proper perspective as a full
member of a comprehensive health care delivery system.
Treatment programs carried out through home health care serv-
ices must be interrelated with other medical services of the com-
munity to be fully effective in improving health delivery systems.
The Committee fully endorses the principle that any home health
care treatent program must be initially prescribed by a physi-
cian and must be monitored on a continuous basis by a physician
through direct personal contact with the patient.
[p. 31]
PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT, AS AMENDED
TITLE III—GENERAL POWERS AND DUTIES OF PUBLIC
HEALTH SERVICE
*******
RESEARCH AND DEMONSTRATIONS RELATING TO HEALTH FACILITIES
AND SERVICES
SEC. 304. (a) (1) The Secretary is authorized—
[(!)] (A) to make grants to States, political subdivi-
sions, universities, hospitals, and other public or nonprofit
private agencies, institutions, or organizations for projects
for the conduct of research, experiments, or demonstrations
(and related training), and
[ (2) ] (B) to make contracts with public or private
agencies, institutions, or organizations for the conduct of re-
search, experiments, or demonstrations (and related train-
ing),
relating to the development, utilization, quality, organization and
financing of services, facilities, and resources of hospitals, facili-
ties for long-term care, or other medical facilities (including, for
purposes of this section, facilities for the mentally retarded, as
defined in the Mental Retardation Facilities and Community Men-
tal Health Centers Construction Act of 1963), agencies, institu-
tions, or organizations or to development of new methods or im-
provement of existing methods of organizations, delivery, or
financing of health services, including, among others—
-------
1618 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
[ (A) ] (z) projects for the construction of units of hospi-
tals, facilities for long-term care, or other medical facilities
which involve experimental architectural designs or func-
tional layout or use of new materials or new methods of
construction, the efficiency of which can be tested and evalu-
ated, or which involve the demonstration or such efficiency,
particularly projects which also involve research, experi-
ments, or demonstrations relating to delivery of health serv-
ices, and
[ (B) ] (ii) projects for development and testing of new
equipment and systems, including automated equipment, and
other new technology systems or concepts for the delivery of
health services, and
[(C)] (Hi) projects for research and demonstration in
new careers in health manpower and new ways of educating
and utilizing health manpower [.], and
(iv) projects for research, experiments, and demonstra-
tions dealing with the effective combination or coordination
of public, private, or combined public-private methods or sys-
tems for the delivery of health services at regional, State, or
local levels, and
(v) projects for research and demonstrations in the provi-
sion of home health services.
[ (b) ] (2) Except where the Secretary determines that unu-
sual circumstances make a larger percentage necessary in order to
effectuate the purposes of [this section] this subsection, a grant
or contract under [this section] this subsection with respect to
[p- 33]
any project for construction of a facility or for acquisition of
equipment may not provide for payment of more than 50 per
centum of so much of the cost of the facility or equipment as the
Secretary determines is reasonably attributable to research, exper-
imental, or demonstration purposes. The provisions of clause (5)
of the third sentence of section 605 (a) and such other conditions
as the Secretary may determine shall apply with respect to grants
or contracts under [this section] this subsection for projects for
construction of a facility or for acquisition of equipment.
[(c)] (3) (A) Payments of any grants or under any con-
tracts under [this section] this subsection may be made in ad-
vance or by way of reimbursement, and in such installments and
on such conditions as the Secretary deems necessary to carry out
the purposes of [this section] this subsection.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1619
(B) The amounts otherwise payable to any person under a
grant or contract made under this subsection shall be reduced
by—
(i) amounts equal to the fair market value of any
equipment or supplies furnished to such person by the
Secretary for the purpose of carrying out the project
with respect to which such grant or contract is made,
and
(ii) amounts equal to the pay, allowances, traveling
expenses, and related personnel expenses attributable to
the performance of services by an officer or employee of
the Government in connection with such project, if such
officer or employee was assigned or detailed by the Secre-
tary to perform such services,
but only if such person requested the Secretary to furnish
such equipment or supplies, or such services, as the case may
be.
Systems Analysis of Alternative National Health Care Plans
(b) (1) (A) The Secretary shall develop, through utilization of
the systems analysis method, alternative plans for health care
systems designed adequately to meet the health needs of the Amer-
ican people. For purposes of the preceding sentence, the systems
analysis method means the analytical method by which alternative
means of obtaining a desired result or goal is associated with the
costs and benefits involved
(B) The Secretary shall complete the development of the alter-
native plans referred to in subparagraph (A), within such period
as may be necessary to enable him to submit to the Congress not
later than June 30, 1971, a report thereon which shall describe
each plan so developed in terms of—
(i) the number of people who would be covered under the
plan;
(ii) the kind and type of health care which would be cov-
ered under the plan;
(Hi) the cost involved in carrying out the plan and how
such costs would be financed;
(iv) the number of additional physicians and other health
care personnel and the number and type of health care facili-
ties needed to enable the plan to become fully effective;
(v) the new and improved methods, if any, of delivery of
health care services which would be developed in order to
effectuate the plan;
-------
1620 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
(vi) the accessibility of the benefits of such plan to various
socio-economic classes of persons;
(vii) the relative effectiveness and efficiency of such plan
as compared to existing means of financing and delivering
health care; and
[p. 34]
(viii) the legislative, administrative, and other actions
which would be necessary to implement the plan.
(C) In order to assure that the advice and services of experts in
the various fields concerned will be obtained in the alternative
plans authorized by this paragraph and that the purposes of this
paragraph will fully be carried out—
(i) the Secretary shall utilize, whenever appropriate, per-
sonnel from the various agencies, bureaus, and other depart-
mental subdivisions of the Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare;
(ii) the Secretary is authorized, with the consent of the
head of the department or agency involved, to utilize (on a
reimbursable basis) the personnel and other resources of
other departments and agencies of the Federal Government;
and
(Hi) the Secretary is authorized to consult with appropri-
ate State or local public agencies, private organizations, and
individuals.
Cost and Coverage Report on Existing Legislative Proposal
(2) (A) The Secretary shall, in accordance with this paragraph,
conduct a study of each legislative proposal which is introduced in
the Senate or the House of Representatives during the Ninety-first
Congress, and which undertakes to establish a national health
insurance plan or similar plan designed to meet the needs of
health insurance or for health services of all or the overwhelming
majority of the people of the United States.
(B) In conducting such study with respect to each such legisla-
tive proposal, the Secretary shall evaluate and analyze such pro-
posal with a view to determining—
(i) the costs of carrying out the proposal; and
(ii) the adequacy of the proposal in terms of (I) the por-
tion of the population covered by the proposal, (II) the type
health care provided, paid for, or insured against under the
proposal, (HI) whether, and if so, to what extent, the pro-
posal provides for the development of new and improved
methods for the delivery of health care and services.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1621
(C) Not later than December 31, 1970, the Secretary shall sub-
mit to the Congress a report on each legislative proposal which he
has been directed to study under this paragraph, together with an
analysis and evaluation of such proposal.
(c) (1) There are authorized to be appropriated for payment of
grants or under contracts under subsection (a), and for purposes
of carrying out the provisions of subsection (b), $84,000,000 for
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971 (of which not less than
$4,000,000 shall be available only for purposes of carrying out the
provisions of subsection (b)), $85,000,000 for the fiscal year end-
ing June 30, 1972, $94,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1973, $110,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1974, and
$130,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1975.
(2) In addition to the funds authorized to be appropriated
under paragraph (1) to carry out the provisions of subsection (b)
there are hereby authorized to be appropriated to carry out such
provisions for each fiscal year such sums as may be necessary.
THE NATIONAL HEALTH SURVEYS AND STUDIES
SEC. 305. (a) The Surgeon General is authorized (1) to make,
by sampling or other appropriate means, surveys and special stud-
[P. 35]
ies of the population of the United States to determine the extent
of illness and disability and related information such as: (A) the
number, age, sex, ability to work or engage in other activities, and
occupation or activities of persons afflicted with chronic or other
disease or injury or handicapping condition; (B) the type of dis-
ease or injury or handicapping condition of each person so af-
flicted; (C) the length of time that each such person has been
prevented from carrying on his occupation or activities; (D) the
amounts and types of services received for or because of such
conditions; [and] (E) the economic and other impacts of such
conditions; (F) health care resources; (G) environmental and
social health hazards; and (H) family formation growth and dis-
solution; and (2) in connection therewith, to develop and test new
or improved methods for obtaining current data on illness and
disability and related information. Except to the extent otherwise
provided by regulations of the Secretary, no information obtained
as a result of surveys and studies conducted pursuant to this
subsection shall be disclosed or used for any purpose other than
the statistical purposes for which it was supplied; and no such
-------
1622 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
information relating to any particular establishment or person
shall be published in a form which identifies such establishment or
person unless such establishment or person consents to the publi-
cation of such information in such form.
(b) The Secretary is authorized directly, or by contract to con-
duct research and demonstrations, and to make evaluations, relat-
ing to the design and implementation of a cooperative system for
producing comparable and uniform health information and statis-
tics at the Federal, State, and local levels.
[ (b) ] (c) The Surgeon General is authorized, at appropriate
intervals, to make available, through publications and otherwise,
to any interested governmental or other public or private agencies,
organizations, or groups, or to the public, the results of surveys or
studies made pursuant to subsection (a).
[ (c) ] (d) For each fiscal year beginning after June 30, 1956,
there are authorized to be appropriated such sums as the Congress
may determine for carrying out the provisions of this section.
[(d)] (e) To assist in carrying out the provisions of this
section the Surgeon General is authorized and directed to cooper-
ate and consult with the Departments of Commerce and Labor and
any other interested Federal Departments or agencies and with
State health departments. For such purpose he shall utilize insofar
as possible the services or facilities of any agency of the Federal
Government and, without regard to section 3709 of the Revised
Statutes, as amended, of any appropriate State or other public
agency, and may, without regard to section 3709 of the Revised
Statutes, as amended, utilize the services or facilities of any pri-
vate agency, organization, group, or individual, in accordance with
written agreements between the head of such agency, organiza-
tion, or group, or such individual and the Secretary of Health,
Education, and Welfare. Payment, if any, for such services or
facilities shall be made in such amounts as may be provided in
such agreement.
[P- 36]
GRANTS TO STATES FOR COMPREHENSIVE STATE HEALTH PLANNING
SEC. 314. (a) (1) AUTHORIZATION.—In order to assist the States
in comprehensive and continuing planning for their current and
future health needs, the Surgeon General is authorized during the
period beginning July 1, 1966, and ending [June 30, 1970], June
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1623
30, 1975 to make grants to States which have submitted, and had
approved by the Surgeon General, State plans for comprehensive
[P. 38]
State health planning. For the purposes of carrying out this sub-
section, there are hereby authorized to be appropriated $2,500,000
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1967, $7,000,000 for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1968, $10,000,000 for the fiscal year ending
June 30,1969, [and $15,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1970] $15,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970, $15,-
000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971, $17,000,000 for
the fiscal year ending June 30,1972, $20,000,000 for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1973, $30,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June
30,1974, and $35,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1975.
(2) STATE PLANS FOR COMPREHENSIVE STATE HEALTH PLAN-
NING.—In order to be approved for purposes of this subsection, a
State plan for comprehensive State health planning must—
(A) designate, or provide for the establishment of, a single
State agency, which may be an interdepartmental agency, as
the sole agency for administering or supervising the adminis-
tration of the State's health planning functions under the
plan;
(B) provide for the establishment of a State health plan-
ning council, which shall include representatives of [State
and local agencies] Federal, State, and local agencies (in-
cluding as an ex offlcio member, if there is located in such
State one or more hospitals or other health care facilities of
the Veterans' Administration, the individual whom the Ad-
ministrator of Veterans' Affairs shall have designated to
serve on such council as the representative of the hospitals or
other health care facilities of such Ad-ministration which are
located in such State) and nongovernmental organizations
and groups concerned with health (including representation
of the regional medical program or programs within the
State) and of consumers of health services, to advise such
State agency in carrying out its functions under the plan, and
a majority of the membership of such council shall consist of
representatives of consumers of health services;
(C) set forth policies and procedures for the expenditure
of funds under the plan, which, in the judgment of the Sur-
geon General, are designed to provide for comprehensive
State planning for health services (both public and private
-------
1624 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
and including home health care), including the facilities and
persons required for the provision of such services, to meet
the health needs of the people of the State;
(D) provide for encouraging cooperative efforts among
governmental or nongovernmental agercies, organizations
and groups concerned with health services, facilities, or man-
power, and for cooperative efforts between such agencies, or-
ganizations, and groups and similar agencies, organizations,
and groups in the fields of education, welfare, and rehabilita-
tion;
(E) contain or be supported by assurances satisfactory to
the Surgeon General that the funds paid under this subsection
will be used to supplement and, to the extent practicable, to
increase the level of funds that would otherwise be made
available by the State for the purpose of comprehensive
health planning and not to supplant such non-Federal funds;
(F) provide such methods of administration (including
methods relating to the establishment and maintenance of
[P. 39]
personnel standards on a merit basis, except that the Surgeon
General shall exercise no authority with respect to the selec-
tion, tenure of office, and compensation of any individual em-
ployed in accordance with such methods) as are found by the
Surgeon General to be necessary for the proper and efficient
operation of the plan;
(G) provide that the State agency will make such reports,
in such form and containing such information, as the Surgeon
General may from time to time reasonably require, and will
keep such records and afford such access thereto as the Sur-
geon General finds necessary to assure the correctness and
verification of such reports;
(H) provide that the State agency will from time to time,
but not less often than annually, review its State plan ap-
proved under this subsection and submit to the Surgeon Gen-
eral appropriate modifications thereof;
(I) effective July 1, 1968, (i) provide for assisting each
health care facility in the State to develop a program for
capital expenditures for replacement, modernization, and ex-
pansion which is consistent with an overall State plan devel-
oped in accordance with criteria established by the Secretary
after consultation with the State which will meet the needs of
the State for health care facilities, equipment, and services
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1625
without duplication and otherwise in the most efficient and
economical manner, and (ii) provide that the State agency
furnishing such assistance will periodically review the pro-
gram (developed pursuant to clause (i)) of each health care
facility in the State and recommended appropriate modifica-
tion thereof;
(J) provide for such fiscal control and fund accounting
procedures as may be necessary to assure proper disburse-
ment of and accounting for funds paid to the State under this
subsection; and
(K) contain such additional information and assurances as
the Surgeon General may find necessary to carry out the
purposes of this subsection.
(3) (A) STATE ALLOTMENTS.—From the sums appropriated for
such purposes for each fiscal year, the several States shall be
entitled to allotments determined, in accordance with regulations,
on the basis of the population and the per capita income of the
respective States; except that no such allotment to any State for
any fiscal year shall be less than 1 per centum of the sum appro-
priated for such fiscal year pursuant to paragraph (1). Any such
allotment to a State for a fiscal year shall remain available for
obligation by the State, in accordance with the provisions of this
subsection and the State's plan approved thereunder, until the
close of the succeeding fiscal year.
(B) The amount of any allotment to a State under subpara-
graph (A) for any fiscal year which the Surgeon General deter-
mines will not be required by the State, during the period for
which it is available, for the purposes for which allotted shall be
available for reallotment by the Surgeon General from time to
time, on such date or dates as he may fix, to other States with
respect to which such a determination has not been made, in
proportion to the original allotments to such States under subpar-
agraph (A) for such fiscal year, but with such proportionate
amount for any of such other States being reduced to the extent it
exceeds the sum the Surgeon General estimates such State needs
and will be able to use during such period; and the total of such
reductions shall be similarly realloted among the States whose
[p. 40]
proportionate amounts were not so reduced. Any amount so real-
lotted to a State from funds appropriated pursuant to this subsec-
tion for a fiscal year shall be deemed part of its allotment under
subparagraph (A) for such fiscal year.
-------
1626 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
(4) PAYMENTS TO STATES.—From each State's allotment for a
fiscal year under this subsection, the State shall from time to time
be paid the Federal share of the expenditures incurred during that
year or the succeeding year pursuant to its State plan approved
under this subsection. Such payments shall be made on the basis of
estimates by the Surgeon General of the sums the State will need
in order to perform the planning under its approved State plan
under this subsection, but with such adjustments as may be neces-
sary to take account of previously made underpayments or over-
payments. The "Federal share" for any State for purposes of this
subsection shall be all, or such part as the Surgeon General may
determine, of the cost of such planning, except that in the case of
the allotments for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970, it shall not
exceed 75 per centum, of such cost.
PROJECT GRANTS FOR AREA WIDE HEALTH PLANNING
(b)(l)(A) The Surgeon General is authorized, during the pe-
riod beginning July 1, 1966, and ending [June 30, 1970] June 30,
1975, to make, with the approval of the State agency administering
or supervising the administration of the State plan approved
under subsection (a), project grants to any other public or non-
profit private agency or organization (but with appropriate repre-
sentation of the interests of local government where the recipient
of the grant is not a local government or combination thereof or
an agency of such government or combination) to cover not to
exceed 75 per centum of the costs of projects for developing (and
from time to time revising comprehensive regional, metropolitan
area, or other local area plans for coordination of existing and
planned health services, including the facilities and persons re-
quired for provision of such services and including the provision
of such services through home health care; except that in the case
of project grants made in any State prior to July 1, 1968, approval
of such State agency shall be required only if such State has such
a State plan in effect at the time of such grants. For the purposes
of carrying out this subsection, there are hereby authorized to be
appropriated $5,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1967,
$7,500,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968, $10,000,000
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1969, [and $15,000,000 for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1970] $15,000,000 for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1970, $20,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June
30, 1971, $30,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972,
$40,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973, $50,000,000
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1627
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1974, and $60,000,000 for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1975.
(B) Project grants may be made by the Secretary under sub-
paragraph (A) to the State agency administering or supervising
the administration of the State plan approved under subsection
(a) with respect to a particular region or area, but only if (i) no
application for such a grant with respect to such region or area
has been filed by any other agency or organization qualified to
[p. 41]
receive such a grant, and (ii) such State agency certifies, and the
Secretary finds, that ample opportunity has been afforded to quali-
fied agencies and organizations to file application for such a grant
with respect to such region or area and that it is improbable that,
in the foreseeable future, any agency or organization which is
qualified for such a grant will file application therefor.
(2) In order to be approved under this subsection, an applica-
tion for a grant under this subsection must contain or be sup-
ported by reasonable assurances that there has been or will be
established, in or for the area with respect to which such grant is
sought, an areawide health planning council. The membership of
such council shall include represenatatives of public, voluntary,
and nonprofit private agencies, institutions, and organizations con-
cerned with health (including representatives of the interests of
local government, of the regional medical program for such area,
and of consumers of health services). A majority of the members
of such council shall consist of representatives of consumers of
health services.
PROJECT GRANTS FOR TRAINING, STUDIES, AND DEMONSTRATIONS
(c) The Surgeon General is also authorized, during the period
beginning July 1, 1966, and ending [June 30, 1970] June 30, 1975,
to make grants to any public or nonprofit private agency, institu-
tion, or other organization to cover all or any part of the cost of
projects for training, studies, or demonstrations looking toward
the development of improved or more effective comprehensive
health planning throughout the Nation. For the purposes of
carrying out this subsection, there are hereby authorized to be
appropriated $1,500,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1967,
$2,500,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968, $5,000,000 for
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1969, [and $7,500,000 for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1970] $7,500,000 for the fiscal year ending
June 30,1970, $8,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30,1971,
-------
1628 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
$9,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30,1972, $10,000,000 for
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973, $11,000,000 for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1974, and $12,000,000 for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1975.
[P. 42]
GRANTS FOR COMPREHENSIVE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES
(d) (1) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are author-
ized to be appropriated $70,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June
30,1968, $90,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1969, [and
$100,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970], $100,-
000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970, $130,000,000 for
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971, $145,000,000 for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1972, $165,000,000 for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1973, $180,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1974, and $20,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1975 to
enable the Surgeon General to make grants to State health or
mental health authorities to assist the States in establishing and
maintaining adequate public health services, including the training
of personnel for State and local health work. The sums so appro-
priated shall be used for making payments to States which have
submitted, and had approved by the Surgeon General, State plans
for provision of public health services, except that, for any fiscal
year ending after June 30, 1968, such portion of such sums as the
Secretary may determine, but not exceeding 1 per centum thereof,
shall be available to the' Secretary for evaluation (directly or by
grants or contracts) of the program authorized by this subsection
and the amount available for allotments hereunder shall be reduced
accordingly.
(2) STATE PLANS FOR PROVISION OF PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES.—
In order to be approved under this subsection, a State plan for
provision of public health services must—
(A) provide for administration or supervision of adminis-
tration by the State health authority or, with respect to men-
tal health services, the State mental health authority;
(B) set forth the policies and procedures to be followed in
the expenditure of the funds paid under this subsection;
(C) contain or be supported by assurances satisfactory to
the Surgeon General that (i) the funds paid to the State
under this subsection will be used to make a significant con-
tribution toward providing and strengthening public health
services in the various political subdivisions in order to im-
prove the health of the people; (ii) such funds will be made
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1629
available to other public or nonprofit private agencies, institu-
tions, and organizations, in accordance with criteria which
the Surgeon General determines are designed to secure maxi-
mum participation of local, regional, or metropolitan agencies
and groups in the provision of such services; and (iii) such
funds will be used to supplement and, to the extent practical,
to increase the level of funds that would otherwise be made
available for the purposes for which the Federal funds are
provided and not to supplant such non-Federal funds;
(D) provide for the furnishing of public health services
under the State plan in accordance with such plans as have
been developed pursuant to subsection (a);
(E) provide that public health services furnished under the
plan will be in accordance with standards prescribed by regu-
lations, including standards as to the scope and quality of
such services;
(F) provide such methods of administration (including
methods relating to the establishment and maintenance of
personnel standards on a merit basis, except that the Surgeon
General shall exercise no authority with respect to the selec-
tion, tenure of office, and compensation of any individual em-
ployed in accordance with such methods) as are found by the
Surgeon General to be necessary for the proper and efficient
operation of the plan;
(G) provide that the State health authority or, with re-
spect to mental health services, the State mental health au-
thority, will from time to time, but not less often than an-
nually, review and evaluate its State plan approved under this
subsection and submit to the Surgeon General appropriate
modifications thereof;
(H) provide that the State health authority or, with re-
spect to mental health services, the State mental health au-
thority, will make such reports, in such form and containing
such information, as the Surgeon General may from time to
time reasonably require, and will keep such records and af-
ford such access thereto as the Surgeon General finds neces-
sary to assure the correctness and verification of such re-
ports ;
(I) provide for such fiscal control and fund accounting
procedures as may be necessary to assure the proper disburse-
ment of and accounting for funds paid to the State under this
subsection; and
[P. 43]
-------
1630 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
(J) contain such additional information and assurances as
the Surgeon General may find necessary to carry out the
purposes of this subsection.
(3) STATE ALLOTMENTS.—From the sums appropriated to carry
out the provisions of this subsection the several States shall be
entitled for each fiscal year to allotments determined, in accord-
ance with regulations, on the basis of the population and financial
need of the respective States, except that no State's allotment shall
be less for any year than the total amounts allotted to such State
under formal grants for cancer control, plus other allotments
under this section, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1967.
(4) (A) PAYMENTS TO STATES.—From each State's allotment
under this subsection for a fiscal year, the State shall be paid the
Federal share of the expenditures incurred during such year
under its State plan approved under this subsection. Such pay-
ments shall be made from time to time in advance on the basis of
estimates by the Surgeon General of the sums the State will ex-
pend under the State plan, except that such adjustments as may be
necessary shall be made on account of previously made underpay-
ments or overpayments under this subsection.
(B) For the purpose of determining the Federal share for any
State, expenditures by nonprofit private agencies, organizations,
and groups shall, subject to such limitations and conditions as may
be prescribed by regulations, be regarded as expenditures by such
State or a political subdivision thereof.
(5) FEDERAL SHARE.—The "Federal share" for any State for
purposes of this subsection shall be 100 per centum less that
percentage which bears the same ratio to 50 per centum as the per
capita income of such State bears to the per capita income of the
United States; except that in no case shall such percentage be less
than 33Va per centum or more than 66% per centum, and except
that the Federal share for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,
Guam, American Samoa, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Is-
lands, and the Virgin Islands shall be 66% per centum.
(6) DETERMINATION OF FEDERAL SHARES.—The Federal shares
shall be determined by the Surgeon General between July 1 and
September 1 of each year, on the basis of the average per capita
incomes of each of the States and of the United States for the
most recent year for which satisfactory data are available from
the Department of Commerce, and such determination shall be
conclusive for the fiscal year beginning on the next July 1. The
populations of the several States shall be determined on the basis
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1631
of the latest figures for the population of the several States availa-
ble from the Department of Commerce.
(7) ALLOCATION OF FUNDS WITHIN THE STATES.—At least 15
per centum of a State's allotment under this subsection shall be
available only to the State mental health authority for the provi-
sion under the State plan of mental health services. Effective with
respect to allotments under this subsection for fiscal years ending
after June 30, 1968, at least 70 per centum of such amount re-
served for mental health services and at least 70 per centum of the
remainder of a State's allotment under this subsection shall be
available only for the provision under the State plan of services in
communities of the State.
[p- 44]
PROJECT GRANTS FOR HEALTH SERVICES DEVELOPMENT
(e) There are authorized to be appropriated $90,000,000 for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1968, $95,000,000 for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1969, [and $80,000,000 for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1970], $80,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1970, $109,500,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971, $135,-
000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972, $157,000,000 for
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973, $186,000,000 for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1974, and $213,000,000 for the fiscal year
ending June 30,1975 for grants to any public or nonprofit private
agency, institution, or organization to cover part of the cost (in-
cluding equity requirements of and amortization of loans for
facilities) of (1) providing services (including related training)
to meet health needs of limited geographic scope or of specialized
regional or national significance, or (2) developing and supporting
for an initial period new programs of health services (including
related training). Such grants may be made pursuant to clause
(1) or (2) of the preceding sentence with respect to projects
involving the furnishing of public health services only if such
services are provided in accordance with such plans as have been
developed pursuant to subsection (a). [For any fiscal year ending
after June 30, 1968, such portion of the appropriations for grants
under this subsection as the Secretary may determine, but not
exceeding 1 per centum thereof, shall be available to the Secretary
for evaluation (directly or by grants or contracts) of the program
authorized by this subsection.] Grants under this subsection shall
be made only upon applications therefor which are approved by the
Secretary, and the Secretary may not approve any application for
any grant under this subsection with respect to any area, unless he
-------
1632 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
is satisfied (on the basis of evidence contained in or submitted in
connection with such application) that reasonable opportunity for
review of and comment on such application has been provided (i)
to the agency or organization referred to in subsection (b) which
is responsible for the development, for such area, of a compre-
hensive regional, metropolitan, or other area plans for coordina-
tion of existing and planned health services, or (ii) if there is
no such agency or organization, to such other public or nonprofit
private agency (if any) which is determined (in accordance with
regulations of the Secretary) to be performing, for the area with
respect to which such grant is requested, health planning functions
similar to those performed by an agency or organization referred
to in subsection (b) which is responsible for the development of
comprehensive regional, metropolitan, or other area plans for
coordination of existing and planned health services.
INTERCHANGE OF PERSONNEL WITH STATES
(f) (1) For the purposes of this subsection, the term "State"
means a State or a political subdivision of a State, or any agency
of either of the foregoing engaged in any activities related to
health or designated or established pursuant to subparagraph (A)
of paragraph (2) of subsection (a) ; the term "Secretary" means
(except when used in paragraph (3)(D)) the Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare; and the term "Department"
means the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
(2) The Secretary is authorized, through agreements or other-
wise, to arrange for assignment of officers and employees of States
[p. 45]
to the Department and assignment to States of officers and em-
ployees in the Department engaged in work related to health, for
work which the Secretary determines will aid the Department in
more effective discharge of its responsibilities in the field of health
as authorized by law, including cooperation with States and the
provision of technical or other assistance. The period of assign-
ment of any officer or employee under an arrangement shall not
exceed two years.
(3) (A) Officers and employees in the Department assigned to
any State pursuant to this subsection shall be considered, during
such assignment, to be (i) on detail to a regular work assignment
in the Department, or (ii) on leave without pay from their posi-
tions in the Department.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1633
(B) Persons considered to be so detailed shall remain as officers
or employees, as the case may be, in the Department for all pur-
poses, except that the supervision of their duties during the period
of detail may be governed by agreement between the Department
and the State involved.
(C) In the case of persons so assigned and on leave without
pay—
(i) if the rate of compensation (including allowances) for
their employment by the State is less than the rate of compen-
sation (including allowances) they would be receiving had
they continued in their regular assignment in the Depart-
ment, they may receive supplemental salary payments from
the Department in the amount considered by the Secretary to
be justified, but not at a rate in excess of the difference
between the State rate and the Department rate; and
(ii) they may be granted annual leave and sick leave to the
extent authorized by law, but only in circumstances consid-
ered by the Secretary to justify approval of such leave.
Such officers and employees on leave without pay shall, notwith-
standing any other provision of law, be entitled—
(iii) to continuation of their insurance under the Federal
Employees' Group Life Insurance Act of 1954, and coverage
under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Act of 1959, so
long as the Department continues to collect the employee's
contribution from the officer or employee involved and to
transmit for timely deposit into the funds created under such
Acts the amount of the employee's contributions and the Gov-
ernment's contribution from appropriations of the Depart-
ment ; and
(iv) (I) in the case of commissioned officers of the Service to
have their service during their assignment treated as provided in
section 214(d) for such officers on leave without pay, or (II) in
the case of other officers and employees in the Department, to
credit the period of their assignment under the arrangement
under this subsection toward periodic or longevity step increases
and for retention and leave accrual purposes, and, upon payment
into the civil service retirement and disability fund of the percent-
age of their State salary, and of their supplemental salary pay-
ments, if any, which would have been deducted from a like Federal
salary for the period of such assignment and payment by the
Secretary into such fund of the amount which would have been
payable by him during the period of such assignment with respect
-------
1634 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
to a like Federal salary, to treat (notwithstanding the provisions
of the Independent Offices Appropriations Act, 1959, under the
head 'Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund') their service
[p. 46]
during such period as service within the meaning of the Civil
Service Retirement Act; except that no officer or employee or his
beneficiary may receive any benefits under the Civil Service Re-
tirement Act, the Federal Employees Health Benefits Act of 1959,
or the Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance Act of 1954,
based on service during an assignment hereunder for which the
officer or employee or (if he dies without making such election)
his beneficiary elects to receive benefits, under any State retire-
ment or insurance law or program, which the Civil Service Com-
mission determines to be similar. The Department shall deposit
currently in the funds created under the Federal Employees'
Group Life Insurance Act of 1954, the Federal Employees Health
Benefits Act of 1959, and the civil service retirement and disabil-
ity fund, respectively, the amount of the Government's contribu-
tion under these Acts on account of service with respect to which
employee contributions are collected as provided in subparagraph
(iii) and the amount of the Government's contribution under the
Civil Service Retirement Act on account of service with respect to
which payments (of the amount which would have been deducted
under that Act) referred to in subparagraph (iv) are made to
such civil service retirement and disability fund.
(D) Any such officer or employee on leave without pay (other
than a commissioned officer of the Service) who suffers disability
or death as a result of personal injury sustained while in the
performance of his duty during an assignment hereunder, shall be
treated, for the purposes of the Federal Employees' Compensation
Act, as though he were an employee, as defined in such Act, who
had sustained such injury in the performance of duty. When such
person (or his dependents, in case of death) entitled by reason of
injury or death to benefits under that Act is also entitled to bene-
fits from a State for the same injury or death, he (or his depend-
ents in case of death) shall elect which benefits he will receive.
Such election shall be made within one year after the injury or
death, or such further time as the Secretary of Labor may for
good cause allow, and when made shall be irrevocable unless other-
wise provided by law.
(4) Assignment of any officer or employee in the Department to
a State under this subsection may be made with or without reim-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1635
bursement by the State for the compensation (or supplementary
compensation), travel and transportation expenses (to or from
the place of assignment), and allowances, or any part thereof, of
such officer or employee during the period of assignment, and any
such reimbursement shall be credited to the appropriation utilized
for paying such compensation, travel or transportation expenses,
or allowances.
(5) Appropriations to the Department shall be available, in
accordance with the standardized Government travel regulations
or, with respect to commissioned officers of the Service, the joint
travel regulations, for the expenses of travel of officers and em-
ployees assigned to States under an arrangement under this
subsection on either a detail or leave-without-pay basis and, in
accordance with applicable laws, orders, and regulations, for ex-
penses of transportation of their immediate families and expenses
of transportation of their household goods and personal effects in
connection with the travel of such officers and employees to the
location of their posts of assignment and their return to their
official stations.
[P. 47]
(6) Officers and employees of States who are assigned to the
Department under an arrangement under this subsection may (A)
be given appointments in the Department covering the periods of
such assignments, or (B) be considered to be on detail to the
Department. Appointments of persons so assigned may be made
without regard to the civil service laws. Persons so appointed in
the Department shall be paid at rates of compensation determined
in accordance with the Classification Act of 1949, and shall not be
considered to be officers or employees of the Department for the
purposes of (A) the Civil Service Retirement Act, (B) the Fed-
eral Employees' Group Life Insurance Act of 1954, or (C) unless
their appointments result in the loss of coverage in a group health
benefits plan whose premium has been paid in whole or in part by
a State contribution, the Federal Employees Health Benefits Act
of 1959. State officers and employees who are assigned to the
Department without appointment shall not be considered to be
officers or employees of the Department, except as provided in
subsection (7), nor shall they be paid a salary or wage by the
Department during the period of their assignment. The supervi-
sion of the duties of such persons during the assignment may be
governed by agreement between the Secretary and the State in-
volved.
-------
1636 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
(7) (A) Any State officer or employee who is assigned to the
Department without appointment shall nevertheless be subject to
the provisions of sections 203, 205, 207, 208, and 209 of title 18 of
the United States Code.
(B) Any State officer or employee who is given an appointment
while assigned to the Department, or who is assigned to the De-
partment without appointment, under an arrangement under this
subsection, and who suffers disability or death as a result of per-
sonal injury sustained while in the performance of his duty during
such assignment shall be treated, for the purpose of the Federal
Employees' Compensation Act, as though he were an employee, as
denned in such Act, who had sustained such injury in the per-
formance of duty. When such person (or his dependents, in case of
death) entitled by reason of injury or death to benefits under that
Act is also entitled to benefits from a State for the same injury or
death, he (or his dependents, in case of death) shall elect which
benefits he will receive. Such election shall be made within one
year after the injury or death, or such further time as the Secre-
tary of Labor may for good cause allow, and when made shall be
irrevocable unless otherwise provided by law.
(8) The appropriations to the Department shall be available, in
accordance with the standardized Government travel regulations,
during the period of assignment and in the case of travel to and
from their places of assignment or appointment, for the payment
of expenses of travel of persons assigned to, or given appoint-
ments by, the Department under an arrangement under this
subsection.
(9) All arrangements under this subsection for assignment of
officers or employees in the Department to States or for assign-
ment of officers or employees of States to the Department shall be
made in accordance with regulations of the Secretary.
GENERAL
(g) (1) All regulations and amendments thereto with respect to
grants to States under subsection (a) shall be made after consul-
tation with a conference of the State health planning agencies
[p. 48]
designated or established pursuant to subparagraph (A) of para-
graph (2) of subsection (a). All regulations and amendments
thereto with respect to grants to States under subsection (d) shall
be made after consultation with a conference of State health au-
thorities and, in the case of regulations and amendments which
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1637
relate to or in any way affect grants for services or other activi-
ties in the field of mental health, the State mental health authori-
ties. Insofar as practicable, the Surgeon General shall obtain the
agreement, prior to the issuance of such regulations or amend-
ments, of the State authorities or agencies with whom such con-
sultation is required.
(2) The Surgeon General, at the request of any recipient of a
grant under this section, may reduce the payments to such recipi-
ent by the fair market value of any equipment or supplies fur-
nished to such recipient and by the amount of the pay, allowances,
traveling expenses, and any other costs in connection with the
detail of an officer or employee to the recipient when such furnish-
ing or such detail, as the case may be, is for the convenience of
and at the request of such recipient and for the purpose of carry-
ing out the State plan or the project with respect to which the
grant under this section is made. The amount by which such
payments are so reduced shall be available for payment of such
costs (including the costs of such equipment and supplies) by the
Surgeon General, but shall, for purposes of determining the Fed-
eral share under subsection (a) or (d), be deemed to have been
paid to the State.
(3) Whenever the Surgeon General, after reasonable notice and
opportunity for hearing to the health authority or, where appro-
priate, the mental health authority of a State or a State health
planning agency designated or established pursuant to subpara-
graph (A) of paragraph (2) of subsection (a), finds that, with
respect to money paid to the State out of appropriations under
subsection (a) or (d), there is a failure to comply substantially
with either—
(A) the applicable provisions of this section;
(B) the State plan submitted under such subsection; or
(C) applicable regulations under this section;
the Surgeon General shall notify such State health authority, men-
tal health authority, or health planning agency, as the case may
be, that further payments will not be made to the State from
appropriations under such subsection (or in his discretion that
further payments will not be made to the State from such appro-
priations for activities in which there is such failure), until he is
satisfied that there will no longer be such failure. Until he is so
satisfied, the Surgeon General shall make no payment to such
State from appropriations under such subsection, or shall limit
payment to activities in which there is no such failure.
-------
1638 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
(4) For the purposes of this section—
(A) The term "nonprofit" as applied to any private agency,
institution, or organization means one which is a corporation or
association, or is owned and operated by one or more corporations
or associations, no part of the net earnings of which inures, or
may lawfully inure, to the benefit of any private shareholder or
individual; and
(B) The term "State" includes the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the trust territory of the Pacific
Islands, the Virgin Islands, and the District of Columbia and the
term "United States" means the fifty States and the District of
Columbia.
[p. 49]
1.12ad (3) COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE
H.R. REP. No. 91-1590, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970)
REGIONAL MEDICAL PROGRAMS AND COMPREHENSIVE
HEALTH PLANNING AND SERVICES ACT OF 1970
OCTOBER 8,1970.—Ordered to be printed.
Mr. STAGGERS, from the committee of conference, submitted the
following
CONFERENCE REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 17570]
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two
Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 17570)
to amend title IX of the Public Health Service Act so as to extend
and improve the existing program relating to education, research,
training, and demonstrations in the fields of heart disease, cancer,
stroke, and other related diseases, and for other purposes, having
met, after full and free conference, have agreed to recommend and
do recommend to their respective Houses as follows: * * *.
[P. 1]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1639
STATEMENT OF THE MANAGERS ON THE PART OF THE HOUSE
The managers on the part of the House at the conference on the
disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the
Senate to the bill (H.R. 17570) to amend title IX of the Public
Health Service Act so as to extend and improve the existing pro-
gram relating to education, research, training, and demonstrations
in the fields of heart disease, cancer, stroke, and other related
diseases, and for other purposes, submit the following statement
in explanation of the effect of the action agreed upon by the
conferees and recommended in the accompanying conference re-
port:
The Senate amendment to the text of the bill struck out all of
the House bill after the enacting clause and inserted a substitute
amendment. The committee of conference has agreed to a substi-
tute for both the House bill and the Senate amendment to the text
of the bill. Except for technical, clarifying, and conforming
changes, the following statement explains the differences between
the House bill and the substitute agreed to in conference.
The House has passed two separate bills dealing with the sub-
jects embraced in the Senate amendment; H.R. 17570, and H.R.
18110, a bill extending and expanding the program of comprehen-
sive health planning and research and demonstrations relating to
the delivery of health services. The Senate amendment deals with
the programs contained in both House bills.
REGIONAL MEDICAL PROGRAMS
Scope of program.
Both the House bill and the Senate amendment expanded the
scope of the program to include kidney disease as well as heart
disease, cancer, and stroke. However, the Senate amendment
changed coverage of other related diseases to other major diseases
and conditions.
The conference substitute is the same as the House bill. The
Managers for both Houses were in doubt as to whether the scope
of the program should be limited (as in the House bill) to diseases
related to heart disease, kidney disease, cancer, and stroke or
whether it should be limited (as in the Senate amendment) to
major diseases and conditions other than heart disease, kidney
disease, cancer, and stroke and expect the 'Secretary of Health,
Education, and Welfare to conduct a study of the 'scope of the
regional medical program and to report to the appropriate com-
mittees of Congress his recommendations.
-------
1640 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
Construction
The Senate amendment contained a provision not in the House
bill which expanded assistance for construction to include assist-
ance for new construction of facilities for demonstrations, re-
search, and training when necessary to carry out regional medical
programs.
[P- 17]
The conference substitute is identical with the Senate amend-
ment except that it is provided that not more than $5 million may
be made available in any fiscal year for grants for such new
construction.
Participation of Veterans' Administration personnel
The Senate amendment contained a provision not in the House
bill which would (1) make the Chief Medical Director of the
Veterans' Administration an ex officio member of the National
Advisory Council for the regional medical program, and (2) re-
quire local advisory groups to include as an ex officio member the
person designated from the local Veterans' Administration health
facility.
JOINT ADMINISTRATION OF PROJECTS
The House bill1 would amend the Public Health Service Act to
provide that in the case of projects funded under more than one
Federal law, one agency could be designated to administer finan-
cial assistance for such projects, single non-Federal share require-
ments for such projects could be established, and conflicting grant
or contract requirement could be deleted.
The Senate amendment contained a similar provision. The au-
thority in the Senate amendment would be limited to projects
funded under title III or IX of the Public Health Service Act and
no authority for a single non-Federal share requirement or for
waiver of conflicting requirements required by law or by regula-
tions required by law would be provided.
The conference substitute is identical with the provision of the
Senate amendment.
RESEARCH AND DEMONSTRATIONS RELATING TO HEALTH FACILITIES
AND SERVICES
Authorization of appropriations
The House bill would extend for three fiscal years (through
fiscal year 1973) the authorization of appropriations for the pro-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1641
grams of Federal financial assistance under section 304 of the
Public Health Service Act (relating to research and demonstra-
tions). The following amounts would be authorized: $58 million
for fiscal year 1971, $79 million for fiscal year 1972, and $94
million for fiscal year 1973.
The Senate amendment would extend such program for five
years (through fiscal year 1975) and would authorize the follow-
ing amounts: $80 million for fiscal year 1971, $85 million for fiscal
year 1972, $94 million for fiscal year 1973, $110 million for fiscal
year 1974, and $130 million for fiscal year 1975.
The conference substitute would extend such programs for three
years (through fiscal year 1973) and would authorize the follow-
ing amounts to be appropriated for such program: $69 million for
fiscal year 1971, $82 million for fiscal year 1972, and $94 million
for fiscal year 1973.
Research, etc., on delivery of health services
The Senate amendment contained a provision not in the House
bill which would authorize grants and contracts under such sec-
[p. 18]
tion 304 for research, experiments, and demonstrations, relating
to the effective combination or coordination of methods or systems
for the delivery of health services.
The conference substitute contains the provision of the Senate
amendment.
Home health services
The Senate amendment contained a provision not in the House
bill which would authorize grants and contracts under such sec-
1 The reference to the House bill in the discussion of this and the succeeding provisions is to
H.R. 18110, as passed the House.
tion 304 for projects for research and demonstrations in the provi-
sion of home health services.
The conference substitute contains the provision of the Senate
amendment.
Analysis of national health care plans
The Senate amendment contained a provision not in the House
bill which would amend such section 304 to direct the Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare to develop, through utilization of
systems analysis method alternative plans for health care systems
designed adequately to meet the health needs of the American
people and to report to Congress not later than June 30, 1971, on
-------
1642 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
such plans. Under the amendment, the Secretary would also study
bills introduced in the 91st Congress which propose a national
health insurance plan or similar plan to determine the costs of
such plans and their adequacy. The Secretary would report to
Congress not later than December 31, 1970, the results of such
study. $4 million would be authorized for fiscal year 1971 for the
development of such plans and for the conduct of such study.
The conference substitute is the same as the Senate amendment
except that (1) it is made clear that the Secretary is to develop
more than one plan for health care systems. (2) the Secretary's
report with respect to plans for health care systems is to be made
not later than September 30, 1971, (3) the Secretary's report on
bills introduced in the 91st Congress is to be made not later than
March 31, 1971, and (4) $2 million is authorized for fiscal year
1971.
THE NATIONAL HEALTH SURVEYS AND STUDIES
The House bill would amend section 305 of the Public Health
Service Act to extend for three years (through fiscal year 1973)
the program of national health surveys and studies and would
authorize for such program the following amounts: $10 million
for fiscal year 1971, $21 million for fiscal year 1972, and $22
million for fiscal year 1973.
The Senate amendment would continue the open-ended authori-
zation for such program.
The conference substitute extends such program for three fiscal
years and authorizes the following amounts: $15 million for fiscal
year 1971, $20 million for fiscal year 1972, and $25 million for
fiscal year 1973.
REPORT ON ACTIVITIES UNDER TITLES III AND IX OP THE PUBLIC
HEALTH SERVICE ACT
The Senate amendment contained a provision not in the House
bill which would amend the Public Health Service Act to direct
that on or before January 1 of each year the 'Secretary of Health,
[P. 19]
Education, and Welfare report to Congress on activities under
titles III and IX of the Public Health Act with (1) an evaluaton
of the effectiveness of such activities in improving the efficiency
and effectiveness in research in, planning for, and delivery of,
health services, (2) an analysis of the relationship between Fed-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1643
eral and local financing, and (3) such recommendations as the
Secretary deems appropriate.
The conference substitute is identical with the Senate amend-
ment.
COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH PLANNING
STATE HEALTH PLAN
Authorization of appropriations
The House bill would amend section 314 (a) of the Public Health
Service Act to extend for three years (through fiscal year 1973)
the program of grants to States for comprehensive State health
planning and would authorize the following amounts: $10 million
for fiscal year 1971, $15 million for fiscal year 1972, and $20
million for fiscal year 1973.
The Senate amendment would extend such program through
fiscal year 1975 and would authorize the following amounts: $15
million for fiscal year 1971, $17 million for fiscal year 1972, $20
million for fiscal year 1973, $30 million for fiscal year 1974, and
$35 million for fiscal year 1975.
The conference substitute extends such program through fiscal
year 1973 and authorizes the following amounts: $15 million for
fiscal year 1971, $17 million for fiscal year 1972, and $20 million
for fiscal year 1973.
Veterans' Administration representation on State health planning
council
The Senate amendment contained a provision not in the House
bill which would provide that the State plan under such section
314 (a) would include State planning for home health care.
The conference substitute contains the provision of the Senate
amendment.
PROJECT GRANTS FOR AREA WIDE HEALTH PLANNING
Authorization af appropriations
The House bill would amend section 314 (b) of the Public
Health Service Act to extend through fiscal year 1973 the program
of project grants for areawide health planning and would author-
ize the following amounts: $15 million for fiscal year 1971, $25
million for fiscal year 1972, and $40 million for fiscal year 1973.
The Senate amendment would extend such program through
fiscal year 1975 and would authorize the following amounts: $20
-------
1644 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
million for fiscal year 1971, $30 million for fiscal year 1972, $40
million for fiscal year 1973, $50 million for fiscal year 1974, and
$6T) million for fiscal year 1975.
The conference substitute extends such program through fiscal
year 1973 and authorizes the following amounts: $20 million for
fiscal year 1971, $30 million for fiscal year 1972, and $40 million
for fiscal year 1973.
[p. 20]
Home health care
The Senate amendment contained a provision not in the House
bill which would provide that area plans under such section
314 (b) would include home health care services.
The conference substitue is identical with the Senate amend-
ment.
Grants to State agency
The Senate amendment contained a provision not in the House
bill which would provide that under certain circumstances the
State planning agency could receive a grant under such section
314(b).
The conference substitute is identical with the Senate amend-
ment.
Areawide health 'planning council
The House bill would amend such section 314 (b) to provide that
the areawide health planning council would include representa-
tives of consumers of health services.
The Senate amendment would require that a majority of the
membership of such council be representatives of consumers of
health services.
The conference substitute is identical with the Senate amend-
ment.
GRANTS FOR COMPREHENSIVE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES
Authorization of appropriations
The House bill would extend through fiscal year 1973 the pro-
gram under section 314 (d) of the Public Health Service Act for
grants for comprehensive public health services and would author-
ize the following amounts: $125 million for fiscal year 1971, $140
million for fiscal year 1972, and $160 million for fiscal year 1973.
The Senate amendment would extend such program through
fiscal year 1975 and would authorize the following amounts: $130
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1645
million for fiscal year 1971, $145 million for fiscal year 1972, $165
million for fiscal year 1973, $180 million for fiscal year 1974, and
$200 million for fiscal year 1975.
The conference substitute extends such program through fiscal
year 1973 and authorizes the following amounts: $130 million for
fiscal year 1971, $145 million for fiscal year 1972, and $165 million
for fiscal year 1973.
PROJECT GRANTS FOR HEALTH SERVICES DEVELOPMENT
Both the Senate and House bills, and the conference substi-
tute, provide a continuation of the existing program of project
grants for health services development under section 314 (e) of
the Public Health Service Act, with authorizations for fiscal year
1971 of $109,500,000, $135 million for fiscal year 1972, and $157
million for fiscal year 1973. The conference substitute does not
contain the further authorization of appropriations for fiscal
years 1974 and 1975 contained in the Senate version.
The conference substitute also authorizes the use of funds ap-
propriated for section 314 (e) for meeting obligations heretofore
incurred with respect to certain facilities of the Office of Economic
Opportunity which have been, or are in the process of being,
transferred to the jurisdiction of the Department of Health, Edu-
cation, and Welfare.
[p. 21]
REGULATION OF CERTAIN BIOLOGICAL PRODUCTS
The Senate amendment contained an amendment to section 35
of the Public Health Service Act making clear that the authority
of that section includes authority to license vaccines, blood, blood
components or derivatives, and allergenic products. This amend-
ment is identical to the provision of H.R. 15961, already passed by
the House.
With respect to this amendment, the conference substitute is the
same as the Senate version.
AUTHORITY FOR GROUP PRACTICE
The Senate amendment contained a provision not in the House
bill which would authorize the Secretary of Health, Education,
and Welfare to authorize insurance carriers, which are parties to,
or which participate in the carrying out of, contracts relating to
health benefits for active or retired Federal employees, to issue in
-------
1646 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
any State contracts entitling beneficiaries to receive comprehen-
sive medical services from a group practice unit with which the
carrier has arranged for the provision of such services.
The conference substitute contains the provision of the Senate
amendment.
RECEIPT OF INCREASED STAFFING GRANTS FOR CURRENTLY FUNDED
COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH CENTERS
The Senate amendment contained a provision not in the House
bill to change the application of the maintenance of effort require-
ments under the Community Mental Health Centers Act to facili-
tate receipt by currently funded community mental health centers
of the increased Federal share of staffing costs provided under the
Community Mental Health Centers Amendments of 1970 (Public
Law 91-211).
The conference substitute contains the provision of the Senate
amendment.
COMPENSATION OF ADVISORY COUNCIL MEMBERS, ETC.
The Senate amendment contained a provision not in the House
bill which would amend the Public Health Service Act and the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to provide uniform rules on
compensation of advisory council members and to authorize com-
mittees to be established where there is authority to establish
advisory councils. The conference substitute contains the provision
of the Senate amendment.
RESEARCH CONTRACTING AUTHORITY
The Senate amendment contained a provision not in the House
bill which would amend section 301 (h) of the Public Health Serv-
ice Act to eliminate the fiscal year limitation (fiscal year 1971) on
the research contracting authority of the Secretary of Health,
Education, and Welfare. The conference substitute extends such
authority through fiscal year 1973.
[p. 22]
TRAINING AUTHORITY OF NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF GENERAL MEDI-
CAL SCIENCES
The Senate amendment contained a provision not in the House
bill which would amend section 442 of the Public Health Service
Act to provide that the National Institute of General Medical
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1647
Sciences could conduct and support clinical as well as research
training. The conference substitute is identical to the Senate
amendment.
STUDY RELATING TO ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION
The Senate amendment contained a provision not in the House
bill which directed the Secretary to study (1) the health and
safety hazards presented by environmental pollution, (2) medical
and other assistance available to persons affected by such pollu-
tion, and (3) measures, other than abatement, that can be taken
to avoid effect of such pollution on human health.
The conference substitute is the same as the Senate amendment
except that the study is to be conducted by the President.
HARLEY 0. STAGGERS,
JOHN JARMAN,
PAUL G. ROGERS,
W. L. SPRINGER,
ANCHER NELSEN,
Managers on the Part of the House.
[P- 23]
1.12ad (4) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 116 (1970)
1.12ad (4) (a) Aug. 12: Amended and passed House, p. 28532
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
1.12ad (4) (b) Sept. 9: Amended and passed Senate, p. 31013
Mr. YARBOROUGH.
TITLE II
Title II of the bill extends and im-
proves the legislative authorities for
the comprehensive planning program,
health services research and develop-
ment programs, and health statistical
activities. Title II would also permit
in appropriate and limited circum-
stances, the joint administration of
the grant programs covered in the
bill, as well as require the Secretary
of Health, Education, and Welfare to
annually report to the Congress on
the effectiveness of those programs.
We added to the bill the provision
for the annual report to Congress so
that Congress could, with its over-
sight authority, see that this money
was being expeditiously and efficiently
spent.
COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH PLANNING
S. 3355 extends and modifies the
comprehensive health planning and
services program.
When the Congress first enacted
this legislation in 1966, it acknowl-
-------
1648
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
edged the necessity for encouraging
and assisting communities and States
—working in concert—to take stock
of their own health problems and re-
sources and to determine the means
best suited to their situation for solv-
ing problems.
The committee's bill would make
several improvements in the compre-
hensive health planning program:
First. It would provide for repre-
sentation on State and areawide
planning groups by Veterans' Ad-
ministration representatives—on an
ex-officio basis—as well as including
RMP representatives.
Second. It would make explicit the
concern of comprehensive health
planning agencies with home health
care resources and services.
Third. In limited circumstances, it
would permit project grants to State
planning agencies for providing plan-
ning assistance to areas of that State
which are not likely to have resources
to mount an areawide planning effort
of their own. This was primarily to
assist rural areas in a State with
primarily small rural populations.
This improvement will greatly assist
rural areas, which otherwise would
not have the resources to independ-
ently sustain an areawide planning
effort.
Fourth. It would require the area-
wide planning agencies to comment
upon applications for health services
support under section 314 (e) of the
program, thereby fostering greater
coordination.
Fifth. Lastly, with respect to the
partnership program, it would au-
thorize payments under section 314 (e)
for loan amortization and equity re-
quirements on facilities. This provi-
sion will facilitate the planned trans-
fer of certain neighborhood centers
projects from OEO to HEW.
[p. 31013]
1.12ad (4) (c) Oct. 13: House agreed to conference report, pp.
36589-36591
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R.
17570, REGIONAL MEDICAL
PROGRAMS AND COMPREHEN-
SIVE HEALTH PLANNING AND
SERVICES ACT OF 1970
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Speaker, I
call up the conference report on the
bill (H.R. 17570) to amend title IX
of the Public Health Service Act so
as to extend and improve the exist-
ing program relating to education,
research, training, and demonstra-
tions in the fields of heart disease,
cancer, stroke, and other related dis-
eases, and for other purposes, and
ask unanimous consent that the state-
ment of the managers on that part of
the House be read in lieu of the
report.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.
HAYS). Is there objection to the re-
quest of the gentleman from West
Virginia?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the statement.
(For conference report and state-
ment, see proceedings of the House
of Oct. 8, 1970.)
Mr. STAGGERS (during the read-
ing). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that the further reading of
the statement be dispensed with.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is
there objection to the request of the
gentleman from West Virginia?
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Speaker, the
conference report before the House
today is, in form, the Senate amend-
ments to one bill of the House, but
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1649
in substance it includes the provi-
sions of three measures already
passed, H.R. 17570—regional medi-
cal programs; H.R. 18110—compre
hensive health planning and H.R.
15961—licensing of biological prod-
ucts.
The bill on which this conference
report is filed, as passed by the
House, provided a 3-year extension
of the heart, stroke, and cancer pro-
gram, generally known as regional
medical programs. The House bill
explained the program to include
kidney disease whereas the Senate
version would have included other
major diseases and conditions. The
conference substitute is the same as
the House bill in this regard, but we
have called for a study by the Sec-
retary of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare together with his recommenda-
tions, concerning the appropriate
scope of the program in connection
with future legislation extending it.
The House bill authorized a total
of $475 million over a 3-year period
for this portion of the program,
whereas the Senate amendment would
have authorized $600 million. The
conference substitute provides $525
million for this purpose.
The Senate amendment would have
authorized expansion of the program
to include new construction. When
this program was initially established
in 1965, the issue of inclusion of new
construction proved to be one of the
most controversial elements in the
legislative proposal. Fundamentally
the issue was whether the program
was intended to provide a nationwide
network of federally operated health
centers, or whether the program was
[p. 36589]
to be a grassroots program, building
upon the cooperation and expertise
of the local health agencies and or-
ganizations nationwide.
After considerable discussion, the
conferees on the part of the House
agreed to the inclusion of new con-
struction authority in the legislation,
but have limited the amount of new
construction to not more than $5
million per year. We feel that this
will permit limited construction in
those areas where it appears to be
essential, without changing the thrust
of the program in other respects.
Both the House and the Senate
bills provide an extension of the exist-
ing program of research and demon-
strations of new and innovative
methods of delivery of health serv-
ices. The House bill authorized a
total of $231 million for this pro-
gram over a 3-year period; the Sen-
ate bill authorized $259 million for
the same period, and the conference
substitute splits the difference au-
thorizing a total of $245 million over
a 3-year period for this program.
The Senate proposed to extend the
program for 5 years, whereas the
House bill provided a simple 3-year
extension and the conference agree-
ment is the same as the House bill.
Several modifications of the pro-
gram authorizing grants and con-
tracts for research and demonstra-
tions were contained in the Senate
bill and agreed to by the House con-
ferees. These provisions relate to the
provision of home health services and
research into new systems for the
delivery of health care.
In addition, there have been a
number of bills introduced in the
past 2 years calling for the estab-
lishment of national health insur-
ance plans. The conference agree-
ment adopts a modified version of
the Senate amendment with respect
to these proposed programs, and
provides for a study by the Secretary,
through the systems analysis method
of various plans for health care sys-
tems to meet the health needs of the
United States, and for a thorough
study of all bills introduced propos-
-------
1650
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
ing a national health insurance plan.
The study will be conducted in order
to determine the costs of such a plan
and the adequacy of the benefits pro-
posed to be provided thereunder. The
Senate amendment authorized $4
million for this purpose, and the con-
ference substitute authorizes $2 mil-
lion therefor.
As I mentioned earlier, the House
has passed legislation extending the
comprehensive health planning and
services program (H.R. 18110), and
the Senate amendment to H.R. 17570
proposed an extension of this pro-
gram. The Senate amendment pro-
vided a 5-year extension of the pro-
gram, whereas the House bill pro-
vided a 3-year extension. The con-
ference agreement is limited to a 3-
year extension, with a number of
minor administrative modifications in
the overall program.
Mr. Speaker, in general, this ex-
plains the major differences between
the House and Senate bills as re-
solved in the conference agreement.
The House conferees were unanimous
in agreeing to the report, and we
recommend its adoption by the House.
Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Speaker, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. STAGGERS. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Illinois.
Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Speaker, I
thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I think that there are
only two things that ought to be
mentioned. We seem to change the
titles of these bills. This one happens
to be called the Regional Medical
Programs and Comprehensive Health
Planning and Services Act of 1970,
but as a matter of fact this is simply
the old heart, stroke, and cancer and
the partnership for health bills we
passed 4 years ago.
We have made two changes of any
substance. First we have added kid-
ney and related diseases to the pro-
gram so that we now have heart,
stroke, cancer, and kidney.
The Senate bill varied substantially
from the House bill in that it included
these three words, "other major di-
seases."
It is the feeling of the subcommit-
tee that had this, and the feeling of
our committee, we were familiar with
the fact that the Senate had put this
in when we considered it and decided
at this point in history it was not
well to include a whole list of other
diseases and confuse the program
and to dilute it to the point that we
do not do as much about these four
major diseases that we started out
with.
Therefore, the Senate did recede,
and we took out the words "other
major diseases."
There is just one other substantial
change from the Senate bill and that
is that theirs was a 5-year program.
Ours is a 3-year program. We agreed
on a 3-year program. It has been
the policy of our committee not to
go beyond 3 years, and in each one
of these instances to review this
periodically in order that we not
only know what the program is doing,
but how and where the money is
being spent.
I believe we made a good settle-
ment with the other body, and I rec-
ommend the passage of the confer-
ence report.
[p. 36590]
The conference report was agreed
to.
[p. 36591]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1651
1.12ad (4) (d) Oct. 14: Senate agreed to conference report, pp.
36888-36892
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
1.12ae COMPREHENSIVE ALCOHOL ABUSE AND
ALCOHOLISM PREVENTION, TREATMENT, AND
REHABILITATION ACT OF 1970
December 31, 1970, P.L. 91-616, Title III, § 331, 84 Stat. 1853
PART D—GENERAL
COMPREHENSIVE STATE HEALTH PLANS
SEC. 331. Section 314 (d) (2) of the Public Health Service Act is
amended—
(1) by striking out "and" at the end of subparagraph (J);
(2) by striking out the period at the end of subparagraph
(K) and inserting in lieu thereof "; and"; and
(3) by adding after subparagraph (K) the following new
subparagraph:
"(L) provide for services for the prevention and treatment
of alcohol abuse and alcoholism, commensurate with the ex-
tent of the problem."
[p. 1853]
1.12ae (1) SENATE COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND
PUBLIC WELFARE
S. REP. No. 91-1269, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970)
COMPREHENSIVE ALCOHOL ABUSE AND ALCOHOLISM
PREVENTION, TREATMENT, AND REHABILITATION ACT
OF 1970
AUGUST 3, 1970.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. HUGHES, from the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare,
submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany S. 3835]
The Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, to which was
referred the bill (S. 3835) to provide a comprehensive Federal
program for the prevention and treatment of alcohol abuse and
-------
1652 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
alcoholism, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon
with an amendment and recommends that the bill (as amended)
do pass.
SUMMARY
S. 3835 establishes a National Institute for the Prevention and
Control of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism within the Public Health
Service, through which the Secretary of Health, Education, and
Welfare shall coordinate all Federal health, rehabilitation, and
other social programs related to the prevention and treatment of
alcohol abuse and alcoholism and administer the programs estab-
lished by the bill. The legislation provides for extensive Federal
assistance to State and local programs in order to promote effec-
tive treatment and rehabilitation programs for alcoholics through-
out the country. It requires the utilization of all existing Federal
legislation providing for Federal or federally assisted research,
prevention, treatment, or rehabilitation programs in such fields as
health, education, welfare, and highway safety in order to effec-
tively reduce the incidence of alcohol abuse and alcoholism
throughout the Nation.
[p.l]
FEDERAL ASSISTANCE FOR STATE AND LOCAL PROGRAMS
Comprehensive State plans
Section 501 amends the Public Health Service Act to require the
inclusion of alcohol abuse and alcoholism programs in comprehen-
sive State health plans submitted pursuant to the Partnership for
Health Amendments of 1967. This requirement permits substan-
tial flexibility in the formulation of appropriate services and pro-
grams. The committee intends simply to assure that every State
faces up to these problems in a manner which is appropriate for
the magnitude and characteristics of its particular situation.
[p. 20]
TITLE V—FEDERAL ASSISTANCE FOR STATE AND LOCAL PROGRAMS
Section 501 provides that section 314 (a) (2) of the Public
Health Service Act is amended to require all State plans for com-
prehensive public health services to provide for services for the
prevention and treatment of alcohol abuse and alcoholism, com-
mensurate with the extent of the problem in the particular State.
[p. 28]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1653
1.12ae (2) HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND
FOREIGN COMMERCE
H.R. REP. No. 91-1663, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970)
COMPREHENSIVE ALCOHOL ABUSE AND ALCOHOLISM
PREVENTION, TREATMENT, AND REHABILITATION ACT
OF 1970
DECEMBER 3, 1970.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. STAGGERS, from the Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce, submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 18874]
The Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, to whom
was referred the bill (H.R. 18874) to provide a comprehensive
Federal program for the prevention and treatment of alcohol
abuse and alcoholism, having considered the same, report favora-
bly thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill as
amended do pass.
The amendment is as follows:
Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the matter
that appears in italic type in the reported bill.
SUMMARY
H.R. 18874 establishes a National Institute on Alcohol Abuse
and Alcoholism within the National Institute of Mental Health,
through which the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare
shall coordinate all Federal health, rehabilitation, and other social
programs related to the prevention and treatment of alcohol abuse
and alcoholism and shall administer the programs established by
the bill. The legislation provides for Federal assistance to States
and local groups and organizations to spur community-based plan-
ning for and development of effective prevention, treatment, and
rehabilitation programs throughout the country for alcoholics. It
requires the establishment of programs of alcohol abuse and alco-
-------
1654 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
holism prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation programs for
Federal civilian employees.
[p.l]
Part D—General
Section 331.—This section provides that the State plan submit-
ted under section 314 (d) of the Public Health Service Act for use
of formula grant funds shall include provisions for services for
prevention and treatment of alcohol abuse and alcoholism.
[P. 12]
1.12ae (3) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 116 (1970)
1.12ae (3) (a) Aug. 10: Passed Senate, pp. 27857-27871
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
1.12ae (3) (b) Dec. 18: Amended and passed House, pp. 42531,
42536
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
1.12ae (3) (c) Dec. 19: Senate concurs in House amendments, p.
42751
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1655
1.13 THE DAVIS-BACON ACT, AS AMENDED
40 U.S.C. §§276a—276a-5 (1964)
[Referred to in 42 U.S.C. §1857j—3,33 U.S.C. §1158(g),
42 U.S.C. §3256]
THE DAVIS-BACON ACT
§ 276a. Rate of wages for laborers and mechanics
(a) The advertised specifications for every contract in excess of
$2,000, to which the United States or the District of Columbia is a
party, for construction, alteration, and/or repair, including paint-
ing and decorating, of public buildings of public works of the
United States or the District of Columbia within the geographical
limits of the States of the Union, or the District of Columbia, and
which requires or involves the employment of mechanics and/or
laborers shall contain a provision stating the minimum wages to
be paid various classes of laborers and mechanics which shall be
based upon the wages that will be determined by the Secretary of
Labor to be prevailing for the corresponding classes of laborers
and mechanics employed on projects of a character similar to the
contract work in the city, town, village, or other civil subdivision
of the State, in which the work is to be performed, or in the
District of Columbia if the work is to be performed there; and
every contract based upon these specifications shall contain a stip-
ulation that the contractor or his subcontractor shall pay all me-
chanics and laborers employed directly upon the site of the work,
unconditionally and not less often than once a week, and without
subsequent deduction or rebate on any account, the full amounts
accrued at time of payment, computed at wage rates not less than
those stated in the advertised specifications, regardless of any
contractual relationship which may be alleged to exist between the
contractor or subcontractor and such laborers and mechanics, and
that the scale of wages to be paid shall be posted by the contractor
in a prominent and easily accessible place at the site of the work;
and the further stipulation that there may be withheld from the
contractor so much of accrued payments as may be considered
necessary by the contracting officer to pay to laborers and mechan-
ics employed by the contractor or any subcontractor on the work
the difference between the rates of wages required by the contract
to be paid laborers and mechanics on the work and the rates of
wages received by such laborers and mechanics and not refunded
to the contractor, subcontractors, or their agents.
-------
1656 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
(b) As used in sections 276a to 276a—5 of this title the term
"wages", "scale of wages", "wage rates", "minimum wages", and
"prevailing wages" shall include—
(1) the basic hourly rate of pay; and
(2) the amount of—
(A) the rate of contribution irrevocably made by a
contractor or subcontractor to a trustee or to a third
person pursuant to a fund, plan, or program; and
(B) the rate of costs to the contractor or subcontrac-
tor which may be reasonably anticipated in providing
benefits to laborers and mechanics pursuant to an enfor-
cible commitment to carry out a financially responsible
plan or program which was communicated in writing to
the laborers and mechanics affected,
for medical or hospital care, pensions on retirement or death,
compensation for injuries or illness resulting from occupa-
tional activity, or insurance to provide any of the foregoing,
for the unemployment benefits, life insurance, disability and
sickness insurance, or accident insurance, for vacation and
holiday pay, for defraying costs of apprenticeship or other
similar programs, or for other bona fide fringe benefits, but
only where the contractor or subcontractor is not required by
other Federal, State, or local law to provide any of such
benefits:
Provided, That the obligation of a contractor or subcontractor to
make payment in accordance with the prevailing wage determina-
tions of the Secretary of Labor, insofar as sections 276a to 276a
—5 of this title and other Acts incorporating sections 276a to 276a
—5 of this title by reference are concerned may be discharged by
the making of payments in cash, by the making of contributions of
a type referred to in paragraph (2) (A), or by the assumption of
an enforcible commitment to bear the costs of a plan or program
of a type referred to in paragraph (2) (B), or any combination
thereof, where the aggregate of any such payments, contributions,
and costs is not less than the rate of pay described in paragraph
(1) plus the amount referred to in paragraph (2).
In determining the overtime pay to which the laborer or me-
chanic is entitled under any Federal law, his regular or basic
hourly rate of pay (or other alternative rate upon which premium
rate of overtime compensation is computed) shall be deemed to be
the rate computed under paragraph (1), except that where the
amount of payments, contributions, or costs incurred with respect
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1657
to him exceeds the prevailing wage applicable to him under sec-
tions 276a to 276a—5 of this title, such regular or basic hourly
rate of pay (or such other alternative rate) shall be arrived at by
deducting from the amount of payments, contributions, or costs
actually incurred with respect to him, the amount of contributions
or costs of the types described in paragraph (2) actually incurred
with respect to him, or the amount determined under paragraph
(2) but not actually paid, whichever amount is the greater.
Mar. 3, 1931, c. 411, § 1, 46 Stat. 1494; Aug. 30, 1935, c. 825, 49
Stat. 1011; June 15, 1940, c. 373 § 1, 54 Stat. 399; July 12, 1960,
Pub.L. 86-624, § 26, 74 Stat. 418; July 2, 1964, Pub.L. 88-349, § 1,
78 Stat. 238.
§ 276a—1. Termination of work on failure to pay agreed wages;
completion of work by Government
Every contract within the scope of sections 276a to 276a—5 of
this title shall contain the further provision that in the event it is
found by the contracting officer that any laborer or mechanic
employed by the contractor or any subcontractor directly on the
site of the work covered by the contract has been or is being paid
a rate of wages less than the rate of wages required by the con-
tract to be paid as aforesaid, the Government may, by written
notice to the contractor, terminate his right to proceed with the
work or such part of the work as to which there has been a failure
to pay said required wages and to prosecute the work to comple-
tion by contract or otherwise, and the contractor and his sureties
shall be liable to the Government for any excess costs occasioned
the Government thereby.
Mar. 3, 1931, c. 411, § 2, as added Aug. 30, 1935, c. 825, 49 Stat.
1011.
§ 276a—2. Payment of wages by Comptroller General from with-
held payments; listing contractors violating contracts
(a) The Comptroller General of the United 'States is authorized
and directed to pay directly to laborers and mechanics from any
accrued payments withheld under the terms of the contract any
wages found to be due laborers and mechanics pursuant to sec-
tions 276a to 276a—5 of this title; and the Comptroller General of
the United States is further authorized and is directed to distrib-
ute a list to all departments of the Government giving the names
of persons or firms whom he has found to have disregarded their
obligations to employees and subcontractors. No contract shall be
-------
1658 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
awarded to the persons or firms appearing on this list or to any
firm, corporation, partnership, or association in which such per-
sons or firms have an interest until three years have elapsed from
the date of publication of the list containing the names of such
persons or firms.
(b) If the accrued payments withheld under the terms of the
contract, as aforesaid, are insufficient to reimburse all the laborers
and mechanics, with respect to whom there has been a failure to
pay the wages required pursuant to sections 276a to 276a—5 of
this title, such laborers and mechanics shall have the right of
action and/or intervention against the contractor and his sureties
conferred by law upon persons furnishing labor or materials, and
in such proceedings it shall be no defense that such laborers and
mechanics accepted or agreed to accept less than the required rate
of wages or voluntarily made refunds.
Mar. 3, 1931, c. 411, § 3, as added Aug. 30, 1935, c. 825, 49 Stat.
1011.
§ 276a—3. Effect on other Federal laws
Section 276a to 276a—5 of this title shall not be construed to
supersede or impair any authority otherwise granted by Federal
law to provide for the establishment of specific wage rates.
Mar. 3, 1931, c. 411, § 4, as added Aug. 30, 1935, c. 825, 49 Stat.
1011.
§ 276a—4. Effective date of section 276a to 276a—5
Sections 276a to 276a—5 of this title shall take effect thirty
days after August 30, 1935, but shall not affect any contract then
existing or any contract that may thereafter be entered into pur-
suant to invitations for bids that are outstanding on August 30,
1935.
Mar. 3, 1931, c. 411, § 5, as added Aug. 30, 1935, c. 825, 49 Stat.
1011.
§ 276a—5. Suspension of sections 276a to 276a—5 during emer-
gency
In the event of a national emergency the President is authorized
to suspend the provisions of sections 276a to 276a—5 of this title.
Mar. 3, 1931, c. 411, § 6, as added Aug. 30, 1935, c. 825, 49 Stat.
1011.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1659
1.13a THE DAVIS-BACON ACT
March 3,1931, P.L. 71-798, 46 Stat. 1494
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That every con-
tract in excess of $5,000 in amount, to which the United States or
the District of Columbia is a party, which requires or involves the
employment of laborers or mechanics in the construction, altera-
tion, and/or repair of any public buildings of the United States or
the District of Columbia within the geographical limits of the
States of the Union or the District of Columbia, shall contain a
provision to the effect that the rate of wage for all laborers and
mechanics employed by the contractor or any subcontractor on the
public buildings covered by the contract shall be not less than the
prevailing rate of wages for work of a similar nature in the city,
town, village, or other civil division of the State in which the
public buildings are located, or in the District of Columbia if the
public buildings are located there, and a further provision that in
case any dispute arises as to what are the prevailing rates of
wages for work of a similar nature applicable to the contract
which can not be adjusted by the contracting officer, the matter
shall be referred to the Secretary of Labor for determination and
his decision thereon shall be conclusive on all parties to the con-
tract : Provided, That in case of national emergency the President
is authorized to suspend the provisions of this Act.
SEC. 2. This Act shall take effect thirty days after its passage
but shall not affect any contract then existing or any contract that
may thereafter be entered into pursuant to invitations for bids
that are outstanding at the time of the passage of this Act.
Approved, March 3, 1931.
[p. 1494]
-------
1660 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
1.13a (1) SENATE COMMITTEE ON MANUFACTURERS
S. REP. No. 1445, 71st Cong., 3rd Sess. (1931)
REGULATION OF WAGES PAID TO EMPLOYEES BY CON-
TRACTORS AWARDED GOVERNMENT BUILDING CON-
TRACTS
JANUARY 26 (calendar day, FEBRUARY 3), 1931.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. DAVIS, from the Committee on Manufactures, submitted the
following
REPORT
[To accompany S. 5904]
The Committee on Manufactures, to whom was referred the bill
(S. 5904) relating to the rate of wages for laborers and mechanics
employed on public buildings of the United States and the District
of Columbia, by contractors and subcontractors, and for other
purposes, having considered the same, report it to the Senate with
the recommendation that it do pass.
The purpose of this measure is to require contractors and sub-
contractors engaged in constructing, altering, or repairing any
public building of the United States or of the District of Columbia
situated within the geographic limits of the United States to pay
their employees the prevailing wage rates when such wage rates
have been established by private industry. In the event the con-
tracting officer is unable to adjust any dispute as to the prevailing
wage rates, this bill provides that the matter shall be referred to
the Secretary of Labor for determination and that the Secretary's
decision as to the wage rates shall be conclusive on all parties to
the contract.
The Federal Government has entered upon an extensive public
building program throughout the United States and in the District
of Columbia. This program will continue for a period of 8 or 10
years and will result in the expenditure of approximately a half a
billion dollars for the construction, alteration, and repair of Fed-
eral buildings. It was intended that this vast sum of money should
be expended not only to properly house Federal offices in their own
buildings, but also to benefit the United States at large through
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1661
distribution of construction throughout the communities of the
country without favoring any particular section.
[p-i]
The Federal Government must, under the law, award its con-
tracts to the lowest responsible bidder. This has prevented repre-
sentatives of the departments involved from requiring successful
bidders to pay wages to their employees comparable to the wages
paid for similar labor by private industry in the vicinity of the
building projects under construction. Though the officials award-
ing contracts have faithfully endeavored to persuade contractors
to pay local prevailing wage scales, some successful bidders have
selfishly imported labor from distant localities and have exploited
this labor at wages far below local wage rates.
This practice, which the Federal Government is now powerless
to stop, has resulted in a very unhealthy situation. Local artisans
and mechanics, many of whom are family men owning their own
homes, and whose standards of living have long been adjusted to
local wage scales, can not hope to compete with this migratory
labor. Not only are local workmen affected, but qualified contrac-
tors residing and doing business in the section of the country to
which Federal buildings are allocated find it impossible to compete
with the outside contractors, who base their estimates for labor
upon the low wages they can pay to unattached, migratory work-
men imported from a distance and for whom the contractors have
in some cases provided housing facilities and food in flimsy, tem-
porary quarters adjacent to the project under construction.
The question of having contractors who have been awarded
Government building contracts pay fair wage scales has been
passed on by the Senate in the form of an amendment introduced
by Senator Couzens, of Michigan, and attached to the appropria-
tion bill. The Federal departments have endeavored to correct the
situation without the aid of legislation, but have been unable to do
so. This committee has held extensive hearings on the subject and
has arrived at the conclusion that this measure will alleviate pres-
ent unsatisfactory conditions and will carry out the intent of the
Federal public-building policy. This legislation will provide a more
equable distribution of employment, especially in the present time
of depression, and will generally benefit the country at large by
requiring that those who have been awarded public-building con-
tracts pay their employees wages comparable to the prevailing
wage scales where they are employed.
-------
1662 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
The Secretary of Labor and representatives of the Treasury and
War Departments have appeared before this committee and have
advised this committee that the bill has their unqualified approval.
Representatives of labor have appeared before the committee and
have indorsed the measure as it stands. Builders throughout the
country have advised the committee that they favor the principle
involved in this bill.
This measure does not require the Government to establish any
new wage scales in any portion of the country. It merely gives the
Government the power to require its contractors to pay their em-
ployees the prevailing wage scales in the vicinity of the building
projects. This is only fair and just to the employees, the contrac-
tors, and the Government alike. It gives a square deal to all.
[P. 2]
1.13a(2) HOUSE COMMITTEE ON LABOR
H.R. REP. No. 2453, 71st Cong., 3rd Sess. (1931)
REGULATION OF WAGES PAID TO EMPLOYEES BY CON-
TRACTORS AWARDED GOVERNMENT BUILDING CON-
TRACTS
JANUARY 31, 1931.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. WELCH of California, from the Committee on Labor, submit-
ted the following
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 16619]
The Committee on Labor, to whom was referred the bill (H.R.
16619) relating to the rate of wages for laborers and mechanics
employed on public buildings of the United States and the District
of Columbia, by contractors and subcontractors, and for other
purposes, having considered the same, report it to the House with
the recommendation that it do pass.
The purpose of this measure is to require contractors and sub-
contractors engaged in constructing, altering, or repairing any
public building of the United States or of the District of Columbia
situated within the geographic limits of the United States to pay
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1663
their employees the prevailing wage rates when such wage rates
have been established by private industry. In the event the con-
tracting officer is unable to adjust any dispute as to the prevailing
wage rates, this bill provides that the matter shall be referred to
the Secretary of Labor for determination and that the Secretary's
decision as to the wage rates shall be conclusive on all parties to
the contract.
The Federal Government has entered upon an extensive public
building program throughout the United States and in the District
of Columbia. This program will continue for a period of 8 or 10
years and will result in the expenditure of approximately a half a
billion dollars for the construction, alteration, and repair of Fed-
eral buildings. It was intended that this vast sum of money should
be expended not only to properly house Federal offices in their own
buildings, but also to benefit the United States at large through
distribution of construction throughout the communities of the
country without favoring any particular section.
The Federal Government must, under the law, award its con-
tracts to the lowest responsible bidder. This has prevented repre-
[P. i]
sentatives of the departments involved from requiring successful
bidders to pay wages to their employees comparable to the wages
paid for similar labor by private industry in the vicinity of the
building projects under construction. Though the officials award-
ing contracts have faithfully endeavored to persuade contractors
to pay local prevailing wage scales, some successful bidders have
selfishly imported labor from distant localities and have exploited
this labor at wages far below local wage rates.
This practice, which the Federal Government is now powerless
to stop, has resulted in a very unhealthy situation. Local artisans
and mechanics, many of whom are family men owning their own
homes, and whose standards of living have long been adjusted to
local wage scales, can not hope to compete with this migratory
labor. Not only are local workmen affected, but qualified contrac-
tors residing and doing business in the sections of the country to
which Federal buildings are allocated find it impossible to compete
with the outside contractors, who base their estimates for labor
upon the low wages they can pay to unattached, migratory work-
men imported from a distance and for whom the contractors have
in some cases provided housing facilities and food in flimsy, tem-
porary quarters adjacent to the project under construction.
The question of having contractors who have been awarded
-------
1664
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
Government building contracts pay fair wage scales has been the
subject of long consideration by this committee and by the Federal
departments involved. The departments have endeavored to cor-
rect the situation without the aid of legislation, but have been
unable to do so. This committee has held extensive hearings on the
subject and has arrived at the conclusion that this measure will
alleviate present unsatisfactory conditions and will carry out the
intent of the Federal public-building policy. This legislation will
provide a more equable distribution of employment, especially in
the present time of depression, and will generally benefit the coun-
try at large by requiring that those who have been awarded pub-
lic-building contracts pay their employees wages comparable to
the prevailing wage scales where they are employed.
The Secretary of Labor and representatives of the Treasury and
War Departments have appeared before this committee and have
advised this committee that the bill has their unqualified approval.
Representatives of labor have appeared before the committee and
have indorsed the measure as it stands. Builders throughout the
country have advised the committee that they favor the principle
involved in this bill.
This measure does not require the Government to establish any
new wage scales in any portion of the country. It merely gives the
Government the power to require its contractors to pay their em-
ployees the prevailing wage scales in the vicinity of the building
projects. This is only fair and just to the employees, the contrac-
tors, and the Government alike. It gives a square deal to all.
[p. 2]
1.13a (3) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 74 (1930-1931)
1.13a(3)(a) Feb. 4: Passed Senate, pp. 3918-3921
MAINTENANCE OF WAGE STANDARDS
ON GOVERNMENT CONSTRUCTION WORK
Mr. COUZENS. Mr. President, I
should like the attention of the Sen-
ate for just a few moments in con-
nection with a provision which the
Senate attached to one of the special
appropriation bills having to do with
construction work.
When the Senate was considering
the $110,000,000 emergency appropri-
ation bill for construction work it
twice voted unanimously to put an
amendment on that bill providing for
the maintenance of wage standards
in the communities where the con-
struction work should be undertaken.
In the consideration of the amend-
ment by the conference committee it
was agreed to eliminate it; in other
words, the Senate surrendered, as it
usually does, to the House of Repre-
sentatives.
Since that time a committee of the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1665
House of Representatives has ap-
proved a bill to accomplish the pur-
pose designed to be accomplished by
the amendment referred to. That bill,
I understand, has received the ap-
proval of all departments of the
Government, and, so far as I know,
of the Members of the House, because
the House committee was unanimous
in its action on the measure.
On yesterday the Committee on
Manufactures of the Senate reported
a bill substantially similar to the one
pending in the House of Representa-
tives, and I understand that the pro-
posed legislation can be promptly
enacted.
The bill which is now on the calen-
dar provides, as Senators know, that
in letting contracts for Government
work in all cases where the amount
involved is in excess of $5,000 the
contractor must maintain the exist-
ing wage scale in the community
where the work is done. It also pro-
vides that where there is any differ-
ence of opinion as to what is the
prevailing wage then the Secretary
of Labor is authorized to settle the
question.
In the interest of the many unem-
ployed, in the interest of maintaining
existing wage scales, I plead with
the Senate to grant unanimous con-
sent now to consider this bill and
pass it. I am sure it will take but
a few moments.
Mr. LA FOLLETTE. Mr. Presi-
dent—
The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the
Senator from Michigan yield to the
Senator from Wisconsin?
Mr. COUZENS. I yield.
Mr. LA POLLETTE. Mr. Presi-
dent, I merely wish to second the
statement made by the Senator from
Michigan. The Committee on Manu-
factures held a hearing on this meas-
ure yesterday. At that hearing rep-
resentatives of the Labor Depart-
ment and of the War Department
and of the Treasury Department ap-
peared and gave their approval and
support to this bill. The committee
also heard the president of the
American Federation of Labor, Mr.
Green, and other labor leaders, who
also whole-heartedly indorsed the
measure as an emergency matter.
The fact is that contracts for Gov-
ernment construction are being let
every day; but, under a ruling of the
Comptroller General, unless some
legislation shall be passed the Gov-
ernment will have no right to put
into the specifications or the con-
tracts any provision for the main-
tenance of wage standards. There-
fore, in view of the great number of
contracts which are about to be let
and which are being let all the time,
it is of very great importance that
this proposed legislation should be
speedily enacted, and I hope that no
Senator will object to the unanimous
consent requested by the Senator
from Michigan.
Mr. JONES. Mr. President, if
there is to be no extended debate,
I hope that the bill may be considered
at this time.
Mr. COUZENS. The Senate has
twice unanimously agreed to the pro-
visions embodied in the bill.
Mr. ROBINSON of Arkansas. Mr.
President—
Mr. COUZENS. I yield to the Sen-
ator from Arkansas.
Mr. ROBINSON of Arkansas. I do
not desire to object to the considera-
tion of the bill, but I suggest that
it be reported at the desk.
Mr. COUZENS. I would be glad
to have it reported. I merely wanted
to make a statement before some
Senator raised an objection.
Mr. ROBINSON of Arkansas. The
Senator is asking now for the present
consideration of the bill?
Mr. COUZENS. Yes; I am doing
so because of its importance and
because contracts for construction
-------
1666
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
work are being let every day. I am
sure the Senate has already suffi-
ciently discussed the proposals em-
bodied in the measure to understand
adequately its provisions.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Let the
bill be read for the information of
the Senate.
The legislative clerk read the bill
(S. 5904) relating to the rate of
wages for laborers and mechanics
employed on public buildings of the
United States and the District of
Columbia by contractors and sub-
contractors, and for other purposes,
as follows:
Be it enacted, etc.. That every contract in
excess of $5,000 in amount, to which the
United States or the District of Columbia is
a party, which requires or involves the em-
ployment of laborers or mechanics in the con-
struction, alteration, and/or repair of any
public buildings of the United States or the
District of Columbia within the geographical
limits of the States of the Union or the
District of Columbia, shall contain a provision
to the effect that the rate of wage for all
laborers and mechanics employed by the con-
tractor or any subcontractor on the public
buildings covered by the contract shall be not
less than the prevailing rate of wages for
work of a similar nature in the city, town,
village, or other civil division of the State in
which the public buildings are located, or in
the District of Columbia if the public build-
[p. 3918]
ings are located there, and a further provision
that in case any dispute arises as to what are
the prevailing rates of wages for work of a
particular nature applicable to the contract
which can not be advertised by the contract-
ing officer, the matter shall be referred to the
Secretary of Labor for determination and his
decision thereon shall be conclusive on all
parties to the contract: Provided, That in case
of national emergency the President is author-
ized to suspend the provisions of this act.
SEC. 2. This act shall take effect 30 days
after its passage but shall not affect any
contract then existing or any contract that
may thereafter be entered into pursuant to
invitations for bids that are outstanding at
the time of the passage of this act.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there
objection to the present considera-
tion of the bill?
There being no objection, the Sen-
ate proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. KING. Mr. President, for in-
formation, I inquire of the Senator
from Michigan how he would deal
with a case such as this: Take, for
instance, San Francisco or Phoenix,
Ariz.—I am mentioning remote places
—and a controversy should arise be-
tween the contractor and the Govern-
ment or any other party with respect
to the scale of wages that should be
applied; would they have to come to
Washington to lay the matter before
the Secretary of Labor? Would it
not be better to set up some machin-
ery on the spot to deal with it? I
am asking the question for informa-
tion.
Mr. LA FOLLETTE. Mr. Presi-
dent, if the Senator from Michigan
will yield to me, I think I can give
the information the Senator from
Utah desires.
Mr. COUZENS. I yield to the Sen-
ator from Wisconsin.
Mr. LA FOLLETTE. The answer to
that question which was given by Sec-
retary Doak was that the Department
of Labor has a number of concilia-
tors throughout the country who are
constantly engaged in the settlement
of wage controversies, and through
those conciliators the Secretary is of
the opinion that the large majority
of these cases can be ousted. Of
course, should the intervention of
the conciliator fail, I presume that
those cases would have to be called
upon by the Secretary direct. The
fact of the matter is, however, that
it is the opinion of all of the depart-
ments concerned with these public-
building projects that the existing
machinery in the Department of
Labor will result in a speedy deter-
mination of any of these controversies
which are appealed to the Secretary
of Labor under the provisions of
the bill.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1667
Mr. KING. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. COUZENS. I yield.
Mr. KING. Was the question dis-
cussed as to whether or not it would
be entirely fair to all parties to leave
the question to one individual?
Mr. LA FOLLETTE. That ques-
tion was not discussed, although, may
I say to the Senator, the matter has
been very thoroughly gone into by all
the departments concerned; and after
a careful study and many conferences
they are of the opinion that the bill
is practical and workable, and will
accomplish the objectives which it
seeks to reach.
Mr. ROBINSON of Arkansas. Mr.
President, I think that provision
tends to promptness and decisiveness
of action; and I do not believe it
would be advisable to increase the
number who are to participate in the
decision.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President,
supporting the statement made by
the chairman of the Committee on
Manufactures, the Senator from Wis-
consin [Mr. LA FOLLETTE], I voted
to report out this measure, and I
consider it a very meritorious one.
I trust there will be no objection
upon the part of any Member of the
Senate to the passage of this bill.
The VICE PRESIDENT. The ques-
tion is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be en-
grossed for third reading, read the
third time, and passed.
[p. 3919]
1.13a (3) (b) Feb. 28: Debated and passed House, pp. 6504-6521
RATES OF WAGES FOR LABORERS AND
MECHANICS ON PUBLIC BUILDINGS OF
THE UNITED STATES
Mr. WELCH of California. Mr.
Speaker, I move to suspend the rules
and pass the bill (S. 5904) relating
to the rate of wages for laborers and
mechanics employed on public build-
ings of the United States and the
District of Columbia, by contractors
and subcontractors, and for other
purposes.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The
gentleman from California [Mr.
WELCH] moves to suspend the rules
and pass S. 5904, which the Clerk
will report.
The Clerk read the bill, as follows:
Be it enacted, etc., That every contract in
excess of $5,000 in amount, to which the
United States or the District of Columbia is
a party, which requires or involves the em-
ployment of laborers or mechanics in the con-
struction, alteration, and/or repair of any
public buildings of the United States or the
District of Columbia within the geographical
limits of the States of the Union or the
District of Columbia, shall contain a provision
to the effect that the rate of wage for all
laborers and mechanics employed by the con-
tractor or any subcontractor on the public
buildings covered by the contract shall be not
less than the prevailing rate of wages for
work of a similar nature in the city, town,
village, or other civil division of the State in
which the public buildings are located, or in
the District of Columbia if the public build-
ings are located there, and a further provision
that in case any dispute arises as to what are
the prevailing rates of wages for work of a
similar nature applicable to the contract which
can not be adjusted by the contracting officer,
the matter shall be referred to the Secretary
of Labor for determination and his decision
thereon shall be conclusive on all parties to
the contract: Provided, That in case of na-
tional emergency the President is authorized
to suspend the provisions of this act.
SEC. 2. This act shall take effect 30 days
after its passage but shall not affect any
contract then existing or any contract that
may thereafter be entered into pursuant to
invitations for bids that are outstanding at
the time of the passage of this act.
Mr. BLANTON. Mr. Speaker, I
demand a second.
-------
1668
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
Mr. WELCH of California. Mr.
Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
that a second be considered as or-
dered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The
gentleman from California [Mr.
WELCH] is recognized for 20 minutes,
and the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
BLANTON] is recognized for 20 min-
utes.
[p. 6504]
Mr. WELCH of California. Mr.
Speaker, the House Committee on
Labor has had before it H.R. 16619,
which is identical with S. 5904, now
before the House for final passage.
Our committee has held extensive
hearings on the bill which is to re-
quire contractors on public buildings
of the United States or the District
of Columbia to pay the prevailing
wage rate when such wage rates
have been established by private in-
dustry.
Secretary of Labor Doak, Assistant
Secretary of War Payne, and Mr.
James A. Wetmore, Acting Super-
vising Architect, attended the hear-
ings before the committee and made
strong arguments in behalf of the
bill. The bill was reported by the
committee by a unanimous vote.
The Federal Government has en-
tered upon an extensive public-build-
ing program throughout the United
States. This program will continue
for a period of 8 or 10 years and will
result in the expenditure of approxi-
mately a half billion dollars. It was
intended that this vast amount should
be expended not only to house Federal
offices in their own buildings but also
to benefit the United States at large
through distribution of construction
throughout the communities of the
country without favoring any par-
ticular section.
Though the officials awarding the
contracts endeavored to persuade con-
tractors to pay local prevailing wage
scale, some successful bidders have
imported labor from distant localities
and have exploited this labor at wages
far below local wage rates. This
selfish group of contractors believe
that Congress authorized this great
building program for their special
benefit. They base their estimates for
labor upon the low wages they can
pay to unattached migratory work-
men who in some'cases the contrac-
tors house and feed in temporary
quarters adjacent to the building un-
der construction and pay them what-
ever they will accept.
This bill, if enacted into law, will
correct this condition and will give
local workingmen, who pay taxes
and who in many cases support fa-
milies, the opportunity of securing
employment on these buildings con-
structed by the Federal Government.
[Applause.]
Mr. BLANTON. Mr. Speaker, I
yield myself five minutes. I ask un-
animous consent to revise and extend
my remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
There was no objection.
Mr. BLANTON. Mr. Speaker, in
connection with my remarks I ask
unanimous consent to incorporate a
letter which the Comptroller General
of the United States, Gen. J. R.
McCarl, has written the chairman of
the committee respecting this bill, and
the decision mentioned by him, at-
taching also a communication to the
President of the United States by
some of the parties interested.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Tha
gentleman from Texas asks to extend
his remarks in the manner indicated.
Is there objection?
There was no objection.
The communication from Gen. J.
R. McCarl is as follows:
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1669
Mr. BLANTON. Mr. Speaker, the
decision by Gen. J. R. McCarl is as
follows:
COMPTROLLER GENERAL
OP THE UNITED STATES,
Washington. February 12, 1931.
Hon. GUY E. CAMPBELL,
House of Representatives.
MY DEAR MR. CAMPBELL: You have referred
in your telephone conversation with me this
morning to S. 6904 and H.R. 16619, relating
to the rate of wages for laborers and me-
chanics employed on public buildings of the
United States and the District of Columbia,
and have requested me to advise you as a
member of the Committee on Labor whether
the original bills, or certain proposed amend-
ments, hereinafter stated, will give a better
accounting basis for the settlement and ad-
justment of claims arising under contracts
containing a stipulation as to the payment of
the prevailing rate of wages to the employees
of contractors engaged in the construction of
public buildings.
The Senate and House bills are in identical
terms and provide that—
"Every contract in excess of $5,000 in
amount, to which the United States or the
District of Columbia is a party, which re-
quires or involves the employment of laborers
or mechanics in the construction, alteration,
and/or repair of any public buildings of the
United States or the District of Columbia
within the geographical limits of the States
of the Union or the District of Columbia shall
contain a provision to the effect that the rate
of wage for all laborers and mechanics em-
ployed by the contractor or any subcontractor
on the public buildings covered by the con-
tract shall be not less than the prevailing
rate of wages for work of a similar nature
in the city, town, village, or other civil divi-
sion of the State in which the public buildings
are located, or in the District of Columbia if
the public buildings are located there, and a
further provision that in case any dispute
arises as to what are the prevailing rates of
wages for work of a similar nature applicable
to the contract, which can not be adjusted by
the contracting officer, the matter shall be re-
ferred to the Secretary of Labor for deter-
mination, and his decision thereon shall be
conclusive on all parties to the contract: Pro-
vided, That in case of national emergency the
President is authorized to suspend the provi-
sions of this act.
"SEC. 2. This act shall take effect 30 days
after its passage, but shall not affect any con-
tract then existing or any contract that may
thereafter be entered into pursuant to invita-
tions for bids that are outstanding at the time
of the passage of the act."
The amendments apparently suggested to
section 1 of the bill would make said section
read as follows:
"That every contract in excess of $5,000
in amount, to which the United States or the
District of Columbia is a party, which requires
or involves the employment of laborers or
mechanics in the construction, alteration, and/
or repair of any public buildings of the United
States or the District of Columbia within the
geographical limits of the States of the Union
or the District of Columbia, shall contain a
provision stating the minimum rate of wage
that shall be paid for all laborers and me-
chanics employed by the contractor or any sub-
contractor on the public buildings covered by
the contract, which rate shall be not less than
the prevailing rate of wages for work of a
similar nature in the city, town, village, or
other civil division of the State in which the
public buildings are located, or in the District
of Columbia if the public buildings are lo-
cated there. The said minimum rate of wages
equal to the prevailing rates of wages for
work of a similar nature applicable to the
contract shall be determined by the head of
the department or establishment concerned,
and shall be stated in the advertisement for
proposals, and shall be conclusive on all parties
to the contract: Provided, That in case of na-
tional emergency the President is authorized
to suspend the provisions of this act."
Under the bills without the amendment
neither the United States nor the contractors
could know at the time of contracting the
prevailing rate of wages which the contractors
must pay during the progress of the work.
Dependent upon the facts, the rate of wages
could be increased or decreased by a deter-
mination of the Secretary of Labor. A pru-
dent contractor would necessarily be required
to include in his proposal sufficient sums to
protect him against any increase in wages,
and if the increase did not take effect the
public would nevertheless be required to pay
the contractor the agreed price for the per-
formance of the work, and thus the contractors
would secure unjustified profits for the work.
On the other hand, if the wages were increased
above the amount included by the contractors
for such increases, the probabilities are that
many contractors would default in the perform-
ance of the work, and it would have to be com-
pleted by either the surety or the United States,
and the Government would be under the neces-
sity of attempting to recover the excess costs
from the contractors and/or their sureties. This
office can only conjecture what would be the
situation of materialmen and laborers in the
event of such default and the bond was not
sufficient to pay both the excess cost and the
-------
1670
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
unpaid sums to materialmen and laborers. |
There is thus an apparent impracticability un-
der the provisions of the bills as unamended.
The proposed amendments, above quoted, to
section 1 of the bill will eliminate this doubt
and uncertainty by the requirement that the
prevailing rate of wages be determined by the
head of the department concerned prior to the
advertisement for proposals and be stated in
the proposals, and that there shall be in-
cluded in the contract a stipulation that the
contractors shall pay as a minimum such
determined and stated rate of wages. This
will place all contractors on a parity in so
far as rates of wages are concerned in the
submission of their proposals. Such an amend-
ment will eliminate the doubt and uncertainty
with respect to the rate of wages which must
be paid by the contractors and will insure to
laborers the rate of wages prevailing when
the advertisement was issued.
As between the two bills as they now stand
and the bills with the suggested amendment
to section 1, this office has no hesitancy in
informing you that the amendments are desir-
able and will reduce the doubt and uncertainty
which would inevitably arise under the una-
mended bills, and to that extent would sim-
plify the accounting procedure in the settle-
ment of claims arising under the contracts.
I do not know whether your attention has
been invited to decision dated January 10,
1931, of this office, concerning, among other
things, a stipulation in contracts for the pay-
ment of the prevailing rate of wages, and if
not, a copy of such decision is inclosed here-
with.
Sincerely yours,
J. R. McCARL,
Comptroller General of the United States.
Mr. BLANTON. Mr. Speaker, the de-
cision by Gen. J. R. McCarl is as
follows:
COMPTROLLER GENERAL
OF THE UNITED STATES,
Washington, January 10, 1931.
The honorable the SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
SIR : There has been considered your sub-
mission of November 3, 1930, as follows:
[p. 6505]
"There is inclosed herewith copy of letter
of July 31, 1930, from the President, addressed
to the Secretary of the Treasury, in which
the President calls attention to complaints
that contractors engaged in Government work
are employing alien labor and that they are in
certain cases transporting labor long distances
into localities where there is already consider-
able unemployment. You will note that the
President suggests the inclusion of a para-
graph in the specifications of Government con-
tracts to remedy this evil.
"This department has also received numer-
ous complaints of this character and also that
contractors are taking advantage of the un-
employment situation to cut wages below the
prevailing wage scale or are transporting
cheap labor to jobs to the detriment of local
labor.
"The situation is one which should not be
endured. This department bases its estimates
for appropriations on the fair wage scales
prevailing throughout the country, and ex-
pects contractors to employ the best type
American mechanics and laborers on Federal
work. The Government should be the last em-
ploying agency to expect or countenance the
performance of its construction contracts at
the sacrifice of its citizens. In the absence of
any law forbidding the practices above named
it is the desire of the department, in accord-
ance with the President's wishes, to include
in its specifications a paragraph which will
give the department the control of the type
of labor employed on its contracts and the
wages to be paid such labor.
"In this connection the following paragraph
has been prepared and is submitted to you
for your consideration:
"NOTICE TO BIDDERS"
"In preparing their estimates bidders should
keep in mind the policy of the Treasury De-
partment to maintain the local wage scale,
which in case of dispute will be determined by
the Secretary of Labor. Furthermore, the con-
tractor and/or his subcontractor or subcon-
tractors will be required to give preference at
the time of employment of skilled and un-
skilled labor to ex-service men of the United
States Army, Navy, and Marine Corps and to
citizens of the United States and/or aliens
who have taken out their first papers of citi-
zenship: Provided, That exceptions to this re-
quirement will be permitted only to such extent
as may be shown to be necessary when the
number of qualified skilled and/or unskilled
laborers can not be obtained: And provided
further, That the term "labor* as herein used
shall not include the contractors or subcon-
tractors or subcontractors' managerial or
supervisory officers or employees: And provided
further, That the contracting officer or his
representative may require the contractor and/
or his subcontractor or subcontractors to dis-
charge any laborer or mechanic employed on
the work at the site thereof.
It is not intended to place this paragraph
in the contracts, but it will be inserted in
the specifications as a notice to bidders.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1671
"It will be appreciated if you will express
your views as to whether in your opinion
there is any legal obstacle to the inclusion of
this paragraph in the specifications of con-
tracts for Federal building construction under
the control of the Treasury Department, and
if the paragraph meets with your approval.
Also the department will be glad to receive
your suggestions as to any changes in phrase-
ology which in your opinion would more cer-
tainly attain the desired object."
It is noted that the paragraph quoted in
your submission, requiring maintenance of the
local wage scale and preference for ex-service
men and citizens of the United States, in-
cluding aliens who have taken out their first
papers of citizenship, is proposed to be in-
serted in the advertised specifications as a
notice to bidders, but is not to be included
in contracts.
No lengthy discussion would seem necessary
to reveal the impropriety of what is thus pro-
posed. If the paragraph is to be more than
a gesture, there must be adequate means pro-
vided to insure observance of its stipulations by
contractors. Then, too, to encourage bidding
in amounts adequate to maintain the local
wage scale and to give the preferences stip-
ulated for, without providing the means neces-
sary to insure strict observance of such re-
quirements, would be unfair to the Public
Treasury and involve an unauthorized use of
the appropriation chargeable for the accomp-
lishment of the work.
It is assumed, however, that the proposed
paragraph is intended to be more than a ges-
ture and that your submission involves the
question whether existing laws controlling the
uses of appropriated moneys will permit the
inclusion of the proposed paragraph in speci-
fications advertised for bids—with adequate
provision in contracts for strict enforcement,
and it will be considered accordingly.
With respect to the proposal to require con-
tractors on public work of the Treasury De-
partment to give preference to ex-servicemen
of the United States Army, Navy, and Marine
Corps, there was before this office in decision
of November 8, 1930 (A-33826 and A-33890)
section 9 of the act of December 21, 1928, 45
Stat. 1057, which required that preference be
given to such ex-service men in connection
with the construction of the Hoover Dam.
This office held in said decision that the
statutory requirement as to preference for ex-
service men in connection with construction
work on the Hoover Dam must be observed
but the difference between the case considered
in said decision of November 8, 1930, and that
phase of the case here presented is that there
is no statute authorizing or requiring prefer-
ence to be given to ex-service men over other
American citizens by contractors engaged on
construction work for the Treasury Depart-
ment. It is to be further noted that a similar
statutory preference was required by certain
earlier appropriation acts to be given to ex-
service men. See in particular the act of Feb-
ruary 28, 1919 (40 Stat. 1201), relating to the
construction of public roads aided by Federal
funds, which required such preference and
specifically prohibited other discrimination
among citizens of the United States as un-
lawful. The Congress having made the matter
of giving preference to ex-service men over
other American citizens the subject of legis-
lation by enacting specific provisions for such
preference in certain instances, it is not open
to administrative consideration to exact that
Dreference where the Congress has not seen
fit to do so; that is, requiring preference to be
given by contractors on Treasury Department
construction work in employing their skilled
or unskilled laborers to ex-service men over
other American citizens. There is no author-
ity of law for making such discrimination be-
tween different groups of American citizens.
With respect to the preference proposed to
be required of contractors on construction
work of the Treasury Department to be given
to American citizens and or aliens with first
citizenship papers over other aliens, it was
held by this office in decision of November 8,
1930, supra, that in a clearly proper case
objection would not be made by the account-
ing officers to a requirement that preference
be given to American citizens, on public
work, over aliens, and in the particular case
then under consideration—construction of the
Hoover Dam near the Mexican border—the
facts and circumstances appeared such that
it was concluded objection might properly be
withheld as in the public interest if the Presi-
dent should conclude in such connection to
approve such modification of the form of
contract theretofore prescribed by him as
for uniform use in such cases. While what
was therein said and held had relation to the
particular case then under consideration, in-
cluding its own facts, circumstances, and
conditions, there appears no present require-
ment for any modification of what was
therein said and held in such regard, nor has
there been suggested reason for enlargement
to include aliens who have secured their first
citizenship papers.
In this connection it seems not improper
to invite attention to your communication of
September 29, 1930, to the President, made
in response to his letter of July 31, 1930,
referred to in the first paragraph of your sub-
mission herein. Attached to your communica-
tion of September 29 there was a tabulated
statement of the number of men employed on
26 construction projects under the Treasury
Department, located in various parts of the
United States, as follows:
-------
1672
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
NUMBER OF MEN EMPLOYED ON VARIOUS JOBS
Building
Total Alien Local
Out-
side
Asheville, N.C., post office...
Boise, Idaho, post office
Boston, Mass., post office
Brooklyn, N.Y., post office...
Dallas, Tex., post office.
Denver, Colo., customhouse..
Fargo, N. Dak., post office...
Haverhill, Mass., post office..
Juneau, Alaska, Federal
building
Lima, Ohio, post office
Lowell, Mass., post office
Memphis, Tenn., post office__
Milwaukee, Wis., post office..
New Orleans, La , marine
hospital
Oshkosh, Wis., post office....
Passaic, N.J., post office
Pullman, Mont, post office..
Racine, Wis , post office
San Francisco, Calif.,
marine hospital _
Seattle, Wash., immigrant
station
Scranton, Pa., post office
Springfield, III, post office...
Tampa, Fla., post office
Tucson, Ariz., post office
Tyrone, Pa., post office
Watertown, N.Y , post office.
65
60
48
13
131
90
78
53
101
50
27
140
100
32
34
27
20
32
117
50
103
65
65
161
12
50
60
33
36
13
117
81
26
35
9 39
0 34
0 27
1 126
2 100
0 32 0
0 21 13
0 23 4
0 20 0
0 28 4
2 117
0
5
1
0
0
0
11
50
96
41
53
103
0
45
1,724 34 1,356
368
It would appear, as pointed out in your
letter of September 29, 1930, that the number
of aliens so employed is relatively small—34
out of a total of 1,724.
There would appear for consideration in
such connection also, as having some relation-
ship thereto, the immigration policy of the
United States as it has heretofore been and
as it now exists, as disclosed by the enact-
ments on the subject, and from which this
problem arises.
From what has been pointed out it neces-
sarily follows that only in a clear case of
necessity in the public interest could the
accounting officers properly withhold objection
to the uses of public moneys that would be
involved by a contractual requirement for
employment by contractor on the public work
involved, American citizens and aliens who
have obtained first papers of citizenship over
other aliens lawfully here, without legislative
authority therefor.
With respect to the question remaining:
It is proposed by the submission to now
include in requests for bids in cases where
public work intrusted to the Treasury Depart-
ment for accomplishment is to be let to pri-
vate contractors, a stipulation requiring the
successful bidder (the contractor) "to maintain
the local wage scale, which in case of dispute
will be determined by the Secretary of Labor,"
or as has been suggested informally, language
having like purpose and effect, such as a
requirement that "contractor pay not less
than the prevailing rate of wages in the
locality or metropolitan area in which the
project is being constructed." While a some-
what similar matter was treated in certain
text submitted here by the Secretary of the
[p. 6506]
Interior in the Hoover Dam case, decided
November 8, 1930, the precise question here
involved was not raised, considered, or decided
therein.
The Supreme Court of the United States
has had recent occasion to consider and ex-
press decision on strikingly similar language
in Connally v. General Construction Co. (269
U. S. 385). This was an action involving an
Oklahoma statute requiring "laborers, work-
men, mechanics, or other persons employed by
contractors or subcontractors in the execution
of any contract or contracts with the State"
to be paid by the contractor or subcontractor
"not less than the current rate of per diem
wages in the locality where the work is per-
formed * * *." The statute provided a penalty
of fine or imprisonment for violations. A dis-
pute arose as to the amount of the current
rate of per diem wages being paid labor in
the locality where the particular work was
being performed, and the Commissioner of
Labor having determined, after investigation,
that $3.60 was such current rate of wage in
the locality, and contractor insisting upon and
paying only $3.20 per day, contractor was
threatened with prosecution in the event
there was not paid the rate of wage so de-
termined by the Commissioner of Labor, and
applied for injunction to restrain the State
officials from enforcing the statute because
unconstitutional. In affirming the decree of
the lower court granting injunction relief the
Supreme Court said:
"We are of opinion that this provision pre-
sents a double uncertainty, fatal to its valid-
ity as a criminal statute. In the first place, the
words 'current rate of wages' do not denote
a specific or definite sum, but minimum,
maximum, and intermediate amounts, inde-
terminably, varying from time to time and
dependent upon the class and kind of work
done, the efficiency of the workmen, etc., as
the bill alleges is the case in respect of the
territory surrounding the bridges under con-
struction. The statutory phrase reasonably
can not be confined to any of these amounts,
since it imports each and all of them. The
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1673
'current rate of wages' is not simple but pro-
gressive—from so much (the minimum) to so
much (the maximum), including all between;
and to direct the payment of an amount
which shall not be less than one of several
different amounts, without saying which, is to
leave the question of what is meant incapable
of any definite answer. See People ex rel.
Rodgers v. Coler (166 N. Y. I, 24-25).
"Nor can the question be solved by resort to
the established canons of construction that
enable a court to look through awkward or
clumsy expression, or language wanting in
precision, to the intent of the legislature. For
the vice of the statute here lies in the impos-
sibility of ascertaining, by any reasonable
test, that the legislature meant one thing
rather than another, and in the futility of an
attempt to apply a requirement, which as-
sumes the existence of a rate of wages single
in amount, to a rate in fact composed of a
multitude of gradations. To construe the
phrase 'current rate of wages' as meaning
either the lowest rate or the highest rate or
any intermediate rate or, if it were possible to
determine the various factors to be considered,
an average of all rates, would be as likely to
defeat the purpose of the legislature as to
promote it. See State v. Partlow (91 N. C. 550,
553); Commonwealth v. Bank of Pennsylvania
(3 Watts & S. 173, 177).
"In the second place, additional obscurity is
imparted to the statute by the use of the
qualifying word 'locality,' Who can say with
any degree of accuracy what areas constitute
the locality where a given piece of work is
being done? Two men moving in any direction
from the place of operations would not be at
all likely to agree upon the point where they
had passed the boundary which separated the
locality of that work from the next locality.
It is said that this question is settled for us
by the decision of the criminal court of ap-
peals on rehearing in State v. Tibbetts (205
Pac. 776, 779). But all the court did there
was to define the word 'locality' as meaning
'place,' 'near the place,' 'vicinity,* or 'neigh-
borhood.' Accepting this as correct, as of
course we do, the result is not to remove the
obscurity but rather to offer a choice of
uncertainties. The word 'neighborhood' is quite
as susceptible of variation as the word 'local-
ity.' Both terms are elastic and, dependent
upon circumstances, may be equally satisfied
by areas measured by rods or by miles. See
Schmidt v. Kansas City Distilling Co. (90 Mo.
284, 296); Woods v. Cochrane & Smith (38
Iowa 484, 485); State ex rel. Christie v.
Meek (26 Wash. 405, 407-408); Millville Imp.
Co. v. Pitman, etc., Gas Co. (75 N. J. Law,
410, 412); Thomas v. Marshfield (10 Pick. 364,
367). The case last cited held that a grant of
common to the inhabitants of a certain neigh-
borhood was void because the term 'neigh-
borhood' was not sufficiently certain to identi-
fy the grantees. In other connections or under
other conditions the term 'locality* might be
definite enough, but not so in a statute such
as that under review imposing criminal penal-
ties. Certainly, the expression 'near the place*
leaves much to be desired in the way of a
delimitation of boundaries; for it at once pro-
vokes the inquiry, 'How near?' And this
element of uncertainty can not here be put
aside as of no consequence, for as the rate of
wages may vary—as in the present case it is
alleged it does vary—among different employ-
ers and according to the relative efficiency of
the workmen, so it may vary in different sec-
tions. The result is that the application of
the law depends not upon a word of fixed
meaning in itself, or one made definite by
statutory or judicial definition, or by the
context or other legitimate aid to its construc-
tion, but upon the probably varying impres-
sions of juries as to whether given areas are
or are not to be included within particular
localities. The constitutional guaranty of due
process can not be allowed to rest upon a sup-
port so equivocal."
While the Oklahoma case involved a statute
imposing a fine or imprisonment as penalty
for violation and was thus penal in its nature,
it is assumed there will be provided, as would
appear necessary if it should be held permis-
sible under existing law to include the sug-
gested language in contract matters as pro-
posed, adequate means to accomplish and
insure full compliance, including penalty for
violation.
But, aside from this aspect of the matter,
there remain other serious questions—whether
under existing law the matter of so fixing the
wages an employer must pay in the doing of
Government work is one authorized to be
accomplished in connection with the contract-
ing therefor pursuant to section 3709, Re-
vised Statutes; and, if so, whether an appro-
priation, general in terms, may properly be
held available for payments in such connection.
It has long been the rule, enforced uniformly
by the accounting officers and the courts,
that an appropriation of public moneys by
the Congress, made in general terms, is avail-
able only to accomplish the particular thing
authorized by the appropriation to be done.
It is equally well established that public moneys
so appropriated are available only for uses
reasonably and clearly necessary to the accom-
plishment of the thing authorized by the ap-
propriation to be done.
Usually the thing so authorized to be done
may be accomplished either through a govern-
mental agency employing the necessary labor,
purchasing the needed materials, etc., or, in
a proper case, through contracting with &
citizen to do the job, who, by his contract,
assumes the responsibility for supplying: every-
thing needed to fully discharge his contractual
obligations, including labor, materials, etc. In
-------
1674
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
so contracting the basic statute to be observed
is section 3709, Revised Statutes. The clear
purpose of this statute is to secure full and
free competition in supplying the needs o£
the United States (which needs are required
to be clearly stated in the request for bids)
and the benefit to the Treasury of required
acceptance of the low responsible bidder.
The clear intent of the suggested language,
employed in connection with bidding and con-
tracting as proposed, is to benefit those em-
ployed on the work by contractors and to
insure them against wage reductions below
the "local wage scale" or the "prevailing
rate of wages in the locality." In fact, the
suggested language admonishes bidders to in-
clude in their bids amounts with which to so
make payments, and it must he assumed the
bidding will be accordingly.
No matter how worthy may be the object
or end sought to be attained through action
by the executive branch, where the use of
public money would be involved in its accom-
plishment, it becomes necessary, if our system
of government is to be faithfully observed,
for the accounting officers to question the
proposed use, unless by them found to be
reasonably within the law of the appropria-
tion proposed to be employed. Then, if agree-
ment to the proposed use must be by the
accounting officers withheld, the matter may
go to the Congress, the souirce of all author-
ity for the uses of public moneys.
However desirable the contrary may be, it
seems clear that in the present state of law
the proposal to fix by contract the minimum
rate of wages the contractor must pay his
employees in the doing of the contract work,
assuming a contract otherwise valid and
enforceable could be drawn, clashes with the
long-recognized intent and purpose of section
3709, Revised Statutes, in that it removes from
competitive bidding on the project an import-
ant element of cost and tends to defeat the
purpose of the statute—that is, to obtain a
need of the United States, authorized by law
to be acquired, at a cost no greater than the
amount of the bid of the low responsible bid-
der, after full and free competitive bidding.
But were it possible to surmount this ob-
stacle, could it properly be held that the
fixing of the minimum wages to be paid
employees, as proposed, has such intimate
relationship to the single matter of accom-
plishing the thing authorized by the appro-
priation to be done as to properly permit its
being held, in other than a most extraordinary
case, reasonably necessary to such accomplish-
ment, so as to meet the test long applied in
determining the availability of an appropria-
tion general in terms for proposed or accom-
plished uses? I fear not. That the cost to the
United States because of the admonition to
bidders to so bid as to be able to pay the
wages as so fixed, whether actually so paid or
not, would be increased, seems too clear for
question. Such added cost in the matters in-
volved in the submission would seem to have
no relationship to the actual accomplishment
of the work authorized by the appropriations
to be done, and consequently could not pro-
perly be paid from such appropriations.
What is here involved appears a matter
which, in the present state of the law is not
for adjustment through administrative action
in contracting, and uses of appropriated
moneys in such connection without further ex-
pression and authority thereon from the Con-
gress may not properly be approved by the
accounting officers.
That the Congress regards the problem as
one for adjustment through legislative enact-
ment, possibly because of the effect on the
economic structure is evidenced by Senate
amendment No. 14 to the bill H. R. 14804,
recently considered and enacted after elimina-
tion of the said amendment, and other meas-
ures now pending.
Answering specifically your submission I
feel compelled to hold—
1. That to include the proposed language
in requests for bids without providing ade-
quate means for exacting complete compliance
therewith would not be authorized.
2. That only in a clear case of necessity in
the public interest may the accounting officers
properly withhold objection to the uses of
[p. 6507]
public moneys that would be involved by a
contractual requirement for employment by
contractor on the public work involved, Ameri-
can citizens and aliens who have taken out
first papers of citizenship over other aliens
lawfully here without further legislative
authority therefor than now exists.
3. Discrimination between different groups
of American citizens through exacting pref-
erence for one over the others by contractors
engaged on public work is unauthorized other
than when specifically so required by law.
4. To include in requests for bids a provi-
sion admonishing bidders to so bid as to be
able, in the event of being awarded the con-
tract, to pay employees on the contract work
the "local wage scale" or "the prevailing rates
of wages in the locality or metropolitan area
in which the project is being constructed,"
even with adequate provision for complete en-
forcement against contractors, would in gen-
eral and in the present state of the law be
unauthorized. Only in such rare case, if one
there might be under existing conditions,
where the need for such stipulation could on
the facts be held as required to accomplish the
thing authorized by the appropriation to be
done, could objection be properly withheld.
Respectfully,
J. R. MOCARL,
Comptroller General of the United State*.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1675
Mr. Speaker, the letter from some
of the interested parties, the Asso-
ciated General Contractors of Amer-
ica, to the President of the United
States is as follows:
ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS
OF AMERICA (INC.),
Washington, D. C., February 8, 19S1.
THE PRESIDENT,
White House. Washington. D.C.
DEAR MR. PRESIDENT : Under date of January
26, 1931, there was introduced in the Senate
S. 5904, and on January 27, 1931, in the House
H. R. 16619, both relating to the rate of
wages of laborers and mechanics employed on
public buildings of the United States and the
District of Columbia by contractors and sub-
contractors. S. 5904 was reported January 26,
1931, calendar day February 3, 1931, and H. R.
16619 was reported January 31, 1931, and, as
you doubtless know, S. 6904 has recently
passed the Senate and H. R. 16619 and the
Senate bill are both pending in the House.
As you will remember from your recent
telegram sent to this association, the associa-
tion was holding its annual convention in
San Francisco, Calif., and many of the mem-
bers of the association were either en route to
or attending the convention when these bills
were introduced into Congress and reported
by the respective committees of the Senate and
House. Consequently this association did not
have an opportunity to present its views in
the matter, and upon contacting Saturday,
February 7, 1931, with some of the Members
of the House it seemed to be the impression of
these Members that these bills were adminis-
tration measures and that even though the con-
tracting industry had not been heard in the
matter the bills could not be amended to cor-
rect obvious possibilities of endless disputes
and of increased costs to both the taxpayers
and the contractors.
At the outset this association desires to be
understood as favoring during this emer-
gency period the principle that contractors on
Government public-building work should pay
the prevailing local rate of wages, and the
association condemns those few contractors
who cut wages below the local rate, whether
on public-building work or on the vast high-
way program participated in by both the
States and the Federal Government. These bills
under consideration do not touch this latter
class of highway contracts. This position of
the association is clearly stated in the follow-
ing resolution which was adopted at the an-
nual convention in San Francisco on January
29. 1931:
"An extensive study of conditions now
prevailing in the construction industry has
indicated to the Associated General Contractors
of America the advisability and propriety of
enunciating the following principles with re-
spect to wages and hours of labor:
"First. It is contrary to the best interests of
the construction industry and society at large
for contractors or other employers to utilize
the present surplus of workmen as a means
of depressing wages or establishing excessive
hours of employment.
"Second. It is contrary to the best interests
for a public body to award a contract to a
contractor whose bid is predicated upon the
exploitation of labor by either excessive work-
ing hours or reduced wages.
"Third. It is contrary to the desire of the
people, as expressed by the extraordinary ap-
propriation of Congress during the present
emergency, that workmen's wages paid out
of public moneys should be depressed below
that required for a decent standard of living:
Therefore be it
"Resolved, By the Associated General Con-
tractors of America, that public awarding
agencies have a moral obligation to cooperate
with the responsible contractors of the country
in preventing exploitation of labor; be it
further
"Resolved, That the Federal Government
when assisting the States financially and the
States when assisting any political subdivision
should enforce such regulations as may be
necessary during the present emergency to
maintain a reasonable scale of wages."
Favoring the principle that Government
contractors and subcontractors should be re-
quired to pay the local prevailing rate of
wages, this association most strenuously ob-
jects to S. 6904 and H. R. 16619, which would
throw the entire contracting industry, in so
far as it is engaged in the construction of
Government buildings, into confusion; would
largely increase the expense to the taxpayers
of the country of necessary public buildings,
and would lead to endless dissatisfaction and
bickerings between contractors and the con-
tracting officers, between labor and both the
contractors and contracting officers, and
would not insure to labor what the proponents
of the bills seem to think that labor should
receive.
It would seem to require no argument to
demonstrate that if contractors must bid on
public work with the uncertainty confronting
them that the Secretary of Labor could and
probably would change the rate of wages a
number of times during the progress of the
work, such contractors must add to their
proposals sufficient sums to protect them
against any such possible increases. If the
increases do not take effect, such additional
sums would accrue to the contractors in
addition to their ordinary allowance and would
represent an unnecessary expense to the pub-
lic. Without further argument you will appre-
ciate from your experience in the business
world that anything which leads to doubt and
-------
1676
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
uncertainty, or increases the risks on con-
struction work, must necessarily increase the
bid price for performance of such work. If
the Government assumed these risks in a
cost-plus contract, the situation might be
different, but it is not understood that these
bills contemplate cost-plus contracts, and if
the risks are to be imposed on the contractor,
the public must necessarily pay therefor.
Under present competitive conditions the
constant tendency will be for bidders to re-
duce this margin to a minimum to protect
against changes in wage rates with the result
that undoubtedly the number of failures of
contractors will be increased, resulting in
losses to materials, men, and laborers, delay in
securing the completion of the work, and
increased expenditures by the Government for
supervisors, attorneys, etc., in connection
therewith. All this public and social loss can
be and should be reduced to a minimum
through the enactment of proper legislation
under which operations are to take place.
As stated above, and as shown by the
above-quoted resolution, this association is in
favor of the Government contractors paying
the local prevailing rate of wages during this
emergency, but it does believe that legislation
to that end should be definite and certain. This
association believes, in substance, that the
minimum rate of wages to be paid laborers
and mechanics should be determined by the
department having in charge the construction
work and not by the head of some other
department who is not charged with the
responsibility for the expenditures of the pub-
lic funds provided for such work. Also that
the rates of wages to be paid should be stated
in the advertisement for bids so that all
prospective contractors will be informed as
to the rate that they must pay so that they
may intelligently compute their costs. No in-
telligent estimate of cost of labor can be
made without this information, and this with-
out reference to the possible effect of the
rates of wages on Government building pro-
jects on the general economic structure.
This association would have no objection to
the legislation, if the bills were modified to
read, as follows:
"Be it enacted, etc., That every contract in
excess of $5,000 in amount, to which the
United States or the District of Columbia is
a party, which requires or involves the em-
ployment of laborers or mechanics in the
construction, alteration, and/or repair of any
public buildings of the United States or the
District of Columbia within the geographica
limits of the States of the Union or the
District of Columbia, shall contain a provi-
sion stating the minimum rate of wage that
shall be paid for all laborers and mechanics
employed by the contractor or any subcon-
tractor on the public buildings covered by the
contract, which rate shall be not less than
the prevailing rate of wages for work of a
similar nature in the city, town, village, or
other civil division of the State in which the
public buildings are located, or in the Dis-
trict of Columbia, if the public buildings are
ocated there. The said minimum rate of
wages equal to the prevailing rates of wages
for work of a similar nature applicable to the
:ontract shall be determined by the head of
the department or establishment concerned
and shall be stated in the advertisement for
proposals and shall be conclusive on all parties
to the contract: Provided, That in case of
national emergency the President is authorized
to suspend the provisions of this act.
"SEC. 2. This act shall take effect 30 days
after its passage, but shall not affect any
contract then existing or any contract that
may thereafter be entered into pursuant to
invitations for bids that are outstanding at
the time of the passage of this act."
Since these bills are reported to be ad-
ministration measures and we feel that the
President of the United States can properly
take no position which is not in the best
interests of the taxpayers of the United States,
labor, and contractors—all of their interests
being considered—we earnestly request that
you make known to Congress your approval
of the amendments, which we believe neces-
sary in these bills so as to remove doubt and
uncertainty so as to insure that labor will
receive the rate of wages prevailing at the
date of the advertisement for bids so that
contractors may bid and contract for public
buildings with some degree of certainty as to
their probable cost and so that they will not
be required in self-defense to include in their
proposals unallocated items to take care of
possible increase of wages required by Gov-
ernment officials to be paid after the contracts
have been entered into.
Respectfully,
A. P. GREENSFELDER, President.
Mr. Speaker, if this bill were not
demanded by organized labor it would
not have a chance of passage in this
[p. 6508]
House under suspension of the rules.
This is the most ridiculous proposi-
tion I have ever seen brought before
a legislative body. You are called
upon by the provisions of this bill
to make a contract between every
contractor and his employees, respect-
ing the construction of every pubjic
building that may be built in every
district in the United States, whether
it suits the contracting parties or
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1677
not. You are taking away from
American citizens, contractors, and
laborers alike the sacred, inherent
right of contract—the right to make
their own contracts for themselves.
We are thus proposing by this
pernicious bill to interfere with a
sacred, inalienable right that has
given initiative and independence to
men for ages past. It would make
the advertising by the Government
for the "Lowest reputable bid" ridic-
ulous and a farce.
I am for organized labor when it
is right, and I dare to exercise my
own judgment and refuse to obey its
commands when it is wrong. I have
supported every proper demand that
has been made by organized labor
during the 13 years I have been in
Congress.
I saw fit in this House during the
war, when men who had been ex-
empted from the draft to work for
their Government and were getting
$30 a day as skilled laborers in the
shipyards, and who kept striking un-
til there were 6,000 strikes against
the Government during the war—I
was one who voted for the famous
"work or fight" amendment, which
would make them fight when they
refused to work. I was then de-
nounced by organized labor as its
enemy, but I am one of those who
is not afraid to stand up here and
refuse to let a bill like this pass
without raising my feeble voice in
protest. I know that in this atmos-
phere this bill will pass this House
to-day, but I can not believe that the
President will allow it to become a
law.
The Comptroller General sent a
letter to the chairman of this com-
mittee, which I have put in the
RECORD, suggesting a salutary amend-
ment, providing that when the rates
of wages are fixed they shall be fixed
by the department having charge of
the construction and not by the Sec-
retary of Labor; that the rates of
wages shall be stated in every adver-
tisement for building construction, so
that the contractors may understand
what they are going to have to pay
laborers when they take a contract.
That is a reasonable and a fair pro-
vision and should have been placed
in this bill, and without which this
bill ought to be defeated. I know I
can not defeat it here, but I believe
this protest will cause it to be de-
feated elsewhere.
Are there of you, my colleagues,
men who, because organized labor
demands that you do something, are
going to do that something when you
know it is against your best judg-
ment?
I can not forget that I have seen
men on this floor, like my former
friend from Georgia, Hon. Bill Up-
shaw, of Atlanta, who for years
blindly obeyed organized labor in
every demand it made, and yet when
he needed a few votes down in At-
lanta they turned him down and
defeated him. I can not forget my
good friend, JIM O'CONNOR, of New
Orleans, who during his entire stay
here, with his eyes shut and his ears
closed and his brain stopped work-
ing, blindly obeyed every demand of
organized labor, and yet when he
needed a few votes down in New
Orleans in the last election they
turned him down and defeated him.
Mr. SABATH. Will the gentleman
yield?
Mr. BLANTON. Yes.
Mr. SABATH. I know the country
would be interested if the gentleman
would insert in his remarks the votes
he cast in favor of organized labor,
because I can not think of a single
vote the gentleman has cast that
would have been in favor of organized
labor but was in the interest of con-
tractors and special interests.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The
-------
1678
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
time of the gentleman from Texas
has expired.
Mr. BLANTON. Mr. Speaker, I
yield myself five additional minutes.
I want to answer my friend from
Illinois. I have never voted against
any of the demand of organized
labor. I challenge any Member to
name one vote of mine against any
demand of organized labor that was
just and right. Down in my district
every time I run for office, organized
labor from Washington comes down
there and buys up the advertising
space in all the newspapers that are
published in my district and they
say exactly what the gentleman
from Illinois says, and yet I get
about 60 per cent of all the organized
vote in my district every time I run,
because they have confidence in me
and they know I do not fight them
when they are right and they know
I dare to tell them to go to hell when
they are wrong.
Mr. WOODRUFF. Will the gentle-
man yield?
Mr. BLANTON. Yes.
Mr. WOODRUFF. My friend from
Texas knows, of course, that we have
either got to accept this bill or vote
it down.
Mr. BLANTON. Yes; just the way
it is written. You have got to vote it
up or vote it down. You can not dot
an "i" or cross a "t." We can not
amend it. You have got to take it
just like organized labor has written
it for you, like a bunch of mocking
birds with their mouths open and
their eyes shut.
Mr. WOODRUFF. Will the gentle-
man yield further?
Mr. BLANTON. Certainly.
Mr. WOODRUFF. Will the gentle-
man point out to the House where
there is any provision in this bill
which prohibits the Treasury Depart-
ment from specifying the rates of
wages that shall be paid for the dif-
ferent classes of labor employed in
construction? Is there anything in
the bill to prevent the Treasury De-
partment from doing exactly what
the gentleman demands?
Mr. BLANTON. The Senate bill,
which is the same as the House bill,
requires that if there is any dispute
about the prevailing rate of wages
it is to be settled in Washington by
the Secretary of Labor, for those
buildings to be constructed in New
Mexico, in Oregon, or in Florida. It
is the Secretary of Labor who shall
say what the rates of wages shall be
paid by the contractors in those
States to their employees. I am not
in favor of such a provision. I want
the right of contract between Ameri-
cans to remain inviolate. Let them
meet each other across the table and
agree upon what they are going to do.
Mr. SCHAFER of Wisconsin and
Mr. SHORT of Missouri rose.
Mr. BLANTON. I want to yield
first to my friend from Wisconsin.
Mr. SCHAFER of Wisconsin. I
know the gentleman from Texas
wants to be absolutely correct.
Mr. BLANTON. Always.
Mr. SCHAFER of Wisconsin. The
gentleman made the statement that
a former colleague, Mr. Upshaw, al-
ways blindly followed organized labor
in every demand. I want to call the
gentleman's attention to the fact that
the American Federation of Labor
at many national conventions, by
an almost unanimous vote, has asked
for the return of beer and light
wines, and yet the gentleman from
Georgia, Mr. Upshaw, did not follow
that demand.
Mr. BLANTON. I am glad that
my friend has mentioned that de-
mand of the American Federation of
Labor. It proves the fact that some
demands are ridiculous, and even
require Members to nullify the Con-
stitution itself. I remember that un-
der the whip and spur of labor Bill
Upshaw voted for the Hawley Bill
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1679
that would have put this Govern-
ment into the distillery business, and
placed Mr. Secretary Mellon at the
head of Government distillery corpo-
ration, with $100,000,000 capital. But
fortunately that did not become law.
I will give you an illustration of
what organized labor will do for the
faithful. You take our good friend,
FRED ZIHLMAN, who hasn't been
quite dry all his life—he was born
that way [laughter]—he has lived
that way, and he will die that way.
He has faithfully obeyed organized
labor in every demand they have ever
made; yet, when he needed a few
votes this time, they quit him and
kept him at home; and I will tell you
this: You would better quit depend-
ing on organized labor in particular
and depend on American citizens gen-
erally for reelection.
Mr. SHORT of Missouri. Will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. BLANTON. Yes.
[p. 6509]
Mr. SHORT of Missouri. Organized
labor opposed me at the recent elec-
tion, but for that reason I am not
going to oppose the passage of this
bill because section 2 protects the
contractor by making the wage scale
apply only to contracts that are let
in the future and not to those that
are now outstanding.
Mr. BLANTON. But you are fixing
this law for all time in the future.
Mr. SHORT of Missouri. But the
contractor knows this at the time he
makes a contract.
Mr. BLANTON. This is to become
permanent legislation, and you will
have contractors from now on like
a bunch of puppets following the
dictates of a bureau here in Wash
ington. I want to help get these mat-
ters back into the States and away
from Washington where they have to
be controlled by a little bureau here
every time Americans turn around.
Why, they will not be able to make
a contract to construct a building in
the United States without being di-
rected by a little bureau here as to
what kind of contract they shall
make. This is not right. It is not
proper, and I am one of those who
is not going to be compelled to obey
their orders. I shall vote against the
bill even though I know you will
pass it.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The
gentleman from Texas has used an
additional five minutes.
Mr. BLANTON. Mr. Speaker, I
reserve the balance of my time. I
would like to use further time, but
I promised to yield some time to my
friend from New York [Mr. FISH].
Mr. WELCH of California. Mr.
Speaker, I yield three minutes to the
gentleman from New York [Mr.
LAGUARDIA].
Mr. LAGUARDIA. Mr. Speaker,
there is not a reputable, responsible
contractor in this country who is
opposed to this bill. [Applause.] All
that this bill does is to carry out the
policy of the Government of appro-
priating sufficient funds to pay the
prevailing rate of wages on all Gov-
ernment contracts.
Mr. MICHENER. Will the gentle-
man yield?
Mr. LAGUARDIA. In just a mo-
ment. I have only a few minutes. I
want to say that every contractor
who understands his business when
he makes his estimate, bases the
estimate on the prevailing rate of
wages. Every contractor does that.
The unfair and unethical contractors
however, after getting the contract
and being paid on such basis, turns
around and imports labor from other
localities at low and reduced prices,
not only exploiting his own workers,
but all to the discrimination and dis-
advantage of labor living in that
vicinity. Let me make this clear. The
contractor invariably is paid by the
-------
1680
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
Government on the basis of prevail-
ing rates but does not do so. There-
fore this bill is for the protection of
the Government and the workers.
Why, the gentleman from New
York who introduced this bill had
such an experience right in his dis-
trict. A contractor from Alabama
was awarded the contract for the
Northport Hospital, a Veterans' Bu-
reau hospital. I saw with my own
eyes the labor that he imported there
from the South and the conditions
under which they were working.
These unfortunate men were huddled
in shacks living under most wretched
conditions and being paid wages far
below the standard. These unfortu-
nate men were being exploited by the
contractor. Local skilled and un-
skilled labor were not employed. The
workmanship of the cheap imported
labor was of course very inferior.
Gentleman, there is not a munici-
pality but what has the same kind of
law for public works in any city, and
all that this bill does, gentlemen, is
to protect the Government, as well
as the workers, in carrying out the
policy of paying decent American
wages to workers on Government
contracts. [Applause.]
Mr. WELCH of California. Mr.
Speaker, I yield five minutes to the
gentleman from New York [Mr.
BACON.]
Mr. BACON. Mr. Speaker, I do
not know what bill the gentleman
from Texas [Mr. BLANTON] was
talking about, but I do not think it
is the bill under discussion at the
present time.
The purpose of this measure, stated
simply, is to require, through a clause
in the Government contract form that
contractors and subcontractors en-
gaged in constructing, altering or
repairing any public buildings of the
United States shall pay to labor the
prevailing wage rates in the city,
town, village, or other civil division
of the State in which the public build-
ings are located. It provides further
that in case of any dispute which can
not be adjusted by the contracting
officer that the matter shall be re-
ferred to the Secretary of Labor for
determination, his decision to be final
and conclusive on all parties to the
contract.
This measure has the support of
the administration as expressed
through the approval of it by the
Treasury Department, the Depart-
ment of Labor, the War Department,
the Navy Department, and the Vet-
erans' Bureau, or all those depart-
emnts of the Government most direct-
ly concerned in the current building
program of the Government.
Hearings were held in both the
Senate and House committees. In the
House extensive consideration has
been given to this or similar bills
since 1927, and in each instance the
Committee on Labor made a favor-
able report.
In the formulation of the provi-
sions of this bill there has been full
and painstaking cooperation by the
Department of Labor, the Treasury
Department, the War Department,
the Navy Department and the Vet-
erans' Bureau, and in the framing of
this measure there was also the col-
laboration of the solicitors of these
departments.
Therefore, this measure comes be-
fore the House with the united sup-
port of the executive departments,
the unanimous reports of both the
Senate and House committees, and
the knowledge that it passed the Sen-
ate without opposition.
A practice has been growing up
in carrying out the building program
where certain itinerant, irresponsible
contractors, with itinerant, cheap,
bootleg labor, have been going around
throughout the country "picking" off
a contract here and a contract there,
and local labor and the local con-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1681
tractors have been standing on the
side lines looking in. Bitterness has
been caused in many communities
because of this situation.
This bill, my friends, is simply to
give local labor and the local con-
tractor a fair opportunity to partici-
pate in this building program.
I think it is a fair proposition
where the Government is building
these post offices and public buildings
throughout the country that the local
contractor and local labor may have
a "fair break" in getting the con-
tract. If the local contractor is suc-
cessful in obtaining the bid, it means
that local labor will be employed,
because that local contractor is going
to continue in business in that com-
munity after the work is done. If an
outside contractor gets the contract,
and there is no discrimination against
the honest contractor, it means that
he will have to pay the prevailing
wages, just like the local contractor.
Mr. McCORMACK of Massachu-
setts. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BACON. Yes.
Mr. McCORMACK of Massachu-
setts. This bill also compels, does it
not, the unscrupulous contractor to
enter the field of fair competition?
Mr. BACON. The unscrupulous
contractor who hitherto came in with
cheap, bootleg labor must now come
in and pay the prevailing rate of
wages in the community where the
building is to be built, and I submit
that this puts all contractors on a
fair, equal, and equitable basis.
Mr. JOHNSON of Washington. I
want to say that I am for the bill.
Suppose a contractor gets a Govern-
ment contract—which I know to have
been done—and then requires the
common laborer to work at a lower
price and provide his own pick and
shovel, which he has not got. He
gets the wages down from $4 to $2.75
and requires each laborer to get his
own pick and shovel.
Mr. BACON. The contractor on all
Government jobs must conform to
the prevailing wages in that com-
munity. He can not shave that price,
but he must pay the prevailing wage.
The Government must not be put in
the position of helping to demoralize
the local labor market.
Mr. JOHNSON of Washington.
That will help.
Mr. MICHENER. Will the gentle-
man yield?
[p. 6510]
Mr. BACON. I yield.
Mr. MICHENER. How is the con-
tractor going to get the information
as to what the prevailing wage is
in a community?
MR. BACON. The Secretary of
Labor and the different departments
have given this bill great considera-
tion, and—
Mr. MICHENER. But the gentle-
man does not answer my question.
How is the contractor going to know
what the prevailing wage is in the
community? Will the Government
furnish it to him? Will the Govern-
ment furnish him the information
as to the going wages at that time?
Mr. BACON. Certainly not, as a
pegging proposition. A local contrac-
tor knows the local prevailing rates;
an outside contractor must find them
out. But he does this to-day if he
is intending to use the local labor
supply.
The Secretary of Labor, Mr. Doak,
when testifying before the house
committee, stated that he considered
this emergency legislation. I believe
the membership of the House gen-
erally knows why this is so. The
Government has embarked on a large
construction program, perhaps to a
total of some five hundred millions
of dollars. The translation of this
program will mean new and improved
-------
1682
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
courthouses; Federal post-office build-
ings at practically every first and
second class post office, and in every
part of the country; new hospitals
and additions to hospitals for the
Veterans' Bureau, the Public Health
Service, and the Army and Navy;
new customhouses or additions there-
to; additional Army and Navy build-
ing projects of every character; et
cetera.
This proposed legislation is a most
necessary and desirable complement
to the building program of the Gov-
ernment. Its purpose is to see to it
that the benefits of the program are
spread equitably throughout the
country, alike to labor and to the
contracting industry.
Members of Congress have been
flooded with protests from all over
the country that certain Federal con-
tractors on current jobs are bringing
into local communities outside labor,
cheap labor, bootleg labor, or that
they are taking an unconscionable ad-
vantage of demoralized labor condi-
tions generally by cutting the pre-
vailing wage scale, leaving a resent-
ful and embittered community, and
giving rise to the complaint by local
labor that the Government is in
league with contract practices that
make it possible to further demoral-
ize local labor conditions.
Unless this bill is passed I think
it is fair to assume that all of the
complaints that have come to the
administration and to Members of
Congress thus far will be increased
in precise ratio to the momentum
the building construction program
will gain through the construction of
post offices, courthouses, hospitals,
and so forth, in all districts of the
country that have not so far had any
Federal construction work.
The President, as is well known,
is very anxious that the wage scale
be not reduced. The administration
has done everything it possibly
could, with the scant power it at
present wields, to have contractors
on Federal jobs agree to maintain
the current wage obtaining in the
communities where the Federal work
has gone forward. But notwithstand-
ing all of the Government's efforts,
the results have been indifferent, and
many complaints are pouring in.
These complaints have also come
to the President's Committee on Un-
employment, some of them as recent
as January and February of this
year. This committee has also in-
dorsed this legislation and feels that
it will materially help in relieving the
unemployment situation and in spread-
ing its benefits equitably throughout
the country to as many people as
possible.
In its practical operation the bill
sets up a simple and direct method
of assuring the payment of the pre-
vailing wage by the contractor in the
community where the work is per-
formed. The Secretary of Labor anti-
cipates no difficulties of administra-
tion. In 90 per cent of the cases he
feels there will be no dispute of any
kind. Where there is a dispute, which
can not be ironed out on the spot
by the contracting officer of the Gov-
ernment, the matter would be referred
to the Secretary of Labor for final
decision. The Labor Department has
a well-organized conciliation service;
and the administration feels that the
offices of this service, when called on,
will be able, without trouble to settle
disputes amicably, expeditiously, and
to the satisfaction of everyone.
The bill does not put the Govern-
ment in the position of price fixing
or of anticipating wage levels; it does
not attempt to peg a price for either
the benefit of the contractor or labor.
It does not disturb the methods or
causes that finally evolve a scale of
wages. It leaves that to employer
and employee, where it belongs.
In case of dispute and where the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1683
Secretary of Labor must make the
final decision, the function of the
Secretary will be to apply to the
contract the wages he ascertains con-
stitute the prevailing rates. That is
all he would do. He would make an
ascertainment of fact, pure and sim-
ple, and apply that ascertainment to
the contract.
We have the condition to-day on
many Federal construction projects,
where the terms "local labor" and
"prevailing rates of wages" mean
absolutely nothing; where local work-
men are merely envious onlookers,
off the reservation, simply because
the Federal contractor concerned has
been able to bring into the local com-
munity a cheap, itinerant labor sup-
ply or to severely cut the wages
normally paid to the workmen in the
community. He does this with profit
to himself and perhaps also, I am
ashamed to say, with profit to the
Federal Government. We have in-
stances where contractors are dump-
ing this cheap labor into an already
demoralized labor market at the ex-
pense wholly of the local workman,
his family, and his community.
To permit the Federal Government
to aid in the disruption of stable
labor conditions is not fair or decent.
Nor is it fair or decent to permit
practices that discriminate against
the local contractor or the general
contractor who does not believe in
taking advantage of demoralized labor
conditions in any community in which
he may operate.
This measure is also indorsed by
labor generally and by the American
Federation of Labor and its affiliates.
It also has the support and indorse-
ment of building contractors. Just as
a brief illustration I want to read
three indorsements that have come
to me from contractors and contrac-
tors' organizations. The first is from
the Thompson-Starrett Construction
Co. It reads:
FEBRUARY 24, 1931.
Hon. ROBERT L. BACON,
House of Representatives:
We heartily indorse your bill entitled, "Pre-
vailing rate of wages," and believe the passage
of this measure will be a great aid in stabiliz-
ing labor conditions and permitting legitimate
contractors to figure on public work.
THOMPSON-STARRETT Co. (INC.).
The next is from George A. Fuller
Construction Co., reading as follows:
NEW YORK. N.Y.
CONGRESSMAN ROBERT BACON
House Office Building:
Supplementing our wire of yesterday re-
questing consideration of amendment intro-
duced by Associated General Contractors to
bill for prevailing rate of wages, we are in
favor of original bill without amendment if
amendment would jeopardize passage of bill.
GEORGE A. FULLER Co.
And the last one is from the Mason
Contractors' Association of the Unit-
ed States and Canada, reading as
follows:
MASON CONTRACTORS' ASSOCIATION OF
UNITED STATES AND CANADA,
St. Louis, Mo., February 20, 1931.
Representative ROBERT BACON,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
To REPRESENTATIVE ROBERT BACON: There
has come to our notice the Davis-Bacon bill,
regulating the pay of labor and mechanics on
Government contracts which provides that
contractors pay the prevailing rate of wages
in the locality of the job.
This organization is vitally interested In
its passing, and on behalf of the Mason Con-
tractors' Association of United States and
Canada, I would ask that you indorse the
Davis-Bacon bill.
Respectfully yours,
T. W. KIRK, Secretary.
Under this measure the benefits of
the public-building program will be
spread out equitably over the coun-
try. The discrimination that both
labor and the legitimate contractor
are now suffering from, through un-
fair practices on the part of unscru-
pulous contractors, will be cured, and
[p. 6511]
the communities that this public-
building program will touch will be
-------
1684
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
dealt with beneficially and not ad-
versely; the latter being often the
case to-day.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The
time of the gentleman from New
York has expired.
Mr. BLANTON. Mr. Speaker, I
yield one minute to the gentlewoman
from New Jersey [MRS. NORTON].
Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Speaker and
gentlemen of the House, I think it
very generous of the gentleman from
Texas to yield me this time, for he
knows that I am heartily in favor of
the bill
I sincerely hope that the Members
of the House will give their unani-
mous support to this bill on account
of its importance at this time, in view
of the great number of contracts for
Federal buildings soon to be awarded
throughout the country.
May I say that I have had some
personal knowledge of this matter
during the recent erection of a Fed-
eral hospital in my State, and I be-
lieve this bill will safeguard a great
many States against unjust contracts
and discrimination against labor, as
was the case to which I have referred
in New Jersey. Organized labor has
suffered much through selfish impor-
tation of labor from distant localities.
While this bill may not absolutely
prevent such condition, it is at least
a step in the right direction, and will
go a long distance to prevent the
intolerable conditions labor has been
subjected to in the past. [Applause.]
Our committee unanimously in-
dorsed this bill, believing that the
Secretary of Labor will render a
just decision if and when cases are
referred to him for determination
in the event that a dispute arises
with regard to the prevailing wage
rates.
Under this bill the Government
does not set up any new wage scale.
It simply insists that the prevailing
wage scale in the vicinity of Federal
building projects be complied with;
and this, I contend, is a matter of
plain justice to the employees, the
contractors, and the Government.
Surely no Member of this House will
vote against this humane and just
bill.
Mr. BLANTON. Mr. Speaker, I
yield one minute to the gentleman
from New York [Mr. O'CONNOR].
Mr. O'CONNOR of New York. Mr.
Speaker, the gentleman from Texas
said that this was "the most ridicu-
lous piece of legislation ever brought
before a legislative body," when he
should know there is not a progres-
sive State or municipality in the
Union that has not had identical
legislation of this kind for years.
Many of them have laws which go
much further than this proposal.
While I am heartily in favor of
the bill, I regret there is not in-
cluded in it, as I have advocated for
some time, some teeth, some penalty
or forfeiture, so that the contractor
can be compelled to live up to his
contract and the law.
The appeal made here in behalf of
the contractor is entitled to no con-
sideration. The contractor does not
pay this money out of his own pocket.
The wages he pays are of no concern
to him. The money conies out of the
Treasury of the United States. The
contractor figures what the prevail-
ing wages are when he submits his
bid. He is able to find out what the
prevailing wages are much better
than the Government. That is his
business. He gets the money from
the Government, and so far as he
is concerned it makes no financial
difference whether he pays the pre-
vailing rate of wages or not. He
includes it in his bid.
Mr. SNELL. Will the gentleman
yield?
Mr. O'CONNOR of New York. I
yield.
Mr. SNELL. Is not this practically
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1685
the New York State law on the same
proposition?
Mr. O'CONNOR of New York. It
is. New York was the pioneer in
such legislation. Not only do all con-
tractors on State and city public
works have to pay the prevailing
rate of wages, but recently the law
was extended to include railroad
grade crossing elimination work, be-
cause the State contributes a part
of the cost of such work. The New
York statute has penalty and for-
feiture provisions which I hope in
time will be incorporated in this law.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The
time of the gentleman from New
York has expired.
Mr. BLANTON. Mr. Speaker, I
yield one minute to the gentleman
from Missouri [Mr. COCHRAN].
Mr. COCHRAN of Missouri. Mr.
Speaker and Members of the House,
I appreciate this opportunity to in-
dorse this measure and thank the
gentleman from Texas for yielding
to me when he knew I was not in
accord with his views.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation is not
only fair to the employee but most
fair to the employer. It protects the
local contractor from competition
with an outside contractor who em-
ploys cheap labor, inferior labor.
Two great buildings, a Federal of-
fice building and a new post office,
involving an expenditure of nearly
$10,000,000, are to be constructed in
my city, St. Louis. I would like to
see those buildings constructed by a
St. Louis contractor and by St. Louis
labor. This law will apply and the
local contractor will not be required
to compete with a foreign contractor
who, if he secured the contract,
would be required to import cheap
labor. What would result if cheap
labor was brought into my city? It
would be resented, and trouble would
result.
In the last few days contractors
from my city have wired urging that
this bill be amended. These telegrams
result from a general letter sent
out from Washington by the contrac-
tors' association. Amendments can
not be offered under the rule. It is
now too late to change the bill. It
seems to me if there was objection
to this particular bill the contrac-
tors' associations should have made
their views known before the com-
mittee. I have indorsed the principles
of this legislation before the Com-
mittee on Labor on several occasions
at open hearings.
Union labor understands that un-
der the Constitution the Treasury
Department can not specify the use
of union labor in connection with
the construction of public buildings.
Organized labor does not ask special
favors. In supporting this bill it
asks is fair play. I feel that instead
of opposing this bill all reputable
contractors should feel indebted to
those responsible for its enactment
because in the end it will be bene-
ficial to them.
The Congress should never over-
look an opportunity to maintain the
present standard of wages.
The enactment of this bill to-day
means much to the Government, as
it will result in the employment of
the best class of mechanics in the
construction of public buildings.
Mr. BLANTON. Mr. Speaker, I
yield five minutes to the gentleman
from New York [Mr. FISH].
Mr. FISH. Mr. Speaker, I thank
the gentleman from Texas for yield-
ing time to me. I do not agree with
his expressed views on this bill. I
think it will be very helpful when
it is enacted into law, and it will be
particularly helpful I hope to the
district which I represent, which
includes the Military Academy at
West Point, by empowering the Sec-
retary of Labor to adjust labor dis-
putes based on prevailing wage scales.
-------
1686
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
For many years past I have had
innumerable complaints from orga-
nized and unorganized labor stating
that the West Point authorities did
not pay the wage scale that prevails
in the near-by towns and cities.
Every complaint that came to me I
forwarded to the War Department.
The War Department forwarded that
complaint back to West Point, with
the result that nothing has been done
in all these years. I hold in my hand
a letter addressed to me dated May
6, 1929, from Mr. Green, president
of the American Federation of Labor,
which reads as follows:
DEAR SIR: A copy of your letter of April 24
to Hon. James W. Good, Secretary of War, is
a practical plan of removing the grievances
of the building-trades workmen at West Point.
I understand that Representative JAMES has
insisted that all future construction at West
Point Military Academy should be submitted
to public bids for the purpose of avoiding the
methods used for some time in that Army
post. It is also true that much criticism has
arisen about the wages paid. It has been the
practice to pay the workers at West Point
less than they receive in near-by towns.
Your letter to Secretary Good is appreciated,
and I have sent a copy to Mr. William J.
Spencer, secretary of the Building Trades
Department.
Respectfully yours,
WILLIAM GREEN.
What I want to find out from the
introducer of this bill is whether the
[p. 6512]
provisions of the bill will apply to
the construction work that is being
done and will be done in the future
at the West Point Military Academy.
Mr. BACON. The provisions of the
bill apply to all building construc-
tions carried on by the Government,
whether through the Treasury, the
Veterans' Bureau, the War Depart-
ment, the Navy Department, or any
other department.
Mr. FISH. As I understand the
bill, it applies to contractors. Sup-
pose the military authorities do the
work themselves, does it apply to
them?
Mr. BACON. This does not apply
to river and harbor work, or road
construction.
Mr. FISH. The quartermaster does
some of the work at West Point.
Would it apply to that work?
Mr. BACON. Technically, no; this
bill would not apply to that.
Mr. FISH. The gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. JAMES] is here, and
I serve notice now that I will try to
provide that all future work be done
by contract, instead of by purchase
and hire by the quartermaster.
Mr. DOWELL. When this bill be-
comes the law, as it should, it seems
to me the Government will be bound
to observe its provisions as well as
individuals.
Mr. BACON. This bill declares the
policy of the administration, and I
think they will be morally bound, in
carrying out this policy, to do them-
selves what they require others to do.
Mr. FISH. That is the kind of
statement and interpretation of the
bill that I hoped to get into the
RECORD.
Mr. JAMES of Michigan. It is not
necessary for the gentleman from
New York to serve notice on the
chairman of the Committee on Mili-
tary Affairs, because he stated on
the floor that if the War Department
had any construction work themselves
and exceeded the limit, he would in-
troduce a bill to prevent that thing.
Mr. FISH. In conclusion I want to
say that I am wholeheartedly for
the bill. I do not think it goes far
enough. I am sorry there is not a
clause in the bill to give preference
to local and American labor over
alien labor.
Mr. BACON. My original bill,
which I introduced in 1927 and again
in 1928 and 1929, had that additional
provision in it, namely, to provide
that citizen labor be employed on
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1687
Federal works. This bill was drawn
by five departments, and agreed on
by five departments, and is intro-
duced here as an emergency measure.
I hope in the next Congress to again
introduce a bill to provide that
American workmen shall get absolute
preference on all work carried on by
or for the Federal Government.
[Applause.]
Mr. BLANTON. Mr. Speaker, I
yield one minute to the gentleman
from New York [Mr. MEAD].
Mr. MEAD. Mr. Speaker, the spon-
sors of this legislation are to be con-
gratulated for the good work they
have done in bringing this bill before
the House for final action. This is, in
my judgment, good legislation, and I
shall support it. In these days of im-
proved methods and modern machin-
ery we find the employer class gen-
erally resisting wage increases and
work-period reductions. This false
economic philosophy is in a large mea-
sure responsible for the terrible situa-
tion the country finds itself in to-day.
It is apparent that machines are pro-
ducers, but they neither purchase nor
consume. The people are the consum-
ers, and a vast majority are wage
earners, who can only consume that
which they can buy with the wages
they receive for their labor.
With consumption falling far be-
hind production and resulting in eco-
nomic stagnation, it is our chief con-
cern to maintain the wages of our
workers and to increase them wher-
ever possible. Wages should be main-
tained, and especially on Government
work, for to fail in this regard would
be setting a bad example for private
enterprise and permitting a gross in-
justice to be perpetrated upon our
citizens. This bill is a step in the
right direction and should pass at
this session of Congress.
Mr. BLANTON. Mr. Speaker, I
yield one minute to the gentleman
from Texas [Mr. BRIGGS].
Mr. BRIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I think
this is one of the most advanced pieces
of legislation which has been enacted
by Congress in a very long time. I
have known in communities through-
out the United States, and even in my
own, the utmost difficulties encoun-
tered by contractors, who figured upon
paying the regular prevailing local
wage scale, in obtaining Government
building contracts, which otherwise
they could have gotten, but were de-
nied by reason of having to compete
with outside contractors who did not
feel constrained to abide by these reg-
ulations. This legislation, I under-
stand, will in the future prevent any
condition of this kind and enable the
Government to get better returns for
its money in higher efficiency and
greater skill, and the localities and
those who live in them will be bene-
fited thereby. It is particularly im-
portant that the Government in its
public-building program, and espe-
cially in periods of great unemploy-
ment, should endeavor to have local
labor employed in the communities
where the buildings are to be con-
structed, and to discourage the prac-
tice of importing labor from other
States and regions when local labor
and their families suffer for lack of
work and an opportunity to earn
their livelihood. This measure will
go a long way in according to home
labor in every community where a
Government building is to be con-
structed the consideration to which it
is justly entitled.
Mr. WELCH of California. I yield
one minute to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. CONNERY].
Mr. CONNERY. As the ranking
Democratic member on the Committee
on Labor, I wish to say this was a
unanimous report by our committee.
This is a good bill, and I am sure you
ladies and gentlemen realize that this
law prevents in every district in the
United States the bootleg contractor,
-------
1688
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
as the gentleman from New York said
a while ago, exploiting labor and re-
fusing to pay real wages to the
American people, to which they are
entitled.
Mr. ALLGOOD. Will the gentleman
yield?
Mr. CONNERY. I yield.
Mr. ALLGOOD. Reference has been
made to a contractor from Alabama
who went to New York with bootleg
labor. This is a fact. That contractor
has cheap colored labor that he trans-
ports, and he puts them in cabins,
and it is labor of that sort that is in
competition with white labor through-
out the country. This bill has merit,
and with the extensive building pro-
gram now being entered into, it is
very important that we enact this
measure.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The
time of the gentleman from Massa-
chusetts has expired.
Mr. WELSH of California. I yield
to the gentleman from Massachusetts
[Mr. GRANFIELD].
Mr. GRANFIELD. Mr. Speaker,
ladies, and gentlemen, the legislation
under consideration deserves the sup-
port of every Member of this Con-
gress, it should be passed by this
branch and sent to the President with
as much dispatch as the circumstances
permit. It ought to be enacted into
law before the adjournment of this
Congress.
This bill is an emergency mea-
sure, and it is needed in order that
the Government might be able to
protect the rights of the workingman
in the various communities in which
Federal construction is contemplated.
There is a crying need for this legis-
lation. Its passage is indispensable
at this time, in order to abolish the
sharp business practices resorted to
by certain contractors engaged in
Federal construction.
We are in the throes of an unem-
ployment depression, the worst in the
history of this Nation. The Govern-
ment is confronted with a stupendous
task in its efforts to execute the
greatest building program ever at-
tempted by this Nation or any other
Nation in the history of time.
I am particularly interested in this
legislation for the reason that
Wednesday of this week bids were
opened for the construction of a post
office in the city of Springfield, which
is in my district. This contract is to
be awarded to a firm from Chicago.
Other post-office projects under this
program, I expect, will be allocated
some time in the future. I am anxious
that this policy of regulation be estab-
lished at this time by our Government
to protect those projects. This legisla-
tion will compel the contractors to
pay the prevailing wage scale in the
vicinity of the building projects and
will prevent the importation of labor
from distant points at wages far be-
low the prevailing rates.
[p. 6513]
We have had some sad experiences
in the past in other parts of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Some of you gentlemen are aware of
the fact that a post office was erected
in Lawrence, Mass. In order that you
might understand the methods of
some of the contractors that are doing
Government work, with your indul-
gence, I will read a letter in connec-
tion with the Lawrence post office,
addressed to me by Mr. P. H. Triggs,
secretary and treasurer of the Mass-
achusetts State Conference of the
Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators,
and Paperhangers of America:
Congressman WILLIAM J. GBANFIELD,
Springfield, Mast.
DEAR CONGRESSMAN: At the July convention
of the Massachusetts State Conference of the
Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators, and
Paperhangers of America, held at Brockton,
Mass., the conditions under which our Federal
Government is permitting some of the work
on local post offices to be conducted was
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1689
brought to our attention, one of the most
flagrant violations was the repainting of the
post office in Lawrence, Mass., recently.
The Goldman Construction Co., of New
York, was awarded this contract, being the
low bidder; local contractors' bids were higher
because they were based on decent conditions
of employment and wages established in that
city. The employees of the Goldman Con-
struction Co., without any regard for these
established conditions, worked 12 to 15 hours
per day including Sunday; it was reliably re-
ported that these -workmen did not even
shave during the three or four weeks they
were on the job. As a further climax to such
a spectacle, they worked on this job July 4,
our national holiday. No official of the Gov-
ernment interfered, but local workmen dis-
turbed by this lack of respect for the day we
all celebrate, went to the job and asked them
why they did not stop work out of respect at
least for our national holiday. They are re-
ported as replying "the 4th of July did not
mean anything to them."
You can well imagine the reaction that
resulted Jocally, many out of employment
through no fault of their own, anxious and
willing to work if they could procure it and
when our Federal Government, in pursuance
of their program of building construction and
repair, permit such a condition to exist—is
it any wonder that the present unrest is aug-
mented? As a Representative in Congress we
believe that such a condition would not be
condoned by you or permitted if you were
consulted, and we are in the hope that you
will bring this matter to the attention of the
proper authorities in Washington and also to
the Committee on Labor who are considering
H. R. 7995, H. R. 9232, and H. R. 10266,
which hills include citizen's preference and
the payment of the prevailing rate of wages
on construction and alteration work for the
Federal Government similar to the law in
Massachusetts and other States.
We are in hopes that the Committee on
Labor will report favorably on this subject
matter because if the present system of
awarding contracts is permitted to continue
with no protective labor clauses, a repetition
of the conditions complained of in Lawrence
can be expected in other localities, a condi-
tion that makes a mockery not only of local
labor conditions and wages, but the very
reverence that the Sabbath and our national
holiday is expected to instill in the minds and
hearts of loyal and patriotic citizens of our
great country.
We vigorously condemn such a situation as
presented by the Lawrence post office job and
we believe that you share with us this opinion
and would respectfully urge that any im-
mediate action that may appear necessary
will be taken by you.
Hoping that you will acknowledge receipt
of this protest and thanking you for any
action you may take in the matter, we are
Very truly yours,
MASSACHUSETTS STATE CONFERENCE,
By P. H. TRIGGS, Secretary-Treasurer'
The conditions described in Mr.
Trigg's letter ought not to be tolerated
by our Government.
In consequence of this letter I com-
municated with James A. Wetmore,
Acting Supervising Architect, Trea-
sury Department, on August 8, 1930,
calling his attention to the facts
transmitted to me in the Triggs let-
ter. My letter to Mr. Wetmore was
as follows:
AUGUST 8, 1930.
JAMES A. WETMORE,
Acting Supervising Architect,
Treasury Department, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. WETMORE: At the July convention
of the Massachusetts State Conference of the
Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators, and Pa*
perhangers of America, which was held at
Brockton, Mass., certain conditions were dis-
cussed relative to the construction of the post
office at Lawrence, Mass.
I am informed that the Goldman Co., of
New York which was awarded this contract,
permitted its employees to work 12 and 15
hours per day, including Sundays, and that
they engaged in work on the Fourth of July.
Of course this condition ought not to exist
under any circumstances, and particularly
ought not to occur during these times of
unemployment
I am very much interested in the proposed
construction of the Springfield post office,
and I am interested that the work on this
building be done by local workmen.
It seems to me that the Federal Government
ought to adopt a policy that would give em-
ployment to men in the locality in which a
public building is being constructed. To bring
in outside contractors and outside labor into
a community where there is a great deal of
unemployment is an affront to the citizens of
that community.
In awarding the contract in connection with
our post office at Springfield, Mass., I trust
you will give thought to these considerations.
I join with the members of the Massachu-
setts State Conference of the Brotherhood of
Painters, Decorators, and Paperhangers of
America in their protests of the conditions
that prevailed during the construction of the
post office at Lawrence, Mass. I trust that
the citizens of my district will not be forced
-------
1690
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
to observe persons outside of our own locality
engaged in work when they are unemployed.
I shall be pleased to hear from you relative
to this matter at your earliest convenience.
Very sincerely,
WILLIAM J.GKANFIELD.
According to the terms of this bill
contractors and subcontractors en-
gaged in the construction and the al-
teration of public buildings in the
United States, and the District of
Columbia, will be forced to pay their
employees the prevailing wage rate
of the community in which the work
is done. Many advantages will accrue
by the enactment of this bill, not
only to the artisan, the mechanic, and
the laborer, but to the contractor as
well. For instance, a contractor com-
ing from Chicago, as is the case with
the Springfield, Mass., project, if he
is forced to pay the prevailing wage
rate in the city of Springfield, he will
be inclined to engage workmen who
reside in that city. To follow this
course would be the sensible one in
order to avoid the expense he would
incur in the transportation of labor
from Illinois to Massachusetts. The
contractor and the Government would
receive the fruits of contented labor,
and the people in the particular loca-
tion where the project was under con-
struction would not be forced to sit
in idleness while strangers came into
their community to engage in employ-
ment that was rightfully theirs. The
practice of importing cheap labor is
an affront to the man who is willing
and able to work.
The passage of this legislation
would tend to force general contrac-
tors to recognize subcontractors in
the locality where the building is to
be constructed, and the community in
the vicinity of the construction would
receive the benefits that would accrue
from the materials and accessories
manufactured and used in the con-
struction of the building. This regula-
tion would maintain the standard of
living in the community in which the
building was under construction. This
has been one of the aims and one of
the purposes of our Government
throughout this depression. All con-
tractors would be placed on a fair and
just basis in the submission of bids
for the various Federal contracts.
Our Government does not intend that
contractors doing Federal work should
employ cheap labor, neither does it
expect that a contractor will make an
unjust profit upon the toil of man.
Our Government has always fostered
the ideal that the standard of living
during this depression should be con-
served and maintained, and that it is
the duty of every contractor in
America to subscribe to this policy.
If the contractor fails to carry out
the provisions contained in this bill
and a dispute arises as to the prevail-
ing wage rate, it is provided in this
legislation that the matter of the dis-
pute shall be referred to the Secretary
of Labor for determination, and that
the Secretary's decision as to the wage
rate shall be conclusive on all parties
to the contract.
According to the testimony of
Secretary of Labor Doak, facilities
for the conciliation of these disputes
can be adequately and effectively
taken care of by his department. This
legislation has the approval of the
Secretary of Labor, and every man
who is behind the building program
in our Government. It was stated by
Mr. Wetmore of the Treasury Depart-
ment and Mr. Doak, that this legisla-
tion was and is most urgent. It was
their contention that if this regulation
is made a part of each contract the
Government would not only be in a
position to enforce the prevailing
wage scale but the legislation would
create jobs in the localities where the
work is being done.
I regret that this bill has not here-
tofore been enacted into law. I say
this because I have some concern
about the projects in my own dis-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1691
trict. I do not want to see workmen
willing and able to work, walking the
[p. 6514]
streets, unable to obtain employment,
suffer the affront of witnessing
strangers take jobs from them to
which they are entitled, and I serve
notice now upon the contractor who
is to be awarded the contract for
the post office in Springfield, Mass.,
that if the Congress of the United
States enacts this law that I shall
expect, and the Government shall
expect, the contractor to observe this
policy of regulation. We do not want
to witness in my district the scanda-
lous spectacle that occurred in Law-
rence when bootleg labor was im-
ported into that city, and where the
citizens of that community were
forced to observe not only violations
of our labor laws, but a disrespect
for the Sabbath and a national holi-
day. The citizens should not be forced
to endure these conditions. The under-
lying provisions of the building pro-
gram are to provide employment and
to maintain the standard of living.
Importation of foreign labor into a
community in these times by foreign
or local contractors is an insult to
the unemployed in the locality where
Federal construction is in progress.
In connection with the Springfield
project I have this day urged James
A. Wetmore, Acting Supervising
Architect of the Treasury Depart-
ment, that he impress upon the gen-
eral contractor adherence to the pro-
visions of this regulation, and that he
employ, whenever possible, local labor.
I have the assurances of Mr. Wetmore
that he intends to do everything in his
power to have the contractor on the
Springfield project recognize the
rights of our citizens, and give them
employment and pay them the wages
according to the wage scale that pre-
vails there.
It is unfortunate that under the
law in communities where firms of
high standing in the business world,
with facilities adequate to construct
a project of the type of the Spring-
field post office, can not be given a
preferential status. Springfield is
fortunate in that it has among its
many business enterprises such con-
struction concerns as the Fred T. Ley
Co., J. G. Roy & Sons Co., and A. E.
Stephens, contractor. If any one of
these concerns had been awarded the
Springfield contract, the propositions
which concern us to-day would be
avoided so far as the project is con-
cerned. The Fred T. Ley Co., the
J. G. Roy & Sons Co., and A. E.
Stephens, contractor, would recognize
not only the prevailing wage scale in
the community; they would also em-
ploy local labor.
There is another feature of this
building project that the citizens of
New England are vitally interested
in. We believe that in the construction
of our buildings materials manu-
factured in our locality should be
used. It was the intention originally
of our Government to use limestone
entirely in the construction of the
various Federal buildings. To follow
this plan would be unjust and unfair
to the people in the granite industry.
New England is foremost in the pro-
duction of granite. Indiana is fore-
most in the production of limestone.
In fairness to New England industries
granite should receive the considera-
tion of our Government wherever
possible so that this industry which
has been lagging, like all others dur-
ing this depression, could be revived.
Under date of February 21, 1930,
in a letter to the Supervising Archi-
tect of the Treasury Department, and
which I include as a part of this
speech, and which is as follows—
FEBRUARY 21, 1980.
SUPERVISING ARCHITECT,
Treasury Department, Washington, D.C.
DEAR SIR: Several of my constituents have
placed before me their objections to the use
-------
1692
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
of limestone as a building material in the
construction of our proposed post-office build-
ing in Springfield, Mass. Limestone was used
in the construction of our municipal group,
and we have found that it is not a good
material for our climate and that our muni-
cipal group, by reason of the fact that the
limestone is fast going to pieces, requires
constant patching up.
I thought it might be well for me to give
you this information, for I, as well as a great
many people in the city of Springfield who
will have occasion to use the post-office build-
ing, believe that granite should be the material
used in the construction of this building,
instead of limestone.
I trust you will give this matter your earn-
est consideration. I shall be happy to dis-
cuss this matter with you at any time at
your convenience.
Yours very truly,
WILLIAM J. GRANFIELD.
it was urged that the Treasury De-
partment consider granite in the con-
struction of our post office. I called
attention to the fact that many con-
stituents were anxious that granite
be used in the Springfield project.
Hon. Joseph B. Ely, Governor of the
State of Massachusetts, in his efforts
to relieve unemployment in that Com-
monwealth, has repeatedly urged
Members of Congress and the Gov-
ernment to give the granite industry
of New England the consideration to
which it is entitled. On the floor of
this Congress it has been urged with
great force by the Members from the
New England States that the Govern-
ment give consideration to the granite
industry of our section of the coun-
try. I wish to urge upon the officers in
charge of the Treasury Department
that they accept the granite bid which
was submitted by the contractor en-
gaged to construct the Springfield
post office.
I trust I have made the necessity
of this legislation plain to the Mem-
bers of this House. If it is adopted it
will not only regulate the conduct of
contractors who build our post offices,
but it will be far-reaching in its
effects upon every building contract
entered into by our Government where
the sum involved is in excess of
$5,000. This bill has the approval of
contractors, leaders in industry, and
labor organizations throughout the
United States. It has the approval of
every person designated by the Gov-
ernment to carry out the public work
program. It is urged and advocated
by the Secretary of Labor, Mr. Doak.
I trust that this House will pass this
legislation, which is of great merit,
unanimously.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The
time of the gentleman from Massa-
chusetts has expired.
Mr. BRIGGS. The Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to revise and ex-
tend my remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
There was no objection.
Mr. WELCH of California. Mr.
Speaker, I yield three minutes to the
gentleman from Iowa [Mr. KOPP].
Mr. KOPP. Mr. Speaker and ladies
and gentlemen of the House, we have
been passing through a period of de-
pression and unemployment and to
aid in relieving the situation the Gov-
ernment has entered upon a very ex-
tensive public building program. It
has been the desire of the President
and of the administration generally
to maintain the existing wage rates.
Under the law, however, the Govern-
ment has been compelled to award the
contracts for public buildings to the
lowest responsible builders. This has
enabled contractors who had recruited
cheap labor to go into communities
where higher wage rates prevailed
and outbid the local contractors. As
a result, the local contractors have
not had a fair chance, and local work-
men have often been compelled to
walk the streets while strangers have
done the work.
Not only have the cheap wage rates
paid to imported workmen made it
possible for their employers to se-
cure public building contracts, but
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1693
they also have had a strong tendency
to depress the wage rates generally
in the communities where public
buildings have been constructed.
The purpose of this bill is to re-
quire the contractors, including sub-
contractors, to pay not less than "the
prevailing rate of wages for work of
a similar nature in the city, town, vil-
lage, or other civil division of the
State in which the public buildings
are located, or in the District of Co-
lumbia, if the public buildings are
located there." With that purpose
every good citizen must agree. No one
asks the contractors to pay more
that the prevailing rate in the com-
munity where the work is done. This
bill simply requires the contractors
not to pay less than is paid in pri-
vate industry. It is simply insisted
that the Government shall not use its
power to demoralize the wage rates
in places where public buildings are
constructed. Nothing could be fairer.
Nothing could be more just and
equitable. This is a policy to which
no one can take exceptions.
With the purpose of this bill all
must be in accord, but it may be
asked. Will the bill, if enacted into
law, accomplish its purpose? That is
a fair question. It may be pointed out
that there is no penalty in the bill
for its violation. That is true, but
nevertheless violators of the law can
[p. 6515]
easily and effectively penalized. If
contractors pay less than the pre-
vailing rates, and thus violate both
the law and their contracts, the Gov-
ernment can in the future refuse to
recognize them as responsible bidders.
[Applause.] It is believed that this
power in the hands of the Government
will prove a very persuasive argu-
ment and will prevent violations of
the law. It is not improbable that this
power will be more effective than
would be provisions in the bill con-
taining penalties and forfeitures.
It may be pointed out that the term
"prevailing rate" has a vague and
indefinite meaning, and that therefore
the law can not be enforced. The Su-
preme Court of the United States in
Connally v. General Construction Co.
(269 U. S. 385) has held that the
term "current rate," as applied to
wages, is uncertain in meaning, and
I think that if the term "prevailing
rate" were before the same court the
ruling would be the same Neverthe-
less, I believe this bill, if enacted into
law, can be, and will be, effectively
enforced. Under this bill the power
will be given in each case by contract
to the Secretary of Labor to deter-
mine what the prevailing rates are,
and I know of no reason why such a
contract will not be valid and binding.
It has been suggested that the
Secretary of Labor might make one
decision as to prevailing rates to-day
and a different decision tomorrow.
Some contractors have stated that
the uncertainty of the "prevailing
rate" would compel them to add a
margin of safety to their bids. I do
not speak for the Secretary of Labor,
but I think it is safe to assume that
the Secretary of Labor will formulate
a fixed and definite method for de-
termining the "prevailing rate," and
make it known to the contractors.
That will enable the contractors to
bid intelligently and will give all a
fair chance, no matter how many com-
petitors there may be.
A method for determining the pre-
vailing wage rate might have been
incorporated in the bill, but the Secre-
tary of Labor can establish the
method and make it known to the
bidders.
It may also be claimed that this
bill, even if enacted into law, will
not have any force or effect unless the
officials letting the contracts for the
Government and the Secretary of
-------
1694
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
Labor are in sympathy with the law.
I concede that this is true. Without
officials in sympathy with the law it
will be of no value, but I fully believe
that the officials, no matter which
party may be in power, will do their
duty. The Secretary of Labor, Mr.
Doak, is heartily in favor of this bill
and will do his utmost to carry out
its provisions. Mr. Payne, The Assist-
ant Secretary of War, appeared be-
fore the Committee on Labor in behalf
of the bill. As you know, Mr. Payne
is from Massachusetts. In the lan-
guage of our most distinguished pri-
vate citizen, I say: "Have faith in
Massachusetts." Mr. Wetmore, the
efficient and capable Supervising
Architect of the Treasury, has
strongly indorsed the bill. In his own
vigorous way he told the committee
that he could and would enforce the
law. Mr. Wetmore conies from the
State of New York. Having known
Mr. Wetmore for some years, I feel
fully justified in saying "Have faith
also in New York." At the present
time the officials who will let the con-
tracts for public buildings are in en-
tire sympathy with the bill and
every effort will be made by them to
enforce the law. If we ever have
officials not in sympathy with the
law, it will then be time either to
change the law or to change the offi-
cials. [Applause.] Probably the latter
will be the wiser thing to do.
The present conditions are intoler-
able. Immediate action is necessary,
as many contracts are to be let in the
near future. Perhaps somebody could
draw a better bill, but thus far no-
body has done so, and we can not
wait longer. This bill should be passed
at once. Do it now. Mr. Speaker, I
am glad to give this measure my
hearty and earnest support. [Ap-
plause.]
Mr. WELCH of California. I yield
to the gentleman from Massachusetts
[Mr. McCoRMACK].
Mr. McCOEMACK of Massachu-
setts. Mr. Speaker, the bill under con-
sideration, known as the Bacon bill,
is one that should become a law this
session. It is a bill which has been
unanimously acted upon by the Senate
only a few days ago, and a bill iden-
tical in form and phraseology has
been favorably reported by the House
Committee on Labor. There is an
urgent demand and necessity for the
passage of this bill. It is aimed to
correct a condition which now exists,
as a result of which unfair and un-
scrupulous methods are employed by
certain contractors who are awarded
governmental contracts for the con-
struction of Federal buildings. The
main purpose of this bill is to com-
pel, by indirection, contractors award-
ed Federal building contracts to pay
those whom they employ the "pre-
vailing wage scale" in the district or
community in which construction
work is being done. By accomplishing
this the bill also brings benefits to
those contractors who, in submitting
bids, intend and desire to pay a decent
wage to those whom they may employ.
It will force the contractor who here-
tofore has used cheap, imported labor
to submit bids based upon the pay-
ment of the "prevailing wage scale"
to those employed. That is as it should
be. It will thereby enable honorable
and decent contractors to submit bids
with the knowledge that, so far as
wages is concerned, the unfair com-
petitor of the past no longer exists.
It compels the unfair competitor to
enter into the field of fair competi-
tion. It also compels such contractors
to pay a living wage and, of neces-
sity, to give consideration to the em-
ployment of local labor.
In the past it has been very difficult
for a contractor who intended to pay
and did pay a living wage to success-
fully compete with the contractor who
had no regard for such considerations.
This is particularly so when it is un-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1695
derstood, except where time is the
essence of the contract, that awards
must be given to the lowest respon-
sible bidder. While this bill does not
change the necessity of a contract
being awarded to the lowest respon-
sible bidder—which, I hope, some day
will be changed, residing in the offi-
cials awarding the contract some dis-
cretionary powers—nevertheless it
does provide that the payment of the
"prevailing wage scale" shall be made
a part of the contract. The contractor
in submitting his bids must give this
important change in existing law
consideration. In the case of the con-
tractor who has been in the habit of
employing cheap labor, which might,
in a sense, be termed forced labor, and
usually imported labor, it will compel
him to increase his bids. While the
purpose of this bill is to assure to
those employed on Federal construc-
tion work the payment of the "pre-
vailing wage scale" and to also assure
employment of local labor, one of the
effects of the passage of this bill will
be to compel unfair contractors to
stand on the same footing, in sub-
mitting bids, as honorable contrac-
tors, who have always had a regard
for and lived up to the "prevailing
wage scale" that existed in commun-
ities in which they were doing Fed-
eral work.
The importance of the provisions
of this bill and the effect that it will
have if it becomes law can not be un-
derestimated. Its passage will meet
the approval of everyone except the
contractors who, in the past, have
been using imported labor, which is
invariably cheap labor.
The passage of this bill removes
from a contractor the incentive or
motive to import cheap labor from one
section of the country to another. It
will in no way affect the use by a
contractor of his regular and perma-
nent supervising force. This type of
legislation has been agitated and
urged for many years and has the
united support of all elements of
organized labor, and particularly that
great, progressive, and constructive
labor organization, the American
Federation of Labor. This type of
legislation commanded my attention
shortly after I became a Member of
the Congress. At that time I intro-
duced a bill which incorporated there-
in the provisions of the pending bill,
and in the last session of the Con-
gress, when the House Committee on
Labor held hearings on various bills
referred to it, I appeared before that
committee and urged the passage of
legislation of the kind contained in
the pending bill. One of the strongest,
if not the strongest, proponents of
this type of legislation in either
branch of the Congress is the able
and brilliant gentleman from New
York [Mr. BACON]. He has fought for
the passage of this legislation for sev-
eral years, and during the hearing
[p. 6516]
before the House Committee on Labor
made an argument which was bril-
liant and convincing. I want to con-
gratulate him for his adherence to
such a worthy and constructive cause.
Tn the main, the present status of this
bill is due to his untiring efforts, and
its passage will be a monument to
the character of service that he ren-
ders.
I urge the passage of this bill, that
there will be no further delays, in
order that its provisions may be
made a part of all contracts that may
be awarded from now on. We have
provided for a very extensive building
program for the purpose of trying to
relieve the acute and distressing un-
employment that exists. In times of
economic distress such as exists to-
day unscrupulous contractors can im-
pose almost any wage conditions upon
persons who are seeking employment.
At the present time employees are
-------
1696
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
competing with each other for em-
ployment, and the natural result is
that they in their anxiety to secure
work underbid each other. An un-
scrupulous employer on Federal work
will take advantage of these condi-
tions unless this bill becomes law.
If ever there was a time that con-
ditions warranted, yes, demanded, the
passage of such legislation, it exists
at this time. This bill establishes a
logical and proper policy, and we are
justified, in fact, I consider it my
duty, to commit the Federal Govern-
ment to this policy. While this bill is
a decided step in the right direction,
nevertheless, it has one weakness
which is likely to impair its effective-
ness, unless the representatives of
the Federal Government are insistent
that violations of the "prevailing
wage scale" provision in a contract
are enforced by resort to the courts
to enforce its terms, or unless they
consider a contract breached if a con-
tractor fails to comply with the terms
of the contract. In the pending bill
there is no provision for a penalty in
the event of a violation. If that
existed there would be less likelihood
of attempts being made, after a con-
tract has been awarded, to evade its
terms. However, it was impossible to
have provisions for a penalty included
at this time, and rather than have no
legislation at all, it is best to accept
the pending bill and, if necessary, to
later seek additional legislation. If
the representatives of the Federal
Government insist upon contractors
adhering to the "prevailing wage"
part of a contract there will be no
necessity for additional legislation. I
have confidence that contractors will
be expected—and where they do not
made—to live up to the intent of the
Congress in passing the pending bill,
if it becomes a law.
There has been some objection ad-
vanced by some of that large group
of fair contractors who submit bids
on Federal work that what constitutes
the "prevailing wage scale" in a com-
munity should be determined and
made known to them in advance. I
agree that there is considerable logic
to this contention, and would like to
see the bill drafted in such a manner
that this valid objection might be
taken care of. However, an attempt
to amend the bill at this late date
means its defeat for this session, and
probably for many years to come. The
bill has reached its present stage only
after many years of patient and
faithful effort by those who favor it.
We can not afford to endanger its
passage now. I am satisfied that the
operation of this bill will prove satis-
factory to the objecting contractors.
The intent of the Congress is clear
on this question and objection. It is
our intent, as I understand it, that
Federal departments shall cooperate
in every way possible in giving con-
tractors all information in determin-
ing what is the "prevailing wage
scale" in a community in which work
is to be done. The department award-
ing the contract has the implied pow-
er under the provisions of this bill to
take such steps as will carry out the
intent of the Congress and, if neces-
sary, to investigate and determine
what the "prevailing wage scale" is,
where work is to be done, in assisting
contractors in submitting bids. In any
event, if this bill passes and a depart-
ment leaves the determining of the
"prevailing wage scale" to contrac-
tors, and this condition results in a
hardship, it can easily be remedied in
the next Congress by an amendment.
Once the pending bill becomes law it
will be easier to amend it in the event
of necessity and in response to the
principle of fairness.
At this time I am particularly anx-
ious to see this bill become law, so
that its provisions may apply to the
awarding of the contract on the new
Boston post office. At the present time
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1697
11 per cent of the employees of Bos-
ton are out of employment. If local
labor is employed, this work will
greatly minimize the suffering that
exists. The passage of this bill will
assure employment of local labor and
also bring to them the payment of a
wage that will assure to them the
American standard of living.
The following editorial which re-
cently appeared in the Washington
Star ably states the advantages of
this bill and the necessity for its pas-
sage:
CHEAP LABOR AND LOW BIDS
The low bid for a school-building project in
Washington—an 8-room addition to the Stuart
Junior High School—again has been submitted
by an out-of-town contractor and unless there
are unusual conditions relating to discretion in
the use of materials, the commissioners under
the law have no alternative and must place the
contract with the low bidder. The low bidder,
in this case, enjoys a favored position among
other bidding contractors because of the use of
cheap, nonunion labor. The differential in the
wage scale largely accounts for the difference
in bids.
The situation in connection with the award
of contracts for District of Columbia public
buildings is well enough known by this time to
be understood by everybody. By law the com-
missioners have no discretion in the matter.
And as the law works, contractors from out of
town are able to submit bids based on low
wages, eventually bringing in mechanics from
the States to compete with Washington me-
chanics, who have established themselves in the
community on a recognized scale of wages that
should not be reduced. To reduce the scale of
wages means to lower the standard of living.
Some of the very mechanics who are denied
work on these local projects contribute through
their taxes to the public money that finances
the projects.
On last Wednesday the Senate unanimously
passed and sent to the House a bill by Senator
DAVIS, of Pennsylvania, requiring contractors
on public buildings in Washington and else-
where to pay laborers and mechanics the wage
scale prevailing for similar work in the com-
munity, and setting up the procedure for de-
termining the prevailing wage scale. The pur-
pose of the bill, which received the favorable
indorsement of Government officials and the
heads of labor organizations, is to prevent the
very condition that exists here when a low
bidder from out of town brings in foreign,
cheap labor to fulfill his contract. The bill
merely enacts into legislation a policy already
urged by the Treasury Department in connec-
tion with the Government's public-works pro-
gram.
The House should take up this bill and com-
plete its enactment at this session. Further-
more, the bill should be clear as to its applica-
tion to public works undertaken by that
agency of the Federal Government, the District
of Columbia, and should remove any conflict
which may exist between its provisions and
the mandatory provisions of the District ap-
propriation bill regarding the award of con-
tracts to the lowest responsible bidder.
It is only through the passage of this legis-
lation that the workingmen of the District
may receive the protection against unfair com-
petition that is given the workingmen of other
jurisdictions by their local governments. It is
the reasonable approach to a serious problem.
Bids for District of Columbia work can not
and should not be restricted to local contrac-
tors. But the low bidder should be compelled to
base his bid and fulfill his contract obligations
on a scale of wages determined by the prevail-
ing scale of the community.
Mr. WELCH of California. Mr.
Speaker, I yield one minute to the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. FITZ-
GERALD].
Mr. FITZGERALD. I am for this
bill. I am for it not only because or-
ganized labor is for it, but I am for
it because of the bitter experience of
my home city, Dayton, Ohio, in the
erection of a new Hospital at the
Central Branch of the Soldiers Home.
The contract for this more-than-a-
million-dollar construction went to a
corporation from a distant State. Sub-
contracts for work and material went
to remote places. The contractor had
obtained the contract by competitive
bidding. He intended to make a profit.
He was entitled to make a profit.
There was nothing in his contract to
compel him to pay the prevailing rate
of wages although that is a settled
Government policy where the Govern-
ment engages in construction without
the intervention of contractors. Men
were lured from distant places to
work on this new hospital, the con-
struction of which started about May
1, 1930. Thousands of men were al-
[p. 6517]
-------
1698
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
ready out of work in the city. The
situation was acute. Would it have
been less than human for the con-
tractors to take advantage of the de-
pression to get the work done cheap-
ly; to beat down the local standard
of wages and demoralize labor condi-
tions by hiring those from distant
points who were willing and eager to
take less and crowd out the local peo-
ple? Not only did the labor organiza-
tions protest, but the Builders' Ex-
change, the local contractors, and
more significant than all, the officers
of the community chest, who could
foresee at the termination of the
work, these people from miles away
stranded as derelicts on the commun-
ity for our already outraged people to
support.
Although it is a settled Govern-
ment policy to pay the prevailing
rate of wages in communities where
Government work is carried on, yet
no provision is made for the enforce-
ment of this wise policy where com-
petitive bids for construction are re-
quired as on this hospital. I under-
stand that the Comptroller General
has ruled that it would be unlawful to
write such a specification into a con-
tract. No way remains then but for
us to enact the proper legislation to
permit and to compel the observance
of the established governmental poli-
cy on all important public construc-
tions.
Local standards of wages and liv-
ing must be upheld and it is by such
a law as we here propose that we may
accomplish what we seek.
The gentleman from Texas [Mr.
BLANTON] denounces this bill as ri-
diculous and charges us who advocate
its passage with being influenced sole-
ly by the clamor of organized labor.
And he speaks of organized labor as
ungrateful and unappreciative.
If organized labor in my district is
interested in the passage of this bill,
as I hope they are, they are strangely
silent and apathetic. They seem like
so many others keenly alive to a pres-
ent situation, aroused and indignant
when they saw the demoralizing con-
ditions of the hospital being built, but
now that there is no other immediate
Government project in sight in the
community, they show little concern.
No one can nor should expect ap-
plause or appreciation from the pas-
sage of this bill. Anyone who votes for
this bill or any bill simply to curry
favor with any class of people, be-
lieving it to be economically unsound,
is likely to he disappointed.
It has been charged that the erec-
tion of the hospital, the expenditure
of more than a million dollars of
Government money in my home city,
was not a benefit but a curse.
We have undertaken a great public-
building program throughout the
Nation. We are to spend more than
$600,000,000. Do you want other com-
munities to have the experiences that
Dayton, Ohio, and Northport, N. Y.,
have had? If you want our building
program to alleviate distress and to
be a blessing instead of a source of
dissatisfaction, demoralization, re-
sentment, and unhappiness, then vote
for this bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The
time of the gentleman from Ohio
has expired. All time has expired.
Mr. SIROVICH. Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The
gentleman will state it.
Mr. SIROVICH. I would like to
ask the distinguished gentleman from
Texas [Mr. BLANTON] if it is not
a matter of fact that every improve-
ment which labor has received from
the social, economic, and human
standpoint has come through the
medium of the American Federation
of Labor?
Mr. BLANTON. Yes; that is so;
but in the splendid, enterprising pro-
gressive open-shop city of Dallas,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1699
Tex., the open-shop contractors are
paying higher wages to-day under
the open shop than union contractors
are paying for union labor.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The
gentleman from New York did not
propound a parliamentary inquiry,
nor was the answer of the gentleman
from Texas parliamentary. All time
for debate has expired.
Mr. ARENTZ. Mr. Speaker, a par-
liamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The
gentleman will state it.
Mr. ARENTZ. Is there any way
by which any Member of this House
can have placed in this bill an amend-
ment providing for the same sort of
conditions at Boulder Canyon Dam?
Mr. BANKHEAD. Mr. Speaker,
that is not a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The
Chair will state, in answer to the
gentleman from Nevada, that there
is no such way.
Mr. CONNERY. Mr. Speaker, is
it in order now for the chairman of
this committee to ask that all Mem-
bers be permitted to revise and ex-
tend their remarks on the bill just
passed?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. That
is in order.
Mr. WELCH of California. Mr.
Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
that all Members may have until
the end of the session to revise and
extend their remarks on the bill just
passed.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
There was no objection.
Mr. GLOVER. Mr. Speaker, ladies
and gentlemen of the House, Senate
bill No. 5904, which is now before
us for consideration is, in my opinion,
one of the best bills proposed for the
protection of labor. The bill provides
that every contract in excess of $5,-
000 in amount to which the United
States or the District of Columbia
is a party which requires or involves
the employment of laborers or me-
chanics in the construction, altera-
tion, and/or repair of any public
buildings of the United States or
the District of Columbia shall con-
tain a provision to the effect that the
rate of wages for all laborers and
mechanics employed by the contrac-
tor or subcontractor on the public
buildings covered by the contract
shall not be less than the prevailing
rate of wages for work of a similar
nature in the city, town, or village
or other civil division of the State
in which the buildings are located.
The bill further provides that in
case there is a dispute as to what is
the prevailing rate of wages the mat-
ter is to be referred to the Secretary
of Labor and his decision shall be
final. The bill further provides that
in the case of a national emergency
the President is authorized to sus-
pend the provisions of the act.
This bill has the indorsement of
the Secretary of Labor, the Secre-
tary of the Treasury, the War De-
partment, and the representatives of
labor. The report on this bill further
shows that the builders throughout
the country advised the committee
considering this bill that they favor
it. The bill does not undertake to fix
a wage scale. It simply protects labor
in the city or town in which the
building is to be built for the Gov-
ernment, so that imported labor will
not be brought in and displace local
labor.
Government contracts are required
to be let to the lowest bidder. Some
contractors will underbid others en-
gaged in the same business and
import his cheap labor or transient
labor and pay such a small scale of
wages that no one can live on it. It
also unjustly deprives the local labor-
ers who have built their homes in
the city, pay their taxes to support
a city, State, and National Govern-
-------
1700
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
ments, that help to support local
schools and churches, of an oppor-
tunity to follow their trade in their
own locality.
This bill is very important for the
protection of labor in my State, the
great State of Arkansas, where more
Federal buildings are to be built this
year than has ever been built in this
great State. The total cost of the
construction of Government buildings
in this State is $4,855,000, and these
are to be constructed this year. I will
give you a list of the buildings to be
erected in Arkansas, and they are
as follows: Hot Springs Army, Navy,
and veterans' hospital, $1,500,000.
Post offices: Blytheville, $95,000;
Brinkley, $65,000; Conway, $90,000;
Eldorado, $425,000; Forest City, $85,-
000; Jonesborough, $110,000; Little
Rock, $1,435,000; North Little Rock,
$110,000; Pine Bluff, $55,000; Stutt-
gart, $95,000; Texarkana, $790,000.
If foreign or transient labor was
imported to take the place of the
laborers and mechanics who will be
employed and should be employed to
[p. 6518]
build these buildings, it would be very
hurtful to local labor in each of these
cities. I am very glad to have the priv-
ilege of supporting this bill, which
will mean so much to the laborers
and mechanics of my State.
Mr. CONDON. Mr. Speaker, if we
wish to do something of real benefit
to labor before this House adjourns,
we can do nothing better calculated
to effect that happy result than to
pass this bill to maintain the general
standard of wages on Federal build-
ing projects in the communities from
which we come. This legislation has
already passed the Senate. Favorable
action in this House to-day will ad-
vance it immediately to the President,
where they are assured it will receive
Executive approval. Nothing said in
debate thus far appeals to me as a
sound reason for our standing in the
way of the enactment of this bill
into law. On the contrary, much has
come out in the course of the discus-
sion that leads one irresistibly to the
conclusion that this legislation has
been too long delayed.
Much harm and injustice have al-
ready been done by greedy and un-
principled contractors who have taken
advantage of their freedom from such
restraint as here proposed to exploit
the desperate unemployed by trans-
porting laborers and tradesmen to
distant points in order to employ
them at starvation wages far below
the scale in effect in the locality
where the Government building is
being erected. Thus a program which
this Congress authorized to aid the
unemployed and distribute widely
throughout the country opportunities
for local employment has been per-
verted into an instrument of oppres-
sion. By the transportation of low-
paid labor from distant points local
labor has been unfairly and unjustly
deprived of the opportunity which
Congress intended to provide in its
behalf. Not only have the local unem-
ployed suffered thereby but those al-
ready employed in such localities have
been threatened with a lowering of
their scale of wages because of the
depressing effect of the importation
of this cheap labor.
As I see it, we must pass this bill
or stand condemned as furnishing a
powerful bludgeon for the use of
these unprincipled contractors to
browbeat labor and force other hon-
est and legitimate contractors to re-
sort to lower wage scales to meet
this unfair competition. In fact, the
conditions in this bill ought to have
been made an integral part of the
emergency building-program legisla-
tion which we enacted at the very
outset of this session. We can not
undo the harm that has already been
done by our failure to foresee and
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1701
provide against the abuses which we
now know exist, but we can by favor-
able action here to-day prevent fu-
ture injustices.
I am intensely interested in doing
all I can by my vote to get such legis-
lation enacted immediately because of
several very important projects about
to be awarded in my State. I am espe-
cially anxious that there shall be no
importing of cheap outside labor into
Rhode Island at wage scales under
those generally prevailing there. If
such a thing should happen, I know
that the people of my district, far
from looking upon the construction
of a Federal building as a boom to
the district, would view it as a dis-
tinct and most unfortunate calamity.
I have had letters from reputable
contractors and from labor leaders
in my district who fear this very
thing, and not without just cause, as
the facts brought out in this debate
to-day well illustrate. The news of
these abuses related here would seem
to have traveled far and wide, and
with good reason.
I want to be able to assure the
people of my district, particularly
those of the cities of Pawtucket and
Woonsocket, where two post-office
buildings are about to be erected, that
they need have no fear of the impor-
tation of cheap labor on these proj-
ects. I can do this if this bill passes
to-day, and I therefore intend to vote
for it and hope it will receive the
unanimous support of the House. I
have already in several communica-
tions to the Supervising Architect of
the Treasury urged that local labor
and locally produced materials be
utilized in the construction of the
new Federal buildings not only in my
district but throughout the State of
Rhode Island. I have particularly
urged upon him the use of Westerly
granite in these buildings in prefer-
ence to limestone. This particular
granite is a Rhode Island product
and universally recognized as a supe-
rior type of building stone. It seemed
to me and to the people of my dis-
trict that for Rhode Island buildings,
at least, this material ought to be
used and thus assist in reviving a
local industry. I want to say here
that my suggestions in this regard
were favorably received by the Super-
vising Architect's Office, and I have
been assured that this Rhode Island
product would be used wherever the
appropriation permitted. If, now, we
can be absolutely assured, as we shall
be by the passage of this bill, that
local labor will have first call at pre-
vailing rates of wages locally on these
buildings, the result will be most
happy. Wages will be maintained, re-
sentment at imported labor at work
on a local project while local labor
looks on helpless and unemployed will
be removed; local subcontractors will
have a fair chance to participate in
the work, and generally the local
community will feel that the great
Federal Government is doing some-
thing real and tangible to help busi-
ness out of this seemingly endless
depression.
For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I
gladly support this measure and at
the same time add my word of com-
mendation of the distinguished gen-
tleman from New York [Mr. BACON],
who has labored so persistently to
get this matter up for the considera-
tion of the House in these crowded
closing days of the session.
Mr. PRALL. Mr. Speaker, ladies
and gentlemen of the House, Senate
bill 5904 provides that every contract
in excess of $5,000 in amount, to
which the United States or the District
of Columbia is a party, which requires
or involves the employment of labor-
ers or mechanics in the construction,
alteration, or repair of any public
buildings of the United States, shall
contain a provision to the eifect that
the rate of wage for all laborers and
-------
1702
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
mechanics employed by the contractor
or any subcontractor on the public
buildings covered by the contract shall
not be less than the prevailing rate
of wages for work of a similar nature
in the city, town, village, or other
subdivision of the State in which the
public buildings are located; and a
further provision that, in case any
dispute arises as to what are the pre-
vailing rates of wages, the matter
shall be referred to the Secretary of
Labor for determination, and his de-
cision shall be conclusive on all par-
ties to the contract.
This bill which is before us to-day
is, in my opinion, one of the most
advanced and far-reaching pieces of
legislation, beneficial to labor, that
has come before us for consideration
by this Congress, and I sincerely hope
it will be approved.
That its objective will work out in
practice as effectively as we desire,
I am not certain; but in any event,
with the whole-hearted cooperation of
department heads, I am sure labor
will be protected and a fair wage
paid on all public buildings erected
by the Government of the United
States.
That is what the mechanic wants;
it is what the contractor wants; and
in these stressing days of unemploy-
ment it is what every community
needs. There seems to be some ap-
prehension lest the objects of the bill
will not be attained. The Comptroller
General has suggested that "A pru-
dent contractor would necessarily be
required to include in his proposal
sufficient sums to protect him against
any increase of wages; and if the
increase did not take effect, the public
would nevertheless be required to
pay the contractor the agreed price
for the performance of the work, and
thus the contractor would secure un-
justified profits for the work. On the
other hand, if the wages were in-
creased above the amount included by
the contractor for such increases, the
probabilities are that the contractor
would default in the performance of
the work and it would have to be
completed either by the surety or the
United States."
While that may be a discouraging
picture of the possibilities, it is not,
I am sure, probable that increases of
wages will occur during the interim
dating from the award of the con-
tract to the completion of the work.
Shifting of wage rates do not come
upon us quite as unexpectedly or as
suddenly as that. I am in agreement
[p. 6519]
with the idea that has been expressed
here to-day that it might be advan-
tageous for all parties concerned to
have the wage rate for all labor stipu-
lated in the contract. Such a provision
would reduce any uncertainty that
might prevail.
I, also, observe the bill fails to
provide penalties for violations of its
provisions. This omission, I think, is
serious. Penalties severe enough to
guarantee performance should have
been provided. However, if the bill
passes, and I am sure it will, we
will try it out. If we find unscrupu-
lous contractors attempting to beat
the law, we can quickly amend it by
putting teeth in it.
This law, Mr. Speaker, will remedy
some long-existing evils in connec-
tion with public letting of Govern-
ment building contracts. It will guar-
antee fair wage scales throughout
the country on all public-building
construction. It will prevent unreli-
able contractors bidding against rep-
utable contractors and the transport-
ing of cheap labor to the scene of
operation in order to reap profits.
It will prevent contractors taking
advantage of the unemployment situ-
ation by lowering wages after secur-
ing contracts on bids based upon
higher or prevailing rates of wages.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1703
It will mean more employment of local
contractors and local labor. It has
already been well stated that the
Government should be the last em-
ploying agency to expect or counte-
nance the performance of its con-
struction contracts at the sacrifice
of its citizens.
This law will prevent a recurrence
of a situation that unfortunately de-
veloped in the erection of a new
building on the Port Wadsworth Res-
ervation in my own district. On this
job secured by a private contractor
50 per cent of the carpenters em-
ployed at one time were aliens, while
thousands of unemployed American
citizens were tramping the streets
looking for work. It may also pre-
vent a recurrence of the employment
of civilian prisoners at no wages in
Army reservations for the purpose
of erecting buildings for which no
appropriations have been made by
Congress.
During the year 1930, and I pre-
sume up to the present time, civilian
prisoners have been transported from
the Federal prisons and have per-
formed the work of skilled mechanics
at Army reservations in competition
with honest labor, and when I com-
plained to the President of this con-
dition I received little satisfaction
and the unemployed received none.
The Government has entered upon
a gigantic building program, perhaps
the greatest the civilized world has
ever contemplated, and it is but fair,
just, and reasonable to expect that
its benefits should go to the citizens
of the communities wherein new pub-
lic buildings are to be constructed
and not to the unscrupulous contrac-
tor or to bootleg labor.
Mr. ZIHLMAN. Mr. Speaker, as
a former chairman of the Committee
on Labor, and as ranking member of
that committee, I take pleasure in
supporting this legislation, and I con-
gratulate the committee and Con-
gress for having given attention to
the subject matter of this very im-
portant measure, which will not only
protect the rate of wages for the
various communities, but will be a
substantial contribution to local con-
tractors where local labor is used in
the extensive building program now
under way by the Federal Govern-
ment and the District of Columbia
government.
Under the provisions of this bill,
in the awarding of every contract
over $5,000, contractors and subcon-
tractors engaged in constructing, al-
tering, or repairing any public build-
ing of the United States or the Dis-
trict of Columbia are required to
pay their employees the prevailing
wage rates existing in the community,
which have been established by pri-
vate industry. In the event a contrac-
tor is unable to adjust any dispute
as to the prevailing wage rates, this
bill provides that the matter shall be
referred to the Secretary of Labor
for determination, and the Secre-
tary's decision as to the wage rates
shall be conclusive on all parties to
the contract.
The Federal and District of Colum-
bia governments have entered on an
extensive building program through-
out the United States and in the
District of Columbia, and it is ex-
pected that during the coming 8 or
10 years more than $500,000,000 will
be spent for the construction, altera-
tion, and repair of public buildings.
Not only is it intended that ample
facilities shall be afforded for the
housing of Federal activities and the
activities of the municipal govern-
ment of the District of Columbia but
this program is entered upon at this
time as an aid to unemployment and
a benefit to every element in the
various communities, by furnishing
employment and accelerating every
avenue of trade.
The Federal Government must, un-
-------
1704
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
der the law, award its contracts to
the lowest responsible bidder, and
this has prevented the departments
involved from requiring successful
bidders to pay wages to their em-
ployees comparable to the wages paid
for similar labor by private industry
in the vicinity of the building proj-
ects under construction. Officials have
endeavored to persuade contractors
to pay local prevailing wage scales,
but have been unable under existing
law to make this mandatory; and
so in many cases successful bidders
have selfishly imported labor from
distant localities and have exploited
this labor at wages far below local
wage rates.
Many of the local contractors of
the District of Columbia have felt
this unfair and unhealthy competi-
tion. Local artisans and mechanics,
many of whom are family men own-
ing their own homes and whose stand-
ards of living have long been ad-
justed to local wages scales, can not
hope to compete with this migratory
labor.
A number of contracts here in the
District of Columbia have been
awarded to a firm from Alabama who
have imported labor and established
a wage scale which the local laborers
and mechanics can not meet. The
very element of the community is
affected and local contractors have
been placed at a serious disadvan-
tage, as they find it impossible to
compete with these outside contrac-
tors who base their estimates for
labor upon the low wages they can
pay to unattached migratory work-
men imported from a distance, and
for whom the contractors have, in
some cases, provided housing facilities
in flimsy temporary quarters adja-
cent to the project under construction.
The question of having contractors
pay existing local wage rates has
been the subject of long consideration,
and the departments have endeavored
to correct the situation without seek-
ing authority of law, but have been
unable to do so. The legislation here
proposed will provide a more equable
distribution of employment, especially
in the present time of depression, and
will benefit the country at large by
requiring that those who have been
awarded public-building contracts pay
their employees wages comparable to
the prevailing wage scales where they
are employed.
The importance of the provisions
of this bill and the effect it will have
if it becomes a law can not be under-
estimated. Its passage will meet with
the approval of everyone, with the
exception of the contractors who in
the past have been using imported
cheap labor, and it will remove from
a contractor the incentive or motive
to import cheap labor from one sec-
tion of the country to another. It
will in no way affect the use by a
contractor of his regular and perma-
nent supervising force.
This measure does not require the
Government to establish any new
wage scales but simply gives the de-
partments power to insist that con-
tractors—who are successful in ob-
taining contracts—pay their employ-
ees the prevailing wage scale exist-
ing in the locality where the con-
tract applies.
This proposed legislation is a most
necessary and desirable complement
to the building program of the Gov-
ernment. Its purpose is to see to it
that the benefits of the program are
spread equitably throughout the
country alike to labor and to the
contracting industry.
The Secretary of Labor advises
that he anticipates no difficulties of
administration—that in 90 per cent
of the cases there will be no dispute
of any kind, and where there is a
dispute which can not be ironed out
on the spot by the contracting officer
the matter can be taken up by his
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1705
well-organized conciliation service, in-
vestigated and settled amicably and
expeditiously to the satisfaction of all
concerned.
The bill is indorsed by labor gen-
erally and by the American Federa-
tion of Labor and its affiliates, and
I urge the passage of the measure
that there may be no further delays
[p. 6520]
in making its provisions applicable
to all contracts that may be awarded
from now on.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The
question is on the motion of the gen-
tleman from California to suspend
the rules and pass Senate bill 5904.
The question was taken; and two-
thirds having voted in favor thereof,
the rules were suspended and the bill
was passed.
Mr. GREEN. Mr Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to proceed for
half a minute
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The
gentleman from Florida asks unani-
mous consent to proceed for half a
minute. Is there objection?
There was no objection.
Mr. GREEN. Mr. Speaker, there
was not sufficient time for all Mem-
bers to have an opportunity to speak
on the bill just passed. As a member
of the Committee on Labor I was
glad to work for its report and pas-
sage. I was glad to support the bill,
because I believe in the dignity of
labor and in the majesty of toil. There
is no aristocracy except that of honor
and no rabble save that of crime.
This bill will protect laborers and also
inculcate a higher code of ethics
among contractors. [Applause.]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. With-
out objection a similar House bill
(H.R. 16619) will be laid on the table.
There was no objection.
[p. 6521]
1.13b AMENDMENT TO THE ACT OF MARCH 3, 1931
August 30,1935, P.L. 74-403, 49 Stat. 1011
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Act
entitled "An Act relating to the rate of wages for laborers and
mechanics employed on public buildings of the United States and
the District of Columbia by contractors or subcontractors, and for
other purposes", approved March 3, 1931, is amended to read as
follows:
"That the advertised specifications for every contract in excess
of $2,000, to which the United States or the District of Columbia
is a party, for construction, alteration, and/or repair, including
painting and decorating, of public buildings -or public works of the
United States or the District of Columbia within the geographical
limits of the States of the Union or the District of Columbia, and
which requires or involves the employment of mechanics and/or
laborers shall contain a provision stating the minimum wages to
be paid various classes of laborers and mechanics which shall be
-------
1706 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
based upon the wages that will be determined by the Secretary of
Labor to be prevailing for the corresponding classes of laborers and
mechanics employed on projects of a character similar to the con-
tract work in the city, town, village, or other civil subdivision of
the State in which the work is to be performed, or in the District
[p. 1011]
of Columbia if the work is to be performed there; and every
contract based upon these specifications shall contain a st:pulation
that the contractor or his subcontractor shall pay all mechanics
and laborers employed directly upon the site of the work, uncondi-
tionally and not less often than once a week, and without subse-
quent deduction or rebate on any account, the full amounts ac-
crued at time of payment, computed at wage rates not less than
those stated in the advertised specifications, regardless of any
contractual relationship which may be alleged to exist between the
contractor or subcontractor and such laborers and mechanics, and
that the scale of wages to be paid shall be posted by the contractor
in a prominent and easily accessible place at the site of the work;
and the further stipulation that there may be withheld from the
contractor so much of accrued payments as may be considered
necessary by the contracting officer to pay to laborers and mechan-
ics employed by the contractor or any subcontractor on the work
the difference between the rates of wages required by the contract
to be paid laborers and mechanics and not refunded to the contrac-
tor, subcontractors, or their agents.
"SEC. 2. Every contract within the scope of this Act shall con-
tain the further provision that in the event it is found by the
contracting officer that any laborer or mechanic employed by the
contractor or any subcontractor directly on the site of the work
covered by the contract has been or is being paid a rate of wages
less than the rate of wages required by the contract to be paid as
aforesaid, the Government may, by written notice to the contrac-
tor, terminate his right to proceed with the work or such part of
the work as to which there has been a failure to pay said required
wages and to prosecute the work to completion by contract or
otherwise, and the contractor and his sureties shall be liable to the
Government for any excess costs occasioned the Government
thereby.
"SEC. 3. (a) The Comptroller General of the United States is
hereby authorized and directed to pay directly to laborers and
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1707
mechanics from any accrued payments withheld under the terms
of the contract any wages found to be due laborers and mechanics
pursuant to this Act; and the Comptroller General of the United
States is further authorized and is directed to distribute a list to
all departments of the Government giving the names of persons or
firms whom he has found to have disregarded their obligations to
employees and subcontractors. No contract shall be awarded to the
persons or firms appearing on this list or to any firm, corporation,
partnership, or association in which such persons or firms have an
interest until three years have elapsed from the date of publica-
tion of the list containing the names of such persons or firms.
" (b) If the accrued payments withheld under the terms of the
contract, as aforesaid, are insufficient to reimburse all the laborers
and mechanics with respect to whom there has been a failure to
pay the wages required pursuant to this Act, such laborers and
mechanics shall have the right of action and/or of intervention
against the contractor and his sureties conferred by law upon
persons furnishing labor or materials, and in such proceedings it
shall be no defense that such laborers and mechanics accepted or
agreed to accept less than the required rate of wages or voluntar-
ily made refunds.
"SEC. 4. This Act shall not be construed to supersede or impair
any authority otherwise granted by Federal law to provide for the
establishment of specific wage rates.
[p. 1012]
"SEC. 5. This Act shall take effect thirty days after its passage,
but shall not affect any contract then existing or any contract that
may thereafter be entered into pursuant to invitations for bids
that are outstanding at the time of the passage of this Act.
"SEC. 6. In the event of a national emergency the President is
authorized to suspend the provisions of this Act.
"SEC. 7. The funds appropriated and made available by the
Emergency Relief Appropriation Act of 1935 (Public Resolution
Numbered 11, Seventy-fourth Congress), are hereby made availa-
ble for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1936, to the Department of
Labor for expenses of the administration of this Act."
Approved, August 30, 1935.
[p. 1013]
-------
1708 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
1.13b(l) SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND
LABOR
S. REP. No. 1155, 74th Cong., 1st Sess. (1935)
AMENDING THE ACT RELATING TO THE RATE OF
WAGES FOR LABORERS AND MECHANICS EMPLOYED BY
CONTRACTORS AND SUBCONTRACTORS ON PUBLIC
BUILDINGS
MAY 13 (calendar day, JULY 25), 1935.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. WALSH, from the Committee on Education and Labor, submit-
ted the following
REPORT
[To accompany S. 3303]
The Committee on Education and Labor, to whom was referred
the bill (S. 3303) to amend the act approved March 3, 1931,
relating to the rate of wages for laborers and mechanics employed
by contractors and subcontractors on public buildings, report the
same with amendments and recommend the passage of the bill as
amended.
This bill is merely a logical development of a policy consistently
expressed by Congress for the past 4 years with respect to mini-
mum wages on public construction. Its object is to reinforce and
extend the principle of that statute commonly known as the "Ba-
con-Davis Act" (act of Mar. 3, 1931, 46 Stat. 1494, U.S.C., title 40,
sec. 276 (a)) which requires the payment of the prevailing rate of
wages to laborers and mechanics employed in the performance of
contracts for the construction of Federal buildings. The impelling
need of such legislation has recently been called to the attention of
Congress by the report of the subcommittee. (See Report 332, pts.
1 and 2, pursuant to S. Res. 228, 73d Cong.) of the Committee on
Education and Labor, United States Senate, which has just com-
pleted its investigation of the relationship between employees and
contractors on public works.
In view of the exhaustive discussion contained in that report of
the deplorable employment conditions existing on Government
construction work, it is unnecessary to repeat in the brief space of
this report the disturbing extent to which the prevailing rate of
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1709
wage principle has been flaunted. Suffice it to say that the subcom-
mittee found that unscrupulous contractors have taken advantage
of the widespread unemployment among the buildings crafts to
exploit labor and to deprive employees of the wages to which they
[P. i]
were entitled under the law. The subcommittee also found that the
present statute was inadequate to cope with many of the practices
to which contractors have resorted, a finding with which the De-
partments of the Government entrusted with the administration
of the existing act, fully concurred.
In order to carry out the obvious intent of Congress the subcom-
mittee recommended that legislation be enacted, amending the Ba-
con-Davis Act in the following respects (Report no. 332, pt. 2, p.
7):
1. To provide that laborers and mechanics on all Federal con-
struction work in excess of $2,000, of whatever nature, and where
not in conflict with existing law, are guaranteed payment of local
prevailing wages.
2. To provide for a predetermination of the prevailing wage on
contracts so that the contractor may know definitely in advance of
submitting his bid what his approximate labor costs will be.
3. To provide for withholding payments to contractors to reim-
burse laborers and mechanics who have not been paid prevailing
wages.
4. To provide a system of coordination between various Govern-
ment Departments to assure that the Government will not be in
the position of continuing to contract with a contractor who disre-
gards his obligations to his employees and subcontractors.
5. To provide remedies for laborers and mechanics aggrieved by
forced rebates or failure to pay the prevailing rate of wages by
allowing such laborers and mechanics to have the same right of
action against the contractor and his sureties in court which is
now conferred by the bond statute on persons furnishing labor
and materials when there are no funds to withhold for reimburse-
ment.
All of these recommendations are embodied in the bill, together
with a few suggestions taken from the body of the report with a
view to clarifying the present act.
The principal substantive changes which this bill proposes to
make in the present statute are contained in section 1. A brief
summary of these proposals follows:
-------
1710 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
(a) The application of the Bacon-Davis Act is extended so as to
cover public works as well as public buildings and so as to include
all contracts in excess of $2,000. The present act covers only con-
tracts for public buildings in excess of $5,000. This provision with
respect to public works is not in conflict with the policy expressed
by Congress in enacting section 7 of the Emergency Relief Appro-
priation Act of 1935 (Pub. Res. 11, 74th Cong.) for this bill
expressly states that it shall not be construed in derogation of any
authority otherwise granted by Federal law with respect to the
establishment of specific wage rates (sec. 4).
(6) The definition of construction, alteration, and repair is
amended so as to include contracts for painting and decorating.
The purpose of this language was to fill a conspicuous gap in the
present statute which has been construed as not applying to con-
tracts for the painting of existing buildings. (See 11 Comp. Gen.
57.)
(c) Provision is made for predetermination of the minimum
wage rates by the Secretary of Labor. This provision would
strengthen the present law considerably since at present the Sec-
retary of Labor is not permitted to fix the minimum wage rates
until a dispute has arisen in the course of construction. In practice
this has meant that in the early stages of the contract, unscrupu-
lous contractors have defied orders of the contracting officers to
[p. 2]
pay the prevailing rate until a formal adjudication has been re-
quested of the Secretary of Labor. This meant that laborers and
mechanics underpaid until the decision was rendered had no re-
dress since it has been held that the decisions of the Secretary
could not operate retroactively.
(d) A committee amendment makes clear the meaning of the
standard, "prevailing ... on work of a similar nature." The pres-
ent language leaves some doubt as to whether the statute refers to
wages in the same craft or wages paid on similar construction.
The amendment would make the wage rates contained in the speci-
fications conform to those "prevailing" for "the corresponding
classes of laborers and mechanics employed on projects of a char-
acter similar to the contract work."
(e) The burden of seeing to it that the illegal practices of
exacting rebates or kick-backs is eliminated is placed upon con-
tractors by the provision that each contract shall contain a stipu-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1711
lation requiring unconditional weekly payments without subse-
quent deductions or rebates.
(/) The bill requires payment of the minimum rate to all per-
sons employed as laborers and mechanics regardless of any con-
tractual relationship alleged to exist between such persons and the
contractor or subcontractor. The subcommittee had found several
instances of the formation of partnerships between individual
workmen and the letting to such partnerships of certain portions
of the work under contract, the net results of which was to pay
the members of the partnership less than the prevailing rate of
wage. This provision would eliminate this particular device for
circumventing the law.
(g) The section also provides for laborers or mechanics ag-
grieved by failure to pay the required rates of wages or by the
kick-back by including a stipulation permitting a contracting
officer to withhold from money otherwise due the contractor such
amounts as he considers necessary to reimburse such employees.
Section 2: This confers authority upon the contracting officer to
cancel contracts when he finds breaches of the wage stipulations.
There is such a provision at present in the Executive order of
February 9, 1932, relating to the Bacon-Davis Act, but as there
has been some doubt as to the legal validity of this order contract-
ing officers have been very reluctant to resort to its provisions.
The committee, therefore, deemed it advisable to have the cancella-
tion clause expressly written into the statute.
Section 3 (a) : This subsection provides a statutory means for
enabling mechanics and laborers to be reimbursed for claims aris-
ing out of violations of the wage stipulations of the contract. It
directs the Comptroller General to pay such claimants directly
from any accrued payments withheld by the contracting officer, an
act which the Comptroller General states that he has no authority
to perform under the present statute. (See 12 Comp. Gen. 27, 12
Comp. Gen. 615.) This subsection further penalizes offending con-
tractors and subcontractors by disqualifying them for 3 years
from their privilege of bidding for Government contracts. The
subcommittee had found that different departments, even though
aware that bidders had been notorious violators of the Bacon-
Davis Act in the past, felt compelled nevertheless to continue to
deal with such persons in view of the legal requirement that Gov-
[p.3]
-------
1712 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
ernment contracts shall be awarded to the lowest responsible bid-
der (R. S. 3709).
Section 3 (b): When the funds withheld for such claimants are
insufficient to reimburse all laborers and mechanics aggrieved by
breach of the wage stipulations this subsection gives such laborers
and mechanics a cause of action on the contractor's bond, pur-
suant to the provisions of the Kurd [Heard] Act as amended from
time to time (act of Aug. 13, 1894, 28 Stat. 278, U.S.C. title 40,
sec. 230). Because of such familiar doctrines of contract law as
waiver and release, it is dubious whether the courts at present
would recognize such a cause of action.
Section 4: This was inserted in order that the substantive por-
tions of the act should not conflict with the wage provisions on
work relief projects under the Emergency Relief Appropriation
Act of 1935. It also makes clear that the procedural features of
this act shall not apply to projects conducted under the Federal
Emergency Administration of Public Works, although the prevail-
ing rate of wage principle is also embodied in regulations of that
agency. (See Public Works Administration Bulletin 51.)
Section 5 and section 6: These were taken verbatim from provi-
sions contained in the present Bacon-Davis Act (46 Stat. 1494).
Section 7: This makes provision for the increased administra-
tive expenses which the Department of Labor will incur by reason
of the extra duties imposed on the Department by this act. These
duties will be considerably increased for the act requires a prede-
termination of wage rates on all contracts and widens the ambit of
these administrative duties to include nonbuilding projects and
contracts between $2,000 and $5,000 in amount. Since similar
extra duties have already been imposed upon the Department by
the Emergency Relief Appropriation Act of 1935 and since the
same division in the Department will undoubtedly handle cases
both under this act and under section 7 of the Relief Act, the
committee deemed it advisable, for the current fiscal year at least,
to provide that these activities should be carried on from a com-
mon source of funds. In future years an item covering this ex-
pense may perhaps be inserted in the annual departmental appro-
priation bill.
[P. 4]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1713
1.13b(2) HOUSE COMMITTEE ON LABOR
H.R. REP. No. 1756, 74th Cong., 1st Sess. (1935).
AMEND THE ACT APPROVED MARCH 3, 1931, RELATING
TO RATE OF WAGES FOR LABORERS AND MECHANICS
EMPLOYED ON PUBLIC BUILDINGS
AUGUST 9, 1935.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. CONNERY, from the Committee on Labor, submitted the fol-
lowing
REPORT
[To accompany S. 3303]
The Committee on Labor, to whom was referred the bill (S.
3303) to amend the act approved March 3, 1931, relating to the
rate of wages for laborers and mechanics employed by contractors
and subcontractors on public buildings, having had tha same
under consideration, report it back to the House without amend-
ment and recommend that the bill do pass.
This bill is merely a logical development of a policy consistently
expressed by Congress for the past 4 years with respect to mini-
mum washes on public construction. Its object is to reinforce and
extend the principle of that statute commonly known as the "Ba-
con-Davis Act" (act of Mar. 3,1931, 46 Stat. 1494, U.S.C., title 40,
sec. 276 (a)) which requires the payment of the prevailing rate of
wages to laborers and mechanics employed in the performance of
contracts for the construction of Federal buildings. The impelling;
need of such legislation has recently been called to the attention of
Congress by the report of the subcommittee. (See Rep1. 332, pts. 1
and 2, pursuant to S. Res. 228, 73d Cong., of the Committee on
Education and Labor, U.S. Senate, which has just completed its
investigation of the relationship between employees and contrac-
tors on public works.)
In view of the exhaustive discussion contained in that report of
the deplorable employment conditions existing on Government
construction work, it is unnecessary to repeat in the brief space of
this report the disturbing extent to which the prevailing rate-of-
wage principle has been flaunted. Suffice it to say that the Senate
-------
1714 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
subcommittee found that unscrupulous contractors have taken ad-
vantage of the wide-spread unemployment among the buildings
crafts to exploit labor and to deprive employees of the wages to
which they were entitled under the law. The Senate subcommittee
also found that the present statute was inadequate to cope with
[p.l]
many of the practices to which contractors have resorted, a find-
ing with which the departments of the Government entrusted with
the administration of the existing act, fully concurred.
In order to carry out the obvious intent of Congress the Senate
subcommittee recommended that legislation be enacted, amending
the Bacon-Davis Act in the following respects (Rept. 332, pt. 2, p.
7):
1. To provide that laborers and mechanics on all Federal con-
struction work in excess of $2,000, of whatever nature, and where
not in conflict with existing law, are guaranteed payment of local
prevailing wages.
2. To provide for a predetermination of the prevailing wage on
contracts so that the contractor may know definitely in advance of
subm'tting his bid what his approximate labor costs will be.
3. To provide for withholding payments to contractors to reim-
burse laborers and mechanics who have not been paid prevailing
wages.
4. To provide a system of coordination between various Govern-
ment Departments to assure that the Government will not be in
the position of continuing to contract with a contractor who disre-
gards his obligations to his employees and subcontractors.
5. To provide remedies for laborers and mechanics aggrieved by
forced rebates or failure to pay the prevailing rate of wages by
allowing such laborers and mechanics to have the same right of
action against the contractor and his sureties in court which is
now conferred by the bond statute on persons furnishing labor
and materials when there are no funds to withhold for reimburse-
ment.
All of these recommendations are embodied in the bill, together
with a few suggestions taken from the body of the report with a
view to clarifying the present act.
The principal substantive changes which this bill proposes to
make in the present statute are contained in section 1. A brief
summary of these proposals follows:
(a) The application of the Bacon-Davis Act is extended so as to
cover public works as well as public buildings and so as to include
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1715
all contracts in excess of $2,000. The present act covers only con-
tracts for public buildings in excess of $5,000. This provision with
respect to public works is not in conflict with the policy expressed
by Congress in enacting section 7 of the Emergency Relief Appro-
priation Act of 1935 (Pub. Res. 11, 74th Cong.), for this bill
expressly states that it shall not be construed in derogation of any
authority otherwise granted by Federal law with respect to the
establishment of specific wage rates (sec. 4).
(6) The definition of construction, alteration, and repair is
amended so as to include contracts for painting and decorating.
The purpose of this language was to fill a conspicuous gap in the
present statute which has been construed as not applying to con-
tracts for the painting of existing buildings. (See 11 Comp. Gen.
57.)
(c) Provision is made for predetermination of the minimum
wage rates by the Secretary of Labor. This provision would
strengthen the present law considerably, since at present tha Sec-
retary of Labor is not permitted to fix the minimum wage rates
until a dispute has arisen in the course of construe* ion. In practice
this has meant that in the early stages of the contract, unscrupu-
lous contractors have defied orders of the contracting officers to
pay the prevailing rate until a formal adjudication has been re-
[P. 2]
quested of the Secretary of Labor. This meant that laborers and
mechanics underpaid until the decision was rendered had no re-
dress, since it has been held that the decisions of the Secretary
could not operate retroactively.
(d) A provision in the bill makes clear the meaning of the
standard, "prevailing * * * on work of a similar nature." The
present language leaves some doubt as to whether the statute
refers to wages in the same craft or wages paid on similar con-
struction. The provision would make the wage rates contained in
the specifications conform to those "prevailing" for "the corre-
sponding classes of laborers and mechanics employed on projects
of a character similar to the contract work."
(e) The burden of seeing to it that the illegal practices of
exacting rebates or kick-backs is eliminated is placed upon con-
tractors by the provision that each contract shall contain a stipu-
lation requiring unconditional weekly payments without subse-
quent deductions or rebates.
(/) The bill requires payment of the minimum rate to all per-
sons employed as laborers and mechanics regardless of any con-
-------
1716 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
tractual relationship alleged to exist between such persons and the
contractor or subcontractor. The subcommittee had found several
instances of the formation of partnerships between individual
workmen and the letting to such partnerships of certain portions
of the work under contract, the net results of which was to pay
the members of the partnership less than the prevailing rate of
wage. This provision would eliminate this particular device for
circumventing the law.
(g) The section also provides for laborers or mechanics ag-
grieved by failure to pay the required rates of wages or by the
kick-back by including a stipulation permitting a contracting
officer to withhold from money otherwise due the contractor such
amounts as he considers necessary to reimburse such employees.
Section 2: This confers authority upon the contracting officer to
cancel contracts when he finds breaches of the wage stipulations.
There is such a provision at present in the Executive order of
February 9, 1932, relating to the Bacon-Davis Act, but as there
has been some doubt as to the legal validity of this order contract-
ing officers have been very reluctant to resort to its provisions.
The committee, therefore, deemed it advisable to have the cancela-
tion clause expressly written into the statute.
Section 3 (a) : This subsection provides a statutory means for
enabling mechanics and laborers to be reimbursed for claims aris-
ing out of violations of the wage stipulations of the contract. It
directs the Comptroller General to pay such claimants directly
from any accrued payments withheld by the contracting officer, an
act which the Comptroller General states that he has no authority
to perform under the present statute. (See 12 Comp. Gen. 27, 12
Comp. Gen. 615.) This subsection further penalizes offending con-
tractors and subcontractors by disqualifying them for 3 years
from their privilege of bidding for Government contracts. The
subcommittee had found that different departments, even though
aware that bidders had been notorious violators of the Bacon-
Davis Act in the past, felt compelled nevertheless to continue to
deal with such persons in view of the legal requirement that Gov-
ernment contracts shall be awarded to the lowest responsible bid-
der (R.S.3709).
[p. 3]
Section 3(b) : When the funds withheld for such claimants are
insufficient to reimburse all laborers and mechanics aggrieved by
breach of the wage stipulations this subsection gives such laborers
and mechanics a cause of action on the contractor's bond, pur-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1717
suant to the provisions of the Hurd [Heard] Act as amended from
time to time (act of Aug. 13, 1894, 28 Stat. 278, U.S.C. title 40,
sec. 230). Because of such familiar doctrines of contract law as
waiver and release, it is dubious whether the courts at present
would recognize such a cause of action.
Section 4: This was inserted in order that the substantive por-
tions of the act should not conflict with the wage provisions on
work relief projects under the Emergency Relief Appropriation
Act of 1935. It also makes clear that the procedural features of
this act shall not apply to projects conducted under the Federal
Emergency Administration of Public Works, although the prevail-
ing rate of wage principle is also embodied in regulations of that
agency. (See Public Works Administration Bulletin 51.)
Section 5 and section 6: These were taken from provisions con-
tained in the present Bacon-Davis Act (46 Stat. 1494).
Section 7: This makes provision for the increased administra-
tive expenses which the Depatment of Labor will incur by reason
of the extra duties imposed on the Department by this act. These
duties will be considerably increased, for the act requires a prede-
termination of wage rates on all contracts and widens the ambit of
these administrative duties to include nonbuilding projects and
contracts between $2,000 and $5,000 in amount. Since similar
extra duties have already been imposed upon the Department by
the Emergency Relief Appropriation Act of 1935 and since the
same division in the Department will undoubtedly handle cases
both under this act and under section 7 of the Relief Act, the
committee deemed it advisable, for the current fiscal year at least,
to provide that these activities should be carried on from a com-
mon source of funds. In future years an item covering this ex-
pense may perhaps be inserted in the annual departmental appro-
priation bill.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
In compliance with paragraph 2a of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in the act of March 3, 1931,
made by the bill are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be
omitted is enclosed in black brackets; new matter is printed in
italics; existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in
roman) :
[That every contract in excess of $5,000 in amount, to which the United
States or the District of Columbia is a party, which requires or involves the
employment of laborers or mechanics in the construction, alteration, and/or
repair of any public buildings of the United States or the District of Colum-
-------
1718 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
bia within the geographical limits of the States of the Union or the District
of Columbia, shall contain a provision to the effect that the rate of wage for
all laborers and mechanics employed by the contractor or any subcontractor
on the public buildings covered by the contract shall be not less than the pre-
vailing rate of wages for work of a similar nature in the city, town, village,
or other civil division of the State in which the public buildings are located,
or in the District of Columbia if the public buildings are located there, and
a further provision that in case any dispute arises as to what are the prevail-
ing rates of wages for work of a similar nature applicable to the contract
which cannot be adjusted by the contracting officer, the matter shall be
referred to the Secretary of Labor for determination and his decision thereon
shall be conclusive on all parties to the contract: Provided, That in case of
national emergency the President is authorized to suspend the provisions of
this Act.] That the advertised specifications for every contract in excess of
[P-4]
$2,000 to which the United States or the District of Columbia is a party, for
construction, alteration, and/or repair, including painting and decorating, of
public buildings or public works of the United States or the District of Co-
lumbia within the geographical limits of the States of the Union or the
District of Columbia, and which requires or involves the employment of
mechanics and/or laborers shall contain a provision stating the minimum
wages to be paid various classes of laborers and mechanics which shall be
based upon the wages that will be determined by the Secretary of Labor to
be prevailing for the corresponding classes of laborers and mechanics em-
ployed on projects of a character similar to the contract work in the city,
town, village, or other civil subdivision of the State in which the work is to
be performed, or in the District of Columbia if the work is to be performed
there; and every contract based upon these specifications shall contain a
stipulation that the contractor or his subcontractor shall pay all mechanics
and laborers employed directly upon the site of the work, unconditionally
and not less often than once a week, and without subsequent deduction or
rebate on any account, the full amounts accrued at time of payment, com-
puted at wage rates not less than those stated in the advertised specifications,
regardless of any contractual relationship which may be alleged to exist
between the contractor or subcontractor and such laborers and mechanics,
and that the scale of wages to be paid shall be posted by the contractor in a
prominent and easily accessible place at the site of the work; and the further
stipulation that there may be withheld from the contractor so much of
accrued payments as may be considered necessary by the contracting officer
to pay to laborers and mechanics employed by the contractor or any subcon-
tractor on the work the difference between the rates of wages required by the
contract to be paid laborers and mechanics on the work and the rates of
wages received by such laborers and mechanics and not refunded to the
contractor, subcontractors, or their agents.
Sec. 2. Every contract within the scope of this Act shall contain the further
provision that in the event it is found by the contracting officer that any
laborer or mechanic employed by the contractor or any subcontractor directly
on the site of the work covered by the contract has been or is being paid a
rate of wages less than the rate of wages required by the contract to be paid
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1719
as aforesaid, the Government may, by written notice to the contractor, termi-
nate his right to proceed with the work or such part of the work as to which
there has been a failure to pay said required wages and to prosecute the
work to completion by contract or otherwise, and the contractor and his
sureties shall be liable to the Government for any excess costs occasioned
the Government thereby.
Sec. 3. (a) The Comptroller General of the United States is hereby author-
ized and directed to pay directly to laborers and mechanics from any accrued
payments withheld under the terms of the contract any wages found to be
due laborers and mechanics pursuant to this Act; and the Comptroller Gen-
eral of the United States is further authorized and is directed to distribute a
list to all departments of the Government giving the names of persons or
firms whom he has found to have disregarded their obligations to employees
and subcontractors. No contract shall be awarded to the persons or firms
appearing on this list or to any firm, corporation, partnership, or association
in which such persons or firms have an interest until three years have elapsed
from the date of publication of the list containing the names of such persons
or firms.
(b) If the accrued payments withheld under the terms of the contract, as
aforesaid, are insufficient to reimburse all the laborers and mechanics with
respect to whom there has been a failure to pay the wages required pursuant
to this Act, such laborers and mechanics shall have the right of action and/or
of intervention against the contractor and his sureties conferred by law upon
persons furnishing labor or materials, and in such proceedings it shall be no
defense that such laborers and mechanics accepted or agreed to accept less
than the required rate of wages or voluntarily made refunds.
Sec. 4. This Act shall not be construed to supersede or impair any authority
otherwise granted by Federal law to provide for the establishment of specific
wage rates.
Sec. [2] 5. This Act shall take effect thirty days after its [passage but]
passage, but shall not affect any contract then existing or any contract that
may thereafter be entered into pursuant to invitations for bids that are out-
standing at the time of the passage of this Act.
Sec. 6. In the event of a national emergency the President is authorized
to suspend the provisions of this Act.
Sec. 7. The funds appropriated and made available by the Emergency
Relief Appropriations Act of 1935 (Public Resolution Numbered 11, Seventy-
fourth Congress), are hereby made available for the fiscal year ending June
SO, 1936, to the Department of Labor for expenses of the administration of
this Act.
[p. 5]
See also section 7 of the Emergency Relief Appropriation Act,
1935, which reads as follows:
SEC. 7. The President shall require to be paid such rates of pay for all
persons engaged upon any project financed in whole or in part, through
loans or otherwise, by funds appropriated by this joint resolution, as will
in the discretion of the President accomplish the purposes of this joint reso-
-------
1720
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
lution, and not affect adversely or otherwise tend to decrease the going rates
of wages paid for work of a similar nature.
The President may fix different rates of wages for various types of work
on any project, which rates need not be uniform throughout the United
States: Provided, however, That whenever permanent buildings for the use
of any department of the Government of the United States, or the District of
Columbia, are to be constructed by funds appropriated by this joint resolu-
tion, the provisions of the Act of March 3, 1931 (U. S. C., Supp. VII, title
40, sec. 276a), shall apply, but the rate of wages shall be determined in
advance of any bidding thereon.
[P. 6]
1.13b(3) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 79 (1935)
1.13b(3)(a) July 30: Amended and passed Senate, pp. 12072-
12074
WAGES OF EMPLOYEES ON PUBLIC
BUILDINGS
The bill (S. 3303) to amend the act
approved March 3, 1931, relating to
the rate of wages for laborers and
[p. 12072]
mechanics employed by contractors
and subcontractors on public buildings
was announced as next in order.
Mr. McNARY. Mr. President, on
the surface this appears to be a very
important bill, and I should like to
have an explanation of it.
Mr. COPELAND. Mr. President, I
should like to ask a question concern-
ing the bill before the Senator from
Massachusetts [Mr. WALSH] begins
his explanation. Complaint has been
made to me regarding a bill concern-
ing which there has been a desire
to be heard, but no opportunity was
given to those interested in the legis-
lation to be heard. I suppose that is
a mistake.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. President, has the
Senator in mind this bill or a subse-
quent bill on the calendar?
Mr. COPELAND. I thought it was
this one.
Mr. WALSH. I think the Senator
has in mind a bill on the next page of
the calendar. This bill is the result of
an investigation conducted by the
Committee on Education and Labor
into unscrupulous methods practiced
by contractors who have contracts on
public buildings with the Federal
Government and who were found to
be violating the Bacon-Davis law.
That investigation lasted several
months, and the report is now printed
and on file.
In view of the exhaustive discussion
contained in that report of the de-
plorable employment conditions exist-
ing on Government construction work,
it is unnecessary to repeat the dis-
turbing extent to which the prevail-
ing rate of wage principle has been
flaunted. Suffice it to say that the
committee found that unscrupulous
contractors have taken advantage of
the wide-spread unemployment among
the building crafts to exploit labor
and to deprive employees of the wages
to which they were entitled under the
law. The committee also found that
the present statute was inadequate to
cope with many of the practices to
which contractors have resorted, a
finding with which the departments
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1721
of the Government intrusted with the
administration of the existing act
fully concurred.
In order to carry out the obvious
intent of Congress, the committee rec-
ommended that legislation be enacted,
amending the Bacon-Davis Act in the
following respects:
First. To provide that laborers and
mechanics on all Federal construction
work in excess of $2,000, of whatever
nature, and where not in conflict with
existing law, are guaranteed payment
of local prevailing wages.
Second. To provide for a predeter-
mination of the prevailing wage on
contracts so that the contractor may
know definitely in advance of submit-
ting his bid what his approximate
labor costs will be.
Third. To provide for withholding
payments to contractors to reimburse
laborers and mechanics who have not
been paid prevailing wages.
Fourth. To provide a system of
coordination between various Govern-
ment departments to assure that the
Government will not be in the position
of continuing to contract with a con-
tractor who disregards his obligations
to his employees and subcontractors.
Fifth. To provide remedies for la-
borers and mechanics aggrieved by
forced rebates or failure to pay the
prevailing rate of wages by allowing
such laborers and mechanics to have
the same right of action against the
contractor and his sureties in court
which is now conferred by the bond
statute on persons furnishing labor
and materials when there are no
funds to withhold for reimbursement.
All of these recommendations are
embodied in the bill, together with a
few suggestions taken from the body
of the report with a view to clarify-
ing the present act.
I think the committee has done a
useful service in recommending this
bill for the purpose of strengthening
the Bacon-Davis law and making it
an effective weapon in protecting the
Government against unscrupulous
contractors and to protect the employ-
ees working on public buildings, so
they will enjoy the full benefit of the
Bacon-Davis law. I hope the bill will
be enacted into law.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is
there objection to the present con-
sideration of the bill?
There being no objection, the Sen-
ate proceeded to consider the bill (S.
3303) to amend the act approved
March 3, 1931, relating to the rate
of wages for laborers and mechanics
employed by contractors and subcon-
tractors on public buildings, which
had been reported by the Committee
on Education and Labor with amend-
ments.
The amendments of the Committee
on Education and Labor were, on page
2, line 7, after the word "of", to
strike out "skilled, unskilled, and in-
termediate labor" and insert "laborers
and mechanics"; in line 8, after the
word "the", to strike out "minimum";
in line 10, after the word "for", to
strike out "work of a similar nature"
and insert "the corresponding classes
of laborers and mechanics employed
on projects of a character similar to
the contract work"; in line 20, after
the word "week", to insert "and with-
out subsequent deduction or rebate on
any account"; on page 3, line 10,
after the word "wages", to strike out
"actually paid to such laborers and
mechanics" and insert "received by
such laborers and mechanics and not
refunded to the contractor, subcon-
tractors, or their agents"; in line 18,
after the word "the", to strike out
"prevailing"; in line 19, after the
word "wages", to insert "required
by the contract to be paid"; in line
22, after the words "has been", to
insert "a"; in line 23, before the word
"wages", to strike out "prevailing"
-------
1722
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
and insert "required"; on page 4,
line 3, after "Sec. 3", to insert "(a)";
in line 4, after the word "authorized",
to insert "and directed"; in line 14,
after the word "list", to strike out
"without approval of the Comptroller
General" and insert:
or to any firm, corporation, partnership, or
association in which such persons or firms
have an interest until 3 years have elapsed
from the date of publication of the list con-
taining the names of such persons or firms.
On page 4, after line 18, to insert:
(b) If the accrued payments withheld under
the terms of the contract, as aforesaid, are
insufficient to reimburse all the laborers and
mechanics with respect to whom there has
been a failure to pay the wages required
pursuant to this act, such laborers and
mechanics shall have the right of action and/
or of intervention against the contractor and
his sureties conferred by law upon persons
furnishing labor or materials, and in such
proceedings it shall be no defense that such
laborers and mechanics accepted or agreed to
accept less than the required rate of wages
or voluntarily made refunds.
On page 5, line 15, to strike out
"act." " and insert "act."; and on the
same page, after line 15, to insert the
following new section:
SEC. 7. The funds appropriated and made
available by the Emergency Relief Appropria-
tion Act of 1935 (Pub. Res. No. 11, 74th
Cong.), are hereby made available for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1936, to the De-
partment of Labor for expenses of the ad-
ministration of this act.
So as to make the bill read:
Be it enacted, etc,. That the act entitled "An
act relating to the rate of wages for laborers
and mechanics employed on public buildings
of the United States and the District of Co-
lumbia by contractors or subcontractors, and
for other purposes", approved March 3, 1931,
is amended to read as follows:
"That the advertised specifications for every
contract in excess of $2,000, to which the
United States or the District of Columbia is
a party, for construction, alteration, and/or
repair, including painting and decorating, of
public buildings or public works of the
United States or the District of Columbi
within the geographical limits of the States
of the Union or the District of Columbia, and
which requires or involves the employment of
mechanics and/or laborers shall contain a
provision stating the minimum wages to be
paid various classes of laborers and mechanics
which shall be based upon the wages that
will be determined by the Secretary of Labor
to be prevailing for the corresponding classes
of laborers and mechanics employed on proj-
ects of a character similar to the contract
work in the city, town, village, or other civil
subdivision of the State in which the work is
to be performed, or in the District of Colum-
bia if the work is to be performed there; and
every contract based upon these specifications
shall contain a stipulation that the contractor
or his subcontractor shall pay all mechanics
and laborers employed directly upon the site
of the work, unconditionally and not less
often than once a week, and without subse-
quent deduction or rebate on any account,
the full amounts accrued at time of pay-
ment, computed at wage rates not less than
those stated in the advertised specifications,
regardless of any contractual relationship
which may be alleged to exist between the
contractor or subcontractor and such laborers
and mechanics, and that the scale of wages to
be paid shall be posted by the contractor in
[p. 12073]
a prominent and easily accessible place at
the site of the work; and the further stipula-
tion that there may be withheld from the
contractor so much of accrued payments as
may be considered necessary by the contract-
ing officer to pay to laborers and mechanics
employed by the contractor or any subcontrac-
tor on the work the difference between the
rates of wages required by the contract to be
paid laborers and mechanics on the work and
the rates of wages received by such laborers
and mechanics and not refunded to the con-
tractor, subcontractors, or their agents.
"SEC. 2. Every contract within the scope
of this act shall contain the further provision
that in the event it is found by the contracting
officer that any laborer or mechanic employed
by the contractor or any subcontractor directly
on the site of the work covered by the con-
tract has been or is being paid a rate of wages
less than the rate of wages required by the
contract to be paid as aforesaid, the Govern-
ment may, by written notice to the contractor,
terminate his right to proceed with the work
or such part of the work as to which there
has been a failure to pay said required wages
and to prosecute the work to completion by
contract or otherwise, and the contractor and
his sureties shall be liable to the Government
for any excess costs occasioned the Govern-
ment thereby.
"SEC. 3. (a) The Comptroller General of
the United States is hereby authorized and
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1723
directed to pay directly to laborers and
mechanics from any accrued payments with-
held under the terms of the contract any
wages found to be due laborers and mechanics
pursuant to this act; and the Comptroller
General of the United States is further author-
ized and is directed to distribute a list to all
departments of the Government giving the
names of persons or firms whom he has
found to have disregarded their obligations
to employees and subcontractors. No con-
tract shall be awarded to the persons or firms
appearing on this list or to any firm, corpora-
tion, partnership, or association in which such
persons or firms have an interest until 3
years have elapsed from the date of publica-
tion of the list containing the names of such
persons or firms.
"(b) If the accrued payments withheld un-
der the terms of the contract, as aforesaid,
are insufficient to reimburse all the laborers
and mechanics with respect to whom there
has been a failure to pay the wages required
pursuant to this act, such laborers and me-
chanics shall have the right of action and/or
of intervention against the contractor and his
sureties conferred by law upon persons fur-
nishing labor or materials, and in such pro-
ceedings it shall be no defense that such
laborers and mechanics accepted or agreed
to accept less than the required rate of wages
or voluntarily made refunds.
"SEC. 4. This act shall not be construed to
supersede or impair any authority otherwise
granted by Federal law to provide for the
establishment of specific wage rates.
"SEC. 5. This act shall take effect 30 days
after its passage, but shall not affect any
contract then existing or any contract that
may thereafter be entered into pursuant to
invitations for bids that are outstanding at
the time of the passage of this act.
"SEC. 6. In the event of a national emer-
gency the President is authorized to suspend
the provisions of this act.
"SEC. 7. The funds appropriated and made
available by the Emergency Relief Appropria-
tion Act of 1935 (Public Resolution No. 11,
74th Cong.), are hereby made available for
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1936, to the
Department of Labor for expenses of the
administration of this act."
The amendments were agreed to.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed
for a third reading, read the third
time, and passed.
BILL PASSED OVER
The bill (S. 2969) to authorize the
deportation of criminals, to guard
against the separation from their
families of aliens of the noncriminal
classes, to provide for legalizing the
residence in the United States of cer-
tain classes of aliens, and for other
purposes, was announced as next in
order.
Mr. SHEPPARD. Mr. President, I
wish to have further time for the
examination of this measure, and I
ask that it be passed over.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
bill will be passed over.
[p. 12074]
1.13b(3)(b) Aug. 23: Debated and passed House, pp. 14384-14385
WAGES FOR LABORERS, ETC., ON
PUBLIC BUILDINGS CONTRACTS
Mr. O'CONNOR. Mr. Speaker, I
call up House Resolution 343, which
I send to the desk and ask to have
read.
The Clerk read as follows:
HOUSE RESOLUTION 348
Resolved, That immediately upon the adop-
tion of this resolution it shall be in order to
move that the House resolve itself into the
Committee of the Whole House on the state
of the Union for the consideration of S. 3303,
an act to amend the act approved March 3,
1931, relating to the rate of wages for
laborers and mechanics employed by contrac-
tors and subcontractors on public buildings.
That after general debate, which shall be
confined to the bill and continue not to
exceed 1 hour, to be equally divided and con-
trolled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Labor, the bill
shall be read for amendment under the 6-
minute rule. At the conclusion of the reading
of the bill for amendment, the committee
shall rise and report the same to the House
with such amendments as may have been
adopted, and the previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and amend-
ments thereto to final passage without inter-
-------
1724
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
vening motion except one motion to recommit,
with or without instructions.
Mr. O'CONNOR. Mr. Speaker, I
yield 30 minutes to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania [Mr. RANSLEY] .
This is a rule for the consideration of
one of the labor bills, a Senate bill,
which we were informed pertains to
the prevailing rate of wage on public-
works contracts, heretofore let. Does
the gentleman from Pennsylvania de-
sire to use any time?
Mr. RANSLEY. No time is asked
on this side.
Mr. O'CONNOR. Mr. Speaker, I
move the previous question on the
resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER. The question is on
agreeing to the resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.
Mr. O'CONNOR. Mr. Speaker, I
ask unanimous consent that the bill
be considered in the House as in Com-
mittee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman
from New York asks unanimous con-
sent that the bill (S. 3303) to amend
the act approved March 3, 1931, re-
lating to the rate of wages for labor-
ers and mechanics employed by con-
tractors and subcontractors on public
buildings be considered in the House
as in the Committee of the Whole. Is
there objection?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER. The Clerk will
read the bill for amendment.
The Clerk read the bill, as follows:
Be it enacted, etc., That the act entitled
"An act relating to the rate of wages for
laborers and mechanics employed on public
buildings in the United States and the District
of Columbia by contractors or subcontractors,
and for other purposes", approved March 3,
1931, is amended to read as follows:
"That the advertised specifications for every
contract in excess of $2,000, to which the
United States or the District of Columbia
is a party, for construction, alteration, and/or
repair, including painting and decorating, of
public buildings or public works of the United
States or the District of Columbia within the
geographical limits of the States of the Union
or the District of Columbia, and which re-
quires or involves the employment of mechan-
ics and/or laborers shall contain a provision
stating the minimum wages to be paid various
classes of laborers and mechanics which shall
be based upon the wages that will be deter-
mined by the Secretary of Labor to be prevail-
ing for the corresponding classes of laborers
and mechanics employed on projects of a
character similar to the contract made in the
city, town, village, or other civil subdivision
of the State in which the work is to be per-
formed, or in the District of Columbia where
work is to be performed there; and every
contract based upon these specifications shall
contain a stipulation that the contractor
or his subcontractor shall pay all mechanics
and laborers employed directly upon the site
of the work, unconditionally and not less
often than once a week, and without subse-
quent deduction or rebate on any account,
the full amounts accrued at time of payment,
computed at wage rates not less than those
stated in the advertised specifications, regard-
less of any contractual relationship which
may be alleged to exist between the contrac-
tor or subcontractor and such laborers and
mechanics, and that the scale of wages to be
paid shall be posted by the contractor in a
prominent and easily accessible place at the
site of the work; and the further stipulation
that there may be withheld from the contrac-
tor so much of accrued payments as may be
considered necessary by the contracting officer
to pay to laborers and mechanics employed by
the contractor or any subcontractor on the
work the difference between the rates of wages
required by the contract to be paid laborers
and mechanics on the work and the rates of
wages received by such laborers and mechanics
and not refunded to the contractor, subcon-
tractors, or their agents.
"SEC. 2. Every contract within the scope of
this act shall contain the further provision
that in the event it is found by the contract-
ing officer that any laborer or mechanic em-
ployed by the contractor or any subcontractor
directly on the site of the work covered by the
contract has been or is being paid a rate of
wages less than the rate of wages requi red
by the contract to be paid as aforesaid, the
Government may, by written notice to the
contractor, terminate his right to proceed with
the work or such part of the work as to
which there has been a failure to pay said
required wages and to prosecute the work to
completion by contract or otherwise, and the
contractor and his sureties shall be liable to
the Government for any excess costs occa-
sioned the Government thereby.
"SEC. 3. (a) The Comptroller General of
the United States is hereby authorized and
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1725
directed to pay directly to laborers and me-
chanics from any accrued payments with-
held under the terms of the contract any
wages found to be due laborers and mechanics
pursuant to this act; and the Comptroller
General of the United States is further author-
ized and is directed to distribute a list to all
departments of the Government, giving the
names of persons or firms whom he has found
to have disregarded their obligations to em-
ployees and subcontractors. No contract shall
be awarded to the persons or firms appearing
on this list or to any firm, corporation, part-
nership, or association in which such ppr-
sons or firms* have an interest until 3 years
have elapsed from the date of publication of
the list containing the names of such persons
or firms.
"(b) If the accrued payments withheld
under the terms of the contracts, as afore-
said, are insufficient to reimburse all the
laborers and mechanics with respect to whom
there has been a failure to pay the wages
required pursuant to this act, such laborers
and mechanics shall have the right of action
and/or of intervention against the contrac-
tor and his sureties conferred by law upon
persons furnishing labor or materials, and
in such proceedings it shall be no defense
that such laborers and mechanics accepted or
agreed to accept less than the required rate
of wages or voluntarily made refunds.
"SEC. 4. This act shall not be construed to
supersede or impair any authority otherwise
granted by Federal law to provide for the
establishment of specific wage rates.
"SEC. B. This act shall take effect 30 days
after its passage, but shall not affect any
contract then existing or any contract that
may thereafter be entered into pursuant to
invitations for bids that are outstanding at
the time of the passage of this act.
"SEC. 6. In the event of a national emer-
gency the President is authorized to suspend
the provisions of this act.
"SEC. 7. The funds appropriated and made
available by the Emergency Relief Appropria-
tion Act of 1935 (Public Resolution No. 11,
74th Cong.), are hereby made available for
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1936, to the
Department of Labor for expenses of the
administration of this act."
The bill was ordered to be read a
third time, was read the third time,
and passed, and a motion to reconsider
laid on the table.
INVESTIGATION OF REAL-ESTATE BOND-
HOLDERS' ORGANIZATIONS, ETC.
Mr. O'CONNOR. Mr. Speaker, I call
up House Resolution 354, which I send
to the desk and ask to have read.
The Clerk reads as follows:
HOUSE RESOLUTION 354
Resolved, That the Select Committee to
Investigate Real Estate Bondholders' Reorgani-
zations authorized by House Resolution 412 of
the Seventy-third Congress, and supplemented
by House Resolution 39 and House Resolution
79 of the Seventy-Fourth Congress, is further
authorized and empowered to investigate any
defaulted securities and/or reorganizations,
protective committees, receivers, trustees, and
attorneys, including their fees and expenses
and the method of their appointment.
Also representations made by any and all
persons, corporations, or others applying for
or having received Government funds, di-
rectly or indirectly, for use in connection
with any defaulted securities, reorganizations,
or other similar purposes and the disposi-
tion of such funds.
SEC. 2. Whenever in the opinion of the
committee material evidence in any proceed-
ings under section 74 or 77B of the National
Bankruptcy Act have not been disclosed or
presented, or misleading reports or informa-
tion have been filed, or excessive fees and
charges have been claimed or allowed, the
committee is hereby authorized and empowered
to appear in any court through its duly
authorized representative and furnish the
court with such evidence in its possession.
[p. 14384]
Mr. O'CONNOR. Mr. Speaker, I
yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. RANSLEY].
Mr. SNELL. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman from New York yield?
Mr. O'CONNOR. Certainly.
Mr. SNELL. What is the difference
between this resolution and the former
resolution passed setting up this in-
vestigating committee?
Mr. O'CONNOR. I understand that
this resolution gives them power to go
into the matter of receivers' and law-
yers' fees, in addition to the investiga-
tion of committees.
Mr. SNELL. And they did not have
that authority heretofore?
Mr. O'CONNOR. So I understand.
I was on that committee some time
ago, but the gentleman from Illinois
[Mr. SABATH] is here.
-------
1726
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
Mr. RICH. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. O'CONNOR. Yes.
Mr. RICH. As I understand it, you
are going to be permitted to designate
certain attorneys who will serve for
the committee without pay?
Mr. SABATH. That is being done.
This is only to give them power to
ascertain and eliminate, wherever pos-
sible, excessive fees, and find out all
the abuses and charges of the com-
mittees and receivers and trustees.
Mr. RICH. Will the committee be
empowered to engage an attorney at
the specific point to do this work for
them?
Mr. SABATH. Yes, sir.
Mr. O'CONNOR. Mr. Speaker, 1
move the previous question.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER. The question is on
the adoption of the resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on
the table.
[p. 14385]
1.13c AN ACT TO REQUIRE THE PAYMENT OF PRE-
VAILING RATES OF WAGES ON FEDERAL PUBLIC
WORKS IN ALASKA AND HAWAII
June 15, 1940, P.L. 76-633, § 1, 54 Stat. 399
TO REQUIRE THE PAYMENT OF PREVAILING RATES OF
WAGES ON FEDERAL PUBLIC WORKS IN ALASKA AND
HAWAII
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 1 of
the Act entitled "An Act relating to the rate of wages for laborers
and mechanics employed on public buildings of the United States
and the District of Columbia by contractors and subcontractors,
and for other purposes", approved March 3, 1931 (46 Stat. 1494),
as amended, is further amended by striking out the words "States
of the Union or the District of Columbia" and inserting in lieu
thereof "States of the Union, the Territory of Alaska, the Terri-
tory of Hawaii, or the District of Columbia"; and by striking out
the words "or other civil subdivision of the State" and inserting in
lieu thereof "or other civil subdivision of the State, or the Terri-
tory of Alaska, or the Territory of Hawaii".
SEC. 2. The amendments made by this Act shall take effect on
the thirtieth day after the date of enactment of this Act, but shall
not affect any contract in existence on such effective date or made
thereafter pursuant to invitations for bids outstanding on the date
of enactment of this Act.
Approved, June 15, 1940.
[p. 399]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1727
1.13c(l) SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND
LABOR
S. REP. No. 1550, 76th Cong., 3rd Sess. (1940)
REQUIRING PAYMENT OF PREVAILING RATES OF
WAGES ON FEDERAL PUBLIC WORKS IN ALASKA AND
HAWAII.
APRIL 29 (legislative day, APRIL 24), 1940.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. THOMAS of Utah, from the Committee on Education and
Labor, submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany S. 3650]
The Committee on Education and Labor, to whom was referred
the bill (S. 3650) to require the payment of prevailing rates of
wages on Federal public works in Alaska and Hawaii, having
considered this legislation, report favorably thereon with the rec-
ommendation that the bill be passed without amendment.
The purpose of this proposed legislation is to extend to Alaska
and Hawaii the provisions of the so-called Davis-Bacon Act (as
amended, 49 Stat. 1011, ch. 825, the act of August 30, 1935),
which requires the payment of the prevailing rate of wages to
laborers and mechanics employed in the performance of contracts
for the construction of Federal buildings. The act as originally
passed was limited in its application to the "States of the Union or
the District of Columbia." The committee believes the workers in
these Territories should not be excluded from the benefits of such
general legislation.
The labor organizations in both Territories favor this legisla-
tion and submit that its enactment would obviate the possibility of
wage disputes between contractors and employees and thereby
prevent possible cessation of work which might otherwise occur in
case of labor strife.
As in the passage of former prevailing wage acts, the committee
feel that this bill will deter the exploitation of labor by unscrupu-
lous contractors who have been successful in gaining Government
contracts.
-------
1728 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
This bill safeguards existing and pending contracts by provid-
ing that the effective date thereof shall be 30 days after enact-
ment, and that it shall not affect contracts made pursuant to
invitations for bids outstanding on the date of enactment. The
Delegate in Congress from Alaska and the Delegate in Congress
from Hawaii, both of whom, speaking for their respective Territo-
ries, urge the enactment of this legislation.
[p.i]
1.13c(2) HOUSE COMMITTEE ON LABOR
H.R. REP. No. 2264, 76th Cong., 3rd Sess. (1940)
EXTENDING THE PROVISIONS OF THE BACON-DAVIS
ACT TO HAWAII AND ALASKA
MAY 22, 1940.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State
of the Union and ordered to be printed
MRS. NORTON, from the Committee on Labor, submitted the follow-
ing
REPORT
[To accompany H. R. 9021]
The Committee on Labor of the House, to whom was referred
the bill (H.R. 9021) to require the payment of the prevailing rates
of wages on Federal public works in Alaska and Hawaii, having
considered the same, report favorably thereon and recommend
that the bill do pass without amendment.
The following letter was received from the Secretary of Labor
relative to this bill:
MAY 20,1940.
Hon. MARY T. NORTON,
House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.
DEAR MRS. NORTON: You have requested my comment on H.R. 9021, a bill
to require the payment of prevailing rates of wages on Federal public works
in Alaska and Hawaii, which would amend the so-called Davis-Bacon Act of
March 3, 1931 (46 Stat. 1494), as amended August 30, 1935 (49 Stat. 1011,
U. S. C., title 40, sec. 276 (a)), by extending its application to the Territories
of Alaska and Hawaii.
There would seem to be no serious objections to extending the prevailing-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1729
wage law beyond the geographic limits of the States of the Union and the
District of Columbia. Information on prevailing wages in such places has been
sought frequently by other Federal agencies and also by private concerns
contemplating Federal construction outside of the States. Due to the limita-
tions of the Davis-Bacon Act, we have been unable to investigate building
conditions in those places, and consequently there has been no basis upon
which an opinion could be given.
It would appear that heretofore prospective bidders on Federal projects
have made their own investigations outside of the United States, and their
standard has been the rate for which men could be obtained rather than the
prevailing wage rate, as defined by the Davis-Bacon Act, and regulations 503,
which govern its administration. In some instances, this method has resulted
in very low wages and it would seem that the reasons which caused the pas-
sage of the Davis-Bacon amendment have similar application to Federal
projects in Alaska and Hawaii, and the protection of the wages of laborers
[p. 1]
and mechanics from any ill effects of competitive bidding is equally important
as in the States. In addition, the establishment of a minimum-wage schedule
provides bidders with an equal basis upon which to figure labor costs and
prevents the securing of Federal contracts by unfair competition in labor
costs. As such costs have been difficult to figure in the past, the proposed
amendment should be of considerable assistance to the contracting industry.
The only objections which could be raised would appear to be those that
were voiced at the time the Davis-Bacon Act was amended in 1935 and which
were not considered serious by the Congress at that time. The possible objec-
tion that wage determinations for work in places as far away as Alaska and
Hawaii would result in delay in putting the proposed work on the market,
could easily be overcome by allowing the Department as much time to make
wage investigations as is allowed contracting agencies to prepare their speci-
fications. Once a satisfactory investigation is completed and reliable sources
of information are discovered, it will be relatively easy to keep in touch with
building conditions in those places and Federal construction would be delayed
no more than is true at the present time in remote parts of the States, where
information is difficult to obtain quickly.
From an administrative viewpoint there are several things that should be
considered. Investigations in Alaska and Hawaii will require a higher cost
allotment per case than is at present involved in determinations for projects
within the geographic limits of the States and it will be necessary to hold
public hearings and make extensive investigations to lay the proper founda-
tion for wage determinations. This would involve the appointment of special
referees in the field, or the sending of attorneys from the Solicitor's office,
who are thoroughly familiar with the procedures involved, which method in
the past has proven more satisfactory. This will further tax the Solicitor's
staff which now handles approximately 3,500 wage predeterminations a year,
with a small force, and an increase in the administrative expenses would
probably result.
-------
1730 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
The Bureau of the Budget has advised us that no objections were found
to the submission of a similar report with respect to the companion bill,
S. 3650, to the committee to which that bill was referred.
Sincerely yours,
FRANCES PERKINS.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
In compliance with paragraph 2a of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, changes in the Bacon-Davis Act
as amended made by the bill, H.R. 9021, are shown as follows
(existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets,
new matter is printed in italics, existing law in which no change is
proposed is shown in roman) :
That the advertised specifications for every contract in excess of $2,000,
to which the United States or the District of Columbia is a party, for con-
struction, alteration, and/or repair, including painting and decorating of
public buildings or public works of the United States or the District of
Columbia within the geographical limits of the [States of the Union or the
District of Columbia] States of the Union, the Territory of Alaska, the
Territory of Hawaii, or the District of Columbia, and which requires or
involves the employment of mechanics and/or laborers shall contain a pro-
vision stating the minimum wages to be paid various classes of laborers
and mechanics which shall be based upon the wages that will be determined
by the Secretary of Labor to be prevailing for the corresponding classes of
laborers and mechanics employed on projects of a character similar to the
contract work in the city, town, village [or other civil subdivision of the
State] or other civil subdivision of the State, or the Territory of Alaska, or
the Territory of Haivaii in which the work to be performed or in the District
of Columbia if the work is to be performed there; and every contract based
upon these specifications shall contain a stipulation that the contractor or
his subcontractor shall pay all mechanics and laborers employed directly
upon the site of the work, unconditionally and not less often than once a
week, and without subsequent deduction or rebate on any account, the full
amounts accrued at time of payment, computed at wage rates not less than
those stated in the advertised specifications, regardless of any contractual
relationship which may be alleged to exist between the contractor or sub-
[p.2]
contractor and such laborers and mechanics, and that the scale of wages to
be paid shall be posted by the contractor in a prominent and easily accessible
place at the site of the work; and the further stipulation that there may be
withheld from the contractor so much of accrued payments as may be con-
sidered necessary by the contracting officer to pay to laborers and mechanics
employed by the contractor or any subcontractor on the work the difference
between the rates of wages required by the contract to be paid laborers and
mechanics on the work and the rates of wages received by such laborers and
mechanics and not refunded to the contractor, subcontractors, or their agents.
[p. 3]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1731
1.13c(3) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 86 (1940-1941)
1.13c(3)(a) May 28: Passed Senate, p. 6997
PAYMENT OP PREVAILING WAGES ON
FEDERAL PUBLIC WORKS IN ALASKA
AND HAWAII
The bill (S. 3650) to require the
payment of prevailing rates of wages
on Federal public works in Alaska
and Hawaii was considered ordered
to be engrossed for a third reading,
read the third time, and passed, as
follows:
Be it enacted, etc., That section 1 of the
act entitled "An act relating to the rate of
wages for laborers and mechanics employed
on public buildings of the United States and
the District of Columbia by contractors and
subcontractors, and for other purposes" ap-
proved March 3, 1931 (46 Stat. 1494) as
amended is further amended by striking out
the words "States of the Union or the Dis-
trict of Columbia" and inserting in lieu
thereof "States of the Union, the Territory
of Alaska, the Territory of Hawaii, or the
District of Columbia"; and by striking out
the words "or other civil subdivision of the
State" and inserting in lieu thereof "or other
civil subdivision of the State or the Territory
of Alaska or the Territory of Hawaii."
SEC. 2. The amendments made by this act
shall take effect on the thirtieth day after
the date of enactment of this act but shall not
affect any contract in existence on such effec-
tive date or made thereafter pursuant to in-
vitations for bids outstanding on the date of
enactment of this act.
BILLS PASSED OVER
The bill (H. R. 6782) for the relief
of James Robert Harman was an-
nounced as next in order.
Mr. KING. Let the bill go over.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
bill will be passed over.
The bill (S. 3524) conferring juris-
diction on the Court of Claims to hear
and determine the claims of the Choc-
taw Indians of the State of Missis-
sippi was announced as next in order.
Mr. KING. Let the bill go over.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
bill will be passed over.
The bill (S. 2705) creating the
Great Falls Bridge Commission and
authorizing the construction mainte-
nance, and operation of a bridge across
the Potomac River near Great Falls of
the Potomac was announced as next
in order.
Mr. WHEELER. Let the bill go
over.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
bill will be passed over.
AMENDMENT OP SOIL CONSERVATION AND
DOMESTIC ALLOTMENT ACT
The bill (S. 3886) to amend the Soil
Conservation and Domestic Allotment
Act, as amended, the Agricultural Ad-
justment Act of 1938, as amended, and
for other purposes, was announced as
next in order.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, may we
have an explanation of the bill?
Mr. THOMAS of Oklahoma. Mr.
President, the bill embodies certain
recommendations made by the Secre-
tary of Agriculture. In the main, the
amendments are clerical and explana-
tory. A number of terms are denned.
Save for those reasons, I know of no
good reason for the passage of the bill.
The committee says it is necessary, for
the efficient administration of the act,
to have certain provisions clarified as
to their exact meaning, and certain
terms redefined.
Mr. BYRD. Does the bill change the
amount anyone is to receive?
Mr. THOMAS of Oklahoma. I think
not.
Mr. KING. The President once
vetoed the bill.
Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, I am
familiar with this bill and another
similar bill on the calendar. I do not
think they ought to be passed on the
call of the calendar. I ask that the
bill go over.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
bill will be passed over.
[p. 6997]
-------
1732
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
1.13c(3)(b) June 3: Passed House, p. 7401
WAGE RATE ON FEDERAL PUBLIC WORKS
IN ALASKA AND HAWAII
The Clerk called the next bill, H. R.
9021, to require the payment of pre-
vailing rates of wages on Federal pub-
lic works in Alaska and Hawaii.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection
to the present consideration of the bill?
There was no objection.
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to substitute a
similar bill, S. 3650, for the House bill.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
California?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the Senate bill, as
follows:
Be it enacted, etc., That section 1 of the
act entitled "An act relating to the rate of
wages for laborers and mechanics employed
on public buildings of the United States and
the District of Columbia by contractors and
subcontractors, and for other purposes," ap-
proved March 3, 1931 (46 Stat. 1494), as
amended, is further amended by striking out
the words "States of the Union or the
District of Columbia" and inserting in lieu
thereof "States of the Union, the Territory of
Alaska, the Territory of Hawaii, or the Dis-
trict of Columbia"; and by striking out the
words "or other civil subdivision of the
State" and inserting in lieu thereof "or other
civil subdivision of the State, or the Territory
of Alaska, or the Territory of Hawaii."
SEC. 2. The amendments made by this act
shall take effect on the thirtieth day after the
date of enactment of this act, but shall not
affect any contract in existence on such effec-
tive date or made thereafter pursuant to
invitations for bids outstanding on the date
of enactment of this act.
The bill was ordered to be read a
third time, was read the third time,
and passed, and a motion to reconsider
was laid on the table.
A House bill (H. R. 9021) was laid
on the table.
Mr. DIMOND. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to extend my own
remarks on the bill just passed in the
RECORD at this point.
The SPEAKER. Without objection,
it is so ordered.
There was no objection.
Mr. DIMOND. Mr. Speaker, the bill
just passed, S. 3650, to require the
payment of prevailing rates of wages
on Federal public works in Alaska
and Hawaii, is simply the extension to
those two Territories of the provisions
of the Davis-Bacon Act, approved Au-
gust 30, 1935, as amended. The act as
originally passed was limited in its
application to the several States and
to the District of Columbia. For rea-
sons undisclosed the act did not em-
brace the Territory of Hawaii or the
Territory of Alaska.
The able Delegate from Hawaii,
Hon. SAMUEL W. KING, first intro-
duced a bill, H. R. 7345, to extend the
provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act to
| Hawaii only. That bill was introduced
on July 4, 1939.
It was not until March 21, 1940,
that I introduced the bill now on the
calendar, H. R. 9021, to extend the
provisions of the act in question to
both Alaska and Hawaii. The Delegate
from Hawaii [Mr. KING] very gen-
erously acquiesced in having H. R.
9021 considered rather than his own
bill, H. R. 7345, because H. R. 9021
covers both Territories, whereas his
bill would apply to Hawaii only. On
March 22, 1940, at my request in
which the Delegate from Hawaii [Mr.
KING] joined, Senator SCHWELLEN-
BACH introduced the companion Sen-
ate bill, S. 3650, in the Senate, the
same being identical with H.R. 9021
so as to cover both Alaska and
Hawaii. Under the Parliamentary
procedure it Was found possible to
have the Senate bill considered first,
and, accordingly, S. 3650 passed the
Senate on May 28 and has been held
in the House on the Speaker's table in
order that it might be substituted, as
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1733
it just has been substituted, for the
House bill, H.R. 9021, when that bill
was called for consideration.
The labor organizations in both
Alaska and Hawaii favor this legisla-
tion and urge that its enactment would
prevent the possibility of wage dis-
putes between contractors and em-
ployees on public works of various
types and thereby avoid possible ces-
sation of work which might otherwise
occur if the contractors should insist
upon paying less than the prevailing
wages. The enactment of the bill will
deter the exploitation of labor by any
possible unscrupulous contractor who
may have been successful in obtaining
a Government contract. The bill safe-
guards existing and pending contracts
by providing that the effective date
thereof shall be 30 days after en-
actment, and that it shall not affect
contracts made pursuant to invitations
for bids outstanding on the date of
enactment.
My principal purpose in making
these remarks is to give to the dis-
tinguished gentleman from Hawaii
[Mr. KING] the credit which he de-
serves for having originally initiated
this legislation and for having actively
supported it in all of its several stages
of enactment. He is the real father of
the bill, and I am happy to be asso-
ciated with him in its passage.
[p. 7401]
1.13d HAWAII OMNIBUS ACT
July 12,1960, P.L. 86-624, § 26, 74 Stat. 418
DAVIS-BACON ACT
SEC. 26. Section 1 of the Act of March 3, 1931 (46 Stat. 1494),
as amended, is further amended by striking out the words ", the
Territory of Alaska, the Territory of Hawaii," and the words ", or
the Territory of Alaska, or the Territory of Hawaii".
[p. 418]
-------
1734 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
1.13d(l) HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND
INSULAR AFFAIRS
H.R. REP. No. 1564, 86th Cong., 2d Sess. (1960)
AMENDING CERTAIN LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES IN
LIGHT OF THE ADMISSION OF THE STATE OF HAWAII
INTO THE UNION
MAY 2, 1960.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State
of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. O'BRIEN of New York, from the Committee on Interior and
Insular Affairs, submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 11602]
The Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, to whom was
referred the bill (H.R. 11602) to amend certain laws of the United
States in light of the admission of the State of Hawaii into the
Union, and for other purposes, having considered the same, report
favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that the
bill do pass.
INTRODUCTION
H.R. 11602 was introduced by Representative Inouye after
hearings on five predecessor bills (H.R. 10434 by Representative
Aspinall, H.R. 10443 by Congressman Inouye, H.R. 10456 by Rep-
resentative O'Brien of New York, H.R. 10463 by Representative
Saylor, and H.R. 10475 by Representative Westland). H.R. 11602
includes the amendments agreed upon in committee when H.R.
10443 was marked up. All of the predecessor bills except H.R.
10443 were identical and were introduced as a result of an execu-
tive communication from the Deputy Director of the Bureau of
the Budget dated February 12, 1960, enclosing a draft of a bill
which he recommended be enacted. This draft bill had been pre-
pared after consultation with all agencies of the executive branch
administering Federal statutes which were, or might be thought to
have been, affected by the admission of Hawaii into the Union on
August 24, 1959. H.R. 11602 follows in general the bill recom-
mended in the executive communication but omits a few of the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1735
latter's provisions and contains several additions which are
pointed out in this report.
[p.i]
DAVIS-BACON ACT
Section 27 strikes out superfluous references to the Territories
of Alaska and Hawaii in the Davis-Bacon Act (40 U.S.C. 276a),
which relates to wage rates on certain public projects.
[p. 14]
1.13d (2) SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND
INSULAR AFFAIRS
S. REP. No. 1681, 86th Cong., 2d Sess. (1960)
HAWAII OMNIBUS BILL
JUNE 24, 1960.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. LONG of Hawaii, from the Committee on Interior and Insular
Affairs, submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 11602]
The Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, to whom was
referred the bill (H.R. 11602) to amend certain laws of the United
States in light of the admission of the State of Hawaii into the
Union, and for other purposes, having considered the same, report
favorably thereon with amendments and recommend that the bill,
as amended, do pass.
Public hearings were held on the Senate companion bill, S. 3054,
introduced by the chairman of the committee, Senator James E.
Murray of Montana, for himself and 10 other Senators, all of
whom are members of the committee, of both political parties.
Committee action in amending and reporting favorably H.R.
11602 was unanimous.
PURPOSE OF MEASURE
H.R. 11602 is the Hawaii omnibus bill, a measure necessary to
make complete and perfect the admission of Hawaii into the
-------
1736 LEGAL COMPILATION— GENERAL
Union on a free and equal footing with the other 49 States. It
amends a number of acts of Congress, some merely technically,
such as changing the phraseology in a statute from "Territory of
Hawaii" to "State of Hawaii." Other Federal laws are amended
substantively, primarily to equalize Federal activities in the new
State, especially with respect to grants-in-aid programs.
A similar omnibus bill, gathering up the loose ends, so to speak,
of transition from territorial status to statehood was enacted with
respect to Alaska last year in the first session of this Congress
(Public Law 86-70).
DAVIS-BACON ACT
Section 26 strikes out superfluous reference to the Territories of
Alaska and Hawaii in the Davis-Bacon Act (40 U.S.C. 276a),
which relates to wage rates on certain public projects.
[p. 14]
1.13d (3) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 106 (1960)
1.13d(3)(a) May 16: Passed House, p. 10353
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
1.13d(3)(b) June 28: Amended and passed Senate, p. 14683
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
1.13d(3) (c) June 29: House concurs in Senate amendment, p.
15009
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
1.13e AMENDMENTS TO DAVIS-BACON ACT
July 2,1964, P.L. 88-349, § 1, 78 Stat. 238
AN ACT To amend the prevailing wage section of the Davis-Bacon Act, as
amended; and related sections of the Federal Airport Act, as amended;
and the National Housing Act, as amended.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 1 of
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1737
the Act of March 3, 1931, as amended (46 Stat. 1494, as amended;
40 U.S.C. 276a), is hereby amended by designating the language
of the present section as subsection (a) and by adding at the end
thereof the following new subsection (b) :
[p. 238]
"(b) As used in this Act the term 'wages', 'scale of wages',
'wage rates', 'minimum wages', and 'prevailing wages' shall in-
clude—
" (1) the basic hourly rate of pay; and
"(2) the amount of—
"(A) the rate of contribution irrevocably made by a
contractor or subcontractor to a trustee or to a third
person pursuant to a fund, plan, or program; and
"(B) the rate of costs to the contractor or subcontrac-
tor which may be reasonably anticipated in providing
benefits to laborers and mechanics pursuant to an enfor-
cible commitment to carry out a financially responsible
plan or program which was communicated in writing to
the laborers and mechanics affected,
for medical or hospital care, pensions on retirement or death,
compensation for injuries or illness resulting from
occupational activity, or insurance to provide any of the fore-
going, for unemployment benefits, life insurance, disability and
sickness insurance, or accident insurance, for vacation and
holiday pay, for defraying costs of apprenticeship or other
similar programs, or for other bona fide fringe benefits, but
only where the contractor or subcontractor is not required by
other Federal, State, or local law to provide any of such
benefits:
Provided, That the obligation of a contractor or subcontractor to
make payment in accordance with the prevailing wage determina-
tions of the Secretary of Labor, insofar as this Act and other Acts
incorporating this Act by reference are concerned may be dis-
charged by the making of payments in cash, by the making of
contributions of a type referred to in paragraph (2) (A), or by
the assumption of an enforcible commitment to bear the costs of a
plan or program of a type referred to in paragraph (2) (B), or
any combination thereof, where the aggregate of any such pay-
ments, contributions, and costs is not less than the rate of pay
described in paragraph (1) plus the amount referred to in para-
graph (2).
-------
1738 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
"In determining the overtime pay to which the laborer or me-
chanic is entitled under any Federal law, his regular or basic
hourly rate of pay (or other alternative rate upon which premium
rate of overtime compensation is computed) shall be deemed to be
the rate computed under paragraph (1), except that where the
amount of payments, contributions, or costs incurred with respect
to him exceeds the prevailing wage applicable to him under this
Act, such regular or basic hourly rate of pay (or such other
alternative rate) shall be arrived at by deducting from the amount
of payments, contributions, or costs actually incurred with respect
to him, the amount of contributions or costs of the types described
in paragraph (2) actually incurred with respect to him, or the
amount determined under paragraph (2) but not actually paid,
whichever amount is the greater."
[p. 239]
1.13e(l) HOUSE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND
LABOR
H.R. REP. No. 308, 88th Cong., 1st Sess. (1963)
AMENDMENTS TO THE DAVIS-BACON ACT
MAY 20, 1963.—-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State
of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. POWELL, from the Committee on Education and Labor, sub-
mitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 6041]
The Committee on Education and Labor, to whom was referred
the bill (H.R. 6041) to amend the Davis-Bacon Act to include
fringe benefits in prevailing wages, having considered the same,
report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that
the bill do pass.
BACKGROUND
The Davis-Bacon Act, which was originally enacted in 1931, was
amended to its present form in 1935 and 1940. The amended law
requires contractors and subcontractors working on U.S. Govern-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1739
ment construction contracts amounting to $2,uuO or over to pay to
laborers and mechanics on such contracts not less than the prevail-
ing wages for laborers and mechanics on projects of a character
similar to the contract work in that area. The act established the
policy that the Federal Government was not to be a party to
depressing local labor standards.
Prior to the enactment of the act in 1931, there was no Federal
statute which required the payment of prevailing wage rates to
workers on Federal construction projects. With the advent of
large Federal construction programs, however, it soon became ap-
parent that local wage standards in a community had to be pro-
tected from cheap labor imported from other areas. Qualified con-
tractors residing and doing business in an area of high wage
standards found it impossible to underbid outside contractors who
based their estimates for labor on the low wages they could pay to
workmen obtained from another county or even another State. On
many occasions the local contractor and local laborers had to stand
by while outside contractors and outside labor performed under
locally substandard conditions work that otherwise would have
[p. i]
been theirs. In the words of one of the authors of the act, Con-
gressman Robert Bacon, Republican from New York, in 1927:
I want to cite the specific instance that brought this whole
matter to my attention. The Government is engaged in build-
ing in my district a Veterans' Bureau hospital. Bids were
asked for; several New York contractors bid, and in their
bids, of course, they had to take into consideration the high
labor standards prevailing in the State of New York. I think
I can say that the labor standards in New York are very high.
The wages are fair, and there has been no difficulty in the
building trades between the employee and employer in New
York for some time. And the situation existed therefore, and
the New York contractors made their bids, having the labor
conditions in mind. The bid, however, was let to an out-of-
State contractor and some thousand out-of-State laborers
were brought to New York. They were hired into this job,
they were housed, and they were paid a very low wage, and
the work proceeded. Of course, that meant that labor condi-
tions in this part of New York State where the hospital was
being built were entirely upset. It means that the neighboring
community was very much upset.
-------
1740 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
To overcome this situation, the Congress adopted the prevailing
wage principle as public policy for Federal construction. Thus, the
Davis-Bacon Act was designed to provide equality of opportunity
for contractors, to protect prevailing living standards of the build-
ing tradesmen, and to prevent the disturbance of the local econ-
omy.
The principle underlying the prevailing wage concept has re-
mained just as valid in the years since the Davis-Bacon Act was
passed as it was some 30 years ago. Under this equitable standard,
contractors were free to compete against each other in efficiency,
know-how, and skill rather than in terms of their ability to de-
press the prevailing wage structure in a locality. Since 1931 the
Congress has on many occasions reaffirmed this bipartisan funda-
mental principle of public policy. Congress has developed many
new, indirect, "grant," "loan," and "insured" programs to facili-
tate urgently needed construction. The Davis-Bacon Act does not
automatically apply to such programs. Time and again in the past
25 years Congress has applied the prevailing wage provisions to
the newly developed federally assisted programs including such
matters as hospitals, airports, housing, highways, and water pollu-
tion control.
It is significant to note that 34 States now have their own
prevailing wage requirements. These States are: Alaska, Arizona,
California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii,
Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Mas-
sachusetts, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hamp-
shire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Penn-
sylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington,
West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
THE NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION
The amendments to the Davis-Bacon Act proposed by H.R. 6041
would bring up to date the Davis-Bacon Act by including fringe
benefits in prevailing wage determinations. There has been a tre-
[p.2]
mendous change in the concept of earnings since Congress enacted
the Davis-Bacon Act. Group hospitalization, disability benefits,
and other fringe benefit plans were the rare exception in the
1930's. Today more than 85 million persons in the United States
depend upon the benefits they provide. Regardless of the form
they take, the employer's share of the cost of these plans or the
benefits the employers provide are a form of compensation.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1741
It has become increasingly apparent that if the Davis-Bacon Act
is to continue to accomplish its purpose, prevailing wage determi-
nations issued pursuant to the act must be enlarged to include
fringe benefits. The act was founded on the sound principle of
public policy that the Federal Government should not be a party to
the destruction of prevailing wage practices and customs in a
locality. Unless the law is amended to provide for the inclusion of
fringe benefits in wage determinations, prevailing wage practices
and customs will not be reflected in these determinations.
Today, in the construction industry alone, there are over 4,000
welfare and pension funds. Most of these funds are of the health
and welfare type. They are financed primarily by employer contri-
butions of so many cents per hour for each hour worked by a
covered employee. Well over 70 percent of the building tradesmen
are covered by welfare and pension benefits alone. When these
plans were first started, a 5- or 7-cent contribution per covered
employee per hour was typical. Today, during the course of collec-
tive bargaining, building trades craftsmen increasingly elect to
take proffered wage increases in the form of much needed welfare
programs in order to provide some benefits for their families in an
hour of need. It is manifestly unfair and unjust both to the build-
ing tradesmen and their enlightened employers that these welfare
programs which have been bargained for, in lieu of wages, should
not be included as wages, within the meaning of the act. It should
be noted that the following eight States have recently added fringe
benefits to their prevailing wage laws: California, Connecticut,
Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Washing-
ton, and Wisconsin. At the present time in many areas, employers
contribute 25 or 35 cents per hour to these health and welfare
funds. A constantly increasing portion of the employer's labor
costs is being devoted to health, welfare, pension, and apprentice-
ship training plans. Because these types of payments have in-
creased tremendously in the past decade, they now represent a
very significant portion of wages and an employer's labor costs
and should be recognized by the law.
SUBCOMMITTEE HEARINGS
The general Subcommittee on Labor held hearings on March 1,
7, 12, 21, 22, and 26, 1963, on H.E. 404. The subcommittee heard
testimony from 15 witnesses, including the Deputy Under Secre-
tary of Labor, the Solicitor of Labor, representatives from the
construction industries, labor, and management. In addition, state-
-------
1742 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
ments on behalf of numerous organizations who did not testify
were received and made part of the official record.
At the outset of the hearings the subcommittee chairman an-
nounced that the hearings would consider mainly H.R. 404 which
had been referred to the subcommittee, and to carry out the re-
sponsibility of the subcommittee relating to the bill. The chairman
[p. 3]
indicated that he was mindful of some requests that had been
received asking that the subcommittee defer consideration of
fringe benefits until overall improvements to the Davis-Bacon Act
could be considered. The decision of the members of the subcom-
mittee was that each matter should be treated separately. It was
pointed out that separate treatment would insure more detailed
and careful consideration of each matter. Hearings on overall
improvements will be held later in the session.
The hearings were very fruitful in that numerous concrete
suggestions were made. These suggestions were carefully consid-
ered in the subcommittee. The subcommittee, by unanimous voice
vote, made the following basic changes:
1. It expanded the enumerated fringe benefits that may be con-
sidered by adding the phrase "and any other bona fide fringe
benefits."
This change was instituted to give recognition to any new
fringe benefits that might develop in the construction industry
from time to time. To insure against considering and giving credit
to any and all fringe benefits, some of which might be illusory or
not genuine, the qualification was added that such fringe benefits
must be "bona fide." The new types of fringe benefits which the
Secretary finds to be of a bona fide nature would be subject to the
same methods of determination utilized for the enumerated fringe
benefits.
2. For purposes of making a determination and satisfying the
obligation under the bill, the bill was expanded from payments
into a fund (trustee) to recognize providing for fringe benefits
through an insurance company (third party) or out of the general
assets of a contractor through an enforceable obligation under a
financially responsible plan.
This change was initiated to make the bill apply and to give
credit to contractors furnishing fringe benefits through an insur-
ance company or out of their general assets through an enforcea-
ble obligation under a financially responsible plan. This provision,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1743
which also requires a plan to be communicated in writing to the
employees, was designed to insure against crediting any fraudu-
lent plans.
3. The bill was changed to expressly authorize the combining of
the cash wage with the costs of providing fringe benefits to meet
the obligation of a contractor or subcontractor under the bill.
This change was made to recognize the situation where a con-
tractor or subcontractor might be paying more or less in fringe
benefits and/or cash wages than what is prevailing for each of
these categories yet by combining these payments his total obliga-
tion under the bill would have been satisfied.
4. A provision was added which specifically provides that fringe
benefits shall not be used in the calculation of overtime.
This provision was necessary to prevent penalization of con-
tractors who might pay fringe benefits in cash. The exclusion of
fringe benefits from the calculation of overtime also conforms to
the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Two other changes in the language of H.R. 404 should be
pointed out. First, a provision was added which in effect would
exclude those fringe benefits from the bill which a contractor or
subcontractor is already under an obligation by other Federal,
State, or local law to provide. In these cases the committee be-
lieved that there was no need to include such fringe benefits man-
[p.4]
datory under other * * * laws since all contractors and subcon-
tractors would be subject to the same requirements relating to
these fringes. Secondly, the phrase "contributions irrevocably
made by a contractor or subcontractor to a trustee or to a third
person pursuant to a fund, plan, or program" was added to the
bill. This language in essence conforms to the overtime provisions
of section 7(d) (4) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended.
The intent of the committee was to prevent any avoidance of
overtime requirements under existing law.
On May 9, 1963, the full committee ordered H.R. 6041, without
amendment, reported to the House.
SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS OF THE BILL
SUMMARY
The bill would require the Secretary of Labor to consider the
enumerated fringe benefits plus any bona fide fringes in his pre-
vailing wage determination under the Davis-Bacon Act.
-------
1744 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
Under the bill the obligation of a contractor or subcontractor
would be satisfied if he paid the costs of the recognized fringes
found to be prevailing to a fund or insurance company, or by cash
payments directly to his workers or by assuming an enforceable
commitment equal to the costs of providing the fringes or by any
combination of these, so long as the combination was not less than
the determined prevailing wage.
The bill excludes amounts paid for fringe benefits from the
calculation of overtime.
ANALYSIS
A new subsection (b) would be added to the Davis-Bacon Act.
The new subsection would define "prevailing wages" to include:
(1) The basic hourly rate of pay; and
(2) The amount of—
(A) The rate of contribution irrevocably made by
a contractor or subcontractor to a trustee or third
person pursuant to a fund, plan, or program; and
(B) The rate of cost to the contractor or subcon-
tractor which may be reasonably anticipated in pro-
viding benefits to laborers and mechanics pursuant
to an enforceable commitment to carry out a finan-
cially responsible plan or program which was com-
municated in writing to the laborers and mechanics
affected.
The following fringe benefits are recognized:
(1) Medical or hospital care;
(2) Pensions on retirement or death;
(3) Compensation for injuries or illnesses resulting from oc-
cupational benefits; or
(4) Insurance to provide any of the above;
(5) Unemployment benefits;
(6) Life insurance;
(7) Disability and sickness insurance;
(8) Accident insurance;
(9) Vacation and holiday pay;
[p. 5]
(10) Apprenticeship or other similar programs;
(11) Other bona fide fringe benefits.
The obligation of a contractor or subcontractor under subsec-
tion (b) may be discharged by making payments in cash; making
payments to a trustee or third person pursuant to a fund, plan, or
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1745
program; or by the assumption of an enforceable commitment or
any combination of the above where the aggregate amount is not
less than what is required by the prevailing wage determination.
The basic hourly rate of pay determined under paragraph (1)
shall be the rate upon which overtime pay is to be calculated,
except where the amount of payments, contributions, or costs ex-
ceeds the prevailing wage determination. In this event, the amount
upon which overtime shall be based shall be calculated by subtract-
ing from the total amount of payments, contributions, or costs the
amount of the fringe benefits provided or the amount determined
to be the prevailing fringe benefits but not actually paid, which
ever amount is the greater.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED
In compliance with clause 3 of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the
bill, as reported, are shown as follows (new matter is printed in
italic, existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in
roman) :
First Section of the Act of March 3, 1931, as Amended
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That (a) the
advertised specifications for every contract in excess of $2,000, to
which the United States or the District of Columbia is a party, for
construction, alteration, and/or repair, including painting and dec-
orating, of public buildings or public works of the United States
or the District of Columbia within the geographical limits of the
States of the Union or the District of Columbia, and which re-
quires or involves the employment of mechanics and/or laborers
shall contain a provision stating the minimum wages to be paid
various classes of laborers and mechanics which shall be based
upon the wages that will be determined by the Secretary of Labor
to be prevailing for the corresponding classes of laborers and me-
chanics employed on projects of a character similar to the contract
work in the city, town, village, or other civil subdivision of the
State in which the work is to be performed, or in the District of
Columbia if the work is to be performed there; and every contract
based upon these specifications shall contain a stipulation that the
contractor, or his subcontractor shall pay all mechanics and
laborers employed directly upon the site of the work, uncondition-
ally and not less often than once a week, and without subsequent
-------
1746 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
deduction or rebate on any account, the full amounts accrued at
time of payment, computed at wage rates not less than those
stated in the advertised specifications, regardless of any contract-
ual relationship which may be alleged to exist between the contrac-
tor and such laborers and mechanics, and that the scale of wages
to be paid shall be posted by the contractor in a prominent and
easily accessi-
[p.6]
ble place at the site of the work; and the further stip-
ulation that there may be withheld from the contractor so much of
accrued payments as may be considered necessary by the contract-
ing officer to pay to laborers and mechanics employed by the con-
tractor or any subcontractor on the work the difference between
the rates of wages required by the contract to be paid laborers and
mechanics on the work and the rates of wages received by such
laborers and mechanics and not refunded to the contractor, sub-
contractors, or their agents.
(&) As used in this Act the term "wages", "scale of wages",
"wage rates", "minimum wages", and "prevailing wages" shall
include—
(1) the basic hourly rate of pay; and
(2) the amount of
(A) the rate of contribution irrevocably made by a
contractor or subcontractor to a trustee or to a third
person pursuant to a fund, plan, or program; and
(B) the rate of costs to the contractor or subcontrac-
tor which may be reasonably anticipated in providing
benefits to laborers and mechanics pursuant to an enfor-
cible commitment to carry out a financially responsible
plan or program which was communicated in writing to
the laborers and mechanics affected,
for medical or hospital care, pensions on retirement or death,
compensation for injuries or illness resulting from occupa-
tional activity, or insurance to provide any of the foregoing,
for unemployment benefits, life insurance, disability and sick-
ness insurance, or accident insurance, for vacation and holi-
day pay, for defraying costs of apprenticeship or other simi-
lar programs, or for other bona fide fringe benefits, but only
where the contractor or subcontractor is not required by
other Federal, State, or local law to provide any of such
benefits:
Provided, That the obligation of a contractor or subcontractor to
make payment in accordance with the prevailing wage determina-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1747
tions of the Secretary of Labor, insofar as this Act and other Acts
incorporating this Act by reference are concerned may be dis-
charged by the making of payments in cash, by the making of
contributions of a type referred to in paragraph (2) (A), or by
the assumption of an enforcible commitment to bear the costs of a
plan or program of a type referred to in paragraph (2) (B), or
any combination thereof, where the aggregate of any such pay-
ments, contributions, and costs is not less than the rate of pay
described in paragraph (1) plus the amount referred to in para-
graph (2).
In determining the overtime pay to which the laborer or me-
chanic is entitled under any Federal law, his regular or basic
hourly rate of pay (or other alternative rate upon which premium
rate of overtime compensation is computed) shall be deemed to be
the rate computed under paragraph (1), except that where the
amount of payments, contributions, or costs incurred with respect
to him exceeds the prevailing wage applicable to him under this
Act, such regular or basic hourly rate of pay (or such other
alternative rate) shall be arrived at by deducting from the amount
of payments, contributions, or costs actually incurred with respect
to him, the amount of contributions or costs of the types described
in paragraph (2) actually incurred with respect to him, or the
amount determined under paragraph (2) but not actually paid,
whichever amount is the greater.
[p. 7]
Section 15 of the Federal Airport Act, as Amended
PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTION WORK
REGULATIONS OF THE ADMINISTRATOR
SEC. 15. (a) The construction work on any approved project
shall be subject to inspection and approval by the Administrator
and in accordance with regulations prescribed by him. Such regu-
lations shall require such cost and progress reporting by the spon-
sor or sponsors of such project as the Administrator shall deem
necessary. No such regulation shall have the effect of altering any
contract in connection with any project entered into without ac-
tual notice of the regulation.
MINIMUM RATES OF WAGES
(b) All contracts in excess of $2,000 for work on projects ap-
proved under this Act which involve labor shall contain provisions
-------
1748 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
establishing minimum rates of wages, to be predetermined by the
Secretary of Labor, in accordance with the Davis-Bacon Act, as
amended (40 U.S.C. 276a-276a^5) which contractors shall pay to
skilled and unskilled labor, and such minimum rates shall be
stated in the invitation for bids and shall be included in proposals
or bids for the work.
OTHER PROVISIONS AS TO LABOR
(c) All contracts for work on projects approved under this Act
which involves labor shall contain such provisions as are necessary
to insure (1) that no convict labor shall be employed; and (2)
that in the employment of labor (except in executive, administra-
tive, and supervisory positions), preference shall be given, where
they are qualified, to individuals who have served as persons in the
military service of the United States (as defined in section 101 (1)
of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940), and who
have been honorably discharged from such service: Provided,
That such preference shall apply only where such labor is availa-
ble and qualified to perform the work to which the employment
relates.
[p. 8]
Section 212 of the National Housing Act, as Amended
LABOR STANDARDS
SEC. 212. (a) The Commissioner shall not insure under section
207 or section 210 of this title, or under section 608 of'title VI,
pursuant to any application for insurance filed subsequent to the
effective date of this section, or under section 213 of this title, or
under title VII pursuant to any application filed subsequent to
sixty days after the date of enactment of the Housing Act of 1950,
or under section 803 or 810 of title VIII, or under section 908 of
title IX, a mortgage or investment which covers property on
which there is or is to be located a dwelling or dwellings, or a hous-
ing project, the construction of which was or is to be commenced
subsequent to such date, unless the principal contractor files a
certificate or certificates (at such times, in course of construction
or otherwise, as the Commissioner may prescribe) certifying that
the laborers and mechanics employed in the construction of the
dwelling or dwellings or the housing project involved have been
paid not less than the wages prevailing in the locality in which the
work was performed for the corresponding classes of laborers and
mechanics employed on construction of a similar character, as
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1749
determined by the Secretary of Labor in accordance with the
Davis-Bacon Act, as amended (40 U.S.C. 276a—276a-5), prior to
the beginning of construction and after the date of the filing of the
application for insurance. The provisions of this section shall also
apply to the insurance of any loan or mortgage under section 220
or section 233 which covers property on which there is located a
dwelling or dwellings designed principally for residential use for
twelve or more families. The provisions of this section shall apply
to the insurance under section 221 of any mortgage described in
subsection (d) (3) in the case of a cooperative or limited profit
mortgagor, or in subsection (d) (4) thereof. The provisions of
this section shall also apply to the insurance of any mortgage
under section 231 or 232 except that compliance with such provi-
sions may be waived by the Commissioner in cases or classes of
cases where laborers or mechanics, not otherwise employed at any
time on the project, voluntarily donate their services without full
compensation for the purpose of lowering the costs of construction
and the Commissioner determines that any amounts thereby saved
are fully credited to the nonprofit corporation, association, or
other organization undertaking the construction.
(b) The Commissioner is authorized to make such rules and
regulations as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this
section.
(c) There is hereby authorized to be appropriated for the re-
mainder of the fiscal year ending June 30, 1929, and for each fiscal
year thereafter, a sum sufficient to meet all necessary expenses of
the Department of Labor in making the determinations provided
for in subsection (a).
[p. 9]
SUPPLEMENTAL VIEWS
The Davis-Bacon Act badly needs a thoroughgoing revision and
updating. No significant legislative changes have been made since
its original passage in 1931, although kaleidoscopic changes have
occurred during the same period in the economic world that the
act seeks to regulate. Exhaustive hearings were held last year
documenting serious abuses and deficiencies in the present opera-
tion of the Davis-Bacon Act. We should be revising that act as a
part of any bill which adds fringe benefits to prevailing wage rate
determinations. To do otherwise puts the cart before the horse and
works a serious injustice on many individuals, including both
workers and employers.
-------
1750 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
The cost of fringe benefits should be included when the prevail-
ing wage rate is computed under provisions of the Davis-Bacon
Act. When the act was passed in 1931, fringe benefits were for the
most part unknown. At that time, a worker received a flat amount,
usually so much per hour, and this constituted his whole wage.
Today, that is not the case. The so-called fringe benefits are an
important part of a worker's wage, often being given today in lieu
of increases in actual cash wages. Therefore, we believe the pres-
ent law should be amended to permit the inclusion of fringe bene-
fits when the prevailing wage is determined.
The fringe benefit amendment, however, is just one of a number
of amendments to the Davis-Bacon Act that are long overdue. For
more than 30 years this law has been administered and applied at
the sole discretion of the Labor Department. All agree that admin-
istrative abuses and basic misinterpretations of the law have oc-
curred. Certainly these abuses and misinterpretations must be cor-
rected before the additional load of prevailing fringe benefit deter-
minations is added to the present badly creaking and gravely
overloaded administrative machinery. Unless this is done, serious
and possibly irreparable damage to the prevailing wage concept
may result.
Moreover, unless a judicial review provision is enacted, the
fringe benefit amendment will be interpreted and applied solely at
the discretion of the Labor Department. Thus, the very language
of the amendment and the basic congressional intent will be, in the
final analysis, only what the Labor Department determines is fair
and advisable. Such authority is far too broad to be placed in the
hands of a single department or agency. Lesser authority has led
to distortions and abuses in the past. There is every reason to
believe that the same thing will occur in the future unless the
traditional check and balance of a judicial review is provided.
[p. 10]
IMPACT OF THE DAVIS-BACON ACT AND RELATED PREVAILING WAGE
STATUTES
In 1931 when the Davis-Bacon Act was enacted, its impact was
of a minimal nature. Federal construction did not amount to a
great deal in terms of dollar volume and the number of wage
determinations was small. Time, increased Government expendi-
tures, and the enactment of additional prevailing wage provisions,
however, have dramatically changed this situation.
In fiscal 1963, total Government spending for construction is
expected to exceed $8 billion, while civilian public works expendi-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1751
tures will be in the neighborhood of $6.5 billion. There is every
indication that Government spending for construction will con-
tinue to increase in the years ahead.
The number of wage determinations issued each year has in-
creased tremendously, as illustrated in the following compilation
covering the years 1945-61:
1945 3,884 1954 17,743
1946 4,453 1955 17,293
1947 8,903 1956 22,133
1948 10,179 1957 28,065
1949 19,914 1958 33,283
1950 14,390 1959 37,134
1951 17,177 1960 40,740
1952 16,833 1961 44,977
1953 20,188
As Secretary of Labor Goldberg indicated in his testimony,
these statistics do not reflect the true proportion of the wage
determination caseload. For as he stated:
In the present fiscal year, we estimate that the Department will issue
almost 50,000 wage determinations containing approximately 5 million indi-
vidual wage minimums, applicable to the rates that individuals will get.
LAWS THAT REQUIRE A PREVAILING WAGE DETERMINATION
Although the prevailing wage concept was orginally applied
only through the operation of the Davis-Bacon Act, it has now
been included in the following laws:
Hospital Survey and Construction Act (42 U.S.C. 291 et seq.).
Federal Airport Act (49 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.).
School Survey and Construction Act of 1950 (20 U.S.C. 631 et
seq.).
Defense Housing and Community Facilities and Services Act of
1951 (42 U.S.C. 1952 et seq.).
Federal Civil Defense Act of 1950, as amended (50 App., U.S.C.
2251 etseq.).
Area Redevelopment Act of 1961 (42 U.S.C. 2501 et seq.).
Delaware River Basin Compact, article 15.1 (i) (Public Law
87-328; 75 Stat. 688).
Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1958 (23 U.S.C. 101 et seq.).
National Housing Act:
1. Section 207: Rental housing (12 U.S.C. 1713) (labor
standards, 12 U.S.C. 1715c).
2. Section 608: Veterans' rental (12 U.S.C. 1743) (labor
standards, 12 U.S.C. 1715c).
[P. 11]
-------
1752 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
3. Nonprofit cooperative housing (12 U.S.C. 1715e) (labor
standards, 12 U.S.C. 1715c).
4. Moderate income rental housing (12 U.S.C. 1747) (labor
standards, 12 U.S.C. 1715c).
5. Family housing military bases (12 U.S.C. 1748) (labor
standards, 12 U.S.C. 1715c).
6. Housing for military and civilian employees (12 U.S.C.
1748h-2) (labor standards, 12 U.S.C. 1715c).
7. Defense rental housing (12 U.S.C. 1750g) (labor stand-
ards, 12 U.S.C. 1715c).
8. Rehabilitation housing for 12 or more families (12
U.S.C. 1715k) (labor standards, 12 U.S.C. 1715c).
9. Experimental housing for 12 or more families (12 U.S.C.
1715x) (labor standards, 12 U.S.C. 1715c).
10. Rental housing for moderate income families (12 U.S.C.
1715e) (labor standards, 12 U.S.C. 1715c).
11. Housing for elderly (12 U.S.C. 1715v) (labor stand-
ards, 12 U.S.C. 1715c).
12. Nursing homes (12 U.S.C. 1715w) (labor standards, 12
U.S.C. 1715c).
Housing Act of 1949 (slum clearance and urban renewal) (42
U.S.C. 1441).
Housing Act of 1950 (college housing) (12 U.S.C. 1749).
Housing Act of 1959 (housing for elderly) (12 U.S.C. 1701q).
U.S. Housing Act of 1937 (low-rent public housing) (42 U.S.C.
1401).
Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 466 et seq.).
APPLICATION OF THE DAVIS-BACON ACT WILL BE EXTENDED
It can be safely assumed that the extension of this concept will
continue. The proposed college academic facilities bill provides a
prevailing wage provision. Moreover, the Labor Department has
applied the Davis-Bacon Act to all construction, alteration, or
repair where the Government has a lease-purchase arrangement.
The Department has even tried unsuccessfully to apply the act
where the Government has a term lease or a lease-option agree-
ment. The Comptroller General recently held that Davis-Bacon
does not apply in these situations. The importance of this decision
can be seen from the fact that the Post Office Department, under
its lease-option program, paid $123 million in rent on 1,904 new
buildings which were turned over to it in 1961 and $104 million
for 1,666 new buildings finished in 1960. The General Services
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1753
Administration has 6,200 leases in effect costing $80 million a year
in rent and these leases range from an entire building to a few
rooms.
If the Labor Department's views with respect to the lease and
lease-purchase agreements should prevail at some future time, it
would mean that every commercial and office building and every
shopping center that has a Government department or agency as a
tenant would be subject to the Davis-Bacon Act. In America
today, the office building or shopping center that does not have
some type of Government occupancy is the exception rather than
the rule.
[p. 12]
STATUTORY AND ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES ESSENTIAL
In the event that the fringe benefit amendment is adopted, the
work of the Labor Department in ascertaining prevailing wages,
will be at least doubled. Each determination will involve prevail-
ing fringe benefits as well as prevailing cash wages. That the
fringe benefits will be many and varied has been acknowledged by
all. Indeed, the very language of the proposed bill clearly indicates
the breadth and complexity of the problem.
It is apparent that the Davis-Bacon Act and the related prevail-
ing wage provisions have a great impact upon this country and
that this impact will become greater rather than less in the years
ahead. The manner in which these provisions are interpreted and
administered is of great importance. Every effort must be made to
insure that they are interpreted and administered fairly and im-
partially. It is absolutely imperative that administrative and stat-
utory changes be adopted as soon as possible and certainly prior to
the time that fringe benefits are added to the prevailing wage
concept.
NUMEROUS ADMINISTRATIVE ABUSES
The exhaustive hearings which the Special Subcommittee on
Labor of the Education and Labor Committee conducted during
June, July, and August of 1962 clearly demonstrated that the
Davis-Bacon Act is and has been administered improperly. More-
over, whenever the Davis-Bacon Act is improperly administered,
serious inequities result, and there is often an accompanying in-
crease in the cost of construction. Outstanding examples of im-
proper administration derive from the Labor Department's 30
percent ruling, its similar work concept, and its strained interpre-
-------
1754 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
tation of the "area of construction." The failure to provide a fair
and impartial hearing procedure and the absence of an appropri-
ate judicial review procedure have further aggravated this gener-
ally unsatisfactory situation.
THE 30-PERCENT RULE, A DANGEROUS ADMINISTRATIVE SHORTCUT
There is no mention of a 30-percent rule in the Davis-Bacon
Act. This is a concept that has been adopted as an administrative
aid by the Labor Department. The act merely states that mechan-
ics and laborers on Government construction projects shall be paid
the wages that the Secretary of Labor determines to be prevailing.
However, in the Secretary of Labor's published procedure for the
determination of wage rates the "prevailing wage rate" is defined
as follows:
Section 1.2 Definitions, (a) The term "prevailing wage
rate" for each classification of laborers and mechanics which
the Solicitor shall regard as prevailing in an area shall mean:
(1) The rate of wages paid in the area in which the work is
to be performed, to the majority of those employed in that
classification in construction in the area similar to the pro-
posed undertaking;
(2) In the event that there is not a majority paid at the
same rate, then the rate paid to the greater number: Pro-
vided, Such greater number constitutes 30 percent of those
employed; or
[p. 13]
(3) In the event that less than 30 percent of those so
employed receive the same rate, then the average rate.
WAGE DETERMINATIONS HAPHAZARD
Unfortunately, by introducing the 30-percent rule the Labor
Department has relieved itself of the duty to conduct an adequate
and thorough survey before making a wage determination. The
system followed by the Labor Department was described as fol-
lows by the Solicitor of Labor, Charles Donahue:
I must emphasize that our information is on a voluntary basis, and human
beings being what they are, both contractors and unions fail to give us this
information on a continuing basis, then we make a determination based on
something which is out of date.
And as soon as that is made, then that is when they wake up and discover
that we have done something that does not reflect the true facts in their
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1755
community, and they come in to us at that point and say: "You are not right.
Here is the correct information." We check it out. If we find that they are
right, then that is the basis for the determination which we make.
INAPPROPRIATE WAGE DETERMINATIONS ADVERSELY AFFECT A COM-
MUNITY'S WAGE STRUCTURE
If the Department was required to establish that either a major-
ity of the laborers or craftsmen in a certain classification were
receiving a certain wage or that the determined wage was the
average paid to such laborers or craftsmen, it would have to iden-
tify first the laborers and craftsmen and then establish what they
were being paid. This would take time and effort but it would also
mean that in each and every case a clear picture of the area rates
would be obtained and the true prevailing wage rate would be
established. However, under the 30-percent rule the Department
can operate under the presumption rule. Thus, once the Labor
Department has obtained information that a union has negotiated
a certain rate, and that this rate applies to a substantial number
of employees, it then can presume that the employees covered by
this rate constitute at least 30 percent of the laborers or craftsmen
in this classification. It is then up to anyone who does not believe
that this presumption is accurate to come forward with the neces-
sary facts to prove their case. To make the job of those in opposi-
tion even more difficult, the Department is under no statutory duty
to provide a hearing where the facts can be developed or to di-
vulge the information upon which the presumption is based.
Moreover, even assuming accurate and complete collection of
data, in actual operation the 30-percent rule can mean that al-
though 70 percent of the laborers in a certain classification are
being paid within the range of $3 to $4 an hour, but at varying
amounts, while the remaining 30 percent receive exactly $2.50 an
hour, $2.50 will be established as the prevailing wage. Conversely,
if the 30 percent are receiving exactly $4.50 an hour, $4.50 will
then be designated as the prevailing wage. That either situation is
unfair is generally conceded. Indeed, on this particular point Con-
gressman Roosevelt stated:
[p. 14]
Well, in those instances, isn't an average a much fairer thing than a
30-percent rule? If 70 percent are getting higher than this SO, but at a vary-
ing rate, so there is no majority, and then you are going down and you look
and all of a sudden you are hit with this 30 percent of, let us say, $1.50, but
all the other 70 percent are getting a higher rate, it seems to me that you
have established a situation which is inequitable.
-------
1756 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
Everyone concedes that the original purpose of the Davis-Bacon
Act was to neutralize Federal construction as a factor in the
establishment and the maintenance of a local wage rate structure.
It was intended that Federal construction should neither raise or
lower the local wages. It is also agreed that this same basic con-
cept applies today and should be followed. Obviously, the applica-
tion of the 30-percent rule operates contrary to this accepted con-
cept. When a wage that is paid to only 30 percent of the laborers
is designated as the prevailing wage in a community it has to be
something other than that which 70 percent receive. The payment
of this artificial prevailing wage must either raise or lower the
actual prevailing wage level in the community.
SIMILAR WORK—A MUCH ABUSED CONCEPT
The Davis-Bacon Act specifically states that laborers or mechan-
ics on Government projects shall be paid wages which the Secre-
tary of Labor shall determine to be prevailing for the correspond-
ing classes of laborers and mechanics employed on projects of a
character similar to the contract work. Generally speaking, there
are three types of construction activity—building construction,
highway construction, and heavy construction. Moreover, building
construction can be further divided into large projects, such as
office buildings and hospitals, and smaller jobs which are more
nearly akin to residential housing. Each category will have its own
set of wage rates.
Obviously, the determination as to which projects are similar to
the contemplated contract work is critical and tremendously im-
portant. For example, if a heavy construction job is classified as,
and compared with, a building construction job the higher rates of
the one will be imposed upon the other. Similarly, in the event a
small residential type project is involved, the imposition of the
rates prevailing on a large commercial building would increase
materially the cost of construction. In view of the critical nature
of this aspect of the Davis-Bacon Act, it is surprising that the
determination of what is and what is not similar construction has
been completely at the discretion of the Secretary of Labor. Guide-
lines for this determination are set forth as follows in section 1.5
of the "procedure for the Determination of Wage Rates":
(a) In making a wage rate determination projects com-
pleted more than 1 year prior to the date of request for the
determination may, but need not be considered.
(b) If there has been no similar construction within the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1757
area in the past year, wage rates paid on the nearest similar
construction may be considered.
[P. 15]
This vague criteria, coupled with the Secretary's absolute power
to make a determination, has led to unfortunate results, graphi-
cally illustrated by the following cases.
THE MANNED SPACECRAFT CENTER AT HOUSTON, TEX.
At the Houston, Tex., Manned Spacecraft Center the Labor
Department overruled the Corps of Engineers and established the
higher building construction rate as the prevailing rate for the
early heavy construction work. As a result, eight local contractors
were unable to bid on the job, and the contract was ultimately
awarded to a national firm operating out of Boise, Idaho. The cost
of the project was increased by approximately $2,205,000 accord-
ing to the estimate of Colonel West of the Corps of Engineers.
Wayne Hall, assistant manager, Texas Highway-Heavy Branch,
Associated General Contractors of America, summarized this case,
and the impact that the establishment of an inaccurate prevailing
wage can have, as follows:
It is our belief that the admitted purposes of the Davis-Bacon Act were
defeated, in this particular case, because the local contractors who normally
perform this type of work could not, from a practical point of view, bid the
job, because of the higher building construction wage rates. This resulted
in denying these contractors and their personnel from actually performing
this work in their own local area, and the contract was actually awarded
to a national firm operating out of Boise, Idaho.
These local contractors have other work in the area being performed with
their own personnel at wage rates substantially lower, and to attempt the
space job at the higher rates would disrupt seriously the contractor's wage
scale and add potential increased costs not only to the existing work, but to
future work of this type. For these local contractors to bid that job would
mean in practical terms an increase in his labor costs while performing this
work, and it is impractical for him to raise wages temporarily and then
revert back to normal wages once the space project is finished.
To summarize, the actual effect of this Davis-Bacon decision was contrary
to the interest of these local contractors and their employees, and contrary
to the admitted intention of the act.
THE MANASSAS, VA., CASE
At a sewage treatment plant in Manassas, Va., the Labor De-
partment did not consider the wage rates paid on the local proj-
ects but rather turned to the Washingon, D.C., area for its wage
-------
1758 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
data and information. Moreover, it was not until the situation was
brought to the attention of the Solicitor of Labor by a Member of
Congress that the wages paid on projects in the Manassas area
were even considered. The slipshod methods of the Department of
Labor were highlighted by the Solicitor when he stated in explana-
tion of this case:
The Washingon negotiated rate was put in there by a clerk in the first
step of the wage determination process and was later changed to the Prince
William County rate, because it (the project) was in Prince William County.
[p. 16]
HOUSING FOR THE ELDERLY AT FREMONT, MICH.
At Fremont, Mich., the Fremont Foundation, as sponsoring
agent, applied in November 1960 to the National Housing Admin-
istration, under the housing for the elderly program, for a loan of
$100,000 to build 10 rental units. The Labor Department deter-
mined that the prevailing rate in the community for similar con-
struction projects was the rate that was paid on two large docks
and a warehouse built by the Gerber Products Co. On these jobs,
the rate paid by contractors who came from larger towns and
brought their own crews with them was $3.67 an hour, while the
rate paid to local carpenters was $2.25. The Labor Department
rate on the proposed project would have increased the cost from
$93,000 to $135,000. As a result this worthy project was aban-
doned. Mrs. Bessue Slautterback, executive director of the founda-
tion, appeared before the special subcommittee and testified re-
garding this situation. During her testimony she stated that in
response to her appeal to the Labor Department, the following
answer was received from James M. Miller, Assistant Solicitor:
We have received the information which you have forwarded and other
data which was submitted concerning wage rates in Newaygo County. Our
investigation revealed that recent and current construction projects in Fre-
mont included two large docks and a warehouse built by the Gerber Products
Co., and a $500,000 truck dock and warehouse, and a $100,000 service build-
ing. The rates paid were similar to those contained in the wage determination
recently issued by this office for the Fremont Foundation project.
After Mrs. Slautterback's appearance, the Labor Department
admitted its error in this case. Solicitor of Labor Charles Donahue
testified as follows:
I believe that Mrs. Slautterback, the executive director of a foundation in
Fremont, appeared before the committee and gave testimony concerning our
determination of wage rates for some housing for the elderly in that city
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1759
which she was in the process of having constructed, hoping to receive at that
time some assistance in the form of loans from the Federal Government.
Apparently, according to her testimony, she was discouraged from seeking
such loans because the wage rates which the Department of Labor determined
in that case were greatly in excess of what she conceived to be the going rate
in the community and would have had the result, in her terms, of increasing
the cost of financing the project well beyond available means.
Now, I personally, Mr. Chairman, took the time to read her testimony in
detail, to look into the matter in detail, and I have satisfied myself that the
Department of Labor stopped somewhere short of where it should have in its
efforts to ascertain the proper prevailing rates in her case, and I have every
sympathy for the position in which she was placed.
[p. 17]
I believe that we did not fully carry the burden and the responsibility of
moving forward to find out what the rates were when Mrs. Slautterback
suggested to us that housing and residential wage rates in Fremont were at a
different and lower scale from those which were determined.
If at any time Mrs. Slautterback would desire to make a reapplication to
the Department of Labor, we will assure her, and I will assure the chairman
personally, that the wages in Fremont, Mich., will receive a very careful
survey in order to find out what are the true facts concerning residential and
housing rates in that area.
THE HOME FOR THE AGED AT WALNUT, IOWA
At Walnut, Iowa, a Methodist Church group that wanted to
build a home for the aged applied for HHFA funds. The Labor
Department was required to make a wage determination for the
project. Unfortunately, in making this determination, the Labor
Department did not consider the similar projects in and around
Walnut. It used instead the wage rates in Council Bluffs, a much
larger city that is located 35 miles from Walnut. Consequently, the
Labor Department's initial wage determination reflected the
higher Council Bluff's rate rather than the lower Walnut rate. As
a result, the project had to be abandoned. Mr. Kenneth Lewis,
executive secretary, Master Builders of Iowa, presented testimony
to the special subcommittee regarding this situation. Again the
Labor Department admitted its error. J. Ralph Beaird, Assistant
Solicitor, testified as follows:
Now, in this case, the proposed project was to be constructed at Walnut,
Iowa, which is located in Pottawattamie County. Council Bluffs is the largest
city in Pottawattamie County, and the initial wage determination for the
project was based upon project evidence for the entire county.
As a result of considering the entire county as the area, the wage rates
paid and prevailing in Council Bluffs predominated.
-------
1760 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
The Department was requested by the project sponsor to review the wage
determination on the basis that there was a sufficient amount of construction
activity in and around Walnut to form the factual base for the determination.
Upon review, the Department decided that the 19 projects submitted in
connection with the review which were located within a few miles radius of
Walnut constituted an adequate factual base, and we, thereupon, changed the
wage determination to reflect those prevailing on projects in and around
Walnut.
THE MINOT MINUTEMAN PROJECT
At the Minot Minuteman project at Minot Air Force Base, N.
Dak., the Labor Department, in its initial determination, held that
the lower "site preparation" rates could be used for excavating
and backfilling on 10 control centers. However, the same work on
the 150 launching silos, much of it with the same men and equip-
ment, would have to be done under the higher "building rates." As
[P. 18]
this determination would have created tremendous problems at the
job site and added significantly to the cost of the project, an
appeal was taken to the Labor Department. At first the Labor
Department took the position that it was the contractor's problem
and they would have to work it out. However, through the assist-
ance of Members of Congress, a meeting was finally held with the
Solicitor of Labor. As a result of this meeting, the initial determi-
nation was reversed and a telegram to that effect was sent to all of
the interested parties. This case and the dramatic effect the origi-
nal decision would have had was graphically summarized for the
committee by Charles L. Hoffman, manager, Associated General
Contractors of North Dakota:
That telegram settled this particular problem, but it was accomplished only
after 10 days of arguing and resorting to political pressure. The decision
to deviate from prevailing rates and area practice was made under pressure
created by one group. It took even greater pressure to reverse it. In this
case, the missile contractors were ready to accept the decision of the Depart-
ment of Labor and would have had ample grounds for a claim against the
Government for a very substantial amount of additional labor costs.
But the impact of that decision would have been a very serious problem,
immediately and for many years following, on the entire construction indus-
try in North Dakota. It would have increased the cost of all construction
in the State and disrupted all prevailing wage rates and labor practices. It
would have done everything the Davis-Bacon Act was designed to prevent.
We believe this kind of experience definitely shows the need for some kind
of judicial review through the process of law of the policies and procedures
utilized in the administration of the Davis-Bacon Act and, if at all possible,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1761
some kind of check on the wage predeterminations themselves. As you may
see from our experience we had no recourse for relief except the course
followed in this case.
LABOR DEPARTMENT CITED FOR POOR ADMINISTRATION OF DAVIS-
BACON ACT
Although the following comment by Chairman Roosevelt was
directed to the Fremont, Mich, case, it is a good summation of the
whole problem of deciding what is similar work and the Labor
Department's frequent mishandling of that problem:
It is not so much a question of fact there; it is a question of poor adminis-
tration, period, if I may say so. I am happy that you have made your state-
ments to the committee. I think she will be pleased, because, as she said in
her testimony to the committee before, it is a good feeling to know that a
small person can come and make the kind of request for review that she was
unable to get in the administration.
I think the important lesson is that the law does talk about similar proj-
ects, and these projects to which the Department referred, Mr. Miller
referred, are in no way similar projects. I hope the lesson we will get out
of this is that some kind of effort will be made to teach the assistant solicitors
[p. 19]
and others who are working on this that the law means what it says when
it talks about "similar projects" and a real effort must be made to find out
if there are similar projects. Certainly these were not.
ESSENTIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS
It is apparent that at least two procedural changes must be
made so that distortions in the application of the similar-work
concept can be minimized. First, the contracting agency or depart-
ment should have a greater voice in the initial designation of the
contract work. Without question their local people are in the best
position to ascertain whether it is building construction or heavy
construction. Also, the variations in the type of building construc-
tion should be known to them. On the other hand, an administra-
tor in Washington or in a regional office is, at best, only vaguely
familiar with the proposed project. Certainly he is not active in
the engineering work or the preparation of the specifications. In
this respect, it should be noted that in the Houston case, Colonel
West of the Corps of Engineers was completely satisfied in his
own mind that the contract work in question was heavy construc-
tion and not building construction. When the Department of Labor
in effect overruled him it meant that the local contractors could
-------
1762 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
not bid on the work and the cost of the project was increased by
$2 million.
Second, a hearing should be held in all disputed cases. Such a
hearing should be a matter of right and all interested parties
afforded an opportunity to appear and testify. At the hearing all
pertinent data would be made available and the decision of the
Labor Department would be in writing and based solely upon the
evidence that has been submitted at the hearing. If this procedure
had been followed, Mrs. Slautterback and Mr. Lewis would not
have had to appeal to Congress and appear before a congressional
committee in order to obtain the reversal of an inaccurate wage
determination. And certainly the ridiculous initial Labor Depart-
ment decision in the Minot case would never have been issued.
THE TEEM "AREA OF CONSTRUCTION" IS BROAD AND UNLIMITED AS
A RESULT OF THE LABOR DEPARTMENT'S STATUTORY ACCOMMODA-
TION THEORY
In determining the prevailing wage, the Davis-Bacon Act re-
quires that the Secretary of Labor considers the wages paid to the
corresponding classes of laborers and mechanics employed on proj-
ects of a character similar to the contract work in the city, town,
village, or other civil subdivision of the State in which the work is
to be performed. This statutory direction appears to be a clear-cut
requirement that in determining a prevailing wage the Labor De-
partment would look first for a similar project in the city, town, or
village in which the contract work is to take place. Failing to find
such a project there, it would then look for a similar project in the
county. Certainly, under the clear language of the statute, the
Labor Department should not consider projects beyond the State
line. Unfortunately, the Labor Department has not considered it-
self so restricted. For example, Solicitor of Labor Charles Dona-
hue stated:
[P. 20]
Normally speaking, the locality which we use under the statute is the
county, but upon careful research of the statute itself and its legislative
history, we have determined that Congress intended by its actions under the
Davis-Bacon Act to provide the Secretary of Labor with reasonable flexibility
in his search for a prevailing rate. He is not rigidly bound in that process,
in accordance with our feelings in this matter.
Just how far the Labor Department is willing to go when it is
faced with precise statutory language was highlighted further
during the following colloquy between Congressman Goodell and
the Solicitor of Labor.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1763
Mr. GOODELL. If I tell you, Mr. Donohue, you have authority to go and
investigate a matter in the State of New York, do you feel that gives you
authority to go and investigate a matter in Pennsylvania, and Ohio, around
the State of New York?
Mr. DONOHUE. I don't know, sir, and it would depend upon the scope and
setting of your words.
Mr. GOODELL. The statute is so specific here on this point that it concerns
me that administrators downtown—and I repeat again this is not you at the
time because I am sure you weren't involved, or any of the people in your
office—but administrators downtown who want to go to legislative history in
order to expand their authority can do so easily, in direct contravention of
the words of a statute.
Mr. DONOHUE. I can only suggest to the Congressman if we did not take
that choice and if it had not been taken during the past 20 years we would
be faced with many incongruous situations which the statute should be
accommodated to.
Without question, the practice of distorting the clear language
of the statute so that projects outside the city, town, or villages,
and in some cases projects outside the county and State are con-
sidered, while ignoring projects within those areas, has led to
distortions and the designation of wage levels that do not reflect
the wage levels that actually prevail at the proposed site of con-
struction.
THE QUANTICO CASE—THE PRICE OF ACCOMMODATION
The best documented case of this type is the so-called Quantico
case. In a report to Congress entitled "Review of Wage Rate
Determinations for Construction of Capehart Housing at the Ma-
rine Corps Schools, Quantico, Va.," the Comptroller General of the
United States carefully reviewed the circumstances surrounding
the Secretary of Labor's determination of prevailing rates for use
in contracting for construction of the 450-unit Capehart housing
project at the Marine Corps schools in the vicinity of Quantico,
Va. The report is 60 pages long and contains 53 exhibits.
As a result of his investigation, the Comptroller General con-
cluded :
The wage rates determined by the Secretary of Labor for use in contract-
ing for construction of the Marine Corps housing project at Quantico, Va.,
were equal to those negotiated between certain contractor organizations and
[p. 21]
labor organizations in the Metropolitan Washington area. The determined
rates do not, in our opinion, fairly represent "wages prevailing in the local-
ity in which the work was performed for the corresponding classes of
laborers and mechanics employed on construction of a similar character" in
accordance with the direction in the National Housing Act.
-------
1764 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
In reaching this conclusion the Comptroller General pointed out:
Subsequent decisions issued specifically for the Quantico project have indi-
cated that different "localities" were considered in making the various deci-
sions. The wage decision issued on March 29, 1960, using nonunion rates,
showed the location to be the "Marine Corps Schools, Quantico" (further
identified as Stafford and Prince William Counties, Va.). The wage decision
issued on July 6, 1960, using union rates on a level with those paid in
Metropolitan Washington, showed the location to be "Quantico School," in
Prince William County. The final wage decision issued on January 6, 1961,
which prescribed similar union rates, showed the location to be "Marine
Corps Schools, Quantico" (further identified as Stafford and Prince William
County). On the same date as this latter decision, a formal notice of modifi-
cation was issued to delete "Stafford" from the county designation.
The manner in which the different information on the locality has been
presented indicates that the Department did not arrive at a firm and con-
sistent decision on the locality appropriate for determining prevailing wage
rates for the Quantico project. However, the effect of the final decision for
the Capehart housing at Quantico is the same as though Washington, D.C.,
and the 10 surrounding counties had been determined as the "locality."
According to the Comptroller General, in view of the Labor
Department's wage determination there will be the following re-
sult:
The Navy Department has informed us that as a result of the upward
revisions in the wage rates additional labor costs amounting to about $1.1
million necessitated deletions in planned facilities or in substitutions of
materials. (See exhibit G.) The estimation of additional cost was based
on man-hours in each work classification and on the differences between the
lower rates in the March 29, 1960, decision and the higher rates of January
6, 1961, as used in the contract. The increases in labor costs would represent
about 15 percent of the total contract cost of $7.5 million.
The dwelling units in the Capehart housing project at Quantico are one-
story, three- and four-bedroom, semidetached dwellings, built on concrete
slabs with no basements. The Navy Department noted that, as a result of the
decision for higher wage rates, plywood siding was substituted for brick
veneer; vinyl-asbestos flooring was substituted for hardwood; and carports,
sidewalks, and certain other items were deleted. The Navy Department noted
[p. 22]
also that the substitution of plywood siding for brick veneer would consider-
ably increase maintenance costs for this project.
COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE WOULD BRING AD-
MINISTRATIVE CERTAINTY
Before there can be administrative certainty in the establish-
ment of a prevailing wage, the Labor Department must be willing
to follow the law as it is written by Congress. It must restrict its
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1765
gathering of wage data to the smallest civil subdivision of the
State in which the work is to be performed and where applicable
rates can be established. This means, that most rates would be for
a village, a town, or a city. Only when no such rates are available
can the entire county be considered and rates outside a county can
never be considered. Certainly, under the law as written, in no
case can data from beyond the State line be included. If this is too
restrictive in cases involving communities bordering several State
lines, the law itself should be changed by Congress and not by
administrative interpretation.
Under this procedure there would be an element of certainty.
The source from which the data is drawn would be limited and
easily ascertainable. The compilation of pertinent information
would be precise and predictable.
In the first instance the Labor Department would know exactly
where it would have to look to secure the essential wage data.
Thereafter, those who assist in the original compilation of wages
and those who contest the prevailing wage determination would
know in advance the area from which information must be ob-
tained. All would be referring to the same area and the same
projects. Projects either nearby or distant could not be included or
excluded at the whim of the Administrator merely because they do
not furnish the type of wage data that he is interested in collect-
ing.
THE JURISDICTIONS, DISPUTE PROBLEM
Jurisdictional disputes between unions are complicated and sen-
sitive issues. Unfortunately, the Davis-Bacon Act often aggravates
the problem. As the complex Jurisdictional disputes of today were
unknown at that time, nothing in the original act was designed to
affect let alone settle such a difficult problem. However, today a
determination by the Solicitor that Davis-Bacon rates should
apply on a given job is often tantamount to a Jurisdictional award.
Although representatives of the construction trade unions and
the Secretary of Labor deny the involvement of Davis-Bacon de-
terminations in Jurisdictional disputes, the record is replete with
evidence to the contrary. Without endorsing the various views on
the merits of these disputes, one need only quote a portion of the
caustic and forthright statements on this point to illustrate the
tremendous impact of Davis-Bacon on Jurisdictional disputes. For
example, in its August 30, 1962, statement to the Special Labor
Subcommittee the Industrial Union Department, APL-CIO stated:
-------
1766 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
The crux of the difficulty was that the building trades utilized the Davis-
Bacon Act not solely as a wage law but equally as a wedge to gain juris-
diction over work that properly belonged to industrial workers as a continua-
[p. 23]
tion of the manufacturing process. The Labor Department and everybody
else can say as often as they want that the Davis-Bacon Act has nothing to
do with who does the work and this is true as an abstract matter of law.
But as a practical matter, once work is declared Davis-Bacon, industrial con-
tractors only too routinely subcontract the work to a construction contractor
with building trades labor, for the building trades threat to strike is ever
present from the moment work is deemed construction and under the Davis-
Bacon Act and until it is actually performed by building trades labor.
In its report on work stoppages at missile bases, dated March
29, 1962, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
stated:
The Davis-Bacon Act was enacted for the purpose of determining prevail-
ing local wages in the construction trades. Since the establishment of such
wage rates involves a judgment as to whether the work involved is heavy
construction or building construction rather than industrial work, the act
has been erroneously relied upon as a device for settling jurisdictional
disputes, a purpose for which it was never intended.
The Department of Labor has unduly delayed during the course of the
missile program establishing criteria for the application of the Davis-Bacon
Act.
Testimony disclosed that unions made contracts with local associations or
local contractors who did no work at the missile bases, yet these contracts
provided for higher rates of wages to be applied at defense bases than would
apply in their own immediate locality. The rates of wages set in such con-
tracts then became the basis for fixing the Davis-Bacon prevailing rate of
wage. The conditions of work such as overtime rates, travel time, etc., set
through these association contracts were then foisted on the contractors who
came into the area and who actually performed the construction on the mis-
sile sites. Such higher rates and fringe benefits of an exorbitant nature,
of course, were passed on to the Government when the contractors bid on
the contracts.
In its joint submission to the Missile Site Public Contracts Ad-
visory Committee the International Association of Machinists and
United Automobile Workers stated:
Today we deem it most important to emphasize to this committee our basic
position that the installation of industrial equipment at missile sites, which
elements of the building trades are seeking to obtain as work for their own
members through a perverted misuse of the Davis-Bacon Act, cannot con-
ceivably be deemed to be "construction, alteration or repair" within the
meaning and contemplation of the act. To regard as "construction" what is
nothing more than the completion of the manufacture of complex industrial
components, would utterly subvert the purposes of the act to guarantee the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1767
payment of construction rates on construction work—not on industrial manu-
facture. Moreover, to treat the industrial operations involved in the installa-
[p. 24]
tion, checkout and activation of industrial components at the missile sites
as construction subject to the Davis-Bacon Act, would be to create a vast
"gray area" of conflict, duplication and confusion between the Walsh-Healey
Act and the Davis-Bacon Act whenever the completion of industrial manu-
facturing operations is performed at a fixed site or location. Such a gray
area would result in a most unfortunate and dangerous field of contention,
creating schisms and jurisdictional disputes between the contesting unions
and causing untold delays and padded expense. Indeed, all that can possibly
result from the creation of such a gray area is permanent interunion strife
and discord. The industrial unions will not countenance encroachment upon
industrial work upon the pretext of the Davis-Bacon Act and will resist
attempted encroachment with all the resources at their command.
In his comments before the special subcommittee, Prof. Van
deWater of the University of California stated:
Though Davis-Bacon is not a job-assignment law, it often has this effect,
practically speaking; so a wrongly expansionist concept by Government will
wrongly take work away from men in Walter Reuther's, James Carey's and
Al Hayes' unions, and give it to the men in the building trades unions where
it does not belong. Yet in contrast, on the basis of Walsh-Healey standards,
construction employers can still bid on nonconstruction contracts and get
the work for their men at construction wage rates if they have the com-
petency and can prove a more efficient method of operation than those em-
ployers generally governed by Walsh-Healey standards.
This position has been seriously challenged by President Hag-
gerty of the Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-
CIO. At their 51st annual convention President Haggerty stated:
We charged that there was a conspiracy on the part of Mr. Reuther and
other industrial union officials, together with the labor relations representa-
tives of certain airframe manufacturers, to attack and undermine the Davis-
Bacon Act's protection of labor standards through the presentation of biased
testimony aimed against the building trades before the McClellan committee.
The record of that committee's hearings and the efforts of the IUD and the
airframe and missile manufacturers, to prevail upon the Department of
Labor to exempt many jobs at missile bases from the Davis-Bacon coverage,
fully substantiate our charge. It was further corroborated by the resolution
on the subject adopted by the IUD convention and to be presented to the
APL-CIO convention next week. What they are trying to do is to take away
missile site jobs from building trades workers and give them to industrial
union members at lower wages which prevail in manufacturing plants. No
wonder the employers are on their side.
This critical problem has not been resolved, although to date
there have been two attempts by the Labor Department to do so.
[p. 25]
-------
1768 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
In 1960, the then Acting Solicitor of the Labor Department, Har-
old C. Nystrom, issued for study and comment a tentative draft on
administrative controls and criteria for applying the Davis-Bacon
Act to Air Force contracts at missile sites. This proposal was
opposed and criticized by everyone. As a result, they were never
implemented and finally, in a letter dated April 25, 1961, to the
Secretary of the Air Force, Secretary of Labor Arthur Goldberg
stated:
These guides were never given official status or extended as the considered
views of the Department of Labor * * * and cannot be used reliably or
authoritatively for the purpose of applying this act to missile site work.
Significantly, on April 25, 1961, Secretary Goldberg also estab-
lished the Missile Site Public Contracts Advisory Committee. In
his instruction No. 70 he stated that the Committee was created:
For the purpose of recommending to the Secretary of Labor fair and im-
partial standards and criteria for determining which work on missile sites
and missile test sites performed under contracts by the armed services of the
Department of Defense, is construction, alteration, or repair within the
meaning of the Davis-Bacon Act * * *.
After extensive hearings and careful consideration of all the
factors involved including detailed briefs from the parties this
Committee filed its report with the Secretary of Labor on August
25, 1961. In its report definite recommendations were made which
would establish what is and what is not construction work. There-
after, Secretary Goldberg requested that the interested parties file
briefs and comments with respect to the report. Nothing more was
heard until the subcommittee hearings when, in reply to question-
ing by Congressman Martin, Secretary Goldberg replied as fol-
lows:
Mr. MARTIN. On March 8, you testified before this subcommittee in regard
to the fringe benefits under Davis-Bacon, and in answer to a question about
the Holland committee report. It was a question in regard to when you were
going to act on this, and I quote your testimony:
"I am going to act upon them as soon as I give everybody an opportunity
to be heard, which I think I ought to do, but let me point out something
* * *" and you go on.
But that was about 3 months ago, and this report was originally made
I believe last August. Now, how are we coming on that?
Secretary GOLDBERG. Let me talk about that very frankly.
The parties had some sickness and were delayed in filing briefs with us,
and they did not come in until not so long ago. In the meantime, we have
made a very careful check, and I think your committee, going around, made
a very careful check, and we do not have a problem, really, in this area.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1769
Right now I can report to you that there is no problem that is affecting
the construction work on the sites between the industrial unions and the
building trades unions, no jurisdictional problems which are affecting the
work done on these sites.
[p. 26]
Mr. MARTIN. In other words, are you saying, Mr. Secretary, that you are
not going to make any recommendations?
Secretary GOLDBERG. I am not saying that. I am just pointing out that the
sense of urgency which might have existed at some time is not present, and
I have a problem of whether or not any action that might not be the most
considered action would create problems that might affect our production
rather than settle problems.
Mr. MARTIN. Since you have had it now for about 10 months, could we get
an estimate from you as to approximately when you feel you will make a
final determination on this?
Secretary GOLDBERG. I would say this to you: That I will make a final de-
termination whenever I believe that that final determination will not hurt
construction on the sites rather than help it. That is the key consideration
with me.
Apparently, this issue could not be resolved by the Labor De-
partment. They, therefore, simply avoided establishing any coher-
ent overall policy. The Holland committee recommendations were
neither accepted nor rejected. No broad legislative or administra-
tive guidelines were devised or recommended. Instead, in the
Malmstrom Air Force Base case,1 the Labor Department an-
nounced that hereafter each case would be considered on its own
merits. In other words, a case-by-case approach to the problem
was adopted, with the Labor Department cast in the uneasy role
of a Solomon.
Unfortunately, this approach did not resolve this basic issue.
President Gordon Freeman, of the International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, immediately requested that the Solicitor of
Labor, Charles Donahue, reconsider his Malmstrom decision. He
pointed out that if the practice of manufacturers sending in-
dustrial people to install equipment on construction sites becomes
widespread on defense installations, it may only be a matter of
time before private industry emulates their action and there is
grave danger that the Solicitor's interpretations can be used by
"unfair contractors as a means of avoiding the Davis-Bacon Act."
President Freeman also wrote to all of his construction locals
telling them that there is no further recourse through administra-
tive channels so there is urgent need to make immediate contact
with Congressmen to point out the consequences in loss of work
opportunities to construction workers in light of the decision.
-------
1770 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
BASIC PROBLEM NOT RESOLVED AND MAY BECOME MORE ACUTE IN
THE FUTURE
Although time and the completion of the work will temporarily
alleviate, at the heavy cost to the taxpayers, the present jurisdic-
tional problems at the missile bases, it is safe to assume that these
same problems will reappear again and again at the construction
sites of the future. In addition, new and even more awesome
problems are certain to be encountered. For example, in his testi-
mony, Prof. Van deWater stated:
At the outset, Mr. Chairman, I would like to suggest two principles that I
think need emphasis in reference to the study of Davis-Bacon. One is that
1 See the Solicitor of Labor's letter to Colonel Disher dated Apr. 16, 1962, relative to the
work in dispute at Malmstrom AFB.
[p. 27]
we are moving: in time, and actually currently, from missile construction
away from and transportation to a missile site into a true space age where
there will be space vehicle factories at the site; where certainly there will be
large components produced in other factories but where there will be the ne-
cessity of fabrication and alinement at the sites themselves, requiring the
establishment of factories at the sites involving assembly line activity and
both major construction and production on an expanded basis. Therefore, in
reference to Davis-Bacon itself, there is need to think not just of what the
past has been and what currently is the case, but what is necessary for the
future.
I can personally foresee enormous conflict potential between construction
workers and industrial workers as to whether the factory operations of the
future at the missile sites should involve workers who are called construction
workers or those who are called production workers.
If you will recall the testimony of the past year and a half by men like
James Carey of the IUE and Al Hayes of the Machinists Union before con-
gressional committees, in which they have contended that there is need for
caution under the law to protect against jurisdictional conflicts and second-
ary boycott activities to try to force the assignment of work to one group as
against another group, you can realize that officially the unions themselves
are in dispute and will probably be more in dispute in the future as to who
should have this particular type of work.
Therefore, as you study Davis-Bacon it seems to me that it needs to be con-
sidered in reference to the long-range future. It needs to be studied in ref-
erence to securing the greatest efficiency of work at the least possible cost
consistent with fair treatment to the employees involved and the historic
background of factory and nonfactory activities they have engaged in, in the
longer run past.
This same note of caution was echoed by the then Secretary of
Labor Arthur Goldberg when he testified:
The Davis-Bacon Act is concerned with a dynamic program of activity ex-
periencing continual change. The contract construction activities of the Fed-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1771
eral Government assume many different forms which are as broad and varied
as the needs of America.
A few short years ago the Federal Government's construction activity was
concerned primarily with the erection of buildings in which to house its oper-
ations. Today, we have embarked on a vast missile program involving the
construction of missile sites and atomic installations. Tomorrow, we may be
building weather stations to be suspended in outer space. Not only has the
nature of the construction activity, to which the prevailing wage principle
has been applied, changed radically over the years, but the scope of this pro-
gram has also changed materially. For example, in 1945, 3,884 wage deter-
minations were issued; in 1955, 17,293, and during the present fiscal year we
[p. 28]
estimate that the Department will issue almost 50,000 wage determinations
containing approximately 5 million individual wage minimums.
I point this out to emphasize the tremendous flexibility of the operation
with which we are concerned and to underscore the necessity for constantly
reappraising and reexamining the Davis-Bacon program operations. It is ob-
vious that the program approach of 1945 would be ill suited to the needs of
today.
LEGISLATIVE ACTION MUST BE TAKEN
It is abundantly clear that a "head in the sand" approach, a
disposition to sweep the problem under the rug, can be followed no
longer. The Davis-Bacon Act must be updated by legislative ac-
tion. The question of construction versus installation which is so
intertwined with the jurisdictional dispute problems must be re-
solved. In this regard it should be noted that wages are not an
issue. The two groups of employees involved have union represen-
tation. The contractors involved have labor contracts which pre-
vent them from cutting wages in order to underbid their competi-
tion. Thus, it cannot be argued that under these circumstances an
award to one or the other contractor would depress the wages in
the area in which the work is to be performed.
JUDICIAL REVIEW—PRACTICAL AND ESSENTIAL
At the present time, every finding of the Secretary of Labor,
with or without an investigation and with or without a hearing, is
final. Neither employees or employers have any recourse except to
beg the Secretary for mercy, or perhaps prevail upon their Con-
gressman to intervene. It is an intolerable situation for such arbi-
trary and final authority to be lodged in a single administrator.
The judicial review which we propose would not delay the deter-
mination of the prevailing wage nor the letting of the contract.
When a charge is filed claiming that a contractor has failed to pay
-------
1772 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
the prevailing wage, a full investigation would be required by the
Secretary and an independent hearing by a trial examiner. There-
after, the formal findings of the Secretary of Labor, based upon
the hearing, would be appealable directly to the circuit court of
appeals. Throughout the whole procedure of judicial review, work
on the project would continue without delay on the basis of the
Secretary's original determination. Any contractor refusing to
abide by the Secretary's original determination could do so only at
the risk of having back wages assessed with interest, plus the cost
of litigation.
There is a great deal of precedent for judicial review. In keep-
ing with the generally accepted view in this country that individu-
als who have been charged with a violation of a law should have
access to the courts, nearly every act of this type provides some
type of court review. The Walsh-Healey Act, the Taft-Hartley Act,
and the Fair Labor Standards Act, each have forms of judicial
review.
Our court review proposal has been discussed with those who
are opposed to such a review in Davis-Bacon Act cases and they
have advised that, while they are still opposed to it in principle,
they find the proposed procedure workable and reasonable. It was
also interesting to find that although certain union officials op-
[p. 29]
posed the proposed judicial review, they have concluded that in
the event the Secretary of Labor makes certain rulings and inter-
pretations with respect to the Davis-Bacon Act they will have no
alternative but to attempt to enjoin his actions in a court of law
even though they are aware that under the present act they' un-
doubtedly will be unsuccessful in this attempt. With a great deal
of understandable reluctance they also agreed that the adoption of
our court review procedure would provide them with the right and
the means for such a judicial review.
NO REFORM, NO FRINGE BENEFITS
Members of the subcommittee that investigated the operation of
the Davis-Bacon Act were shocked by the many abuses that have
developed over the years in the administration of the act. No one
can seriously deny the need for a substantial modernizing and
revision of the basic act. If fringe benefits are approved by the
Congress as separate legislation, the opportunity for real reform
will then be lost.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1773
Many of us feel that the Davis-Bacon Act, in times past, has
been a useful vehicle to prevent the Federal Government from
depressing wages. That vehicle now is falling apart. We should
send it in for repairs before loading it down with additional and
even heavier burdens.
PETER FRELINGHUYSEN.
WILLIAM H. AYRES.
ALBERT H. QUIE.
CHAS. E. GOODELL.
ALPHONZO BELL.
[p. 30]
ADDITIONAL MINORITY VIEWS
H.R. 6041, which would add fringe benefits to the wage determi-
nations of the Solicitor of Labor, will result in higher wage rates
for construction throughout the country and, in turn, will increase
the cost of these projects. This will affect all construction where
Federal funds are involved—highways, hospitals, schools, etc.
Even the construction of county roads by our county governments
will be adversely affected because Federal funds are involved.
Second, and more important, however, is the fact that extensive
Hearings were held last year in regard to the entire Davis-Bacon
Act, and further hearings are proposed for this year. These hear-
ings were the first extensive ones conducted since the enactment of
the law in 1931. Many changes have been pointed out in testimony
heard in the hearings, which indicate that several amendments
should be adopted. This should all be done in one bill at one time,
not through piecemeal approach such as this.
The union leaders in the construction field are the ones demand-
ing this legislation. To do a thorough job and to take an intelligent
approach to this entire problem, action on this bill should be de-
ferred until our hearings are completed and sound proposals are
presented in regard to the entire Davis-Bacon Act. Enactment of
this bill, H.R. 6041, at this time, will only result in increased
demand from union leaders for additional fringe benefits, with
resultant strikes in the construction field and increased costs of
construction. I trust that this bill can be either held or defeated
until complete recommendations in the field of Davis-Bacon can be
made.
DAVE MARTIN.
GENE SNYDER.
[P. si]
-------
1774 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
ADDITIONAL MINORITY VIEWS
Concerning H.R. 6041, testimony before the Education and
Labor Committee has conclusively established that the entire Davis-
Bacon Act, as it is now operating, is nothing more than a
hodgepodge that results in total confusion, discriminatory deci-
sions, and unworkable regulations.
Unless and until the entire Davis-Bacon Act is revised and
rewritten, there should be absolutely no additions to this legisla-
tive monstrosity.
DONALD C. BRUCE,
Member of Congress.
[P. 32]
1.13e(2) SENATE COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND
PUBLIC WELFARE
S. REP. No. 963, 88th Cong., 2d Sess. (1964)
AMENDMENTS TO THE DAVIS-BACON ACT
MARCH 17 (Igeislative day, MARCH 9), 1964.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. McNAMARA, from the Committee on Labor and Public Wel-
fare, submitted the following
REPORT
together with
INDIVIDUAL VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 6041]
The Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, to whom was
referred the bill (H.R. 6041) to amend the Davis-Bacon Act to
include fringe benefits in prevailing wages, having considered the
same, report favorably thereon without amendment and recom-
mend that the bill do pass.
INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT
H.R. 6041, which was passed by the House on January 28, 1964,
is designed to modernize the Davis-Bacon Act by bringing its
standards into conformity with modern wage payment practices.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1775
It recognizes that fringe benefits which were unknown when this
act became law a third of a century ago now constitute an integral
part of the wages of millions of workers. It further recognizes
that these fringe benefits must be reflected in prevailing wage
determinations under the act if its underlying principle—that
Federal funds should not be used to depress prevailing local wage
standards on federally supported construction work—is to con-
tinue to have real meaning.
This measure has the full endorsement of the present adminis-
tration as is evidenced by testimony of the Under Secretary of
Labor and Solicitor of Labor during the House hearings on this
measure in March 1963 and by a statement of the Secretary of
Labor which was submitted to the Labor Subcommittee of this
committee under date of February 20, 1964.
This committee has had the opportunity to examine in detail the
transcript of the hearings held by the General Subcommittee on
[P. l]
Labor of the House Labor Committee in 1962 and on March 1, 7,
12, 21, 22, and 26, 1963. During its 1963 hearings that subcommit-
tee heard testimony from 15 witnesses, including the officials of
the Department of Labor mentioned earlier, and representatives
from the construction industries, labor, and management. State-
ments on behalf of numerous organizations not wishing to testify
orally were also entered into the official record of these hearings.
In addition to examining the record of the House hearings, the
committee has also carefully examined statements submitted to its
Subcommittee on Labor by the Secretary of Labor and by repre-
sentatives of labor and management interests in the construction
industry and others.
On the basis of its study and consideration of all these materials
the committee, with broad bipartisan support, reports the bill
favorably and recommends its approval by the Senate.
WHY THE DAVIS-BACON ACT BECAME LAW
Almost from the inception of Federal construction activity Con-
gress recognized the necessity for providing basic wage protection
to local laborers and mechanics employed on the construction. It
was precisely for the purpose of providing this protection that
Congress passed the Davis-Bacon Act more than 30 years ago.
Virtually all segments of our society banded together to demand
its adoption.
-------
1776 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
The local contractors demanded that they be protected from
unfair competition from outside contractors who were securing
Government contracts solely because they based their bids on
wage levels lower than those which actually prevailed in the local-
ity.
Local craftsmen protested because their wage standards and
conditions were broken down and they were denied work by those
contractors who recruited labor from distant cheap labor areas.
The local communities requested assistance because of the loss
of work and purchasing power to their citizens.
The Davis-Bacon law was designed specifically to eliminate
these conditions. It has proven to be generally effective.
Originally it applied only to direct Federal construction. With
the development of Federal grant, loan, and guarantee programs,
Congress has extended the prevailing wage standards from time
to time to insure that public money is not spent to depress the
locally prevailing wage structure. The Davis-Bacon Act and its
related statutes thus have the objective of affording protection to
federally assisted projects as well as projects under direct Federal
contracts.
THE GROWTH OP WELFARE AND PENSION PLANS
At the time of the enactment of the Davis-Bacon Act in 1931,
cash wages constituted virtually the only type of remuneration
paid to employees. Fringe benefits such as group life insurance,
group hospitalization, disability benefits, medical care, and pen-
sions were not important wage factors until World War II when it
became a widespread practice to substitute them for increases in
cash wages. This was the only means of providing compensation
since increases in cash wages were prohibited or restricted at the
time under wage regulations of the National War Labor Board.
[P. 2]
Welfare and pension plans have experienced a phenomenal
growth. In a report of this committee issued in 1958 it was then
estimated that almost 85 million persons were relying on benefits
from such plans. According to recent figures furnished the com-
mittee by the Department of Labor, that number has now reached
almost 110 million. The Department of Labor also advises that the
employer's share of contributions to health and welfare benefit
plans has increased from 47 percent in 1954 to 71 percent in 1961.
Also, employers now finance 85 percent of the cost of retirement
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1777
plans and almost all multiemployer and unfunded pension plans
are financed entirely by employer contributions. As stated in our
1958 report:
Regardless of the form they take, the employer's share of the cost of these
plans or the benefits the employers provide are a form of compensation.
This view is additionally buttressed by the fact that the courts
have held these benefit plans to be bargainable issues under provi-
sions of the National Labor Relations Act requiring both parties
to bargain collectively in good faith on "wages, hours, and other
terms and conditions of employment." The courts have also held
that an employer may be compelled to make payments he owes to a
pension and welfare plan under the bonding provisions of the
Miller Act.
THE NEED FOR AND EFFECT OF THE LEGISLATION
There are many localities throughout the country in which the
great majority of contractors provide fringe benefits in addition to
the cash wages paid to their employees. As we have indicated,
these fringe benefits clearly constitute a form of wages. Therefore,
if they are not included in the prevailing wage determinations,
only a part of the compensation for employment is reflected.
Under such circumstances, the minority of employers operating in
the locality who do not provide the prevailing fringe benefits now
enjoy an unfair advantage in bidding on Federal and federally
assisted construction projects. By not providing for their employ-
ees the benefits that prevail in the locality these employers are
now able to enter lower bids than the local employers who main-
tain adequate wage standards.
The Davis-Bacon Act does not define the term "wages" as used
in the act. Because of the act's requirement that wages be paid
unconditionally, fringe benefits that are contingent in nature can-
not now be included in the wage determinations.
Although a number of statements submitted to this committee
by employer groups support this legislation, the assertion has been
made by some that the enactment of this proposal would greatly
inflate the cost of federally supported construction.
The committee does not share this opinion. Before a fringe
benefit could be included in a wage determination for a particular
area, it would have to be found prevailing. Since the determina-
tion merely reflects existing wage levels it would not have an
inflationary or deflationary effect insofar as local wage standards
are concerned. Most employers already take these fringe benefit
-------
1778 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
payments into account in bidding on these construction projects.
The cost of Federal construction may or may not be increased in
those instances in which the relatively few employers who do not
provide prevailing fringe benefits would otherwise be able to un-
[p.3]
derbid employers who maintain adequate wage standards. In any
event, the Federal Government has long held—and properly so—
the view that wage determinations involve more than the objective
that Federal construction be achieved as cheaply as possible.
While it subscribes to the view that Federal construction should be
carried out economically, this should not be accomplished at the
expense of local wage standards.
It has also been suggested to this committee as it was to the
House of Representatives that the bill be amended to provide for
judicial review of all predeterminations of wage rates. The com-
mittee shares the view of the overwhelming majority of the House
Members that this suggestion should not be accepted.
It was clearly demonstrated during the course of the House
debate on H.R. 6041 that judicial review of wage determinations
under the Davis-Bacon Act is simply not practicable and, in fact,
could frustrate the entire program.
Federally supported construction today involves the expenditure
of billions of dollars and relates to projects ranging from a $2,100
post office renovation job to the building of a $500 million missile
complex. In connection with this activity, the Department of
Labor last year issued 46,000 prevailing wage determinations in-
volving some 5 million job classifications.
The delays which would be involved and the degree to which
Federal construction programs would be impaired if each of these
46,000 determinations were subject to court appeal is apparent.
It could reasonably be anticipated that a flood of litigation
would ensue which would be comparable in magnitude to the wave
of wage-hour cases which inundated the courts some years ago
and resulted in enactment of the Portal-to-Portal Act. The con-
struction of vital defense installations and other important con-
struction activity would be seriously delayed while court proceed-
ings are exhausted. Also, the contested wage determination would
probably be out of date by the time the court's ruling is handed
down. A new determination would be required, and the whole
process might well be repeated.
The committee is aware, of course, that some form of review
should be provided in connection with these prevailing wage deter-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1779
initiations. No Government agency, no matter how efficient or well
intentioned in carrying out its responsibilities, is immune from
error. However, the committee believes that administrative im-
provements rather than a legislative solution provide the best
approach.
To this end, it is gratifying to note that the Secretary of Labor
has recently established a Wage Appeals Board to exercise the
powers of the Secretary of Labor pursuant to Reorganization Plan
No. 6 of 1950. The Board is given jurisdiction to decide appeals on
wage determinations, debarments, disputes concerning the pay-
ment of prevailing wages or of the proper classification of work-
ers, and of the recommendations of Federal agencies for adjust-
ment of liquidated damages assessed under the Work Hours Act.
In other words, the Board has jurisdiction over all the significant
questions arising under these labor standards statutes which are
within the jurisdiction of the Department of Labor.
The Committee is confident that this Board offers the necessary
procedural protections for interested parties, without impeding
the operation of our construction programs. It provides an inde-
[p. 4]
pendent expeditious review of wage determinations operating in
such a way as to preserve the certainty of obligation so necessary
at the time of contract award. In enforcement cases, the Board is
empowered to review potential debarment cases on the record
after full opportunity to be heard has been extended to any con-
tractor or subcontractor. The committee believes that the effec-
tiveness and adequacy of this administrative approach should be
thoroughly tested before consideration is given to other measures.
WHAT H.R. 6041 DOES
Section 1: H.R. 6041 would define the term "wages" as used in
the Davis-Bacon Act to include, in addition to the basic hourly
rate of pay—
1. The rate of contribution irrevocably made by a contrac-
tor or subcontractor to a trustee or third person pursuant to a
fund, plan, or program; and
2. The rate of cost to the contractor or subcontractor which
may be reasonably anticipated in providing benefits to labor-
ers and mechanics under an enforcible commitment to carry
out a financially responsible plan or program communicated
in writing to the employees affected.
-------
1780 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
Various types of fringe benefits, including medical or hospital
care, pensions on retirement or death, unemployment benefits, life
insurance and accident insurance, would be recognized. An em-
ployer could discharge his obligation under the law by—
1. Making payments to a trustee or third person pursuant
to a fund, plan, or program;
2. Making payments in cash; or
3. Assuming an enforcible commitment of the nature re-
ferred to above.
Contributions to a trustee or third person
Under the bill, these contributions must be irrevocable and they
must be made pursuant to a fund, plan, or program. While it was
not the desire of the committee to impose specific standards relat-
ing to the administration of the plans it is expected that the
majority of plans of this nature will be those which are adminis-
tered in accordance with the requirements of section 302 (c) (5) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. Among other
things, therefore, the contributions would have to be placed with a
trustee or third person who could not later be required to return
them to the contractor or subcontractor making the contributions.
This will help insure the bona fides of the plan, fund, or program,
and protect and preserve the interest of the beneficiaries in them.
The phrase "plan, fund, or program" is merely intended to recog-
nize the various types of arrangements commonly used to provide
fringe benefits through employer contributions. It is identical with
language contained in section 3(1) of the Welfare and Pension
Plans Disclosure Act and the experience of the Department of
Labor under that statute should be of assistance in applying the
term here.
[P. 5]
Benefits under the so-called unfunded plans
No type of fringe benefit would be eligible for consideration as a
so-called unfunded plan (sec. 1 (b) (2) (B) of the bill) unless—
(a) It was of a type that could be reasonably anticipated to
provide benefits similar to those enumerated in the bill;
(6) It represented a commitment that could be legally en-
forced ;
(c) It could be carried out under a financially responsible
plan or program; and
(d) The plan or program providing the benefits was com-
municated in writing to the laborers and mechanics affected.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1781
It is in this manner that the bill provides for the consideration
of unfunded plans or programs in finding prevailing wages and in
ascertaining compliance with the act. At the same time, however,
there is protection against the use of this provision as a means of
avoiding the act's requirements. The words "reasonably antici-
pated" are intended to require that any unfunded plan or program
be able to withstand a test which can perhaps be best described as
one of actuarial soundness. Moreover, as in the case of other
fringe benefits payable under the act, an unfunded plan or pro-
gram must be "bona fide" and not a mere simulation or sham for
avoiding compliance with the act.
In order to insure against the possibility that this provision
might be used to avoid compliance with the act, the committee
contemplates that the Secretary of Labor in carrying out his re-
sponsibilities under Reorganization Plan No. 14 of 1950, as a
minimum requirement, would direct an employer to set aside in an
account assets which, under sound actuarial principles, will be
sufficient to meet the future obligation of the employer under the
plan. The preservation of this account for the purpose intended
would, of course, also be essential.
Types of fringe benefits
As far as the committee has been able to determine, H.R. 6041
enumerates all types of fringe benefits that are now common to
the construction industry as a whole and it doubts that additional
types would be recognized at this time. The committee has pro-
vided the means for avoiding problems which might arise in the
future by including an "open end" provision so that new benefits
might be recognized as they become prevailing. In this connection,
the committee wishes to point out that a particular fringe benefit
need not be recognized beyond a particular area in order for the
Secretary to find that it is prevailing in that locality. Any other
conclusion could result in undermining prevailing local wage
standards in violation of the basic purpose of the Davis-Bacon
Act.
Computation of overtime
Under the provisions of the bill, the regular or basic hourly rate
for the purpose of calculating overtime compensation under appli-
cable Federal laws is ordinarily the rate computed, exclusive of
fringe benefits, which the Secretary of Labor would take into
consideration under section l(b)(l) of the bill. The following
example will perhaps best illustrate precisely what the committee
intends:
-------
1782 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
X construction contractor has for some time been computing
and paying $3.25 an hour as his basic cash wage and 50 cents an
hour as a contribution to a welfare and pension plan. After the
[p. 6]
enactment of H.R. 6041, the Secretary of Labor determines that a
basic hourly rate of $3 an hour and a fringe benefit contribution
of 50 cents are prevailing. The basic hourly rate or regular rate
for overtime purposes would be the $3.25 rate actually computed
as a basic cash wage for the employees of X rather than the $3
rate determined as prevailing by the Secretary of Labor.
Another example will illustrate the committee's intention.
Under the same prevailing wage determination, Y construction
contractor who has been paying $3 an hour as his basic cash wage
on which he has been computing overtime compensation reduces
the cash wage to $2.75 an hour but computes his costs of benefits
under section l(b)(2)(B) as $1 an hour. In this example the
regular or basic hourly rate would continue to be $3 an hour.l
Another purpose of the overtime provisions of H.R. 6041 as
indicated by the House committee report is to avoid penalizing a
contractor who elects to meet his obligations under the bill by
paying fringe benefits in cash. Therefore, the bill permits an em-
ployer under certain conditions to make deductions from his total
payments, contributions, or costs in arriving at the basic hourly
rate for overtime purposes.
On the other hand, the bill is not intended to provide a contrac-
tor with an advantage over other contractors who are paying
overtime on the basis of the Secretary's determination of the basic
hourly rate under section l(b) (1). Thus in no event can the rate
on which overtime is calculated be less than the amount deter-
mined by the Secretary of Labor as the basic hourly rate under
section l(b) (1).
Section 2: This section makes a conforming change in section
15 (b) of the Federal Airport Act.
Section 3: This section makes a conforming change in section
212 (a) of the National Housing Act.
Section 4: The amendments made by H.R. 6041 to the Davis-Ba-
con Act would become effective on the 90th day after the date of
enactment. However, the amendments would not affect a contract
entered into on or before the effective date or pursuant to invita-
tions for bids outstanding on the effective date. In addition, pay-
ments of the type specified in section l(b) (2) of the bill—the
fringe benefits provision—would become effective during a period
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1783
of 270 days after the effective date only where the Secretary so
provides by rule or regulation.
Thus, the bill provides for a practical and gradual application of
its provisions and would not become fully effective until almost 1
year after enactment.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
In compliance with subsection (4) of rule XXIX of the Stand-
ing Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by the bill,
as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be
omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in
italic, existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in
roman) :
1 These results are consistent with the statement in the House committee report that the
intent of the committee was to prevent any avoidance of overtime requirements under existing
law. In the illustrations cited, existing Federal laws (Work Hours Act, Fair Labor Standards
Act, and Walsh-Healey Act) all require that overtime compensation be paid the employees on
thf> computed basic hourly or regular rates of $3.25 and ?3 an hour.
[P-7]
First Section of the Act of March 3, 1931, as Amended
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That (a) the
advertised specifications for every contract in excess of $2,000, to
which the United States or the District of Columbia is a party, for
construction, alteration, and/or repair, including painting and
decorating, of public buildings or public works of the United
States or the District of Columbia within the geographical limits
of the States of the Union or the District of Columbia, and which
requires or involves the employment of mechanics and/or laborers
shall contain a provision stating the minimum wages to be paid
various classes of laborers and mechanics which shall be based
upon the wages that will be determined by the Secretary of Labor
to be prevailing for the corresponding classes of laborers and
mechanics employed on projects of a character similar to the con-
tract work in the city, town, village, or other civil subdivision of
the State in which the work is to be performed, or in the District
of Columbia if the work is to be performed there; and every
contract based upon these specifications shall contain a stipulation
that the contractor, or his subcontractor shall pay all mechanics
and laborers employed directly upon the site of the work, uncondi-
tionally and not less often than once a week, and without subse-
quent deduction or rebate on any account, the full amounts ac-
-------
1784 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
crued at time of payment, computed at wage rates not less than
those stated in the advertised specifications, regardless of any
contractual relationship which may be alleged to exist between the
contractor or subcontractor and such laborers and mechanics, and
that the scale of wages to be paid shall be posted by the contractor
in a prominent and easily accessible place at the site of the work;
and the further stipulation that there may be witheld from the
contractor so much of accrued payments as may be considered
necessary by the contracting officer to pay to laborers and mechan-
ics employed by the contractor or any subcontractor on the work
the difference between the rates of wages required by the contract
to be paid laborers and mechanics on the work and the rates of
wages received by such laborers and mechanics and not refunded
to the contractor, subcontractors, or their agents.
(6) As used in this Act the term "wages", "scale of wages",
"wage rates", "minimum wages", and "prevailing wages" shall
include—
(1) the basic hourly rate of pay; and
(2) the amount of—
(A) the rate of contribution irrevocably made by a
contractor or subcontractor to a trustee or to a third
person pursuant to a fund, plan, or program; and
(B) the rate of costs to the contractor or subcontrac-
tor which may be reasonably anticipated in providing
benefits to laborers and mechanics pursuant to an en-
forceable commitment to carry out a financially responsi-
ble plan or program which was communicated in writing
to the laborers and mechanics affected,
for medical or hospital care, pensions on retirement or death,
compensation for injuries or illness resulting from occupa-
tional activity, or insurance to provide any of the foregoing,
for unemployment benefits, life insurance, disability and sick-
ness insurance, or accident insurance, for vacation and holi-
day pay, for defraying costs of apprenticeship or other simi-
lar programs, or for other bona fide fringe benefits, but only
[P. 8]
where the contractor or subcontractor is not required by
other Federal, State, or local law to provide any of such
benefits:
Provided, That the obligation of a contractor or subcontractor to
make payment in accordance with the prevailing wage determina-
tions of the Secretary of Labor, insofar as this Act and other Acts
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1785
incorporating this Act by reference are concerned may be dis-
charged by the making of payments in cash, by the making of
contributions of a type referred to in paragraph (2) (A), or by the
assumption of an enforcible commitment to bear the costs of a
plan or program of a type referred to in paragraph (2) (B), or
any combination thereof, where the aggregate of any such pay-
ments, contributions, and costs is not less than the rate of pay
described in paragraph (1) plus the amount referred to in para-
graph (2).
In determining the overtime pay to which the laborer or me-
chanic is entitled under any Federal law, his regular or basic
hourly rate of pay (or other alternative rate upon which premium
rate of overtime compensation is computed) shall be deemed to be
the rate computed under paragraph (1), except that where the
amount of payments, contributions, or costs incurred with respect
to him exceeds the prevailing wage applicable to him under this
Act, such regular or basic hourly rate of pay (or such other
alternative rate) shall be arrived at by deducting from the amount
of payments, contributions, or costs actually incurred with respect
to him, the amount of contributions or costs of the types de-
scribed in paragraph (2) actually incurred with respect to him,
or the amount determined under paragraph (2) but not actually
paid, whichever amount is the greater.
Section 15 of the Federal Airport Act, as Amended
PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTION WORK
REGULATIONS OF THE ADMINISTRATOR
SEC. 15. (a) The construction work on any approved project
shall be subject to inspection and approval by the Administrator
and in accordance with regulations prescribed by him. Such regu-
lations shall require such cost and progress reporting by the spon-
sor or sponsors of such project as the Administrator shall deem
necessary. No such regulation shall have the effect of altering any
contract in connection with any project entered into without ac-
tual notice of the regulation.
MINIMUM RATES OF WAGES
(b) All contracts in excess of $2,000 for work on projects ap-
proved under this Act which involve labor shall contain provisions
establishing minimum rates of wages, to be predetermined by the
Secretary of Labor, in accordance with the Davis-Bacon Act, as
-------
1786 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
amended (40 U.S.C. 276a-276a-5) which contractors shall pay to
skilled and unskilled labor, and such minimum rates shall be
stated in the invitation for bids and shall be included in proposals
or bids for the work.
[p. 9]
OTHER PROVISIONS AS TO LABOR
(c) All contracts for work on projects approved under this Act
which involve labor shall contain such provisions as are necessary
to insure (1) that no convict labor shall be employed; and (2)
that in the employment of labor (except in executive, administra-
tive, and supervisory positions), preference shall be given, where
they are qualified, to individuals who have served as persons in the
military service of the United States (as defined in section 101(1)
of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940), and who
have been honorably discharged from such service: Provided,
That such preference shall apply only where such labor is availa-
ble and qualified to perform the work to which the employment
relates.
Section 212 of the National Housing Act, as Amended
LABOR STANDARDS
SEC. 212. (a) The Commissioner shall not insure under section
207 or section 210 of this title, or under section 608 of title VI,
pursuant to any application for insurance filed subsequent to the
effective date of this section, or under section 213 of this title, or
under title VII pursuant to any application filed subsequent to
sixty days after the date of enactment of the Housing Act of 1950,
or under section 803 or 810 of title VIII, or under section 908 of
title IX, a mortgage or investment which covers property on
which there is or is to be located a dwelling or dwellings, or a
housing project, the construction of which was or is to be com-
menced subsequent to such date, unless the principal contractor
files a certificate or certificates (at such times, in course of con-
struction or otherwise, as the Commissioner may prescribe) certi-
fying that the laborers and mechanics employed in the construc-
tion of the dwelling or dwellings or the housing project involved
have been paid not less than the wages prevailing in the locality in
which the work was performed for the corresponding classes of
laborers and mechanics employed on construction of a similar
character, as determined by the Secretary of Labor in accordance
with the Davis-Bacon Act, as amended (40 U.S.C. 276a-276a-5),
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1787
prior to the beginning of construction and after the date of the
filing of the application for insurance. The provisions of this sec-
tion shall also apply to the insurance of any loan or mortgage
under section 220 or section 233 which covers property on which
there is located a dwelling or dwellings designed principally for
residential use for twelve or more families. The provisions of this
section shall apply to the insurance under section 221 of any
mortgage described in subsection (d) (3) in the case of a coopera-
tive or a limited profit mortgagor, or in subsection (d) (4)
thereof. The provisions of this section shall also apply to the
insurance of any mortgage under section 231 or 232 except that
compliance with such provisions may be waived by the Commis-
sioner in cases or classes of cases where laborers or mechanics, not
otherwise employed at any time on the project, voluntarily donate
their services without full compensation for the purpose of lower-
ing the costs of construction and the Commissioner determines
that any amounts thereby saved are fully credited to the nonprofit
corporation, association, or other organization undertaking the
construction.
[p. 10]
(b) The Commissioner is authorized to make such rules and
regulations as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this
section.
(c) There is hereby authorized to be appropriated for the re-
mainder of the fiscal year ending June 30, 1929, and for each fiscal
year thereafter, a sum sufficient to meet all necessary expenses of
the Department of Labor in making the determinations provided
for in subsection (a).
[p. 11]
INDIVIDUAL VIEWS
When the Davis-Bacon Act was enacted into law more than 30
years ago it contained no specific provisions for its administration,
no procedural requirements, and provided no access to the courts.
It merely directed the Secretary of Labor to determine the wage
rates to be paid by contractors to the various categories of work-
ers employed on Federal construction projects. The Secretary's
determination was final and immune to challenge.
Since that original date no significant changes have occurred in
these respects. As a consequence, the administration of the act and
the procedures used in applying it have developed into a confused,
contradictory, and illogical structure, often resulting in serious
-------
1788
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
injustices, and wholly dependent on the arbitrary practices en-
gaged in by the Department of Labor.
One significant instance of the legislative time lag which charac-
terizes the Davis-Bacon Act is the complete absence of judicial
review. Since its adoption, several statutes have been enacted
under which wage rates paid by private employers are subject to
Federal regulation—the Walsh-Healey Act, the Fair Labor Stand-
ards Act, and the Equal Pay (for women) Act. All of these subse-
quent laws either provide judicial review or require resort to the
courts for enforcement of their provisions. The Davis-Bacon Act
is the only Federal statute regulating wages under which the
courts are completely excluded from participation.
We believe, therefore, that no further substantive changes
should be made in the Davis-Bacon Act, particularly by way of
expanding the concept of "wages" which the Secretary is directed
to determine, until such time as the act is amended to provide for
a rational administration, an equitable procedure, and a resort to
the courts giving persons aggrieved the due process which is their
elementary right. The committee bill, while making such substan-
tive changes in the law, does nothing to remedy the evils we have
described, and hence we are compelled to oppose it in its present
form.
BARRY GOLDWATER.
JOHN G. TOWER.
[p. 12]
1.13e(3) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 110 (1964)
1.13e(3)(a) Jan. 28: Debated and passed House, pp. 1203-1233
IN COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Accordingly, the House resolved it-
self into the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union for
the consideration of the bill H.R. 6041,
with Mr. KARSTEN in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
By unanimous consent the first read-
ing of the bill was dispensed with.
Mr. POWELL. Mr. Chairman, I
yield myself such time as I may con-
sume.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 6041 would up-
date the Davis-Bacon Act by redefin-
ing the term "prevailing wages" to
include the basic hourly rate of pay
and fringe benefits.
The Davis-Bacon Act, as amended,
requires contractors and subcontrac-
tors working on U.S. Government con-
struction contracts amounting to
$2,000 or over to pay laborers and
mechanics on such contracts not less
than the prevailing wages for labor-
ers and mechanics on projects of a
character similar to the contract work
in that area.
The act established the policy that
the Federal Government was not to be
a party to depressing local labor
standards. This policy has been re-
affirmed more than 15 times by the
Congress through the inclusion of the
prevailing wage concept in other laws.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1789
In 1931, when this law was orig-
inally enacted, health and welfare
benefits were virtually unknown in the
United States. In the interval, as you
all know, there has been a tremendous
change in the concept of earnings.
Group hospitalization, disability bene-
[p. 1203]
fits, and other fringe benefit plans are
not widely recognized as being a val-
ued part of an individual's earnings.
Today more than 85 million persons
in the United States depend upon the
benefits they provide. Regardless of
the form they take, these benefits are
an established form of compensation
for services performed. In the con-
struction industry alone, there are ex-
isting over 4,000 welfare and pension
funds. Building trades draftsmen in-
creasingly elect, both individually and
collectively, to take wage increases in
the form of welfare programs to
guarantee security for their families
in an hour of need. It is manifestly
unfair to exclude these welfare pro-
grams, which have been accepted in
lieu of cash wages, from the protec-
tion of the prevailing wage act.
The bill before you was developed
by the General Subcommittee on La-
bor, chaired by the gentleman from
California, JAMES ROOSEVELT. Mind-
ful of suggestions that overall amend-
ments to the Davis-Bacon Act should
be considered, the members of the sub-
committee decided to treat fringe
benefits separately to insure more de-
tailed and careful consideration of
each matter. Furthermore, no specific
proposals for other amendments were
offered or available at that time.
This bill was favorably reported by
the Committee on Education and La-
bor on May 20, 1963. On December 10,
1963, the House Committee on Rules
granted the bill a rule. And today, we
hope to have your support in the en-
actment of this important legislation.
An intensive investigation of this
subject was conducted not only during
the 88th Congress, but in the 87th
Congress as well. Hearings were con-
ducted by the committee during the
last session bringing to the attention
of the Congress the views and recom-
mendations of numerous important
witnesses from all over the Nation.
Expert witnesses advised the commit-
tee on specific, concrete proposals.
Through bipartisan cooperative ef-
forts, the committee arrived at the lan-
guage of the bill before you. Further
hearings regarding specific recommen-
dations now before the committee rela-
tive to the entire administration of
the act began on January 22 of this
year.
The Davis-Bacon Act no longer re-
flects an accurate picture of prevail-
ing wages. Existing wage patterns
must reflect fringe benefits to be
meaningful. The act, in its present
form, allows unfair competition by
contractors who are not required to
include fringe benefits costs in paying
prevailing wages. The precise evils
which the Davis-Bacon Act sought to
correct occur when contractors bring
low-paid construction workers from
outside the locality to build Federal
projects. The low wages of these
workers from outside the local com-
munity undercut wage rates and un-
dercut living standards for construc-
tion workers and their families who
live, work and purchase in the area.
The Davis-Bacon Act is designed to
prevent such depressing of local wage
and living standards by requiring con-
tractors to pay workers and their
families who live, work, and purchase
in the area.
The David-Bacon Act is designed to
prevent such depressing of local wage
and living standards by requiring con-
tractors to pay workers in federally
aided projects at least as much as the
prevailing wages in the local commu-
nity. However, without considering
fringe benefits as an integral part of
-------
1790
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
the prevailing wage, this purpose is
thwarted. This point was clearly rec-
ognized by the overwhelming majority
of the members of the Committee on
Education and Labor. You will note in
the committee report (H. Kept. 308)
that only 8 of the committee's 31 mem-
bers filed supplementary views. Of
these eight, five agreed with the views
of the majority in stating that:
The cost of fringe benefits should be in-
cluded when the prevailing wage rate is com-
puted under the provisions of the Davis-
Bacon Act.
When the act was passed in 1931, fringe
benefits were for the most part unknown.
At that time, a worker received a flat amount,
usually so much per hour, and this consti-
tuted his whole wage. Today, that is not
the case. The so-called fringe benefits are
an important part of a worker's wage, often
being given today in lieu of increases in
actual cash wages. Therefore, we believe the
present law should be amended to permit
the inclusion of fringe benefits when the
prevailing wage is determined.
The principle underlying the pre-
vailing wage concept has remained
just as valid in the years since the
Davis-Bacon Act was passed as it was
some 30 years ago. However, with
new developments in methods of com-
pensation, the implementation of the
act has not adequately supported the
policy.
The bill before you will bring the
act up to date in this respect. It will
help all laborers to begin to know the
joy of labor.
For these reasons, therefore, I urge
favorable action on H.R. 6041.
Mr. Chairman, I now yield such
time as he may desire to the gentle-
man from California [Mr. ROOSEVELT].
Mr. ROOSEVELT. Mr. Chairman,
we of course have already had con-
siderable debate on this subject. As
my distinguished chairman, the gen-
tleman from New York [Mr. POWELL] ,
has just said, this is really a biparti-
san bill. I want to quote the views of
the minority members as they were
filed in the supplementary report:
The cost of fringe benefits should be in-
cluded when the prevailing wage rate ia
computed under provisions of the Davis-
Bacon Act. When the act was passed in
1931, fringe benefits were for the most part
unknown. At that time, a worker received
a flat amount, usually so much per hour,
and this constituted his whole wage. Today,
that is not the case. The so-called fringe
benefits are an important part of a worker's
wage, often being given today in lieu of
increases in actual cash wages. Therefore, we
believe the present law should be amended to
permit the inclusion of fringe benefits when
the prevailing wage is determined.
The gentlemen of the minority have
properly stated the case.
The committee held extensive hear-
ings on this matter and as a result of
these hearings we fully established
that in many areas these fringe bene-
fits were accorded to the workers in
the area as a part of their basic wage.
Therefore, in consideration of the bill
our main problem was to make it ad-
ministratively feasible to compute
these fringe benefits and to provide
for the different ways in which these
fringe benefits were actually used. So
you will find in the bill very careful
language which provides that the
fringe benefits may be paid in a num-
ber of different ways, including cash,
if necessary, so that there is flexibility
to provide in every respect for the
practices as they are today.
One of the gentlemen in the previ-
ous debate wanted to know why we
had added the words which you will
find in the act which indicate that in
the future, or even today, it is possible
for the Secretary to consider other
bona fide free fringe benefits, after we
listed the nine specific ways in which
fringe benefits are paid. We did that
because, very frankly, none of us
wanted to say that we know how
fringe benefits may vary. Therefore,
in order not to hamstring the admin-
istration, we did give that leeway. But
you will note we provided that they
must be bona fide fringe benefits. I
think this speaks for itself, and I
think that it is not a broad license in
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1791
any way to bring up only schemes or
things which do not have real sub-
stance. I think, unless there was
proof to the contrary, we can, wheth-
er it be a Republican or Democratic
administration, fully believe that the
Secretary will provide to make sure
that only bona fide fringe benefits are
allowed to be computed.
Mr. REID of New York. Mr. Chair-
man, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROOSEVELT. I yield.
Mr. REID of New York. Am I cor-
rect in assuming that section 1, sub-
section (b), where specific reference
is made to "or for other bona fide
fringe benefits," means the prevailing
fringe benefits in the area, and par-
ticularly in Westchester County, would
include such matters as an education-
al fund, a welfare fund, a pension
fund, vacation fund, travel fund, or
annuities fund, that I believe are nor-
mally considered to be prevailing
fringe benefits in Westchester County?
Mr. ROOSEVELT. I will say to the
gentleman that he is, of course, cor-
rect. The benefits which he has enu-
merated would only be considered if
it is affirmatively found that they did
prevail in that particular area.
Mr. REID of New York. It is my
understanding they do. I understand
the gentleman's assurance is that this
means that would include such fringe
benefits under this bill?
Mr. ROOSEVELT. That is correct.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROOSEVELT. I yield to the
gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Further considering
the remarks of the gentleman from
New York and also considering the
statement which the gentleman from
California made earlier in the debate
that, of course, if there were no fringe
benefits paid in a particular locality—
not be concerned—because then it
would not be covered. Suppose the
Department of Labor arbitrarily re-
[p. 1204]
fused to include these fringe benefits
which the gentleman from New York
has made reference to? What would
he or you do about it?
Mr. ROOSEVELT. I am sure I
know what he would do about it. I
am not sure I know what I would do
about it. Of course, naturally, that
would not come under my jurisdiction.
I would say to the gentleman, I am
sure the gentleman from New York
would do what every other Member of
Congress has done time and time
again where such a matter has been
presented to him.
Mr. GRIFFIN. He would not be
able to take into court; would he?
Mr. ROOSEVELT. Would the gen-
tleman let me answer his question?
Mr. GRIFFIN. Yes.
Mr. ROOSEVELT. Of course, he
would present the matter to the ad-
ministrator. He would present the
matter to the Secretary. He would
present the evidence for the prevailing
rate and, if his evidence was good, no
matter who the Secretary of Labor
might be or the solicitor might be, I
am sure he would get justice in his
case. However, I want to add one
other thing. It is also now possible
under a new regulation of the Depart-
ment which perhaps I think we may
want to improve, I will say to my
friend—it is now possible to go an-
other step further and appeal to the
administrative board.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Will the gentleman
tell me who appoints the members of
that administrative board?
Mr. ROOSEVELT. I have read the
regulation and, as I understand it, the
Secretary of Labor appoints the ad-
ministrative board. It may well be,
as a result of the hearings which the
gentleman may know, although I do
not think he was present, the hear-
-------
1792
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
ings which we began the other day,
that we may want to strengthen that
and make 5t a more independent
board. But at least we have made a
beginning, I will say in answer to the
gentleman. So, if he is not successful
with the Secretary, he will be able to
go to that other independent adminis-
trative board.
Mr. GRIFFIN. I thank the gentle-
man.
Mr. REID of New York. Mr. Chair-
man, will the gentleman yield for one
further query?
Mr. ROOSEVELT. I yield to the
gentleman.
Mr. REID of New York. If the
situation pertains, which the gentle-
man from Michigan mentioned and if
evidence was presented clearly and
affirmatively to the Secretary that
specific benefits were indeed the pre-
vailing fringe benefits in an area,
then as I understand the bill he must
affirmatively find those are proper or
bona fide benefits within the meaning
of the bill?
Mr. ROOSEVELT. The gentleman
is quite correct. I might add, of
course, even if he required a judicial
review which, of course, is not before
us at the present time—even if he re-
quired that—the court might make
mistakes too. I am not saying every-
body is infallible. Even the courts are
not infallible in some cases. So what
we have here, of course, is a determi-
nation which we think is the most
practical way of administering the
act.
Mr. REID of New York. I thank
the gentleman.
Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROOSEVELT. I yield to the
distinguished Speaker of the House,
the gentleman from Massachusetts
[Mr. McCORMACK].
Mr. McCORMACK. With reference
to the question asked by the gentle-
man from Michigan [Mr. GRIFFIN] I
would make the observation that al-
though one might disagree with the
finding made by the Secretary, I
doubt if anyone would charge or be
able to charge successfully that any
Secretary of Labor would make an ar-
bitrary decision.
Mr. ROOSEVELT. I would say to
our distinguished Speaker, I complete-
ly agree that no Secretary has made
an arbitrary ruling. He may have
made a mistake in ruling, but he has
not made an arbitrary ruling. I think
this applies to both Republican and
Democratic Secretaries of Labor.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROOSEVELT. I am having a
hard time making my statement, but I
am glad to yield to my colleague.
Mr. GRIFFIN. I would certainly
accept the Speaker's suggestion that
certainly a Secretary of Labor under
administrations of both parties, we as-
sure, operate in good faith. But we
also may suggest that they sometimes
make mistakes and serious mistakes
and make rulings that are not con-
sistent with the law or with the inten-
tion of the Congress, and when that
happens it seems to me we want to
have recourse to the judiciary.
Mr. ROOSEVELT. I would be very
happy to have the gentleman come be-
fore the committee, and we will cer-
tainly discuss this very fully.
Mr. GOODELL. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROOSEVELT. I yield to the
gentleman.
Mr. GOODELL. I do not rise for
the purpose of discussing this aspect,
but I think it should be pointed out
that Members on both sides of the
aisle on the subcommittee were un-
happy with some features of this
Wage Appeals Board, the administra-
tive review board that is proposed.
The Secretary of Labor appoints the
members. They have no term of of-
fice. No party has a right to be heard
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1793
before this board and essentially it is
going to be a part-time job for board
members who are full-time Federal
employees in other agencies of the
Government.
I believe a good deal of that might
need some revision in order to intro-
duce some independence into the
Board's approach to these problems.
I believe the gentleman implied that
in the course of the hearings we
should allow some time for the admin-
istrative appeals procedure to be
worked out in the department. I be-
lieve the gentleman mentioned a peri-
od of 1 to 2 years as a possibility.
Would the gentleman care to elabo-
rate on whether he means we ought
to permit this administrative ap-
proach of a trial of 1 or 2 years be-
fore we consider judicial review—or
did he not intend that?
Mr. ROOSEVELT. I am very fond
of my friend from New York, but the
gentleman knows that has nothing to
do with this bill. Does the gentleman
not think we ought to discuss this bill
for a while? Then we can discuss that
question in the committee. I believe
that is the proper place to discuss it.
Mr. GOODELL. I believe it is im-
portant in respect to possible amend-
ments which may be offered.
Mr. ROOSEVELT. I say to the
gentleman that I believe we should
look more carefully into the immedi-
ate proposal in the form of the regu-
lation which the Secretary has promul-
gated. I have an open mind. I am
inclined at the moment to say that I
would be in favor of a more com-
pulsory hearing and very possibly a
full-time board as compared to what
the Secretary has proposed.
I am impressed by the fact that the
gentleman is now saying we should
include an administrative appeal. I
am inclined to agree with the gentle-
man. Now he has given up the other
side of the argument, because he was
talking about a judicial appeal and
now he is talking about an administra-
tive appeal. I am inclined to feel that
we should make that as effective as
possible.
Mr. GOODELL. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield further?
Mr. ROOSEVELT. Only very brief-
ly.
Mr. GOODELL. I did not intend to
give that impression. The vote which
has been taken by the House means
that we shall not have judicial review
as an alternative to the bill. Obvious-
ly, now that administrative review is
the only alternative available, I should
like to improve whatever administra-
tive procedure may be available.
I should like to ask the gentleman
another question on the act itself and
how it will be administered.
We did have a hearing at which the
Solicitor appeared last week, at which
time the Solicitor commented on the
manner in which he would go into an
area to determine if certain fringe
benefits prevailed. He emphasized that
he would go in to find out what con-
tributions prevailed in that area, that
is prevailing contributions to various
fringe benefits programs.
It was the concern of both the gen-
tleman from California and myself
that we should go beyond the contri-
butions to find out what prevailing
benefits occur in an area.
This is a very difficult question, and
perhaps we should write some legisla-
tive history on it for the guidance of
the Solicitor, as to what our inten-
tion is.
Mr. ROOSEVELT. In answer to
the gentleman, I wish to say first that
I have consulted both the Secretary
and the Solicitor on that point. They
believe there is no problem at all in
this area, inasmuch as they have not
been able to find a case in point. If
the gentleman has a case in mind, we
could take it up specifically, but we
have not been able to find cases in
which contributions have been made to
-------
1794
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
plans where the benefits were not un-
der the present procedure found to be
[p. 1205]
prevailing, and therefore available to
all the people involved.
Mr. GOODELL. If the gentleman
will yield further, would he agree
with me that it is our intention that
we only declare prevailing those con-
tributions where employees for whom
the contributions are made are eligi-
ble for benefits. Those are the prevail-
ing benefits. If it comes to the atten-
tion of the Secretary or if he, by due
diligence, can find out that the fringe
benefits paid to the workers are differ-
ent from the contributions made in
their behalf, these should not be ac-
corded status.
Mr. ROOSEVELT. I believe the
important thing is to emphasize ex-
actly what the statute provides. The
statute provides that these specifica-
tions "shall contain a provision stat-
ing the minimum wages to be paid
various classes of laborers and me-
chanics which shall be based upon the
wages that will be determined by the
Secretary of Labor to be prevailing
for the corresponding classes of la-
borers and mechanics employed on
projects of a character similar to the
contract work," and so forth.
In other words, the act clearly pro-
vides that the Secretary must decide,
and he must make a ruling that these
items are part of the wages which are
paid to the workers and are prevail-
ing on projects of similar character in
that area.
Mr. GOODELL. I am sorry to take
so much of the time of the gentleman,
and I appreciate his patience. Then, if
it comes to the solicitor's attention—
and we asked this question of the so-
licitor—if it conies to his attention
that contributions have been made to-
ward a fringe benefit program and a
worker says that he is not eligible for
the benefits from those contributions,
the worker then has the right to sue
under the present Davis-Bacon Act
and the Administrator should not ac-
cord that fringe benefit program
qualification status.
Mr. ROOSEVELT. No. I again say
to the gentleman I do not want to
enter into a legislative discussion
which I think impinges on the act, and
I think he is tending to do so. I
would simply point out to him when
the Congress passed the welfare and
pension provisions of the act we defi-
nitely determined to keep the Govern-
ment out of the area of determining
how money from the fund should be
invested or to whom benefits should
go. I do not want to indicate any
change in that basic situation. If the
gentleman is trying to get me to say
that, I do not agree with him.
Mr. GOODELL. More than that. It
is important that we emphasize that
we feel if a worker makes a contribu-
tion toward a program or if an em-
ployer makes a contribution in behalf
of a worker, that worker should be
eligible for benefits. When we are talk-
ing about prevailing fringe benefits,
we mean benefits.
Mr. ROOSEVELT. We mean the
prevailing benefits, and I think we
have covered the words of the act, and
that is my meaning, too.
Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. ROOSEVELT. I yield to the
gentleman.
Mr. DENT. I think perhaps we
might be trapped into a situation
where we are writing law here which
is not intended by this law.
Mr. ROOSEVELT. If the gentle-
man will yield, I would like to finish
my statement, but I do want to say to
him, as I have said to the gentleman
from New York [Mr. GOODELL], we
are not changing the basic act. Noth-
ing I have said should be construed
as changing the basic act or in any
way intending to do so.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1795
Mr. DENT. You have not agreed
that before a fringe can be determined
to be part of the prevailing wage there
has to be a prevailing fringe. That
was the question that was led to, that
there has to be such a thing as the
prevailing fringe. There is no such
thing as the prevailing fringe.
Mr. ROOSEVELT. If the gentle-
man will allow me to disagree, a
fringe benefit, in order to be included
in the act itself, must be prevailing in
the area.
Mr. DENT: Yes, but not a like
fringe, because one fringe benefit can
give a younger retirement age under
a pension system than another. Would
you then say it is not prevailing?
Mr. ROOSEVELT. The gentleman
is correct. I am simply saying what-
ever a fringe benefit is and however
it is, that is what must be prevailing
in that area.
I simply want to say at this time
that the Speaker has kindly given me
a letter addressed to him dated Janu-
ary 24, 1964, which I want to read in
order that it may be a part of the
RECORD at this point. It is addressed
to the Speaker of the House and reads
as follows:
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,
Washington, D.C., January H, 1964.
Hon. JOHN W. MoCOBMACK,
Speaker of the House,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. SPEAKER: I am most gratified to
know that H.R. 6041, a bill to amend the
Davis-Bacon Act, is scheduled for debate
and disposition on Tuesday, January 28.
This bill would require fringe benefits to
be included in the computation of prevailing
wages to be paid for federally supported con-
struction work. This overdue change would
recognize a significant and far-reaching col-
lective bargaining development of the past
20 years in which labor and management
have jointly provided health and welfare
benefits for employees. Thus the amendment
is a long overdue modernization of a program
which has traditionally received far-reaching
and bipartisan support.
As you know, H.H. 6041 is fully supported
by the administration. I strongly urge, there-
fore, that it be passed and sent on to the
Senate in the form reported overwhelmingly
by the Committee on Rules.
I trust you will make known the contents
of this letter and my enthusiasm for this
measure at such time as you deem it appro-
priate.
Yours sincerely,
W. WILLARD WIRTZ
Secretary of Labor.
May I briefly comment on one or
two other provisions of the bill, be-
cause it is a very simple bill. There
is nothing complicated about it. It
amends section 1 and only amends sec-
tion 1. It simply states, as has been
clearly brought out in the debate, that
there are now known certain fringe
benefits which have been enumerated
and many others which may be de-
veloped in the future can be consid-
ered, and these shall be decided as
the prevailing wage is decided.
I want to stress what I said in the
previous debate. There is no attempt
here to impose any benefit not prevail-
ing in the area. On the other hand,
there is every effort being made by
this law, as it was by the sponsors
themselves, to protect anybody coming
into a given area and depriving the
workers of that area from the benefits
which they have acquired by proper
collective bargaining between the em-
ployer and the employee.
We are following the basic concept
of the law recognized since 1931. We
have the support of our good Mem-
bers on the minority side. I do not see
how there can be very much to debate
about this bill except to say that we
are taking a step in the right direc-
tion and if there are other steps need-
ed I assure you, and I give you my
word, that we will go deeply into them
and try to present a measure which
may not satisfy everybody but which
then can be voted up or down by the
Members of the House. Mr. Speaker,
I urge support of the rule and the
previous question.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr.
Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
-------
1796
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
Mr. HORTON. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield to
the gentleman from New York.
Mr. HORTON. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in support of this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of
H.R. 6041, a bill to amend the Davis-
Bacon Act to include fringe benefits in
prevailing wages. Its passage is im-
perative to assure that the original
intent of this legislation meets today's
needs.
The Davis-Bacon Act became law in
1931. It requires the payment of pre-
vailing wage rates to workers on
Federal construction projects.
By adopting the prevailing wage
principle as public policy, Congress
provided equality of opportunity for
contractors, protected prevailing liv-
ing standards of the building-trades
men, and prevented the disturbance of
the local economy.
At the start, the act adequately ful-
filled congressional intent. Under an
equitable standard, contractors were
free to compete against each other in
the framework of efficiency, know-how,
and skill. Outside contractors who
based their bidding estimates upon the
lower wages they could pay workmen
from other areas—to the depression
of a local economy—were replaced by
qualified contractors who paid fair
wages to their employees.
If a construction worker's wage
were still only his hourly rate of pay,
the original provisions of the Davis-
Bacon Act still would be sufficient. Of
course, the intervening years have
seen considerable changes in construc-
tion industry wage patterns. Fringe
benefits have become a substantial
part of the wage compensation of a
worker.
Financed primarily by employer
contributions of so many cents an
hour for each hour of work by a cov-
ered employee, fringe benefits include
medical and hospital care, pensions
and death payments, compensation for
[p. 1206]
injury and illness, life and other in-
surance, vacation and holiday pay,
and/or numerous other benefits. As
the report (H. Rept. No. 308) of the
Committee on Education and Labor
which was submitted to accompany
the instant bill points out:
Regardless of the form they take, the em-
ployer's share of the cost of these plans or
the benefits the employers provide are a
form of compensation.
Thus, Mr. Speaker, in order to up-
date the Davis-Bacon Act, I am con-
vinced of the necessity for including
fringe benefits in prevailing wage de-
terminations. Let us pass this bill
and, by doing so, restore equity among
all contractors bidding competitively,
recognize current compensation prac-
tices, and protect community living
standards throughout our Nation.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr
Chairman, the discussion just now
held between the chairman of the sub-
committee and various members of
that subcommittee almost makes me
wish that I also were a member of
that subcommittee. As you have
heard this discussion of the details of
what is proposed, and the changes in
the basic law which are proposed by
this bill, has not always been easy to
follow. The legislative history which
is being written may or may not be a
subject of controversy at a later date.
At any rate we already have made
plain that there is no fundamental dis-
agreement about what is being advo-
cated by the bill, H.R. 6041.
As the gentleman from California
has said, this is a bipartisan bill. As
one of those who signed the supple-
mental views I would like to repeat
what this report states. We believe
the present law should be amended to
permit the inclusion of fringe benefits
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1797
when the prevailing wage is deter-
mined.
The main disagreement which some
of us on the committee have had, and
which has already been expressed in
the discussion on the rule, is stated
clearly on page 30 of the report. I
would like to read it.
Members of the subcommittee—
And that I might say this includes
both Democrats and Republicans—
that investigated the operation of the Davis-
Bacon Act were shocked by the many abuses
that have developed over the years in the
administration of the act. No one can seri-
ously deny the need for a substantial mod-
ernizing and revision of the basic act. If
fringe benefits are approved by the Congress
as separate legislation, the opportunity for
real reform will then be lost.
Both sides have described this bill
as a needed and long overdue modern-
ization of our Davis-Bacon Act. Both
sides have made it plain that we feel
strongly in our committee that more
needs to be done. My feeling is that
we have missed a real opportunity for
making further logical, legitimate, and
reasonable changes in this act by re-
fusing to change the rule to permit us
to submit a provision for judicial re-
view of the act. However, that is be-
hind us by a vote of the House. What
we have left is whether or not to go
along with this particular moderniza-
tion.
As a member of the House Commit-
tee on Education and Labor I feel this
bill should be passed. However, I
feel very strongly that we have a di-
rect and immediate responsibility to
do more than recommend enactment of
this bill. I regret that we apparently
are not improving this bill today.
We had extensive hearings on the
administration of the Davis-Bacon Act
in 1962. Hearings are presently un-
der way to see what, if anything,
should be done to correct some of
what the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
PUCINSKI], referred to as the many
defects in the existing act. I hope we
will face up to our responsibility. We
should approve something along the
lines of the judicial review that we
would have offered had the opportu-
nity presented itself today.
The fact that the Department of
Labor has quite recently promulgated
new regulations in this field is a clear
indication there is need for reform of
the administration as it has been prac-
ticed. Of course, no one will disagree
with the Speaker of the House that no
Secretary of Labor is going to make
an arbitrary decision. But the trouble
is that there is room for error in any
administrative agency of our Govern-
ment. The Labor Department itself
has recognized this by the creation of
a so-called administrative review
board. The gentleman from California
has indicated he does not consider this
device should not be considered the
last word in what needs to be done.
He frankly recognized the importance
of providing some kind of a check
against possible, and the very actual,
abuses which have developed. It is my
hope that our committee will come up
in the near future with a constructive
bill, one which will move us further in
the direction of a much needed mod-
ernization of the present act.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from New Jersey has ex-
pired.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr.
Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from New York [Mr.
GOODELL] .
Mr. GOODELL. Mr. Chairman, I
think that there is very little that
needs to be discussed with reference
to the merits of adding fringe benefits
to the present Davis-Bacon determi-
nations. I want to emphasize I do not
think we had a division here in the
House today on that question. Many
of us feel that the fringe benefits sec-
tion ought to be added.
Mr. HALEY. Mr. Chairman, I
-------
1798
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
make the point of order a quorum is
not present.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will
count. [After counting.] Forty Mem-
bers are present, not a quorum. The
Clerk will call the roll.
The Clerk called the roll, and the
following Members failed to answer
to their names:
Alger
Avery
Bass
Boiling
Brock
BroyhUl, N.C.
Buckley
Cameron
Cannon
Davis. Tenn.
Derwinski
Diggs
Dingell
Donohue
Ellsworth
Ford
Gilbert
[Roll No. 18]
Gonzalez
Hays
Holifleld
Hosmer
Johnson, Cal.
Jones, Ala.
Keith
King, N.Y.
Kirwan
Lipscomb
McClory
Martin, Cal.
May
Mills
Morrison
Moss
O'Brien, HI.
Powell
Rhodes. Ariz.
Shriver
Sisk
Smith, Cal.
Stafford
Steed
Teague, CaL
Teague, Tex.
Thompson, La.
Tupper
Vinson
Wallhauser
Willis
Wilson, Bob
Accordingly, the Committee rose;
and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
ALBERT) having assumed the chair,
Mr. KARSTEN, Chairman of the Com-
mittee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union, reported that that
Committee having had under consid-
eration the bill H.R. 6041, and finding
itself without a quorum, he had di-
rected the roll to be called, when 378
Members responded to their names, a
quorum, and he submitted herewith
the names of the absentees to be
spread upon the Journal.
The Committee resumed its sitting.
The CHAIRMAN. When the Com-
mittee rose, the gentleman from New
York [Mr. GOODELL] had 4% minutes
remaining. The Chair recognizes the
gentleman from New York [Mr.
GOODELL].
Mr. ASHMORE. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GOODELL. I yield to the gen-
tleman.
Mr. ASHMORE. Mr. Chairman, I
am opposed to the legislation.
Mr. Chairman, in and of itself, the
amendment to the Davis-Bacon Act
under consideration here does not ap-
pear unfair. That is, if total costs of
a project and the resulting confusion
of administering such an amendment
are completely forgotten, the princi-
ple of including fringe benefits under
the term "wages" would seem fair.
However, consideration must be given
to the effect that this amendment will
have on all existing standards now es-
tablished under the Davis-Bacon Act.
Its effect on contractors, builders, lo-
cal economic factors, and fair treat-
ment of all who will be involved
should it become law must be con-
sidered.
What is wrong with the bill? Ex-
perience with the Davis-Bacon provi-
sions already in force indicates poor
administration on the part of the De-
partment of Labor. Testimony during
hearings before the House Committee
on Education and Labor reveal this
fact. Testimony also revealed the fol-
lowing: Arbitrary decisions of mem-
bers of the U.S. Department of Labor
have cost the Government far more
than was necessary. Departmental
interpretations of the term "prevail-
ing wage rate" is out of line with
sound, logical reasoning. Jurisdiction-
al disputes among labor unions have
clouded the issue and have resulted in
improper determinations. The 30-per-
cent rule is not mentioned in the
Davis-Bacon Act at all. It is merely a
tool being used by the Department of
Labor to aid in determining what pre-
vailing wage rates are and has re-
sulted in an unfair determination set-
ting wages actually at rates higher
than they should be set.
In short, Mr. Chairman, it is unjust
to pass this bill, H.R. 6041, when by
so doing the Davis-Bacon Act will be
subject to further misinterpretation
and incongruous administration. The
resulting confusion would become self-
perpetuating. Whenever construction
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1799
is begun under such terms, the stand-
ards will be used again and again as
[p. 1207]
precedent both in the same local area
and other areas. It would be impossi-
ble to convince me that this is fair. A
more just and fair approach would be
to return this bill to the Committee on
Education and Labor and ask for a
bill which would adequately solve the
problems created by the Davis-Bacon
Act. Judicial review for the decisions
of the Secretary of Labor must be in-
cluded as well as other provisions to
prevent the mismanagement of the
provisions of the act. I believe if the
House were given the opportunity to
vote on a bill including these provi-
sions, as I have suggested, there would
no longer be any reason to request in-
clusion of fringe benefits in wage de-
terminations.
If the bill is not recommitted to the
committee then it should be defeated.
Mr. FIND. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. GOODELL. I yield to the gen-
tleman.
Mr. FIND. Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent to extend my own
remarks in the RECORD following the
remarks of the gentleman from New
York [Mr. GOODELL].
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objec-
tion to the request of the gentleman
from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. GOODELL. Mr. Chairman, I
shall be very brief. Let me emphasize
once again that on the basic issue of
whether or not fringe benefits should
be added to the consideration of the
Davis-Bacon Act there is no partisan
difference. Many of us felt that the
only device available for getting ju-
dicial review into the act was through
this procedure.
I would like to emphasize to the
Members that there will be several
amendments offered during the read-
ing of the bill. One of them will be
judicial review limited to the fringe
benefits section of the bill. We do not
know whether this will be in order for
consideration. But we will be offering
such a proposal.
I would like to ask the gentleman
from California, the chairman of our
subcommittee, with reference to hear-
ings we had last week. I think as a
matter of legislative history it is rath-
er important that we understand what
we are talking about here when we
say that a Labor Department em-
ployee is going to go into an area to
determine what fringe benefits prevail
in that area. If I am an employer, I
may have a plan where only 60 per-
cent of my employees participate.
Contributions are made by me for
only 60 per cent of my employees.
Other employers may have the same
kind of situation. When that exists
the solicitor last week indicated on the
record that he is not going to look at
100 percent of my employees to deter-
mine what is prevailing if contribu-
tions are made for only 60 percent of
those employees. Will the gentleman
from California agree that this is our
intent as to the manner in which he
should administer this program when
he goes into an area to determine
what are the fringe benefits?
Mr. ROOSEVELT. Mr. Chairman,
I am not sure the gentleman has cor-
rectly quoted the solicitor, but apart
from that, I wonder if he would allow
me to yield to the expert on our com-
mittee on this subject and let him dis-
cuss it for a moment and then perhaps
I can discuss it further.
Mr. GOODELL. If the gentleman
will indicate as a matter of legislative
history his agreement or disagreement
with what the gentleman says I should
be delighted.
Mr. ROOSEVELT. I have not
heard what he is going to say yet and
I cannot agree until I have heard him.
Mr. SICKLES. Mr. Chairman, I do
-------
1800
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
not know whether I should accept the
definition of being the expert in this
field. As a matter of fact, I am hav-
ing some problems understanding the
gentleman's question because I do not
quite understand the situation the
gentleman presents. Let us take a
particular group of employees; let us
say they are all carpenters. An em-
ployer would pay into such a fund for
60 percent of his employees only.
There would have to be some discrim-
ination on his part, as I understand it.
He would be running in violation of
the tax law or the Taft-Hartley Act.
Mr. GOODELL. I do not want to
debate whether he violates any other
law or not. All I am saying is, it is
our intention this situation should not
exist. It is our intention that when
the Labor Department people go in
they should determine whether all
employees have contributions made
for them or not. This can be reported
on a form to be submitted to the indi-
vidual contractors.
Mr. SICKLES. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. GOODELL. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Maryland.
Mr. SICKLES. I would be willing
to agree it would be the job of the
Labor Department to determine what
contributions are being made for these
fringe benefits and what they will find.
I know from my own personal experi-
ence there are certain contributions
made and they would be making con-
tributions into the same fund on be-
half of the employees. Your question
is that 100 percent would be entitled
to a particular benefit, and this should
be taken into consideration by the La-
bor Department. I would say, I do
not think it should because there are
other laws which would cover discrim-
ination, if there is any discrimination
which would bring this about. My
answer is, I do not agree with the con-
clusion that the gentleman reaches.
Mr. GOODELL. The gentleman
misunderstands the situation I have
described. The Secretary of Labor is
charged here with the responsibility
of determining what fringe benefits
prevail in an area. He cannot do this
unless he knows how many employees
are affected by the fringe benefits. It
is not our intention that he go out and
ask three or four or a majority of the
contractors in an area what plans they
have without relating this to the num-
aer of employees for whom contribu-
tions are made. If he does not do this
might well go and determine that
contractors have plans that cover 40
or 50 percent of their employees, and
lie will never know that the other 40
or 50 percent are not covered, and
there are no contributions made for
them.
Mr. ROOSEVELT. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GOODELL. I yield to the gen-
tleman from California.
Mr. ROOSEVELT. The Secretary
of Labor will go into an area and he
will find that a certain number of con-
tractors put aside, let us say, 5 cents
an hour as a starting point, toward
fringe benefits.
Mr. GOODELL. For whom?
Mr. ROOSEVELT. For whatever
the collective bargaining agreement
has arrived at.
Mr. GOODELL. That is the point.
Is it for the collective bargaining
agreement or is it for the number of
employees whose contributions are
made for that plan and are bona fide?
Mr. ROOSEVELT. I think the an-
swer to the gentleman is, it is for the
collective bargaining agreement. The
law says it has to be a bona fide
agreement.
Mr. GOODELL. The only accredit-
ed fringe benefits are going to be
where there is a union involved and
where there is a collective bargaining
agreement.
Mr. ROOSEVELT. It must be a
qualified agreement. We are not going
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1801
to provide this unless there is an
agreement between the employer and
employees.
Mr. GOODELL. All employees?
Mr. ROOSEVELT. I think the gen-
tleman is illustrating how difficult it
is to make a definite statement until
you get a specific case in hand. But I
think the basic principle can be enun-
ciated in this fashion: If there is a
bona fide agreement—it does not have
to be a union agreement—if the money
is being paid into a plan, then it is
not the job of the Government to say
what are the conditions of that plan,
and we will not interfere with it.
Mr. GOODELL. Let us take an
arbitrary example which we know ex-
ists in the case of Government con-
tractors. It may be contended it will
not exist in a majority of cases. But
this is what we saw: An employer
had a fringe benefit program, he made
contributions for 30 percent of his em-
ployees in a category. They were the
only ones covered. Does this prevail
when 70 percent of the employees in
that category are not eligible for that
plan? Is it not incumbent upon the
Government to find out what percent-
age of the employees are going to
benefit in that category? If he does
not know how many employees for
whom contributions are made, and for
whom the benefits will be available,
how can he possibly say it is prevail-
ing in this area?
Mr. LANDRUM. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GOODELL. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Georgia.
Mr. LANDRUM. I think it would
be interesting to the gentleman from
Georgia to know just why this 70 per-
cent to which the gentleman from New
York has referred is not eligible.
Could it be that they are not eligible
for the plan because they are not
members of the union, because they
are working under a work permit, and
[p. 1208]
the collective bargaining agreement of
the employer requires only that he
contribute for those who are eligible
under the union plan? Is that part of
it?
Mr. GOODELL. This is one possi-
bility that does exist in some areas.
Mr. LANDRUM. That is to say
that if there are employees of the
particular contract or working under
a work permit who are not members
of the union, then even though they
paid into the fund the equivalent of
the fringe benefits to their wage they
would never be able to participate?
Mr. GOODELL. The gentleman is
making an additional point which is a
very important one. But aside from
benefits, I am talking about contribu-
tions. In the case the gentleman from
Georgia indicated, it may not be a
question of union membership. It may
be a question of membership in that
local. A man may be a carpenter but
he may not be in that particular local.
The local may be the one that nego-
tiated the plan and makes the benefits
available. The employer will make
contributions that he deducts from the
wages, but the man is not eligible for
the benefits.
Mr. ROOSEVELT. The gentleman
is quite wrong.
Mr. GOODELL. When this hap-
pens, it seems to me the fringe bene-
fit plan should not be accredited by
the Secretary.
Mr. ROOSEVELT. The gentleman
must understand that these are not
deducted from a man's wages; they
are paid as part of the wages. They
are contributions by the employer.
Mr. GOODELL. The gentleman is
quibbling over terms.
Mr. ROOSEVELT. No; I am not.
Mr. GOODELL. The employer sits
down with his employees and they de-
termine how many cents will go into
a fringe benefit plan and how many
cents will go into additional cash
wages. It may be 18 cents an hour
-------
1802
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
that goes into the fringe benefit plan.
The employer pays it quite frequently
to the insurance company, the trust,
or the fund. The employee has it de-
ducted from his wages.
Mr. ROOSEVELT. It is added to
the wage; it is not deducted from his
wage.
Mr. GOODELL. We are quibbling
over terms.
Say my wages are $3.82 in cash and
18 cents in fringe benefits. The em-
ployer takes that 18 cents and puts it
in the plan. I never see it. I get the
(£O QO
tpO.O^.
Mr. LANDRUM. The wages are
not deducted, as the gentleman from
California has said, but they are paid
into the fund, and the fellow for
whose benefit they are paid never de-
rives any benefit from them. That is
the point, is it?
Mr. GOODELL. That is correct. I
do not think we want to countenance
that kind of situation here, especially
where it may be that 70 percent of the
employees of this particular contrac-
tor are not eligible for this benefit. I
do not see how you can say the benefit
prevails in that area.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. GOODELL. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Michigan.
Mr. GRIFFIN. I should like to in-
sert a little comment here. I do not
think we are merely quibbling about
terms. Once a fringe benefit is in-
cluded in the prevailing wage under
this bill, another contractor may com-
ply by paying a cash equivalent to his
employee. We are not quibbling at
all, because this means that an em-
ployee of another contractor would
actually receive a higher wage than
the employee from whose wages the
deuction was made. This application
would be very unfair where deduc-
tions are made, but the employee bene-
fits in no way. Does the gentleman
agree with my point?
Mr. GOODELL. I certainly do. I
agree completely. The bill does pro-
vide that to comply a contractor does
not have to set up his fringe benefit
plan but he may pay the worker this
additional amount of money. The
whole question is, how are we going to
determine what a prevailing fringe
benefit is in an area unless we know
the percentage of the employees for
whom contributions are being made or
how many are being benefited, or both?
It seems to me the Secretary of Labor
should know this.
Mr. DENT. That has absolutely
nothing to do with what we are doing
here today. It is only the amount of
money that an employer says it costs
him to do business in the way of
wages. Where it goes matters noth-
ing.
Mr. GOODELL. Fine, now you
have said what I was afraid you were
going to say and what bothers me
here. Because you are saying it is
the prevailing contractor's cost of
fringe benefits and not the prevailing
fringe benefits to the workers, and to
the employees. The solicitor said in
his testimony last week that he does
not agree with that. He feels it is
the prevailing fringe benefit available
to employees that counts. In order
for the solicitor to determine what is
prevailing, he has got to go beyond
the question of the employer's report
and what he has negotiated with the
union or other representatives of the
employees as far as his costs are con-
cerned.
Mr. ROOSEVELT. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GOODELL. I yield to the gen-
tleman.
Mr. ROOSEVELT. I want to point
out to the gentlemen whenever bene-
fits exist, it is set out and it is brought
about by agreement and that is what
becomes prevailing.
Mr. GOODELL. How can it be pre-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1803
vailing if you agree that 70 percent of
the workers are not eligible?
Mr. ROOSEVELT. It would be
prevailing for that category.
Mr. GOODELL. That is what I am
saying—70 percent of the workers in
that category are not eligible. We can
argue about whether it exists or not
but we had testimony in our commit-
tee of subcontractors who said it ex-
isted with them. We had one of them
from Maryland who said that 70 per-
cent of the employees never were eligi-
ble for fringe benefits. What is going
to happen? Unless we make legisla-
tive history on this, the Secretary is
going to go in and he is going to look
at the 30 percent and he is going to
ask the employer, and the employer is
going to say, "I have an agreement
here with employees that involves 20
cents an hour." And the Secretary, if
he finds this to be true, will find that
20 cents an hour is the prevailing
fringe benefit. The Secretary must
know what percentage of workers are
qualified for benefits and what per-
centage of workers the contractor is
making contributions for. That is the
key.
Mr. FISHER. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. GOODELL. I yield to the gen-
tleman.
Mr. FISHER. The gentleman has
pointed out a very serious defect in
this bill, and I think it helps to dem-
onstrate the fact that its enactment
would open up a virtual Pandora's box
of possible misinterpretations or a
wide scope of attempts to interpret the
law that is very difficult of interpreta-
tion. I think the gentleman is very
sound in the approach that he makes,
particularly in view of the fact that
there is no right of judicial review
provided in the law to resolve the very
questions that have been raised here.
Mr. GOODELL. I appreciate the
gentleman's comments. I am troubled
about the fact that we have no review
and I am also troubled by the fact
that I do not think the membership
understands how complex this is going
to be. It is going to affect every sin-
gle one of you back in your districts.
They are going to go in and start de-
termining what fringe benefits prevail
and unless they are relating it to the
number of employees you are going to
have a catastrophe in many areas.
Mr. FISHER. Mr. Chairman, I
thank the gentleman.
Mr. GOODELL. Let me emphasize
here, I raise this point as I raised it in
the hearings last week and as I have
raised it before, because I am deeply
concerned, being in favor of the idea
of adding fringe benefits and being in
favor of the Davis-Bacon Act, that we
anticipate these problems and deal
with them here before they become
serious and disruptive issues.
Mr. FINO. Mr. Chairman, passage
of H.R. 6041 is necessary to modernize
the prevailing wage concept to give
the same protection to laborers and
mechanics that was intended by the
enactment of the Davis-Bacon Act in
1931. As we so often find, when the
underlying circumstances change, the
law no longer accomplishes the orig-
inal objective.
We long ago discovered in the State
of New York that our law providing
for the payment of prevailing wages
for work on public works contracts
was no longer affording the same pro-
tection to our workers because of
changes in the wage customs and
practices in the construction industry-
Fringe benefits have become a signifi-
cant part of its wage structure. In
1956, therefore, the New York law
was amended to include within the
"prevailing wage concept" fringe bene-
fits such as health, welfare, non-occu-
pational disability, retirement, vaca-
tion benefits, holiday pay, and life
insurance. We have not found that
the consideration of fringe benefits in
the determination of prevailing wages
[p. 1209]
-------
1804
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
has created any insurmountable ad-
ministrative problems.
The Federal Government should not
lag behind the States in meeting its
responsibilities. It is of the utmost
importance to guarantee that con-
tracts on Government construction
projects are not used to depress the
prevailing wages and benefits received
by construction workers in any area.
The Davis-Bacon Act should be up-
dated to cope with the desirable
changes which have occurred in the
wage practices in the construction in-
dustry. I therefore strongly urge all
of my colleagues to vote for H.R. 6041.
Mr. FISHER. Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent to extend my re-
marks at this point in the RECORD.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objec-
tion to the request of the gentleman
from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. FISHER. Mr. Chairman, I am
convinced that the enactment of this
bill would not be in the public interest.
There is no particular need for it, and
it would create an administrative
nightmare. We all know that the
Davis-Bacon Act has been repeatedly
misinterpreted and misapplied by the
Labor Department. Scores of in-
stances have been documented of wage
determinations which confirm this
fact. If you want any additional proof
I suggest that you call on the Comp-
troller General for a report of the
many times these wage determination
cases have resulted in inflated and un-
realistic wage rates being applied to
particular contracts. And the Comp-
troller General has been called upon to
make investigations of these repeated
misinterpretations in only a limitec
number of cases. If you would take
the time to read some of the findings
by the Comptroller General I can as-
sure you that the findings would cur]
your hair.
Unfortunately, the Comptroller Gen-
;ral can only review and make find-
ngs. He does not have the power to
correct the mistakes made by the La-
)or Department in this area. When
;he Labor Department makes a deter-
mination of what a prevailing wage
rate is in a particular community,
there is no appeal. That determina-
;ion is final. This fact, plus the re-
peated findings of wage rates above
;hose that have prevailed in a par-
icular community, have resulted in
osses to the American taxpayers
amounting to untold millions of
dollars.
Now, the pending bill would not at-
tempt to correct the flaws in the pres-
ent law. It would in effect create a
new Davis-Bacon Act, dealing with
another subject—that of prevailing
fringe benefits, with no right of re-
view or appeal being included. It
would perpetuate all the evils that
have become manifest in the present
Davis-Bacon Act.
In fact, it would be even worse be-
cause this proposal would allow the
Labor Department to go on fishing ex-
peditions in making determinations of
what constitutes fringe benefits that
prevail in particular communities.
Now, what is meant by fringe bene-
fits? Just how much latitude would
the Labor Department be given to
write into contracts the agency's ideas
of what the prevailing local custom
may be? This would open a Pandora
box and would place a burden upon
the Labor Department, and grant to
that agency discretion that would be
a wide open invitation to continued
abuse and misinterpretation.
The committee report points out
that fringe benefits include almost
anything the mind can imagine. It in-
cludes medical or hospital care; pen-
sions ; compensation for injuries or ill-
nesses ; unemployment benefits; a wide
variety of insurance; vacation and
holiday pay; apprenticeship or other
similar programs; and what the re-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1805
port describes as "other bona fide
fringe benefits."
Thus, it becomes self-evident that
the discretion of deciding what type
of so-called fringe benefits are cus-
tomary in a particular community is
broad. The meaning is nebulous be-
cause of the multitude of benefits,
their degree and extent, which would
vary in different communities. And
remember that when the Labor De-
partment makes a finding there will
be no right of review or appeal.
Regardless of what may be said
about it, you can be certain that the
enactment of this bill will cost the
American taxpayers many, many mil-
lions of dollars. We know that under
the present Davis-Bacon Act so-called
prevailing wages, as determined by
the Labor Department, are often 20,
30, or 50 percent above the actual
prevailing wage levels in affected
communities. The Comptroller Gen-
eral has confirmed that fact many
times. Therefore, by the same token,
is it not reasonable to assume that the
same Labor Department which would
administer this new Davis-Bacon law
would indulge in similar abuses, and
include benefits that are not neces-
sarily prevalent in a given commu-
nity? To argue otherwise is to ignore
the experience that has marked the
administration of the present Davis-
Bacon Act.
If this sort of a law is to be enacted,
then certainly it should provide for re-
view and appeal. But the bill does not
provide that protection to the public
and to the American taxpayers.
Therefore, it should be defeated.
Mr. ROOSEVELT. Mr. Chairman,
I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to read
this statement made by the Solicitor
which I think covers the point entire-
ly.
The statement is as follows:
It is our understanding where a contractor
contributes to a health and welfare or pen-
sion plan on the basis of the number of em-
ployees of particular craft or class engaged
in a particular construction project, all em-
ployees so engaged are eligible for benefits
under the plan on a uniform basis of equality.
That is the practical situation,
therefore, I humbly submit the gentle-
man is talking about something that
does not exist.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from California has ex-
pired.
Mr. ROOSEVELT. Mr. Chairman,
I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania [Mr. DENT].
Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I be-
lieve we ought to call attention to the
fact that the arguments which have
been made by the gentleman from
New York are not in good order at
this time. The Davis-Bacon Act is
not a proper instrument to deal with
the problem the genetleman brings
up, and I submit that there is evi-
dence in the hearings to prove this.
Under the terms of the bill the Sec-
retary of Labor would be obligated to
ascertain whether a contractor had
made a contribution to a plan, a fund,
or a program. Whether the employee
actually is to receive the benefits of
the contribution is a matter which
Congress has decided to leave to the
individual people who set up the plans.
Further, as the Members of the
House will remember, Congress passed
the Welfare and Pension Plans Dis-
closure Act of 1939. It was then deter-
mined to keep the Government out of
the area of regulating as to how the
money of the funds should be invested
and who should be entitled to receive
benefits under the funds.
If it is now the wish of the gentle-
man from New York to reconsider this
situation and to make a determination
as to who is to get the benefits, I sug-
gest that the legislation should be duly
brought before the proper committee,
so that this particular item can be
given due consideration.
Every labor-management contract
-------
1806
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
and every negotiation takes into con-
sideration, along with the basic wage,
the fringe benefits. In every case
Members will find that when a con-
tract is completed the agreement is
listed as a package wage agreement.
Any division as between the basic
wage and the fringe benefits is left to
a subtitle or to an explanatory refer-
ence.
For instance, a contract agreement
might very well present a 25-cent-an-
hour package to labor. The package
then could be divided up into one, two,
three, four or more subbenefits. It
might give the workers 10 cents an
hour as a direct basic increase. It
might give 6 cents an hour for pen-
sion and welfare plans. It might give
4 cents an hour for an accumulation
for extra vacation paid periods at a
later date. It might also provide for
additional payments for unemploy-
ment compensation.
Thus all would be a part of a wage
agreement.
When this is determined as the
wage agreement, how could any per-
son argue that the fringe benefits de-
termined by the employer and the em-
ployee—whether by union negotiation,
by individual negotiation, by com-
pany-union negotiation or by any
other method—are not a proper allow-
ance to be claimed as a wage by the
contractor when he is making a deter-
mination for the Davis-Bacon con-
tract?
If we were to disallow those
amounts, we would create a most seri-
ous condition in the contract bidding
forms presented to the Federal Gov-
ernment.
The gentleman in his earlier discus-
sion stated he believed judicial review
to be necessary. How could there be a
judicial review of a situation which
must be predetermined before the con-
tract is let?
What would happen? If a contrac-
tor made a bid in the knowledge that
he would have a judicial review of the
matter at his disposal, he would bid
under the going rate or under the pre-
vailing rate set by the determining
[p. 1210]
officials under the Davis-Bacon Act.
If his bid were 10 cents an hour less
on a job entailing 500,000 hours, there
is no question that he would receive
the contract. If, after the contract
was performed, the judicial review de-
cision said he was wrong, and that the
prevailing wage in vogue was the one
determined by the Davis-Bacon offi-
cials, what would happen to the con-
tractors who lost the contract? What
would happen to the workers who
were denied work because the other
contractor lost the contract?
Damages could be assessed, but what
good would that be for the worker who
lost a job because of "cutthroat bid-
ding," which is exactly what former
Congressman, then Senator, Davis and
Congressman Bacon of New York
tried to stop.
In fact, there was a very famous
case in the city of New York, if I am
not mistaken, that caused the entire
field of Government contracts to be
opened up for this kind of determina-
tion. I think it was Robert Bacon, co-
author of this act, in 1927, 4 years be-
fore the passage of the act on the floor
of this House, who said, "I want to cite
a specific instance which brought this
whole matter to my attention. The
Government is engaged in building in
my district a Veterans' Bureau hos-
pital." The situation that existed at
that time allowed an out-of- State con-
tractor to come into the city of New
York and to build this hospital with
out-of-State labor. They were hired
at a very low wage. Remember that
this act was only created to stop un-
fair bidding because of the exploita-
tion of labor. If you did not have it
today, you would have every contract
of the Federal Government being let
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1807
to some person exploiting labor in a
low-wage area. A contractor who, be-
cause of conditions existing in his
area, is forced to work in an area
where he has decent, legitimate labor
that time allowed an out-of-State con-
tract given by the Federal Govern-
ment. Even today under the present
act, because fringe benefits are not
covered, you have the out-of-State con-
tractor.
If I have 1 more minute, I want to
tell you about your 70 percent. The
70 percent you relate to was brought
before the subcommittee by the Mary-
land contractors and the Washington,
D.C., contractors who have what they
call a floating work force. They will
only cover 30 percent of their em-
ployees as regular employees and then
they will borrow from one another,
and they will draft from each of the
so-called non-union contract agree-
ments these workers covered by a con-
tract with another employer. They all
get fringe benefits, but they do not all
happen to get them from the contrac-
tor who happens to have the Govern-
ment contract at that moment. Each
of them is covered by fringe benefits
under another contractor.
Mr. GOODELL. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DENT. I will have to yield if
you persist in it.
Mr. GOODELL. We have a very,
very serious problem there because
workers do go from one employer to
another. Usually do not stay with
one employer in the construction in-
dustry. So the contribution is often
made and never available to the em-
ployee himself.
Mr. DENT. That has nothing to do
with the cost to the employer.
Mr. Chairman, it is essential that
we approve H.R. 6041 if we are to
give real meaning to the prevailing
principle embodied in the Davis-Bacon
Act.
It is time we passed this legislation.
The original purpose of the Davis-
Bacon Act was to make sure that
Federal construction would not have
a depressing effect upon the wages of
local construction workers; that con-
tractors would not be able to submit
the low bids on Government construc-
tion contracts by cutting the prevail-
ing wages paid to workers.
At the time of original enactment
in the early thirties, workers received
their hourly or overtime rate of pay
and there was usually no further con-
sideration for the work performed.
Today, and indeed to an increasing
extent since World War II, workers
receive other considerations for their
services, in the form of medical, re-
tirement, unemployment, insurance,
and other benefits. Employers and
unions either jointly or individually
are continuing to establish plans and
programs providing these fringe bene-
fits for employees and their families.
Latest figures show that some 6,670
such plans exist in the construction
industry alone.
During the past two decades signifi-
cant changes have occurred in our
wage customs and practices. One of
the most striking examples of these
changes is the tremendous growth of
welfare and pension plans. In 1931,
when the Davis-Bacon proposals be-
came law, private welfare and pension
plans to provide fringe benefits were
virtually unknown. At the end of
1961, 78 percent of the Nation's em-
ployed wage and salary labor force
had life insurance coverage; 70 per-
cent had some form of health insur-
ance; and, of the non-Government
wage and salary labor force, 45 per-
cent had the protection of private
pension plans. The growth rate in
coverage under pension plans is run-
ning over 1 million workers a year.
The number of workers covered by
private pension and deferred profit-
sharing plans in 1961 was 22.6 mil-
-------
1808
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
lion, and it is currently running near-
ly 25 million.
A further index to the growth of
employee-benefit plans is the amount
of employer and employee contribu-
tions and the amount of benefit out-
lays. Combined employer-employee
contributions to employee-benefit plans
amounted to $13.3 billion in 1961, an
increase of 7.5 percent over 1960.
Benefits paid under all types of em-
ployee-benefit plans rose approximate-
ly $911 million, to a total of $8.8 bil-
lion, 11.6 percent over 1960.
It is as important today as it was in
the early thirties that the standard of
living built up for the construction
workers and their families not be un-
dermined by competition for Govern-
ment business. Unemployment is still
disturbingly high, particularly in the
construction industry. Other forces,
such as automation and the growing
work force, are further complicating
the functions of the labor market.
Our colleagues in the thirties had
the wisdom to provide against under-
cutting of local wage standards
through competition for Government
business. Certainly, we should dis-
play as much wisdom in the fluctuat-
ing economic climate of the sixties—•
to bring Federal construction wage
standards in line with present-day
conditions. Failure to enact this bill
is to invite a return of the problems
we faced in the days before the orig-
inal act. Let us follow the good ex-
ample of the eight States which al-
ready include fringe benefits such as
welfare and pension funds in their
prevailing wage laws.
I urge my colleagues to join me in
support of this legislation.
ARGUMENTS AGAINST POSSIBLE GOODELL
PROPOSAL PROVIDING NONDISCRIMINA-
TION OF FRINGE BENEFITS BEFORE
THEY CAN BE CONSIDERED BY THE
SECRETARY OF LABOR
First. What evidence does my gooc
colleague [Mr. GOODELL] point to to
how there has been such arbitrary
discrimination on the basis of lack of
union membership or color?
I would like the gentleman to cite
o me the particular portion of the
learings where such evidence was in-
xoduced.
Second. If the gentleman is talking
about union discrimination in this
area, I would call to his attention that
such discrimination to limit the eligi-
)ility for benefits under a plan to em-
Dloyees who are union members is il-
egal under the National Labor Rela-
tions Act—in re Jandel Furs 100
NLRB 1390, 1952—or to arbitrarily
exclude any employee within the bar-
gaining unit — Miranda Fuel 140
NLRB 181 Enf. Den. 2d Circuit.
The President's Committee on Equal
Employment Opportunity, I would like
to remind my colleague, has jurisdic-
tion over eliminating discrimination
on Government contracts or assisted
programs. This problem, therefore,
could properly be handled by that
Committee.
Third. The Davis-Bacon Act is not
the proper instrument to deal with
this problem even if such problem does
exist, which I submit that there has
been no evidence that it does.
Under the bill the Secretary of La-
bor is obligated to ascertain whether
the contractor has made a contribu-
tion to a plan, fund, or program.
Whether the employees actually will
receive the benefit of these contribu-
tions is a matter which the Congress
had decided to leave to the individual
people setting up these plans.
As the Members of this House .well
know, when Congress passed the Wel-
fare and Pension Plans Disclosure Act
of 1959, it was then determined to
keep the Government out of the area
of regulating how the money in the
fund should be invested or who would
be entitled to the benefits under the
funds.
If it is now the wish of the House
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1809
to consider this action, I suggest that
legislation be duly brought before the
proper committee to give these mat-
ters careful consideration.
Mr. Chairman, every labor-manage-
ment contract negotiation takes into
consideration the fringe benefits along
with basic wage.
[p. 1211]
In every case you will find that
when a contract is completed the
agreement is listed as a package wage
agreement. Any division of basic
wage and fringe benefits is then made
under subtitles or by explanatory ref-
erences.
For instance a contract agreement
is presented as a 25-cent-an-hour
wage agreement divided into one, two,
three, or more categorical benefits. It
may give workers 10 cents an hour
wage, 6 cents an hour pension and
welfare, 4 cents supplemental unem-
ployment compensation and 5 cents an
hour accumulative extra vacation
time.
In determining cost of a finished
product, normal management proce-
dure is to measure labor costs in a
lump sum under the heading of wages,
to which they add raw materials,
taxes, supervisory, advertising, public
utilities, and any other fixed costs
added by either local or State rules or
regulations.
It would certainly create a serious
problem if fixed limit income enter-
prises such as public utilities were to
be disallowed fringe benefits as a wage
cost.
Those of us who come from States
having wage tax levies can under-
stand why some of the opposition is
disturbed over the legislation.
To these operators I can only advise
that this wage determination being
argued today is solely for the purpose
of guaranteeing a precontract deter-
mination of prevailing wage to assure
all contractors an equal opportunity
in Federal bidding and to give labor
an equal job opportunity on Federal
projects and contracts.
The whole purpose of the Davis-
Bacon Act is negated and set aside by
the failure to make mandatory the
prevailing wage determination includ-
ing fringe benefits.
This bill attempts to bring up to
date the original aims of the Davis-
Bacon Act.
Although both Davis of Pennsyl-
vania and Bacon of New York were
Republicans they recognized the dan-
gers involved in cutthroat bidding
when such bidding was based in most
cases upon exploitation of workers in
certain areas of the country.
Basically the whole intent of the act
was to create a fair set of ground
rules for the determination of wages
paid to workers by contractors work-
ing for the Government.
Congressman Bacon had this to say
in 1927, 4 years before he succeeded
in getting the act approved by the
Congress in 1931:
I want to cite the specific instance that
brought this whole matter to my attention.
The Government is engaged in building in
my district a Veterans' Bureau hospital. Bids
were asked for; several New York contractors
bid, and in their bids, of course, they had
to take into consideration the high labor
standards prevailing in the State of New
York. I think I can say that the labor stand-
ards in New York are very high. The wages
are fair, and there has been no difficulty in
the building trades between the employee
and employer in New York for some time.
And the situation existed therefore, and the
New York contractors made their bids, hav-
ing the labor conditions in mind. The bid,
however, was let to an out-of-State contrac-
tor and some thousand out-of-State laborers
were brought to New York. They were hired
into this job, they were housed, and they
were paid a very low wage, and the work
proceeded. Of course, that meant that labor
conditions in this part of New York State
where the hospital was being built were en-
tirely upset. It means that the neighboring
community was very much upset.
Mr. Chairman, I am strongly op-
posed to providing for judicial review
-------
1810
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
of fringe benefit determinations,
whether such a proposal is offered for
consideration on the floor or in con-
nection with a motion to recommit the
bill.
The compelling reasons why a "ju-
dicial review" provision applying to
the act as a whole should not be
adopted have already been discussed
with force and clarity. These reasons
are equally valid in opposing any ef-
fort to provide for judicial review of
fringe benefit determinations.
Fringe benefits are now an integral
part of an employee's wages and an
integral part, therefore, of any wage
determination issued by the Depart-
ment of Labor. To provide for re-
view of the determination of fringe
benefits without any review of the
cash wage determination would be
complete unrealistic.
The same record which is used as
the basis for one determination is also
used as the basis for the other. It
would be completely impractical to
"split" this record. The bid specifica-
tions must include the total wage de-
termination, if the bidders are to
know what their obligations under the
Davis-Bacon Act will be.
As to judicial review generally, the
Committee received persuasive testi-
mony that judicial review was im-
practical. On the other hand, officials
of the Department of Labor discussed
a plan for administrative review. The
Secretary of Labor has recently es-
tablished a Wage Appeals Board
within the Department of Labor to
review wage determinations under the
Davis-Bacon Act and several other
matters.
At the very least, we should wait to
see just how successfully this Board
operates before proceeding to consider
judicial review.
Judicial review is not only imprac-
tical but unworkable in an area such
as Davis-Bacon simply because the
prevailing wage must be determined
before a contract is let.
If a review takes place after the
contract has been let and the case is
not completed until after the work has
been started or even completed, how
does the injured contractor and his
workers recover their losses? It may
well be that the court will determine
that the successful contractor was in
violation of the prevailing wage de-
termination and could possibly make
up the wage differential by paying the
workers the difference between his
contract price and the wage deter-
mined by the Department.
This creates a much greater injus-
tice than any injunction that could
possibly occur under the wage deter-
mination proposed by the act.
The testimony before this Commit-
tee showed beyond any doubt that or-
ganized contractors in this very area
employ a few employees with fringe
benefits and then trade or borrow
from each other on specific contracts.
This gives these member contractors
who are nonunion in many instances
a bidding advantage over the compe-
tition.
PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS ON PREVAILING
WAGES ON FEDERAL CONSTRUCTION
Mr. Chairman, as administrations
have changed in the past, there has
been a shift of emphasis from favor-
ing the collective-bargaining rate to
favoring the rate paid to the majority
in a given area as the prevailing rate
under the Davis-Bacon and related
acts.
Both of these emphases have been
right, it might better be said that
neither has been wrong. The legisla-
tive history of the Davis-Bacon Act
shows that Congress was given two
definitions of prevailing wage. The
first was the rate paid pursuant to
collective bargaining and the second
was the rate paid to the majority in
a given area. The Congress did not
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1811
choose between the two. The Davis-
Bacon Act merely states that the
wages shall be "prevailing."
A review of the recent hearings on
the fringe benefits bill shows clearly
that there can be little agreement on
what is actually the prevailing wage
when it is arrived at through payment
evidence. The arguments which arise
are many and varied. Should man-
hours be considered? What kind of
projects should be considered? What
period of time should be considered?
The choice which the wage determiner
makes in each of these instances influ-
ences the ultimate decision, good or
bad depending upon which side you
happen to be.
Almost one-fourth of the several
States have adopted the collective-bar-
gaining wage as the prevailing wage
on construction of public works. At
the recent convention of the Inter-
national Association of Governmental
Labor Officials in Richmond, Va. (45
States represented) a model wage law
was unanimously adopted by those
present which provided for the collec-
tive-bargaining wage as the prevail-
ing wage.
As a matter of policy, the Congress
of the United States should take a po-
sition that the collective-bargaining
rate should be the rate considered
prevailing on Federal construction of
public works. This policy would result
in a widening of competition and a re-
sultant saving to the taxpayer, a high-
er quality in the finished product and
a decent living wage to the workers
on Federal projects. Such a wage
would stabilize our economy and show
the populace that the Congress is
deeply concerned that each worker, at
least in the area of Federal construc-
tion, receives a wage rate which is
the result of bargaining between
qualified representatives of labor and
management rather than a wage ne-
gotiated between a lone individual
worker and a contractor who all too
often is concerned more with his profit
than the welfare of his workers, espe-
cially in a time when workers are in
abundant supply.
Mr. Chairman. I would like to read
to the House at this time a well de-
fined, logical, and legal review of the
judicial review provisions proposed by
[p. 1212]
the opponents of all necessary reforms
dealing with wage determinations:
Hon. JOHN DENT,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR CONGRESSMAN : I am enclosing, for
your information, a copy of a legal opinion
rendered by the lawyers for the building and
construction trades department and its af-
filiated organizations on the subject of legis-
lative proposals to provide for judicial re-
view of wage predeterminations under the
Davis-Bacon Act and for a new system of
judicial review of enforcement procedures un-
der that act. This legal opinion is supported
by a documented legal analysis which is also
attached.
It is the conclusion of our lawyers that the
judicial review proposals would not be work-
able with respect to wage predeterminations
and that it is not needed with respect to
enforcement procedures which are presently
subject to an adequate system of judicial
review through the U.S. Court of Claims.
Sincerely yours,
WALTER J. MASON,
Director of Legislation.
JANUARY 23, 1964.
Mr. C. J. HAGGERTY,
President, Building and Construction Trades
Department, AFL-CIO, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. HAGGERTY: This is in response to
your request for a legal analysis of H.R. 9590,
a proposal to amend the Davis-Bacon Act by
providing for judicial review of wage pre-
determinations and to provide new judicial
review procedures with respect to enforce-
ment of that act.
The undersigned are the legal counsel for
the various labor organizations in the build-
ing and construction industry. Each of us
has specialized in the field of labor law and,
in particular, with respect to the legal prob-
lems involving labor in the building and con-
struction industry.
We have given careful consideration to the
proposal in the Goodell bill (H.R. 9590) to
-------
1812
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
amend the Davis-Bacon Act for the purpose
of providing a new system of judicial review.
It is our unanimous conclusion that the
judicial review proposal would not be work-
able insofar as the predeterminations of
wage rates under this act are concerned. We
also believe that the legislation is not needed
insofar as enforcement procedures are con-
cerned because there is presently available
an entirely adequate system of judicial re-
view of these enforcement procedures by
way of suit in the U.S. Court of Claims.
The present system of wage predetermina-
tions has the important value of giving all
competing contractors definite and uniform
wage rates as the basis for making cost esti-
mates in their formulation of bids. The
Goodell judicial review proposal would render
uncertain the predeterminations of the Sec-
retary of Labor because no one would know
in connection with any contract whether the
final judicial judgment would establish a rate
different from the predetermined rate on
which contractors bid. This would result in
placing contractors in a position where they
would have to take a business gamble on the
final judicial judgment. Contractors who sub-
mit bids on the basis of the predetermination
would be at a competitive disadvantage as
against those who take the risk of estimating
on a lower rate which they think will be
supported by the final judicial judgment.
The original Davis-Bacon Act of 1931 con-
tained a provision that the wages paid "shall
not be less than the prevailing rate of wages"
and left the issue of the determination of the
prevailing rate to a post hoc determination
by the Government. The difficulties created
by this system led to the current procedure
of predeterminations in the present act. The
basic reason for the change was set forth
succinctly by the Associated General Con-
tractors in a letter by Mr. Walbridge to Presi-
dent Hoover which states that:
"We ask only that the officials who are now
charged with making decisions as to what
constitutes the prevailing wage to exercise
the same function previous to the taking of
bids, thereby placing all bidders on a parity
and again establish competitive bidding on
a known basis." (Legislative History, Davis
Bacon Act, p. 47.)
It is our view that adoption of the Goodel]
judicial review proposal would return the
administration of the act to the difficulti
which were the reason why the law had to
be changed to the present system of prede-
terminations.
It must also be recognized that the judi-
cial review proposal must, in order to avoic
serious constitutional problems, provide for
judicial review at the instance of individual
employees as well as labor organizations.
There are 60,000 predeterminations issued by
;he Secretary of Labor each year which in-
volve 5 million different wage classifications.
We believe it is reasonable to anticipate that
many suits may be filed at the instance of in-
dividual employees and classes of employees,
not necessarily organized into labor unions,
for the purpose of increasing the wage rate
above the level predetermined by the Secre-
tary of Labor. It is our judgment that it
would be reasonable to anticipate a substan-
tial wave of litigation in this regard which
may duplicate the conditions under the wage-
hour law which led to the adoption of the
Portal-to-Portal Act.
The Davis-Bacon Act has been in opera-
tion for more than 30 years without a pro-
cedure for judicial review of the validity of
wage predeterminations. The complexities and
intricacies of the problems created by the
Goodell judicial review proposal are such, in
our judgment, that they require careful
examination by committees of the Congress
after adequate and full hearings.
It is respectfully submitted that the floor
of the House is not the proper place to draft
an original proposal for judicial review of the
Davis-Bacon Act.
Respectfully submitted.
Louis Sherman, general counsel. Building
and Construction Trades Department, AFL-
CIO, and International Brotherhood of Elec-
trical Workers, AFL-CIO, Washington, D.C.
Lester Asher, general counsel, United Slate,
Tile and Composition Roofers, Damp and
Waterproof Workers Association, AFL-CIO,
Chicago, 111.
Frank Grayson, general counsel, Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron
Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and
Helpers, AFL-CIO, Kansas City, Kans.
Vincent Morreale, general counsel. Inter-
national Hod Carriers, Building and Com-
mon Laborers Union, AFL-CIO, Washington,
D.C.
Clarence M. Mulholland, general counsel.
Sheet Metal Workers* International Associ-
ation, AFL-CIO, Toledo, Ohio.
Martin F. O'Donoghue, general counsel,
United Association of Journeymen and Ap-
prentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting
Industry of the United States and Canada,
AFL-CIO, and Operative Plasterers and
Cement Masons International Association,
AFL-CIO, and International Union of Eleva-
tor Constructors, AFL-CIO, Washington, D.C.
Joseph A. Sickles, general counsel, Inter-
national Association of Heat and Frost In-
sulators and Asbestos Workers, AFL-CIO,
Washington, D.C.
Harold Stern, general counsel, Interna-
tional Association of Bridge, Structural and
Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO, New
York, N.Y.
Herbert S. Thatcher, general counsel,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1813
Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and
Paperhangers of America, AFL-CIO, Wash-
ington, D.C.
Frank Ward, general counsel, United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, AFL-CIO, Washington, D.C.
Louis W. Wilderman, general counsel. Wood,
Wire and Metal Lathers' International Union,
AFL-CIO, Philadelphia, Pa.
J. Albert Woll, general counsel, Interna-
tional Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-
CIO, and Bricklayers, Masons and Plasterers'
International Union, AFL-CIO, Washington,
D.C.
SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OP CONGRESSMAN
GOODELL'S AMENDMENT To PROVIDE JUDICIAL
REVIEW IN THE DAVIS-BACON ACT
1. The fringe benefits bill (H.R. 6041) has
been reported favorably by the House Com-
mittee on Education and Labor by an over-
whelming favorable vote after full and care-
ful hearings. The Rules Committee, by a
vote of 11 to 2, has reported the bill with an
open rule under which a judicial review
amendment is not germane. The floor of the
House is no place to draft and vote on the
complexities of a judicial review amendment
which has not been the subject of hearings.
2. Under regulations just issued by the
Secretary of Labor, an independent appeals
board made up of public members not on
the payroll of the Department of Labor has
been established for the first time to afford
review of wage predeterminations. In addi-
tion, at the present time, contractors have
a right of judicial review of the enforcement
procedures of the Davis-Bacon Act before
the Court of Claims. There is, therefore, no
need for hasty floor consideration of the
Goodell judicial review amendment.
3. Under the Goodell judicial review amend-
ment, unscrupulous contractors will be tempted
to take a "business gamble" by basing their
bids on rates lower than the predetermined
rate which they think they can establish
through later judicial proceedings. The present
system of fair and competitive bidding will
be seriously impaired, for contractors who
submit bids on the basis of the predetermined
wage rates and do not take a "business
gamble" will be placed at a competitive dis-
advantage. A fair and competitive bidding sys-
tem can continue only if final wage predeter-
minations are known prior to the opening of
bids. Obviously, however, final judicial deter-
minations—such as those contained in the
Goodell proposal—cannot be made prior to the
opening of bids.
4. The Goodell bill (H.R. 9690) author-
izes—as it must to avoid serious constitu-
tional problems—suits by individual employ-
ees and unions, as well as by contractors and
bidders, to secure judicial review of wage
predeterminations of the Secretary of Labor.
There are 50,000 annual predeterminations
involving 5 million wage classifications. This
will incite a wave of litigation comparable
to the flood of wage-hour suits which led to
the enactment of the Portal-to-Portal Act.
LEGAL ANALYSIS OF THE JUDICIAL REVIEW PRO-
POSAL CONTAINED IN H.R. 9590
H.R. 9590, a bill introduced by Represen-
tative GOODELL on January 8, 1964, proposes to
amend the Davis-Bacon Act by providing
judicial review of wage predeterminations is-
sued by the Secretary of Labor and of en-
forcement proceedings under this act. This
bill has been referred to the House Commit-
tee on Education and Labor which has obvi-
ously had no time to give it consideration.
It should be noted that the House Com-
mittee on Education and Labor reported the
fringe benefits bill on May 9, 1963, and that
at no time during 1963 did Congressman
GOODELL or any other Congressman introduce
a judicial review bill for consideration by the
committee. Actually, Congressman GOODELL
did introduce a bill on April 4, 1962, to
[p. 1213]
provide for judicial review of Davis-Bacon
Act administrative actions but his recent bill
of January 8, 1964, contains so many change?
in the 1962 bill that it is clear that the orig-
inal bill is not considered an appropriate ve-
hicle for consideration of the amendment.
The delay in formulating a legislative
measure for committee consideration is an
index to the difficulty and intricacies of the
subject matter.
The analysis of H.R. 9590 which is set forth
below demonstrates clearly that the decision
by Congress on the matter of judicial review
should be made only after hearings on a
specific measure at which testimony can be
secured from experts i n the contract! ng
agencies, the Comptroller General's Office, the
Department of Labor and from industry and
labor. The complexities of Government con-
tract bidding and enforcement procedures
are such that unwise decisions on the floor
of the House can be avoided only by appro-
priate study of specific proposals, through the
time-honored method of hearings before the
appropriate House subcommittee and a report
by the full committee.
H.R. 9590 is a substantial revision of the
proposals contained in H.R. 11115, introduced
by Representative GOODELL on April 4, 1962.
Under the earlier bill, the review procedure
would have been initiated by a charge that a
contractor paid wages less than those stipu-
lated in his contract and less than those
-------
1814
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
found prevailing under the act. Thereafter,
the Secretary of Labor was to investigate the
charge, hold a hearing, issue findings and
determine wages owing by the contractor.
Persons aggrieved by such a decision could
have sought reviews from a U.S. court of
appeals, which was specifically authorized to
stay any action under sections 2 and 3
of the act, pending completion of judi-
cial review. The proposal contained in H.R.
11115 was defective in several respects in
terms of the orderly operation of the act and
the relative position of fair and unfair con-
tractors. H.R. 9590 appears to be an attempt
to avoid the problems arising from the earlier
judicial review proposal. For the reasons
discussed below, however, the new bill is sub-
ject to the same criticism.
PROVISIONS OF THE BILL
H.R. 9590 provides two avenues for judicial
review. Section 1 of the bill would add a
new section 8 to the act permitting "Any
person (denned to include contractors, sub-
contractors, bidders, prospective bidders, labor
organizations, employees, prospective employ-
ees and public and private contracting agen-
cies), aggrieved by a wage determination" to
initiate an action in a U.S. district court
against the Secretary of Labor and the con-
tracting agency to "enjoin the application of
such wage determination to the invitation for
bids for the advertised contract and to de-
termine the prevailing wage lawfully applicable
thereto." Such action must be commenced
within 15 days after the publication of the
advertised specifications which contain the
challenged wage determination. The district
court is empowered to issue a temporary
restraining order relieving all bidders from
stipulating that they will comply with the
determination being challenged, provided, that
the court may require any bidder to whom the
contract is awarded to post an indemnity
bond to guarantee the fulfillment of any wage
obligation if the challenged determination is
sustained. The court is then charged with the
duty of deciding whether the challenged de-
termination was in accordance with law, and;
if not, to establish the prevailing wage. There-
after, review is provided to the appropriate
U.S. Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme
Court.
Section 2 of H.R. 9590 would amend sec-
tion 7 to provide that whenever it is claimed
that a contractor or subcontractor has failed
to pay the prevailing wage rate, the con-
tracting agency is to investigate the claim
and issue a written ruling on the claim.
No penalties, including the withholding of
funds from the contractor or subcontractor,
can be imposed prior to such ruling. Any
contractor or subcontractor aggrieved by
such a ruling may bring a de novo action in
the U.S. district court where the violation is
alleged to have occurred. The district court,
which may stay any penalty pending the
completion of judicial review, is to deter-
mine whether the contractor or subcon-
tractor has failed to comply with his obli-
gations under the wage provisions of his
contract. Similarly, employees aggrieved or
adversely affected by the ruling of the con-
tracting agency may seek review in a U.S. dis-
trict court. While employees may maintain
such actions on behalf of other employees
similarly situated, only those employees who
give their consent in writing may become a
party plaintiff to any action brought under
this section. It may be noted here that this
limitation is entirely contrary to the recog-
nized concept of a class action. In practice,
this provision will operate in discriminatory
fashion, since some employees will recover
additional sums owing to them under the
law, while others, entitled to exactly the
same sums, will not receive them because of
their failure to consent in writing to become
a party. Following the decision of the dis-
trict court, review is provided to the U.S.
Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court.
Although it appears that section 7 is in-
tended to be limited to enforcement, there
is no explicit statement in the bill that the
validity of wage predeterminations cannot
be challenged in the judicial proceedings
related to the enforcement issue. The lan-
guage of section 7(d) is of such ambiguous
nature that it is possible that the validity
of a wage predetermination could be chal-
lenged in a section 7 case. The answer to
such question would not be known, under
the present language of the bill, until a
judicial test case had been completed.
EXISTING ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES AND THB
EFFECT OF THE BILL
To understand the detrimental effects upon
the operation of existing law which would
result from the enactment of H.R. 9590, it is
necessary to review briefly the present en-
forcement machinery contained in sections
1 to 3 of the act. Section 2 presently pro-
vides that, upon a finding by the contracting
officer involved that any laborer or mechanic
is being paid a rate of wages less than that
required to be paid by the contract, the Gov-
ernment may terminate the contractor's
right to proceed with the work involved, to
complete the work, through other meang
and to recover from the contractor any ex-
isting costs occasioned by his violation.
Section 3, read in conjunction with section
1, authorizes the Government to withhold
from a contractor so much of any accrued
payments as may be necessary to pay to his
employees the difference between the rate
of wages required by the contractor to be
paid them and the rates actually received
by them, and authorizes the Comptroller
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1815
General of the United States to pay directly
to the employees affected the wages so with-
held. In addition* the Comptroller General
is authorized to distribute to all Government
departments a list of contractors whom he
has found to be in violation, and such firms
may receive no further contracts for a period
of 3 years from the date of their appearance
on the list.
The effectiveness of these enforcement pro-
cedures arises from the fact that, with the
exception of the ineligible list, they come into
play while the work is still in progress. Un-
der both of the Goodell bills, however, pro-
vision is made for the delay of these en-
forcement procedures until all administra-
tive and judicial appeals have been exhausted.
Under proposed section 7, the contractor can
wait until a claim of violation is made, and
then proceed to an investigation before the
contracting agency. Thereafter, he may start
all over again by bringing a de novo action
in the U.S. district court and again follow the
appeal route up through the Supreme Court
of the United States. And, during all of this
lengthy period, the withholding order of the
Government may be stayed by judicial order.
Under proposed section 7, it is specifically
provided that no penalties, "including the
withholding of funds from the contractor or
subcontractor," can be imposed prior to the
ruling of the contracting agency. Further,
upon initiation of a de novo action in a
U.S. district court, the court has author-
ity to stay any penalty imposed "pend-
ing the completion of judicial review."
Thus, a contractor receiving an adverse rul-
ing could seek—and in most situations ob-
tain—a stay of the well-established and nec-
essary withholding procedure. Since, as
noted above, no presumption of validity can
attach to the Secretary's determination
based on prior administrative rules, prac-
tices, etc.—which would ordinarily serve as
support for the administrative action chal-
lenged and thus as a defense to a request for
a stay—the likelihood that the contractor
will be able to stay this essential enforce-
ment procedure is further enhanced. In ef-
fect, the admitted danger has been disguised,
but not removed.
As noted above, the provision for an in-
demnity bond is made permissive by use of
the word "may." In view of the not uncom-
mon business occurrence of bankruptcy of
contractors, such a provision cannot be fully
effective to protect employees covered under
the act unless it is made mandatory. In
any event, even a fully effective indemnity
bond for purposes of employees' protection
does not mitigate against the damage to our
fair bidding system, as described more fully
below.
JUDICIAL REVIEW IN ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS
IS NOW AVAILABLE
It should also be noted that, at the present
time, contractors who feel aggrieved by the
enforcement procedures of the Davis-Bacon
Act have the right of judicial review from
the Court of Claims. Generally, this review
arises through an action by the contractor
to recover from the Government wages which
he was required to pay in excess of those
specified in his contract. In such a suit, the
subjects open to review include whether the
Government acted properly in withholding
funds, whether the Government is respon-
sible for increased labor costs to the contrac-
tor, whether the affected employees per-
formed work which would place them in the
classification requiring the increased pay-
ments to which the contractor objects, the
amount of time worked by employees in the
pertinent classifications, etc. Thus it is not
accurate to say that a contractor has no right
of judicial review under present operation of
the act. And, the present form of judicial
review in no way impairs the effectiveness
of the statutory enforcement procedures.
DAMAGE TO OUR FAIR BIDDING SYSTEM
The proposals in H.R. 9590 will also tend
to destroy or weaken the contract bidding
and awarding procedures as such. Contrac-
tors are invited by the bill to base their bids
or rates less than those predetermined by
the Secretary of Labor as prevailing, pay
their laborers and mechanics wages at such
lower rates and seek review of the determina-
tion through the proposed judicial proce-
dures. Even the most scrupulous contractor
may be forced to take a "business gamble"
on the rate to keep himself in a competitive
position. Those even vaguely familiar with
the process of appellate litigation realize
that 3 or 4 years may pass before such an
appeal procedure would be completed. In-
deed, in this respect, the new bill is even
worse than the old one which provided for
[p. 1214]
initial court review in a court of appeals.
Under H.E. 9590, however, the first step of
judicial review begins with a district court
determination. Whatever the results of the
review proceedings, the contractor will have
obtained his contract on a cost basis differ-
ent from his competitors who used the speci-
fied prevailing wage rates in figuring and
submitting their bids. The judicial review
proposal thus operates in a manner contrary
to a full and fair system of fair and com-
petitive bidding, and places fair bidders who
are operating in a manner consistent with
the law at a disadvantage.
Obviously no final judicial determination
-------
1816
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
can be made of the validity of Davis-Bacon
Act predeterminations prior to the opening ;
of bids in the particular Government con-
tract.
The danger to a fair bidding process and
to the orderly administration of the Davis-
Bacon Act can be brought into sharp focus
by a brief examination of the legislative
development of the act. The 1931 act re-
quired only that advertised specifications for
covered contracts contain a provision that
the wages paid "shall not be less than the
prevailing rate of wages * * *." The act
contained no provision for a system of wage
predeterminations or for effective enforce-
ment machinery. Almost immediately fol-
lowing passage of the act, many contractors,
as well as the Comptroller General of the
United States, recognized the danger of a
system of postdeterminations rather than
p redetermi nati ons.
An amendment to the act was passed in
1932 which, to establish a system of wage
predeterminations, required a provision "stat-
ing the prevailing rate of wages as de-
termined by the Secretary of Labor." In
addition, the amendment added enforce-
ment provisions. (See Senate report to ac-
company S. 3847, 1932, p. 1.) The act was
vetoed by President Hoover. During the
hearings which preceded the 1932 amend-
ment, representatives of the National As-
sociation of Builders Exchanges and the As-
sociated General Contractors supported the
amendment. The Associated General Con-
tractors, in a letter by Mr. "Walbridge to Presi-
dent Hoover, stated that:
"We ask only that the officials who are now
charged with making decisions as to what
constitutes the prevailing wage to exercise
the same function previous to the taking of
bids, thereby placing all bidders on a parity
and again establish competitive bidding on a
known basis." (Legislative History, Davis-
Bacon Act, p. 47.)
In a letter to Congressman Connery, Mr.
Harding of the Associated General Contrac-
tors stated it would be for the good of all that
prevailing wages should be stipulated and
made a part of the advertisement, specifica-
tion, and contract. Congressman Mead of
New York urged passage of the amendment
as protection for workers and builders and to
the end that "all contractors would have an
equal and fair opportunity."
Congressional hearings in 1933 and 1934
added further evidence of the need of en-
forcement machinery and a system of wage
predeterminations. These hearings led to
passage of the Copeland (anti-kickback)
and False Statement Acts of 1934, and the
Davis-Bacon Amendments of 1935. The
1935 amendment added the requirement thai
the advertised specifications contain a p
vision stating the minimum wage to be paic
"which shall be based upon the wages thai
will be determined by the Secretary of
^abor."
Thus, for the first time, a system of wage
predeterminations by the Secretary of Labor
>ecame a part of the law. The purpose of the
amendment in this regard is clearly stated
>y the Senate and House reports accompany-
ng S. 3303 at page 7:
"To provide for a predetermination of the
prevailing wage on contracts so that the con-
;ractor may know definitely in advance of
submitting his bid what his approximate
abor costs will be."
Reduced to its fundamentals, the proposals
embodied in H.R. 9590 will have the effect of
returning the law and conditions thereunder
to the status existing prior to the 1935
amendments; a status which representatives
of industry and the Congress recognized were
not desirable or feasible. In operation, these
proposals would strip the act's enforcement
machinery of its effectiveness and would do
away with the system of wage predetermina-
tions. The ideas underlying these proposals
are neither new nor feasible. They have
been tried, and abandoned nearly 30 years
ago.
Labor unions are in favor of all valid proce-
dures which assure proper compensation for
employees. We must point out, however, that
the availability of judicial review proceed-
ings to labor organizations and employees
and prospective employees (all of which is
probably necessary from a constitutional
point of view if there is to be judicial re-
view for employers) would add a further un-
certainty to the bidding process. Even if
all contractors bidding on a particular job
use the Secretary's predetermination and do
not challenge same in court, the challenge
may come from the employee side to secure
a higher rate.
The inclusion of the judicial review amend-
ment may have the effect of starting a wave
of litigation comparable to the flood of wage-
hour suits preceding the Portal-to-Portal
Act.
The backlog on our already overburdened
courts, and particularly the TT.S. district
courts, is a fact well-known to lawyers and
lawmakers alike. Yet, the proposals em-
bodied in H.R. 9590 would add substantially
to the burdens of these district courts—•
which have little knowledge of or experience
with the subject matter involved—and, in the
process, serve to increase the delay in a fi-
nal determination in ever-increasing fashion.
The problems of the district courts under
both proposed sections is made even more
difficult by the fact that the actions before
them are either specifically made a de novo
action or are in the nature of such an action.
Specifically, under proposed section 8, the
district court, if it finds that the wage pre-
determination of the Secretary of Labor was
not made "in accordance with law" must
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1817
"determine the prevailing wage" itself, and,
in the course of its review, the court is not
permitted to accord any presumption of
validity to the Secretary's determination by
reason of any prior administrative finding,
action, practice, policy, or rule. Under pro-
posed section 7, the action is specifically desig-
nated as a de novo action, and, once again,
no presumption of validity can be accorded
the administrative agency's finding of viola-
tions. The courts are thus invited to second
guess the Secretary of Labor and the con-
tracting agencies and to substitute their
judgment for that of administrative officers,
even though such judgments may be sup-
ported by substantial evidence in the record.
It is to be noted in this regard that under
proposed section 7 (b) of Representative
GOODELL'S original bill, H.R. 11115, the find-
ings of the Secretary as to the facts were
to be conclusive if supported by substan-
tial evidence—which is the more customary
provision in the relationship of administra-
tive agencies to courts.
If only a small percentage of the some 5
million individual determinations issued
yearly were subjected to this proposed pro-
cedure, the magnitude of the increased bur-
den on our courts would be staggering. By
subjecting the effectiveness of the existing
enforcement machinery under the act to a
cumbersome system of continual delay, the
proposal would have as its end result the
emasculation of that enforcement ma-
chinery.
CONCLUSION
There is no need for a new procedure foi
judicial review of enforcement cases because
the present Court of Claims judicial pio-
cedure is entirely adequate to remedy any
injustices caused by the contracting agencies
to contractors.
It is not possible to have predetermina-
tions and the judicial review of such pre-
determinations proposed by H.R. 9590, b3-
cause no judicial review proceeding could be
processed to final judgment of the Supremo
Court or even a circuit court of appeals
before the bids are submitted on a particular
Government construction contract.
Mr. Chairman, the foregoing opin-
ion was submitted through Walter J.
Mason, legislative director of the
Building and Construction Trades De-
partment of the AFL-CIO at my re-
quest.
As further evidence of widespread
support for this legislation I will read
from just a few of the official letters
received from various vitally affected
groups:
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD
OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS,
Washington, D.C., October 1G, 1963.
Hon. JOHN H. DENT,
House Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
MY DEAR CONGRESSMAN DENT: We earnestly
solicit your support for a most important
piece of legislation in the field of labor-
management relations which is now under
considelation by the Rules Committee of the
House of Representatives. We refer to H.R.
6041, a bill to include fringe benefits in the
waga predeterminations issued under the Davis-
Bacon Act.
This bill would place all construction con-
tractois, whether working on a union or non-
union basis, on equal competitive terms. It
would eliminate the present unfair advan-
tage enjoyed by nonunion contractors on
federally financed construction who do not
pay fringe benefits to employees. This is truly
one of the most impoitant bills pending before
the Congress at this session.
During the stabilization program in the
World War II and Korean periods, increases.
in cash wages were held down and in their
stead approval was given in many cases to-
various fringe benefits which have since be-
come a substantial part of thdi wage compen-
sation of a worker. Because such fringe
benefits were virtually unknown when the
Davis-Bacon Act was enacted in 1931 it made
no provision for their consideration in ar-
riving at predetermined wages under ths
act. H.R. 6041 would bring this legislation
up to date and recognize current compen-
sation practices in the construction industry.
We ask your support for the committee bill,
without amendment, when it reaches the
House floor. If you can expedite the issu-
ance of a rule this also would be deeply ap-
pieciated. Although this measure will di-
i ectly affect only that part of our member-
ship in the construction field, the bill has
the whole-hearted support of our entire 800,000>
members.
With thanks for your consideration.
Sincerely yours,
GORDON M. FREEMAN,
International President,
JOSEPH D. KEENAN,
International Secretary.
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOIL-
ERMAKERS, IRON SHIPBUILDERS, BLACK-
SMITHS, FORGERS & HELPERS,
Kansas City, Kans., October 9, 1963.
Hon. JOHN H. DENT,
House Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
MY DEAR CONGRESSMAN: On behalf of the
125,000 members of the International Brother-
[p. 1215]
-------
1818
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
hood of Boilermakers, Iron Shipbuilders, Black-
smiths, Forgeis & Helpers, AFL—CIO, I advise
you that oui organization is in full agreement
with and supports H.R. 6041, the bill to include
fringe benefits in the wage predeterminations
issued under the Davis-Bacon Act.
This is certainly fair and equitable legisla-
tion that would put all contractors on the same
competitive basis when bidding on work coming
under the scope of the Davis-Bacon Act.
Accoidingly, I urge your favorable considera-
tion and support of H.R. 6041, without amend-
ments, when this bill reaches the House floor
foi a vote.
Sincerely,
RUSSELL K. BERG,
International President.
LOCAL UNION No. 333, UNITED BROTH-
ERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS
OF AMERICA,
New Kensington, Pa., June 17, 1963.
Hon. JOHN H. DENT,
House Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SIR: We of local union 333 would ap-
preciate your support of H.R. 6041. We have
lo r g felt this unfair inequity should be ad-
justed.
Respectfully yours,
B. M. REMALEY,
Vice President.
NORTHERN WESTMORELAND COUNTY,
PA., UNITED LABOR COUNCIL, AFL-
CIO,
New Kensington, Pa., July 11, 1963.
Congressman JOHN H. DENT,
House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SIR: Please be advised that the mem-
bers of the Northern Westmoreland County,
Pa., United Labor Council, AFL-CIO, repre-
ssnting labor unions in Westmoreland, Alle-
gheny, and Armstrong Counties, are in favor
of bill H.R. 6041 and they are requesting that
you go on record in supporting and voting for
this very important bill.
Very truly yours,
WILLIAM SNYDER,
Recording Secretary.
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING
ENGINEERS,
Washington, D.C., October 15, 1963.
To the U.S. House of Representatives:
DEAR CONGRESSMEN : As you know, H.R.
C041, a bill to include fringe benefits in the
wage determinations issued under the Davis-
Bacon Act, is now before the Housa Rules
Committee with hearings.
We, in the construction industry, sincerely
feel that this bill should be passed in fairness
to everyone. When the Davis-Bacon Act was
originally enacted, fringe benefits were the ex-
ception, rather than the rule, in this industry.
We believe that it was the intent of Congress
to establish fair competitive bidding for this
ndustry. The intervening years have brought
considerable changes in the industry and the
standard of living for many has been raised
through fringe benefits. However, competitive
bidding in recent years has begun to threaten
this standard of living and those contractors
who are providing fringe benefits are findirg
it increasingly difficult to compete with those
contractors who seem little concerned about the
welfai e of mankind and who do not provide
such benefits.
We believe that the passage of H.R. 6041,
without amendments, is long overdue and its
need is extremely vital if we are to restore fair
competitive bidding on government construc-
tion. We respectfully urge your strong support
for passage of H.R. 6041, without amendments.
Sincerely yours,
HUNTER p. WHARTON,
General President.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr.
Chairman, I yield 2 additional minutes
to the gentleman from New York
[Mr. GOODELL].
Mr. GOODELL. Mr. Chairman, I
take this time only because, due to the
shortness of the time of the gentle-
man from Pennsylvania [Mr. DENT] I
was not able to make this point.
The gentleman passed over the
problem of determining what is pre-
vailing. Under the present Davis-
Bacon Act, when the Administrator
goes into an area, he has to find out
how many employees are affected. The
number of employees affected are
vital. It is absolutely essential to
know this if you are going to make
a decision as to what prevails in that
area. Now, this bill is putting in
fringe benefits. How are you going to
determine what fringe benefits pre-
vail if you do not know how many
employees in that classification are
making contributions? There are two
problems here. Are contributions
made for the employees and are the
employees eligible for benefits.
If I understand what you people on
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1819
the other side are saying, you do not
want the Secretary of Labor even to
find out if an employer is only making
contributions for SO percent of his
employees in a given category. If he
is not going to find this out, how is V>o
going to say which fringe prevails?
What the gentleman from Pennsyl-
vania said is entirely irrelevant. A col-
lective bargaining agreement, wheth-
er union or not, is involved. The
employer goes in and negotiates the
package as to how much money will
be put aside for fringe benefits. He
has to know how many employees arc
affected by that package and how
many employees he is making contri-
butions for.
Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Chair-
man, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GOODELL. Yes, T yield.
Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Will the gen-
tleman agree that under the Taft-
Hartley amendments to the National
Labor Relations Act, it is illegal to
discriminate or limit the eligibility for
these benefits down to 30 percent of
the emplovees in a given classification?
Mr. GOODELL. In the collective
bargaining; agreement, but the point is
this: the collective bargaining agree-
ment is not the culprit here. I am not
sure all of our colleagues understand
the complexities of this.
A collective bargaining agreement is
made with employees that so many
cents will be taken out of the em-
ployees' wages for fringe benefits and
paid directly to a fund. From that
point on the employer pays no atten-
tion to who gets the benefits. They go
to an insurance company or a fund or
a trust and they set up a benefits plan.
If this happens to be a local of the
carpenters or plumbers or some other
union, they may set up the fund so as
to make themselves eligible and make
non-local members ineligible. Or they
mpy provide for a 6-month period of
vraiting before employees can qualify
for benefits. There are countless tech-
nical devices whereby large numbers
of workers are, as a practical matter
never eligible for benefits.
Mr. SMITH of Iowa. There are two
reasons why an employer cannot dis-
riminate against non-union members.
One is the National Labor Relations
\ct as amended by the Taft-Hartley
law, as interpreted by the 1952 case
prevents this.
Mr. GOODELL. That is irrelevant
to the point.
Mr. SMITH of Iowa. The other
reason is that the Internal Revenue
Service will not permit the employer
to deduct as a business expense con-
tributions to a plan that discriminates
between union and non-union employ-
ees of a given classification.
Mr. GOODELL. That is all irrele-
vant. The discrimination is not made
between union and nonunion employ-
er) t^? collective bargaining agree-
ment. The gentleman is making an
argument in effect that what exists
does not exist because we know as a
practical matter from our hearings
and our investigations that this is
clone time after time and that often a
lar^e percentage of the employees do
not share in the benefits of these
plans. The gentleman from Pennsyl-
vania [Mr. DENT] admitted that there
are many cases where this happens.
So when the gentleman talks about
this being illegal, they are certainly
doing it by one device or another.
Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Is the gentle-
man saying that if carpenters are cov-
ered in a particular area—some of
them may be eligible for benefits and
others are not eligible even though
they are subject to the same collective
bargaining agreement?
Mr. GOODELL. That situation
often does exist. The person may be a
carpenter who is a member of a dif-
ferent local, working in an area only
under a temporary permit. He may
be otherwise technically ineligible.
There are a hundred different quali-
-------
1820
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
fications that may come in, such as
the fact that he has not been in the
area long enough.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr.
Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from New York [Mr. HAL-
PERN].
Mr. HALPERN. Mr. Chairman, I
rise to express my strong and enthusi-
astic support for the legislation before
us. I believe that in order to preserve
the economic welfare of workers in
the construction trades in local com-
munities throughout the United
States, we must bring the Davis-
Bacon Act up to date by including
fringe benefits in the concept of pre-
vailing wage determinations. As a co-
sponsor of the legislation—my own
bill being H.R. 2402—1 strongly urge '
favorable action on this beneficial,
long overdue measure by my col-
leagues today.
We are all familiar with the back-
ground to this bill before us. We
know that over 30 years ago the orig-
inal Davis-Bacon Act was enacted
into law in order to protect the labor
force in a local community from being
underbid in Government construction
contracts by imported cheap labor
from some other community or even
another State.
Obviously, the economic life of an
entire community was upset when lo-
cal workers were deprived of a large
Government construction project, and
would only stand idly by and see hun-
dreds of out-of-town workers come in
to perform the labor on the construc-
tion job. Thus the original Davis-
[p. 1216]
Bacon Act was born—out of the neces-
sity to preserve the economic stability
of our local communities. It was a
soundly conceived law, and it has ac-
complished a great deal for American
workers. It very clearly established
the principle that the U.S. Govern-
ment would not be a party to depress-
ing local labor standards, but would
give its support to equality of oppor-
tunity for contractors, protection of
prevailing living standards of building
tradesmen, and prevention of disturb-
ance of the local economy.
Mr. Chairman, in order that the
Federal Government continue those
benficial policies, we need to amend
t'"e Davis-Bacon Act in the manner
set forth in the bill before us, by in-
cluding fringe benefits paid by em-
ployers in the prevailing wage rates
of our communities.
This is merely a recognition in the
law of what has already become a fact
in the compensation of the working
people of our Nation. The whole con-
cept of "earnings" has changed tre-
mendously since Congress enacted the
Davis-Bacon Act over 30 years ago.
At that time disability benefits, group
hospitalization, unemployment bene-
fits and various types of insurance
programs were rare exceptions in la-
bor contracts and in the compensation
of U.S. workers. Today, these fringe
benefits are commonplace, and the
American worker has come to depend
on the benefits they provide for his
health, employment and retirement
security. To the worker, these bene-
fits are "earnings" just as much as
his pay check.
To attain these benefits, U.S. em-
•jloyers pay many millions of dollars
into various trust funds and insurance
accounts. Regardless of the form they
take, the employers' payments under
these plans are certainly a form of
compensation to the employee. Fur-
ther, during the course of collective
bargaining today, building trades
craftsmen increasingly elect to take
wage increases in the form of much
needed welfare programs rather than
straight increase in their pay checks,
in order to provide benefits for their
families in an hour of need. It is un-
just and inequitable both to the build-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1821
ing tradesman and the enlightened em-
ployers who pay these benefits that
such benefits, which have been estab-
lished in lieu of wages, should not be
included as wages within the meaning
of the Davis-Bacon Act. A number of
States have already brought their
laws up to date by including fringe
benefits in their concept of prevailing
wages, and I am proud to say my own
State of New York is among them.
The Federal Government certainly
should not lag behind those enlight-
ened States, but should bring its own
laws up to date to meet the needs of
contemporary labor practices in this
country.
Mr. ROOSEVELT. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HALPERN. I yield to the gen-
tleman from California.
Mr. ROOSEVELT. In the opinion
of the gentleman none of these hob-
goblins that have been raised have
come to pass in the gentleman's State
of New York?
Mr. HALPERN. The gentleman is
correct.
Mr. Chairman, the legislation before
us seems to me to meet a serious and
obvious need. What that need boils
down to is simply that 30 years ago
contractors and their employers could
be deprived of Federal construction
projects because of lower bids from
competitors utilizing cheap out-of-
town labor. This problem was solved
when the Davis-Bacon Act required
the Federal Government to pay wages
on construction contracts equal to the
prevailing wage in the community
where the Federal construction was
carried out. Today, local construction
contractors and their employees can
still lose out on Government construc-
tion contracts to competitors who are
able to underbid them by not paying
fringe benefits to their employees.
This loophole should be closed. Em-
ployers who provide health, retire-
ment, unemployment, and other fringe
benefits for their employees should not
be penalized for adopting these most
desirable programs. Rather all em-
ployers should be encouraged to take
such an enlightened view of the needs
and welfare of their employees and
their employees' families.
We can assist today in the attain-
ment of this goal by passing H.R.
6041, the bill which is before us. I
truly disagree with the reservations
expressed by some of our colleagues
during the earlier colloquy on the bill.
I sincerely urge my colleagues to take
this important step, to approve this
legislation, and thus express our con-
fidence and endorsement of health, re-
tirement, and unemployment benefits
for American workers.
Mr. ROOSEVELT. Mr. Chairman,
I yield such time as he may desire to
the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr.
ST. GERMAIN].
Mr. ST. GERMAIN. Mr. Chairman,
I welcome this opportunity to urge
favorable consideration of H.R. 6041
which amends the Davis-Bacon Act to
include fringe benefits in the determi-
nation of prevailing wage rates.
Eight of our States have already
recognized the need to make more
realistic prevailing wage determina-
tions by the inclusion of fringe bene-
fits.
In my own State of Rhode Island
such fringe benefits as retirement
plans, health and welfare plans are
regarded as just as much a part of the
required prevailing wage rate as the
basic hourly rates for the construction
crafts themselves.
The logic and correctness of the
Rhode Island approach to prevailing
wages is evident from an examination
of the manner in which the concepts
of wages has changed since the enact-
ment of the Davis-Bacon Act of 1931.
At that time group hospitalization,
disability benefits, welfare funds, and
other fringe benefit plans were the
exception rather than the rule. Today
-------
1822
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
more than 85 million people in the I
United States are dependent upon the
supplementary benefits provided by
these plans.
It is, therefore, apparent that the
original policy of the act, to prevent
the use of Federal funds to depress
local wage standards, can best be ac-
complished by basing prevailing wage
determinations on both direct compen-
sation in the form of wages and indi-
rect compensation in the form of
fringe benefits.
Opponents of this measure have
argued that the inclusion of fringe
benefits would create many and varied
administrative problems. I believe
that the small number of complaints
arising from wage determinations
pursuant to the Rhode Island prevail-
ing wage law is indicative of the fact
that these criticisms are without
merit.
Moreover, it is my understanding
that there has been more stability and
higher standards of workmanship
within the labor force of the Rhode
Island construction industry under
our prevailing wage law.
The Federal Government in keeping
with its historical role of leadership
in advancing the welfare of our coun-
try, should not lag behind the States
in making realistic determinations of
prevailing wages. I, therefore, urge
that the Davis-Bacon Act be amended
so that it may operate more effectively
as a true prevailing wage law.
Mr. ROOSEVELT. Mr. Chairman,
I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Maryland [Mr.
SICKLES].
Mr. SICKLES. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in support of the pending legisla-
tion today and I would like to take
these few minutes to try to in my own
way, and to the extent possible in the
time available, clarify some of the
matters which have been brought out
in the colloquy here this afternoon.
There has been much made about
the fact that in some instances there
are contributions into these funds and
under some circumstances in spite of
this contribution a particular em-
ployee of a particular employer may
not be eligible for benefits. It has
been inferred this could be by virtue
of nonmembership in an international
union or nonmembership in a local
union. Ever since the Jandel Furs
case in 1952 it has been recognized by
the industry that this is an unfair
labor practice. So if this does exist—
I am not saying it does not, because it
may, but it does not within my knowl-
edge in this Metropolitan Washington
area on which I have direct informa-
tion from my past activities in the
field—it is a clear violation of the
Taft-Hartley Act. If there were the
necessity for further legislation to
cover this area it would seem to me
we should go to the Taft-Hartley Act
and provide either by amendment of
section 8 (a) and 8(b), or section 302,
which has to do with the welfare and
other plans under the Taft-Hartley
Act.
Mr. GOODELL. Mr Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. SICKLES. I yield to the gen-
tleman from New York.
Mr. GOODELL. I just want to re-
iterate the fact that this is not done
in a collective bargaining agreement.
The agreement is completely irrele-
vant. This is not done in the collec-
tive bargaining agreement. The em-
ployer does not agree with the union
that he will exclude all employees who
are not members of the union. The
employer sets aside a certain amount
of money from each employee that he
contributes for a plan of fringe bene-
fits. The NLRB and the courts have
[p. 1217]
not gone into the question of who is
eligible and who is not eligible for the
benefits of this plan. They have not
to my knowledge questioned whether
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1823
or not the terms and standards are
proper for excluding employees from
the benefits of this plan. So the net
effect is that the collective bargaining
agreement is perfectly valid. The
problem, however, occurs where they
set up the fund for the benefits to be
paid. I am told that what frequently
happens is that 100 percent of the em-
ployees contribute but 30 or 40 per-
cent of the employees benefit. How
can you decide whether a fringe bene-
fit plan prevails unless you know the
percentage of employees that are
going to be benefited under the plan?
Mr. SICKLES. As to whether it
would or would not be an unfair labor
practice, in my judgment and the
judgment of the practitioners in the
field as I know them, if an employer
were to contribute to such a plan, even
though he may not have been a party
to the rule that was set up by the
trustees, it would still be an unfair
labor practice and he could be com-
pelled to pay into the plan. But if
that is not the law, if we wanted to
change the law, we should amend the
Taft-Hartley Act, not this act.
Mr. GOODELL. The gentleman has
said that what exists cannot exist. It
does exist. We have had a few exam-
ples given to us. Those examples ap-
parently are not illegal. The burden,
I think, is upon you to show that these
fringe benefit plans cannot do this, be-
cause they apparently by various de-
vices are doing it.
The second point is that this law
says the Secretary has an obligation
to go into an area and find out what
fringe benefits prevail. How can he
determine what prevails in an area
unless he knows how many and what
employees are affected in that area in
that category?
Mr. SICKLES. As to the second
problem, I think we may disagree
completely. There may be some iso-
lated cases as to which I have no tes-
timony. It may be somebody testified
in the committee. But in the whole
Washington metropolitan area it is
not the practice here. If the gentle-
man can testify to that in his particu-
lar section, that is fine.
Mr. GOODELL. I am sorry the
gentleman is not a member of our
subcommittee.
Mr. ROOSEVELT. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SICKLES. I yield to the gen-
tleman from California.
Mr. ROOSEVELT. The gentleman
has referred to a part of the testi-
mony that I, as chairman of the sub-
committee, cannot find.
Mr. SICKLES. The point is made
that contributions are made to the
fund that are not eligible for benefits.
This is brought about because you
have hundreds of these funds. The
reason these funds came into being
was that each employer could not have
a separate plan because of the size of
the employer and because of employ-
ment fluctuations. The employees go
from one employer to another, so they
set up these trust funds.
Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SICKLES. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Illinois.
Mr. PUCINSKI. I trust the gentle-
man's judgment because of his great
experience in this particular field. Is
it not a fact that the gentleman from
New York has answered his own
question? Apparently he is not thor-
oughly familiar with the nature of
these welfare funds in the construction
industry. In this bill the language on
page 2, line 3, and then again in line
7, is specifically tailored to prevent the
confusion the gentleman from New
York predicts will ensue if this bill is
passed, in that the language on page
2, line 3, says:
The rate of contribution irrevocably made by
a contractor or subcontractor to a trustee or
to a tbird person pursuant to a fund, plan, or
program.
-------
1824
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
Then the bill lists the specific fringe
benefits. That is as far as this bill
goes. Now, am I correct in conclud-
ing, therefore, that the confusion
which the gentleman from New York
predicts will be avoided simply be-
cause we tailored this bill to the indi-
vidual contractor's total contribution
to a pension fund? Because of the
peculiar nature of the building indus-
try, it would be impossible to ham-
string the department if we were to
carry out the suggestion of the gen-
tleman from New York and deal with
each employee individually. Am I cor-
rect in that presumption?
Mr. SICKLES. I agree with the
gentleman completely.
Mr. GOODELL. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. SICKLES. I am glad to yield
to my colleague.
Mr. GOODELL. The point is—how
do you determine what is prevailing
unless you find out how many em-
ployees are covered? What the gen-
tleman from Illinois has just said, in
effect, is that it is impossible to deter-
mine what prevails in an area. The
gentleman from California, if I may
just raise this point, said he does not
recall this testimony. It occurs. We
have the testimony on and off the
record, and the gentleman must know
that it exists in the industry.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr.
BROOKS). The time of the gentleman
from Maryland [Mr. SICKLES] has
expired.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr
Chairman, I yield 8 minutes to the
gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. MAR-
TIN].
Mr. MARTIN of Nebraska. Mr
Chairman, the Davis-Bacon Act was
originally written in 1931 for tb
purpose of seeing that prevailing
wages in the construction field ar<
paid were Federal funds are involved
The act established the policy that tb
Federal Government was not to be a
)arty to depressing local labor stand-
rds. That was the original purpose
}f the act. Yet, I submit, Mr. Chair-
man, the reaction to the Davis-Bacon
Act today is just the opposite of this.
Because instead of not depressing
Adages in the local area, it is increas-
ng construction wages throughout the
United States and contributing great-
y to increased construction costs both
;o the taxpayers of this country and
;o individuals in private construction.
Let me go back and prove that
joint for just a moment. In 1931,
when this act first became law, the
construction industry was not well or-
•anized. Not too many were union
members. What is the situation to-
day? The construction industry today
is highly organized and in the field
where Federal construction exists—it
is almost 100 percent organized. These
wages are set forth in local contracts
between the local craft unions and the
:ontracting industry in those areas.
Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Chairman, I
make the point of order that a quorum
is not present.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The
Chair will count. [After counting.]
One hundred and two members are
present, a quorum.
Mr. MARTIN of Nebraska. Mr.
Chairman, today there is a highly or-
ganized situation in the construction
industry. Most of the Federal work
for which there are contracts amounts
to from several hundred thousand dol-
lars to many millions of dollars.
The contractors who bid on these
types of jobs throughout the entire
country, we find, are those who deal
with organized labor. Their wages
are controlled and set by local labor
contracts arrived at between the con-
tractor and the unions. As a conse-
quence, the Davis-Bacon Act no long-
er serves the purpose for which it was
originally intended, because the union
contracts make certain that wages are
not depressed in the various localities.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1825
I shall quote from the law very
briefly, to show what is covered in the
determinations by the Secretary of
Labor. He is to make determinations
as to the prevailing wage rate in the
city, town, village or other civil sub-
division of the State—and I ask Mem-
bers to mark that language—of the
State in which the work is to be per-
formed. It does not say that he is to
go outside of the State. It says, "of
the State in which the work is to be
performed."
Despite this, we have seen numer-
ous instances when the Solicitor of
the Department of Labor has violated
this concept which is specifically and
plainly written into the law, by mak-
ing determinations which have gone
across State lines.
Let me give an illustration. I have
before me information on predeter-
mined rates in the Fort Warren area
—that is, Cheyenne, Wyo.—where a
Minuteman missile construction proj-
ect is presently underway. The con-
struction of this project is being car-
ried on in eight counties; two in Colo-
rado, three in Wyoming, and three in
Nebraska.
I shall give the wage rate for one
occupation, as determined for common
labor.
In the three counties of Wyoming
the determination was $2.22 an hour
for common labor. In the two counties
in Colorado the determination was
$2.47 an hour. In the three counties
in Nebraska it was $2 an hour.
What did the Solicitor come up with
as the project agreement rate on this,
[p. 1218]
as his determination? He took the
highest rate, in only two of the coun-
ties in Colorado, and went across
State lines to determine that the rate
should be $2.47 an hour, to the detri-
ment of our people in those rural
counties in Nebraska and also in Wy-
oming. He arbitrarily established a
higher wage rate than predominates
even according to his own figures.
Again I say he went across State lines
to make his determination, to provide
one wage rate for the entire project
in that area.
The Solicitor has also gone beyond
his jurisdiction in making determina-
tions as to the classifications of work.
There is nothing in the act which pro-
vides that he shall make determina-
tions in regard to classifications. The
act only provides that he shall deter-
mine the prevailing wage for com-
parable work in the area.
I have before me a copy of the de-
cision of the hearing examiner in a
case currently pending in Nebraska in
regard to carpenters' helpers. I shall
quote from the conclusions on the last
page of the report of the hearing ex-
aminer. I do not believe this comes
within the jurisdiction of the Solicitor,
to make a determination in such a
case.
I quote:
1. In all "areas" (as that term is used in
29 CFR 1.2 (b) ) of the State of Nebraska, it is
the prevailing practice to use the classifications
of carpenters' helpers and form setters on pri-
vate and public construction projects.
2. Such classifications are found in all
"areas" of Nebraska, except Douglas and Sarpy
Counties, and are used at least on structural
form work on heavy and highway construction.
3. These classifications have been used under
various job titles for about 25 years on non-
Federal construction, and, under their present
names, on Federal reclamation work about 4
years, and interstate highway construction for
about 6 years.
4. There are presently no existing criteria
effectively distinguishing the carpenters' helper
and form setter classifications from the car-
penter classification.
5. The terms and public policy of the Davis-
Bacon Act require that laborers and mechanics
performing structural form work in all "areas"
of Nebraska, except Douglas and Sarpy Coun-
ties, on heavy and highway construction, under
the classifications of carpenters' helpers and
form setters, should be specified as carpenters
under the wage determination provisions of
section 1 of the Davis-Bacon Act.
Here is a classification, the carpen-
ters' helper and form setter, that has
-------
1826
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
been in practice, as admitted by the
examiner, for 25 years in Nebraska
and has been certified to by the Ne-
braska State Highway Department to
the Solicitor, and yet the examiner
rules that the carpenters' helper clas-
sification must be eliminated and these
men must be paid carpenters' wages.
Mr. Chairman, I submit the Solici-
tor under the terms of the Davis-
Bacon Act as currently written does
not have any jurisdiction in this field
and he is not eligible to change clas-
sifications that have been in effect for
25 years.
I hope that this proposal today to
bring fringe benefits in as part of the
wage determination factors of the
Davis-Bacon Act is defeated.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr.
Chairman, I yield such time as he may
desire to the gentleman from Penn-
sylvania [Mr. SAYLOE].
Mr. SAYLOE. Mr. Chairman, I fa-
vor this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, in 1931, a Republi-
can Senator from my own State of
Pennsylvania, James 3. Davis, and a
Republican Congressman from the
neighboring State of New York, Rob-
ert Bacon, sponsored what has become
one of the most important pieces of
labor legislation, commonly referred
to as the Davis-Bacon Act.
Its purpose was to assure the peo-
ple in any area of the United States
that the Federal Government, through
its contractors, would not disrupt the
local economy by allowing a contrac-
tor doing work for the Government to
pay his employees less than the pre-
vailing wage in any such area of the
country.
For over 30 years that policy has
been the law of the land as a result
of the enactment of the Davis-Bacon
Act.
Today, we are considering an
amendment to this act which would
require a contractor to consider as a
part of the prevailing wage in any
area the inclusion of fringe benefits.
Since the passage of the original act,
fringe benefits have become an in-
;egral part of our wage structure.
Frequently the only matters consid-
ired during negotiations between man-
agement and labor are fringe bene-
fits. It is therefore only fitting and
proper that such fringe benefits
should be included in the determina-
tion of prevailing wages in any area.
My conclusions are not based upon
theory alone. I have the advantage
of living in a State which already has
such requirements as a part of its
statutes.
In the State of Pennsylvania, our
prevailing wage laws provide that em-
ployers' and employees' contributions
for employee benefits, pursuant to a
bona fide collective bargaining agree-
ment, shall be considered an integral
part of the wage rate for the purpose
of determining the minimum wage
rate under the prevailing wage law.
This concept of wage rates is much
more realistic in terms of our present
day wage structures.
The proposed amendment to the
Davis-Bacon Act would take into con-
sideration this changed concept of
wages by the inclusion of fringe bene-
fits. The need for such an amend-
ment becomes more apparent when we
realize that without an amendment of
this type a construction contractor
who contributes to welfare and pen-
sion plans, apprentice programs and
other fringe plans is placed at a com-
petitive bidding disadvantage with the
construction contractor who fails to
provide for his workers—the same
situation that existed in 1931 and led
Congress to enact the original Davis-
Bacon Act.
Certainly, the Federal Government,
as the protector of the welfare of all
the people, should be a leader in elim-
inating practices which depress local
wage standards.
On the basis of our experience in
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1827
Pennsylvania, we have had little or
no problems in administration as evi-
denced by the paucity of appeals or
complaints made concerning wage de-
terminations. Our industries have
also been strengthened by a sense of
honest and fair competition as a re-
sult of this realistic approach to wage
determination. Moreover, to my
knowledge, there has been no appre-
ciable increase in the cost for State
government projects.
Therefore, on the basis of the ex-
perience of my own State and the
seven other States with fringe benefit
provisions, I strongly urge you to sup-
port these amendments which will con-
stitute a further step in helping to al-
leviate some of the economic problems
of our society.
With the approval of this bill, the
Congress will not be venturing into a
new legislative field, but its enactment
will bring the bidding on Federal con-
tracts more in line with the standards
of some of our more progressive
States.
Mr. ROOSEVELT. Mr. Chairman,
I yield such time as he may require to
the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr.
JOELSON].
Mr. JOELSON. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in support of the pending bill.
The Davis-Bacon bill was originally
a good law, but in order for it to re-
main a good law, it must be modern-
ized and brought up to date in the
light of present-day labor relations.
We must face the fortunate fact
that fringe benefits are an integral
part of current workers' rights. In
fact, I think we should not call them
"fringe." They are indeed central.
Unless we consider such benefits
under the Davis-Bacon bill, we will do
a disservice to the American worker.
Mr. ROOSEVELT. Mr. Chairman,
I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. GILL].
Mr. GILL. Perhaps it is time, Mr.
Chairman, to get back to what this
bill is all about. All we are doing now
is adding to the definition of wages,
those fringe benefit payments which
have become widely accepted in the
construction industry. We are merely
conforming the law to the practice.
There is no more reason to give an
advantage to a contractor who has
managed to avoid paying the prevail-
ing level of fringe benefits than there
is to give such a competitive advan-
tage to one who pays substandard
wages. Both are cost items to the em-
ployer and both are compensation to
the worker.
Very few will argue on this basic
point. I think another key point has
been mentioned: This particular bill,
insofar as it deals with fringe bene-
fits, relates to the cost to the employ-
er. It is the prevailing cost which is
at issue; it is not the benefit that may
finally accrue to the employee. If you
will look at the bill, you will see that
is just what it says. On page 2, lines
3 and 7 it starts off "(A) the rate of
contribution." Then under (B) it
mentions "the rate of costs." It says
nothing at all about the benefits. That,
of course, is the only way you can
measure the burden on the employer.
I think we should also point out for
the benefit of the gentleman from New
York that even wages paid may dif-
fer. Even though a basic wage rate is
set, some people may get more over-
time than others.
Fringe benefits may certainly differ.
You may have a sick benefit plan, but
not everybody gets sick. You may
have a vacation plan, but some people
[p. 1219]
may qualify and others may not. You
may have a pension plan, the benefits
of which will fall in a different fash-
ion on different persons depending on
their length of service and the terms
of the plan.
I would now like to touch briefly on
something which is going to come up
later, namely, judicial review of the
-------
1828
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
fringe benefit section. I understand
this amendment will be offered. The
key to the present act and the key to
all proceedings under the Davis-Bacon
Act is the predetermination of wages.
The certainty of the wage scale gives
fairness to the bidding. Every con-
tractor knows in advance what his la-
bor cost will be. He then bids on his
ability to perform the contract effi-
ciently. This rewards the efficient and
skilled contractor and saves the Gov-
ernment money. Obviously, unless all
the contractors know in advance the
cost of labor, none can bid with cer-
tainty.
The proposal to submit this to ju-
dicial review will create uncertainty.
The gambler may win. He may attack
the wage determinations in advance,
or wait until they are due and then
fail to pay. He can then take a
chance that some judge will agree
with a wage level lower than that set
by the Secretary of Labor.
I think it is perfectly obvious that
under this particular type of law an
advance attack on the wage levels will
almost assuredly delay construction.
In addition to delay and cost uncer-
tainty I think there are also some par-
ticular problems raised here. First,
if a suit is brought in advance of let-
ting a contract, by the time the wage
levels are finally determined by the
courts they may be out of date. Sec-
ond, this procedure will allow "strike
suits" by contractors who may not be
ready to bid at a given time. Such a
contractor can hold up the work until
such time as he is ready to bid and
then withdraw his suit, to the disad-
vantage of other contractors who may
have had idle men and equipment
ready to go to work at any time.
Finally, I think we should point out
that there is no real right to judicial
review in this type of proceeding. All
that is involved is the right of the
Government as a builder to say what
price it will pay for its labor. The
price is the same to all bidders; they
stand on equal footing; if they do not
desire to pay such wages on this par-
ticular job, then they need not bid.
Certainly few will dispute the right
of the Government to specify what
type and quality of materials will be
used in its buildings, the size of the
Buildings, or the floor plan. Why
should we claim a difference when the
wages of men are involved?
I think some of these arguments
tiave been made with a desire to kill
the basic law, the Bacon-Davis law,
which has been with us since 1931.
Certainly the amendments that will be
offered to the fringe benefit sections
will be offered with the hope of mak-
ing those sections inoperative.
Mr. ROOSEVELT. Mr. Chairman,
I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr.
DANIELS] .
Mr. DANIELS. Mr. Chairman, I
strongly urge enactment of H.R. 6041
which would include fringe benefits in
prevailing wage determinations under
the Davis-Bacon Act.
The equalization of labor costs in
prevailing wage determinations is es-
sential if this act is to be adminis-
tered fairly and efficiently. This ob-
jective, however, cannot be fully ac-
complished under the act's present
provisions. This is because these de-
terminations currently do not reflect
the employer contributions now being
made to nearly 7,000 welfare and pen-
sion plans in the construction indus-
try.
Simple justice demands that pre-
vailing wage determinations encom-
pass all types of prevailing wage pay-
ments so long as they represent a part
of the direct cost of Government con-
struction. Without this feature, this
law cannot be totally effective in pro-
tecting local wage standards.
More than three decades ago when
the Davis-Bacon Act became law, cash
wages, virtually without exception,
constituted the only kind of remunera-
tion paid to construction workers. In
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1829
the intervening years—and especially
since World War II—wage payment
practices have changed almost as
much as the techniques of operation
in this industry. Whereas, employee
benefit plans were almost completely
unknown when this law came into
existence in 1931, there are now, as I
have indicated, nearly 7,000 of such
plans in this industry.
I am sure it is not the intention of
Congress to penalize the fairminded
employer who provides such benefits
for his employees; nor surely do we
intend to penalize the employee who
seeks to protect the future welfare of
himself and his family by accepting
part of his wages in the form of
fringe benefit payments.
Yet this exactly what we shall be
doing if we reject this bill. Since pre-
vailing wage determinations for Fed-
eral and federally assisted construc-
tion projects now cover only part of
the wage picture—the payment of
cash wages—employers who do not
provide fringe benefits for their em-
ployees frequently can underbid those
employers who do. This is manifestly
unjust to the more progressive, fair-
minded employer and to those workers
whom he employs.
Mr. Chairman, if the Davis-Bacon
Act is to continue to protect local
wage standards, it is essential that it
be updated to take into account the
changed pattern of wage payments in
the construction industry. I therefore
urge the enactment of H.R. 6041.
Mr. ROOSEVELT. Mr. Chairman,
I yield such time as he may desire to
the gentleman from Michigan [Mr.
O'HARA].
Mr. O'HARA of Michigan. Mr.
Chairman, we should briefly review
the essentials of this legislation be-
fore we begin consideration under the
5-minute rule.
The salient fact is that over the
past 15 or 20 years many workers in
the construction industry in bargain-
ing on wage rates have chosen to take
some of their pay in these so-called
fringe benefits such as health insur-
ance, retirement, paid vacations, and
so forth. But there is considerable
variation among them in their rela-
tive preference for fringe benefits over
direct wages and vice versa.
I procured a listing of typical con-
tract provisions from the Detroit area
and I find, for instance, that boiler-
makers have taken 35 cents of their
hourly wages in fringe benefits; as-
bestos workers, 74 cents; engineers,
30 cents; glaziers, 23 cents; pipe-
fitters, 62.5 cents. Unless we recog-
nize that fringe benefits are as much
a part of a workman's wages as the
dollars and cents in the pay envelope,
the Davis-Bacon law does not truly
reflect anything and the intent of Con-
gress when it enacted this law in 1931
and amended it in 1935 is frustrated.
I would like to briefly refer also to
questions raised by the gentleman
from New York [Mr. GOODELL]. I
have finally located in a copy of the
hearings the testimony to which he
has referred. I find it was given to
the committee by a gentleman named
Coleman who is a contractor from Sil-
ver Spring, Md. As I have tried to
understand Mr. Coleman's testimony
it amounts to simply this: He has
peak seasons, and he has slack sea-
sons. He has a certain number of peo-
ple he tries to keep on the payroll the
year round. They are his regular em-
ployees. To them he pays a certain
wage and makes contributions to cer-
tain funds in the way of fringe bene-
fits. He said he paid $12,000 a year
into the pension fund, and $1,200 a
year into an accident-health insurance
fund.
Then he went on to say that when
the peak season is upon him and he
needs extra workers, he hires them at
$3 an hour with no fringe benefits.
The Secretary of Labor will have no
difficulty in finding out that he pays
some of his employees $3 with no
fringe benefits, and his regular em-
-------
1830
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
ployees some other amount plus fringe
benefits.
Mr. GOODELL. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. O'HARA of Michigan. I yield
to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. GOODELL. The gentleman has
referred to one of the people who tes-
tified in this general area as to the
way the fringe benefits are set up.
The gentleman assumes Mr. Coleman
paid workers not eligible for fringe
benefits more in cash than those work-
ers eligible. That is precisely what
should happen. If a worker does not
participate in a program's benefits,
he should not be required to pay for
it. The employer thus would not pay
money on that employee's behalf into
a fund. That would be paid in cash
directly to the worker. This is one of
the situations. There are others. The
general practice in the industry, ac-
cording to what the gentleman says,
is to make all employees eligible.
Then I do not understand why the
gentleman should be concerned about
the legislative history that I tried to
make, that the Secretary has the re-
sponsibility simply to get a statement
from the employer when he makes the
report of what fringe benefits are in-
volved and what contributions are in-
volved, as to how many employees, and
what percentage of the employees in
that category are affected. If he does
not do that, the Secretary really does
not have the basis for determining
that it is prevailing.
[p. 1220]
The gentleman from Pennsylvania
pointed out the same thing. He kept
referring to the fact that all you have
to do is ask the contractor what he
has to contribute under this collective
bargaining agreement toward fringe
benefits, that this will settle the mat-
ter. It does not settle the matter. We
should go beyond this to be sure what
percentage of the workers are in-
volved here. There are 150 different
legal devices for eliminating workers
from benefits. One is that they have
not worked for 6 months steadily. You
can go right down the line. Further,
there may be a specification that they
belong to the union or local. But the
point is, Why does the gentleman op-
pose clarifying it?
Mr. O'HARA of Michigan. In re-
sponse to repeated requests for spe-
cific examples the gentleman has cited
only one. I have examined the hear-
ings on that one and have just de-
scribed that situation as it exists. I
would say that in this case it is up to
the Secretary of Labor, when he de-
termines the prevailing wage—I am
sure that this will satisfy the gentle-
man—to be sure that X number of
employees of the contractor, the regu-
lar employees, are receiving so much
and Y number may be receiving such
and such an amount, which may be
less. That is what he has to do and
that is what he is doing. I do not
understand the difficulty of the gentle-
man from New York.
Mr. GOODELL. The answer I have
been trying to get from the other
Members on your side of the aisle is
that the Secretary should look into the
question of how many employees have
contributions made for them and how
many participate as eligible benefi-
ciaries. That is the only way to deter-
mine the fringe benefits prevailing.
That is the legislative history I want
to establish here. The gentleman has
asked for specific examples—which
were cited in hearings a year and a
half ago, not the hearings on this bill.
Anyone familiar with practices in the
building trades knows there are count-
less examples.
Mr. O'HARA of Michigan. I think
one of our difficulties is not taking an
example. Let us take as an example
Mr. Coleman. The Secretary calls on
Mr. Coleman and asks him, "How
much are you paying your carpen-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1831
ters?" He says, "I am paying my
regular carpenters so much, my tem-
porary carpenters so much." He
should take down that information
and use it in determining the prevail-
ing wage.
Mr. Chairman, I urge the House to
adopt this bill without amendment.
Mr. ALGER. Mr. Chairman, the
Davis-Bacon law should be amended
to become subject to judicial review.
As the law now stands the Secretary
of Labor sets the wages and when dis-
putes arise involving his decisions the
Secretary becomes the prosecutor,
judge, and jury of the dispute in
which he is a party. This is govern-
ment by men, not law. This is unfair.
This is unconstitutional, surely, by
any test.
I join with my colleagues who wrote
the supplemental and minority views
and commend them for their views as
expressed in the report.
The supplemental and minority
views give ample evidence to make in
order the judicial review amendment,
and I join my colleagues in this effort.
However, I would prefer to see us
completely overhaul the Davis-Bacon
law on these same grounds. The many
examples of payroll padding beyond
prevailing wage, the numerous abuses
in poor administration as listed, the
unfortunate effects on the local commu-
nity's economy as Federal wages are
imposed, the jurisdictional labor dis-
putes aggravating today's labor-man-
agement problems, these and others
proclaim to me that the Federal Gov-
ernment should not be in the field of
wage setting.
Federal Government's role is not in
the area of wage setting or working
conditions. The alleged laudable goals
of the Davis-Bacon law are based not
on capitalism but on the dubious foun-
dation of Government in business. To
me there is no justification for the
Government to be in wage setting.
The dangers recited as reason for the
Davis-Bacon Act I categorically con-
tradict and believe that an objective
study of this law will show that our
private market capitalistic economy
has built in it the checks and balances
that deny the reality of the alleged
dangers. If not, then unions are fail-
ing their historic function of collective
bargaining with the employer.
Indeed, Davis-Bacon has aggravated
the warfare of union versus union
known as jurisdictional warfare. We
have the cart before the horse.
If this Congress would return to a
study of our Federal laws that relate
to our economy in terms of the eco-
nomic principles of private enterprise
and capitalism, then many laws would
be repealed, including Davis-Bacon, to
our national benefit.
Government — Federal Government
—has no place in wage setting, in con-
ducting business operations in compe-
tition with citizens in business, or in
trying to provide the basic necessities
of life including food, clothing, hous-
ing, jobs, and medical needs. This is
not to say people needing help should
not be helped, nor that sweat shop
wages will result. Human needs, so
often mentioned, cannot be provided
by Federal Government. Indeed, Gov-
ernment action becomes self-defeating.
Prevailing wages will be paid by
employers or employees will not work.
The fears of the 1930's and the many
Federal solutions are not in order
today.
What we need to do is to free-up the
private market, individual initiative
and the traditional ingenuity and in-
ventiveness of our people. This is not
a loose generality but a solid state-
ment of fact. The locality and State
can handle wage problems if any arise
•—no Federal Government is needed.
It is worthy of a try. The Davis-
Bacon law should be repealed. Should
the law not be repealed, then judicial
review is in order. Wage setting, as
I have said, is not the function of
Federal Government. However, if the
law is not repealed, then there should
-------
1832
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
be judicial review, so that there is the
right of appeal from the arbitrary de-
cisions of one man, the Secretary of
Labor. One man dictatorially setting
wages is hardly an American concept
of private enterprise and capitalism,
as I see it.
It seems to me, no harm would ac-
crue, but much good would result from
a careful review of the Davis-Bacon
law's violations of private enterprise
concepts. Toward this end I solicit
my colleagues' attention, and shall
continue to keep alive this viewpoint,
so that it not be lost in our delibera-
tions of the Federal Government's lim-
ited role in our lives.
Mr. LIBONATI. Mr. Chairman,
the amendments approved by the Com-
mittee on Education and Labor con-
sisting of the fringe benefits including
group hospitalization, disability bene-
fits, and others to be included in pre-
vailing wage determinations under the
Davis-Bacon Act is an important step
in establishing by law—affecting 85
million employed—these benefits as a
form of compensation. The protection
afforded to the employed by the en-
actment of these proposed amend-
ments carries out the basic purpose of
the Davis-Bacon Act, to determine
prevailing wages, labor practices,
and customs in an area or locality.
The thousands—over four—of welfare
funds in the construction industry are
supported financially by the employ-
er's contributions of a certain amount
—generally starting at 10 cents per
hour—for each working hour. In ex-
cess of 70 percent of the workers in
this industry are so covered, as a re-
sult of collective bargaining, the
fringe benefits were accepted and con-
sidered in reality as an increase in
compensation in lieu of wage in-
creases.
The States—eight—have recently
added fringe benefits to their prevail-
ing wage laws. In certain areas em-
ployers contribute 25 or 35 cents per
hour to these health and welfare
funds. The industry has accepted this
type of contribution as a bargaining
'actor in wage disputes.
These costs are figured by the em-
ployer in bidding for projects. It is
a significant figure in dollars and
cents to be calculated in the employ-
ment costs under the contract. Contri-
butions by the employer to health,
welfare, pension, apprenticeship, and
training plans have increased steadily
Decause of the modern trend in labor's
;hinking to seek security for the work-
er's family unit and his old age.
Therefore, these costs should be rec-
ognized and established by law as an
integral part of a basic figure in de-
termination of the prevailing wage
rate.
Mr. FELLY. Mr. Chairman, I
strongly support the inclusion of
fringe benefits under the Davis-Bacon
Act, as spelled out in H.R. 6041, pres-
ently before the House for considera-
tion. The passage of this bill will
substantially improve this important
legislation.
However, there are other inequities
in the act which I had hoped to see
corrected at this time, and had the
parliamentary procedure permitted
during consideration of the bill, I in-
tended to offer an amendment that
would have included maintenance and
janitorial service under the provisions
of the Davis-Bacon Act.
I have had the privilege of author-
ing bills to accomplish this purpose on
[p. 1221]
two separate occasions, once in the
86th Congress and once in the 87th
Congress. The maintenance and jani-
torial contractors in my congressional
district in Seattle, Wash., are serious-
ly handicapped in bidding on any local
contracts. For many valid reasons,
GSA, Department of Defense and
other governmental agencies have
called upon the janitorial and main-
tenance contractors to bid on this
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1833
work. This, of course, is good for the
industry in that it creates a new cus-
tomer. It is also good for the Gov-
ernment because it has reduced the
cost and increased efficiency.
Contractors in my area responded to
this new source of business and at-
tempted to secure contracts in vari-
ous agencies throughout the United
States. However, it was soon obvious
that due to the system that was neces-
sarily employed in awarding contracts
to the low bidder, any operator who
resorted to hiring help at below the
prevailing rate in an area inevitably
was the low bidder. As a result, non-
local or out-of-State contractors with-
out previous union contracts are con-
sistently the successful bidders in all
governmental activities in the Puget
Sound area.
This creates a discriminatory situa-
tion under which local unionized con-
tractors cannot meet the competition
when paying prevailing scales re-
quired under union contracts. The
out-of-State contractor, of course, em- ,
ploys help on a part-time basis, at
substandard rates, and using non-
union labor.
This condition is intolerable to both
management and labor and certainly
should be corrected. It now appears
that inasmuch as my amendment can-
not be considered at this time that
separate legislation is in order, and I
am pleased to note that hearings are
underway on H.R. 1678, by my col-
league, Congressman O'HAEA. It is
my intention to lend every possible
support to this bill, and I trust that
shortly the Members of the House will
have an opportunity to act affirma-
tively on that legislation.
Mr. SICKLES. Mr. Chairman, the
Davis-Bacon Act was enacted 33 years
ago. Its purpose was to assure that
the Federal Government would not, by
virtue of its construction policies, con-
tribute to the depression of wage
rates and the lowering of labor stand-
ards in our local communities.
Since that time, in addition to an in-
crease in the level of Federal spend-
ing for construction, we have wit-
nessed a tremendous growth of the so-
called, "hidden paycheck" or fringe
benefit. An excellent article in the
May 14, 1963, edition of the Wall
Street Journal pointed out that since
1946 fringe benefits in the United
States have increased much faster
than wages and salaries. It noted that
the increase in payments to private
welfare and pension funds has risen
almost 700 percent since 1946. These
and other fringe benefits have risen
from an estimated 3 percent of wage
and salary earnings in 1946 to a rec-
ord 7 percent last year. This means
that every dollar received in wages is
accompanied by 7 cents in fringe bene-
fits. In the city of Baltimore in my
own State average benefits range from
20% cents paid hourly into insurance
and pension funds for plumbers to 7%
cents paid hourly in insurance plans
for painters nationally. The fringe
benefit paycheck is estimated to be
about $20 billion a year. The Depart-
ment of Labor has estimated that
pension plans grew in number from
7,400 in 1945 to 25,000 in 1960. The
number of persons covered under
these plans in that period grew from
5% million to approximately 80 mil-
lion.
Wages and fringe benefits are now
considered part of the total employee
benefit "package" negotiated by labor
and management or received by the
employee from his employer. These
fringe benefits have measurable dollar
value, and are often preferred by se-
curity-conscious, farsighted employees
over straight cash salary increases.
At the present time, under the
Davis-Bacon Act, the Labor Depart-
ment does not include the dollars and
cents value of fringe benefits as part
of the "prevailing wage" figure to be
paid on Government construction cov-
ered under the act. As a result, the
labor costs to employers not paying
-------
1834
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
these benefits is lessened, and enlight-
ened employers, those who provide
adequate security features and mod-
ern personnel practices in their con-
tracts with employees, are penalized.
Eight States have already wrested
leadership from the Federal Govern-
ment in the prevailing wage field by
providing in State construction proj-
ects for the inclusion of fringe bene-
fits in the prevailing wage determina-
tion.
The Congress has recognized the
importance and swift growth of wel-
fare and pension plans by providing
for their regulation in 1959. It is time
that the Congress also acts to include
these and other fringe benefits in the
determination of the prevailing wage
under the Davis-Bacon Act. To do less
would be to ignore the facts regarding
fringe benefits and seriously under-
mine the basic principles of this law
established by Congress over 30 years
ago. To do less would be a serious
injustice to both employers and em-
ployees in the construction industry.
Mr. GRABOWSKI. Mr. Chairman,
I wish to give my full support to H.R.
6041, a bill which would require the
Secretary of Labor to include fringe
benefits when defining prevailing mini-
mum wages under the Davis-Bacon
Act.
This act requires that wage stand-
ards prevailing in local areas, cities,
and towns be observed on Federal and
federally assisted construction proj-
ects. The object of this law is the
same as when it was passed in 1931,
to protect the standards which prevail
in any area against the importation
of labor from other areas with lower
standards. It was passed in a Repub-
lican administration and amended into
substantially its present form in a
Democratic one. It is not a partisan
issue. It is not untried legislation. It
has been on the statute books for a
generation.
When this law was enacted the sit-
uation with respect to construction
wages was a fairly simple one. Work-
ers were paid so much per hour and
that was their wage. The act does not
even contain a definition of wages. No
one thought it was necessary at the
time. Indeed, it was not necessary in
1931. Fringe benefits were practically
unknown.
At present, however, construction
workers, like many other workers
have gained, through free collective
bargaining with their employers,
many additional benefits, unknown to
their fathers a generation ago. Today,
construction workers are paid not only
hourly wage rates, but in addition em-
ployers pay substantial amounts, usu-
ally measured as so many cents per
hour, into various types of health and
welfare plans on their behalf. There
are medical funds, hospital funds, pen-
sion funds, retirement benefits, death
benefits, unemployment benefits, in-
surance to pay for injuries, disability
insurance, and sickness insurance.
There are even funds to provide for
paying the cost of apprenticeship or
of other kinds of training programs.
The wage determinations of the Sec-
retary are a part of the stipulations
for bid and of the construction con-
tract itself. H.R. 6041 would require
that when he established prevailing
wage scales under this act the Secre-
tary of Labor would also determine
what was being paid in contributions
toward such fringe benefits, as well as
the hourly rates of the construction
workers in the area. The stipulation
then would contain a requirement that
whoever received the contract to per-
form the work in the area should pay
his employees not less than the pre-
vailing hourly rates plus an amount
not less than was being paid there for
fringe benefits. If the contractor came
from the area he would be, necessarily,
paying these amounts. If he came
from outside the area, he would have
to live up to the standards prevailing
in the area. This is only simple fair-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1835
play and justice—to treat all bidders
alike.
When this bill was considered in
1962, some objected that this would
require employers coming into an area
to work to establish funds for the
payment of such fringe benefits. This
is no longer true. The bill provides
that such an employer may, if he does
not wish to set up a fund, pay an
equal amount in cents per hour direct-
ly to the workmen. Thus, all contrac-
tors would be given equal treatment
and an equal opportunity to bid on
contracts in any part of the country.
H.R. 6041, I repeat, is only an up-
dating of one of the oldest and best
established labor laws that we have.
It is not a new law. It proposes noth-
ing novel or untried. It does no more
than might have been done in 1931 or
1935 had fringe benefits been a sub-
ject for collective bargaining at the
time. I strongly urge its passage at
this time.
Mr. BOLAND. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in favor of H.R. 6041, a bill
amending the Davis-Bacon Act to
bring it up to date by including fringe
benefits in prevailing wage determi-
nations. There has been a tremendous
change in the concept of earnings
since Congress enacted the Davis-
Bacon Act in 1931. Group hospitali-
zation, disability benefits, and other
fringe benefit plans were the rare ex-
ception in the 1930's. Today more
than 85 million persons in the United
States depend upon the benefits they
provide. Regardless of the form they
[p. 1222]
take, the employer's share of the cost
of these plans or the benefits the em-
ployers provide are a form of compen-
sation.
If the Davis-Bacon Act is to con-
tinue to accomplish its purpose, pre-
vailing wage determinations issued
pursuant to the act must be enlarged
to include fringe benefits. The act was
founded on the sound principle of pub-
lic policy that the Federal Govern-
ment should not be a party to the de-
struction of prevailing wage practices
and customs in a locality. Unless we
approve these amendments before us
today to provide for the inclusion of
fringe benefits in wage determination,
prevailing wage practices and cus-
toms will not be reflected in these de-
terminations. I urge the passage of
this bill.
Mr. TOLLEFSON. Mr. Chairman,
I want to urge my fellow Congressmen
to vote for H.R. 6041, a bill which
would amend the Davis-Bacon Act to
require that fringe benefits be includ-
ed in computing prevailing wages.
It seems to me that a prevailing
wage really means very little unless it
takes fringe benefits into account.
Certainly an employee who does not
receive fringe benefits is getting a
whole lot less than the man who does.
i We in the State of Washington
have long recognized this to be a fact
of life—that wages include more than
the hourly cash rate, that fringe bene-
fits are a real part of a worker's com-
pensation. For that reason the State
of Washington has for many years
required that fringe benefits be in-
cluded in determining the prevailing
wage to be paid workers employed on
State public works projects. We rec-
ognize that only in this way can one
arrive at a truly fair appraisal of
what workers in a given locality are
receiving as compensation for their
labors.
I am aware that 20 or 30 years ago
—when the Davis-Bacon Act first
came into being—few members of our
work force received the fringe bene-
fits which are commonplace today. But
times have changed. Today, fringe
benefits are an important part of a
worker's compensation. And that is
why the Davis-Bacon Act no longer
provides the wage protection which it
provided in the past. That is why the
-------
1836
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
amendment provided by H.R. 6041 is
so sorely needed.
Mr. Chairman, there is nothing
novel or untried in the proposed
amendment. As I said before, we have
had this kind of law in the State of
Washington for many years. Other
States have similar laws. Wherever
these State laws exist the results have
proven their worth. Administrative
problems have been few and far be-
tween. Building costs have not in-
creased, but employee satisfaction has,
and so have the standards of work-
manship.
In short, State experience with this
type of legislation has been very satis-
factory. I would expect the same
satisfactory results to occur on a
much broader scale if fringe benefits
provisions are incorporated into the
Davis-Bacon Act. Without such pro-
visions, I do not believe the act can
successfully carry out its intended
purpose. That is why I urge enact-
ment of this legislation.
Mr. DON H. CLAUSEN. Mr.
Chairman, I rise in support of this
legislation.
The proposed amendment to the
Davis-Bacon Act, which would provide
for the inclusion of fringe benefits in
determination of prevailing wages, is
both fair and right. It seems clear to
me that fringe benefits are part of a
workman's compensation for his la-
bors and should be so considered in a
determination of prevailing wages for
a Government contract. Incidentally,
I might say that in talks with my
colleagues, I find no serious threat to
the passage of these amendments.
Further in line of labor legislation,
I might add that it certainly appears
at this point, that the railroad crisis
will be before the Congress again in
the near future. As you may know,
I voted against the previous settle-
ment in the Congress on the basis that
this legislation is the first step toward
compulsory arbitration. I would like
to quote my official public statement
on this matter at the time:
I voted against the railroad bill. What the
Congress and the President did was to duck thj
issue. They set the precedent of using compul-
sory arbitration as a temporary expedient to
prevent an economically dangerous railroad
strike. Thereby, they marked the beginning of
the end of free collective bargaining. I predict
that before the 88th Congress completes its
labors, similar crises will develop in the truck-
ing and shipping industries.
Clearly, something was needed to prevent an
economic crisis in the railroad situation. But a
long-range solution, rather than a temporary
one, should have been sought. I am against
centralized business, centralized labor, and cen-
tralized government. In this case, I think the
monopoly blocs in labor and business both
should be broken into units so that normal col-
lective bargaining could proceed without thieat-
ening the entire national economy. One thing
I always try to remember, centralization leads
to control. And the American people want to
be free, not controlled.
I stand by this statement and will
continue to oppose compulsory arbi-
tration in the railroad situation. I
would recommend that those inter-
ested in this effort should immediately
begin to develop the progressive pro-
posals necessary to meet this crisis
without resorting to compulsory arbi-
tration.
Mr. MATSUNAGA. Mr. Chairman,
I rise in support of H.R. 6041, a bill
to amend the Davis-Bacon Act.
As enacted in 1931 and amended in
1935 and 1940, the Davis-Bacon Act
requires contractors and subcontrac-
tors working on U.S. Government con-
struction contracts amounting to
$2,000 or more to pay laborers and
mechanics not less than the prevailing
wages for laborers and mechanics in
that area. By this act the Federal
Government established a firm policy
that it was not to be a party to de-
pressing local labor standards.
Since the last amendment to the act,
an employer's payment for health,
welfare, pension, and apprenticeship
training plans have become substan-
tial elements of the total wages paid
their employees. It is no longer ar-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1837
guable that these so-called fringe
benefits do not constitute a part of
the employee's compensation for his
daily work. Yet under the Davis-
Bacon Act in its present form, these
fringe benefits are not included in the
determination of "prevailing wages,"
and employers hiring laborers and me-
chanics on Federal construction con-
tracts need not in fact pay the "total
wages" prevailing in a given area.
The proposed legislation is intended
to correct this situation so that the
Federal policy as established by the
Davis-Bacon Act may be in fact car-
ried out.
If you who are hesitant in voting
for this measure wish to be shown a
precedent in this area, let me direct
you to the good State I represent.
Hawaii has not only adopted a little
Davis-Bacon Act; it has also enacted
an amendment in substantially the
form proposed here. The beauty of it
all is that no one is complaining. All
concerned — contractors, subcontrac-
tors, laborers, mechanics, labor un-
ions, and the State itself—appear to
be pleased with the operation of our
State law.
Speaking from actual experience,
therefore, Hawaii would like to con-
tribute to the discussion by saying:
"Have no fear. Let us legislate in
keeping with social and economic
progress."
Mr. Chairman, the enactment of
H.R. 6041 will certainly add stability
to the construction industry at the
national level. I urge a favorable vote.
Mr. GIAIMO. Mr. Chairman, my
reason for addressing this House to-
day is that I have seen with my own
eyes in my own district the grievious
results of the failure to include in the
Davis-Bacon Act the provisions which
we propose to add today. I am sure
that many Members in this hall can
bear witness to the unfairness in the
letting of Federal contracts when the
cost of fringe benefits need not be in-
cluded in the contractor's bid.
The city of New Haven offers a
most instructive case. Not long ago
a contract was awarded for painting
the interior of the New Haven post
office. The low bidder was the General
Painting Co. of Weymouth, Mass.
That contractor did not pay fringe
benefits to his workers.
It is interesting to note that the bid
submitted by the General Painting Co.
in amount of $24,000 was more than
$5,000 below the bid submitted by
Joseph Cohn & Son, Inc., a New Ha-
ven contractor. I am informed that
the difference in these two bids would
approximate the value of the fringe
benefits which the New Haven con-
tractors pay their workers and the
Weymouth, Mass., contractor, does
not.
Needless to say, this situation has
caused a great deal of frustration
among New Haven contractors, who
are penalized in bidding on Federal
construction jobs primarily because
they have attempted to foster and
maintain fair labor standards; name-
ly, a living wage plus fringe benefits.
Indeed, many contractors have told
me that they refrain from bidding on
Federal construction projects because
there is very little chance of success,
especially when the contract is of such
a character that it attracts out-of-
town bidders who observe different
and usually lower labor standards.
Paradoxically, however, eliminating
fair contractors from competing on
this type of project inevitably results
in a greater cost to the taxpayer be-
[p. 1223]
cause of the restricted competition.
Obviously, increased competition al-
most always results in lower costs.
There is no doubt in my mind that
similar cases arise almost every day
all parts of the country. The very
contractors who negotiate with their
workers to provide them with a bal-
anced and acceptable standard of liv-
-------
1838
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
ing, are the ones denied access to Gov-
ernment contracts; contracts, I might
add, of a Government whose avowed
purpose is to provide for all its citi-
zens a decent standard of living. The
contractors and unions who pursue
Federal policy presently find them-
selves elbowed out of the field by
scavenging competitors who prosper
by exploiting their workers, and this
gross inequity has the benign bless-
ing of the U.S. Government. It is
time that this inconsistent practice be
stopped.
I am tired of seeing communities
with just and peaceful labor condi-
tions invaded by outsiders, whose only
claim to the award of a job is that
they fail to provide their workers with
fringe benefits. Who knows what in-
efficiencies and profits are protected by
this automatic increment. The Gov-
ernment has lost its leverage in as-
suring that the best contractor gets
the award; it only assures that the
award goes to the contractor who fails
to provide his workers with benefits
which we have come to accept as a
necessary part of modern society.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is quite
clear that I feel very strongly on this
bill, a feeling which is based on per-
sonal experience. I wish to commend
the gentleman from California for his
authorship of the bill and his un-
swerving dedication to its principles.
I also commend the distinguished
chairman of the Education and Labor
Committee for his enlightened leader-
ship and resounding support of this
legislation.
Mr. FRASER. Mr. Chairman, I
urge my fellow Members of the House
to vote today for H.R. 6041 to recog-
nize fringe benefits as part of the pre-
vailing wage for Government con-
struction projects. And I oppose any
move to tack on amendments to this
bill whether for court review or any
other purpose.
Ever since it was adopted in 1931
the purpose of the Davis-Bacon Act
has been to protect fair employers
from being underbid by substandard
contractors who would bring cheap
labor into a community. Today the
fair employer is often paying wages
partly in the form of fringe benefits—
health, welfare, and pension fund pay-
ments for the benefit of the employees.
We should amend the Davis-Bacon
Act to allow these fringe benefits to be
considered part of the prevailing wage
in the area, when federally assisted
construction contracts are being let.
That is the only way we can protect
the fair construction employer and the
American workingman.
In my own district, Minneapolis,
Minn., fringe benefits are a sizable
portion of the wage costs. For car-
penters it is about 40 cents an hour.
For electricians the pension, vacation,
holiday, life insurance, hospitalization,
surgical, and disability benefits amount
to 61% cents per hour. This is 15
percent of the gross labor payroll.
Only vacation and holiday are taken
into account in figuring the prevail-
ing wage under the Davis-Bacon Act
as it reads today.
The Education and Labor Commit-
tee report states well the purpose of
the prevailing wage concept:
To provide equality of opportunity for con-
tractors, to protect prevailing living standards
of the building tradesmen, and to prevent the
disturbance of the local economy. * * * Contrac-
tors were free to compete against each other in
efficiency, know-how, and skill rather than in
terms of their ability to depress the prevailing
wage structure in a locality.
I urge you to vote for H.R. 6041 to
bring the Davis-Bacon Act into the
real world of 1964 so that the Federal
Government will not be a party to de-
pressing local labor standards, includ-
ing fringe benefits.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr.
Chairman, I have no further requests
for time.
Mr. ROOSEVELT. Mr. Chairman,
I have no further requests for time.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1839
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will
read the bill for amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of Amer-
ica in Congress assembled, That section 1 of
the Act of March 3, 1931, as amended (46 Stat.
1494, as amended; 40 U.S.C. 276a) is hereby
amended by designating the language of the
present section as subsection (a) and by adding
at the end thereof the following new subsec-
tion (b) ;
"(b) As used in this Act the term 'wages',
'scale of wages', 'wage rates', 'minimum
wages', and 'prevailing wages' shall include—
"(1) the basic hourly rate of pay; and
"(2) the amount of—
" (A) the rate of contribution irrevocably
made by a contractor or subcontractor to a
trustee or to a third person pursuant to a fund,
plan, or program; and
"(B) the rate of costs to the contractor or
subcontractor which may be reasonably antici-
pated in providing benefits to laborers and me-
chanics pursuant to an enforcible commitment
to carry out a financially responsible plan or
program which was communicated in writ-
ing to the laborers arid mechanics atfected.
for medical or hospital care, pensions on re-
tirement or death, compensation for injuries
or illness resulting from occupational activity,
or insurance to provide any of the foregoing,
for unemployment benefits, life insurance, dis-
ability and sickness insurance, or accident in-
surance, for vacation and holiday pay, for
defraying costs of apprenticeship or other simi-
lar programs, or for other bona fide fringe
benefits, but only where the contractor or sub-
contractor is not required by other Federal,
State, or local law to provide any of such
benefits:
Provided, That the obligation of a contractor
or subcontractor to make payment in accord-
ance with the prevailing wage determinations
of the Secretary of Labor, insofar as this Act
and other Acts incorporating this Act by ref-
erence are concerned may be discharged by the
making of payments in cash, by the making of
contributions of a type referred to in para-
graph (2) (A), or by the assumption of an en-
forcible commitment to bear the costs of a
plan or program of a type referred to in
paragraph (2) (B), or any combination
thereof, where the aggregate of any such pay-
ments, contributions, and costs is not less
than the rate of pay described in paragraph
(1) plus the amount referred to in paragraph
(2).
"In determining the overtime pay to which
the laborer or mechanic is entitled under any
Federal law, his regular or basic hourly rate
of pay (or other alternative rate upon which
premium rate of overtime compensation is
computed) shall be deemed to be the rate com-
puted under paragraph (1), except that where
the amount of payments, contributions, or costs
incurred with respect to him exceeds the pre-
vailing wage applicable to him under this Act,
such regular or basic hourly rate of pay (or
such other alternative rate) shall be arrived
at by deducting from the amount of payments,
contributions, or costs actually incurred with
respect to him, the amount of contributions or
costs of the types described in paragraph (2)
actually incurred with respect to him, or the
amount determined under paragraph (2) but
not actually paid, whichever amount is the
greater."
SEC. 2. Section 15 (b) of the Federal Airport
Act, as amended (60 Stat. 178, as amended; 49
U.S.C. 1114 (b)), is hereby amended by insert-
ing the words "in accordance with the Davis-
Bacon Act, as amended (40 U.S.C. 276a—
276a-5)" after the words "Secretary of La-
bor,".
SEC. 3. Section 212(a) of the National Hous-
ing Act, as amended (53 Stat. 208, as amended;
12 U.S.C. 1715(c)), is hereby amended by in-
serting the words "in accordance with the
Davis-Bacon Act, as amended (40 U.S.C. 276a
—276a-5)," after the words "Secretary of La-
bor,".
SEC. 4. The amendments made by this Act
shall take effect on the ninetieth day after
the date of enactment of this Act, but shall not
affect any contract in existence on such effec-
tive date or made thereafter pursuant to invi-
tations for bids outstanding on such effective
date and the rate of payments specified by sec-
tion l{b) (2) of the Act of March 3, 1931, as
amended by this Act, shall, during a period of
two hundred and seventy days after such effec-
tive date, become effective only in those cases
and reasonable classes of cases as the Secre-
tary of Labor, acting as rapidly as practicable
to make such rates of payments fully effective,
shall by rule or regulation provide.
Mr. ROOSEVELT (during the
reading of the bill). Mr. Chairman, I
ask unanimous consent that the bill
be considered as read and open to
amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objec-
tion to the request of the gentleman
from California?
There was no objection.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. JONES OF
MISSOURI
Mr. JONES of Missouri. Mr.
Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
-------
1840
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. JONES OF MISSOURI
Amendment offered by Mr. JONES of Mis-
souri: Page 1, line 10, after "shall", insert the
following: ", notwithstanding any other provi-
sion of this Act," and on page 2, line 1, after
"pay", insert the following: "prevailing in the
city, town, village, or other civil subdivision,
of the State in which the work is to be per-
formed, as determined by the agency or officer
of such State primarily responsible for enforce-
ment of the labor laws of such State, as desig-
nated by the Governor or by State law".
Mr. JONES of Missouri. Mr.
Chairman, I am attempting to clear
up what I think has been one of the
main misunderstandings under the
Davis-Bacon Act and its enforcement.
I am in favor of the principles of
this act and believe that by the adop-
tion of the amendment I have offered,
we will relieve the Department of La-
bor of some of the time and expense
to which they have been put in at-
tempting to determine what is the
[p. 1224]
prevailing wage in the locality or area
of construction or employment on the
work to be performed.
I think this amendment is very clear
and very simple. The amendment
says that the basic hourly rate of pay
prevailing in the city, town, village,
or other subdivision will be determined
by that State agency or officer that is
primarily responsible for enforcement
of the labor laws within the State,
That person, of course, would either
have been designated by the Governor
of the State or under the laws of the
State.
I might say this is consistent with
the general practices in the labor field
Unions in the State of Missouri have
different rates or scales depending
upon the locality in which the union
operates. For instance, in the city of
St. Louis where the highest scale pre
vails, that rate is different than it it
in a smaller city like Cape Girardeau
or towns of 25,000 to 50,000 popula
tion. That scale also goes down low
er in rural communities and in the
mailer cities such as the city in which
live.
The unions have recognized that.
n the past we have had difficulty
ivhen the Department or the Secretary
of Labor would say that the prevail-
ng wage in the locality in which a
:onstruction was to take place and
.vhere the Davis-Bacon Act was in
effect, was the wage rate in the city
of St. Louis.
In some instances we have been able
;o get that corrected. In other in-
stances it has put an imposition upon
the people who are trying to get the
work done. This amendment would
merely clarify that and it would put
the determination within the State
where the work is to be done.
I have no fault to find with the
sasic principles of this law, but I do
say it would be preferable to have the
determination made at the State level.
I might add that in the additional
work that this bill is going to impose
on the Department of Labor, there
will be a saving in costs, if we have
this determination made at the State
level rather than at the Federal level
where they would have to send out ad-
ditional people to make investigations
and in the number of people who
would have to be employed and the ex-
penses of travel and so forth.
For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I
think this amendment should be
adopted.
Mr. ROOSEVELT. Mr. Chairman,
I rise in opposition to the amendment.
I, of course, have the highest re-
spect and regard for my good friend
from Missouri, and I am sure he is
trying to do something to be of aid
and assistance in the administration of
the act, but what the gentleman asks
us to do, in essence, is to set up 50
individual methods for a wage deter-
mination of the Davis-Bacon Act. In
all honesty I must point out to him
that some States do not have any ma-
chinery of any kind and would not be
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1841
prepared to make these determina-
tions, I suppose, under the amend-
ment, they could go ahead and do this,
but they might not want to do it. We
have had no request from any State
that this be done in this manner.
My friends on the other side have
been talking about uniformity, in
part, at least. If we are to have any
kind of uniformity and fairness in the
administration of the act, this would
completely destroy it; so I must reluc-
tantly oppose the amendment and ask
for its defeat.
SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT OFFERED BY
MR. GRIFFIN
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. Chairman, I
offer an amendment as a substitute
for the amendment offered by the gen-
tleman from Missouri [Mr. JONES].
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. GRIFFIN as a sub-
stitute amendment for the amendment offered
by Mr. Jones of Missouri: On page 3, line 12,
at the end of the sentence strike the period,
insert a semicolon and add the following:
"Provided further, That if the construction cost
of a public work is to be paid in whole or in
part by a State or a subdivision thereof and if
that State has a department or agency empow-
ered to determine prevailing wage rates, then
the wage rates and fringe benefits required
to be paid shall be determined by such State
department or agency."
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. Chairman, I
can see some merit in the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Mis-
souri, but I am also persuaded some-
what by the argument of the gentle-
man from California [Mr. ROOSE-
VELT]. For example, the gentleman
from California pointed out that some
States have not set up agencies to de-
termine prevailing wage rates. In
addition, I question whether a State
agency should determine prevailing
wages in those instances where the
Federal Government is actually pay-
ing the full cost of a particular
project.
In offering my substitute, I should
like to focus attention upon the fact
that we have passed bill after bill in
;he Congress requiring application of
the Davis-Bacon Act in situations
where the State or local government
pays one-half or a larger percentage
of construction costs. I could refer,
for example, to the Higher Education
Facilities Act, the Library Services
Act passed last week, as well as the
Hill-Burton Hospital Act, and many
others.
It seems to me that if the State or
a subdivision of the State is actually
paying a substantial portion of the
construction costs, and if the State
iias administrative machinery to deter-
mine prevailing wage rates, then it is
reasonable that such determination be
made by the State.
I believe the amendment makes
sense from another standpoint. In
such States as New York and Cali-
fornia, for example, which have estab-
lished agencies to determine prevail-
ing wage rates, this amendment would
result in more consistency. In such
States at present it is at least possible
that the Labor Department of the
Federal Government can determine
one wage rate to be prevailing for a
given locality while the State agency
finds a different wage rate to be pre-
vailing in the same locality for the
same job classification.
Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, in those
situations where a State is paying
part of the construction cost and has
an established agency to perform this
function, I believe that the principle
advanced by the gentleman from Mis-
souri is sound and should be applied.
I urge the adoption of my substitute
amendment.
Mr. ROOSEVELT. Mr. Chairman,
I rise in opposition to the substitute
amendment.
Of course, the same basic objection
holds true for the substitute amend-
ment that holds true for the amend-
ment itself. I think the gentleman
has watered it down a little bit by
-------
1842
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
trying to make it applicable only in I
those States which have this kind of
machinery already set up, but basical-
ly the facts of life are that in these
areas where the States are operating
today, such as California and New
York, the Department of Labor does
use this machinery. It is there. There
are other considerations which must
be taken into account, about which the
local department may well not have
information. Therefore, the proposal
would impose upon the State agency a
function which would go beyond what
the State agency normally would do.
That would obviously be unsound,
and again the weakness of the gentle-
man's argument is that if there were
any validity to this, then certainly
over a period of 31 years we would
have had State agencies coming in and
asking for this power, and to my
knowledge this has never happened.
Incidentally, I might add to the gen-
tleman that I think his amendment is
a little bit defective because he does
not amend section (a), which, if it
were to be effective, he would have
to do. It is applicable only to section
(b).
Again let us not rewrite these
things on the floor but let us stick with
the committee. Therefore, I oppose
both the substitute and the amend-
ment.
Mr. GOODELL. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in support of the amendment. I
take just this one moment to answer
what the gentleman from California
[Mr. ROOSEVELT] said. The gentle-
man from Michigan [Mr. GRIFFIN]
could not offer an amendment that
applies to section (a). It would not
be germane. This was the whole
problem with our judicial review
amendment. It is only section (b)
that is before us here today. There
is no reason why the State determina-
tions of fringe benefits prevailing
could not be applied separately from
Federal determinations of the cash
wage rate prevailing. It would ad-
mittedly be cumbersome to do so but
[ think the objection made that the
riffin amendment does not apply to
the cash wage rate points up once
again that under the limited rule we
annot do the kind of complete job
that should be done.
Mr. GILL. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I would merely like
to point out to the gentleman from
New York that H.R. 6041 amends the
Davis-Bacon Act by adding a new sub-
section (b) and making the rest of the
first section of that law subsection
(a). In subsection (a) it provides that
the Secretary of Labor will determine
the wages to be paid which shall be
those prevailing in a given locality.
Subsection (b) merely defines wages
in two parts, one the basic hourly rate
and the other amount of fringe bene-
[p. 1225]
fits. So by adding this amendment to
subsection (b) which is included in
the bill before us, he then contradicts
a basic requirement set forth in sub-
section (a).
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. GILL. Surely.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Of course, I respect
the gentleman's technical argument,
but I think it should be quite obvious
that this amendment would operate as
a qualification of the language in sub-
section (a). By amending the defini-
tions set forth in subsection (b), we
would be qualifying or changing the
meaning of the language set forth in
subsection (a).
Mr. GILL. In that case, the gentle-
man would be subject to a point of
order because his amendment is not
to the bill before this Committee.
Mr. JONES of Missouri. Mr. Chair-
man, I rise in opposition to the substi-
tute amendment.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1843
I would like to say I could accept
the substitute, but the reason why I
do not accept the substitute is what
the gentlemen over here just pointed
out. You do not reach section (a).
The amendment I have offered does by
an indirect route reach section (a)
because in the first part of my amend-
ment it says, "notwithstanding any
other provisions of this Act," that we
do have the prevailing basic hourly
rate of pay to be determined by the
State agency rather than by a Federal
agency. I think, the way the amend-
ment is worded, that it would have
to be accepted that the basic hourly
rate of pay would be determined by
the State agency. Again I say if you
are trying to have this uniform, you
would say we would have only one
wage for plumbers all over the United
States. I do not think that is the in-
tention of this House.
Mr. LANDRUM. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. JONES of Missouri. I yield to
the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. LANDRUM. The amendment of
the gentleman from Missouri [Mr.
JONES] is definitely and clearly and
exactly what the original Davis-Bacon
Act was intended to do.
Mr. Bacon, when he proposed this
law, complained about the construction
of a Veteran's Administration hos-
pital in his district in New York and
did so because they were not paying
the prevailing wage of the city or the
locality where the construction was
taking place. It resulted in the pass-
age of the Davis-Bacon Act. Now, that
is all right. If we could just determine
what the prevailing wage is going to
be, that is all right. The amendment
of the gentleman from Missouri, in
my judgment at least, does exactly
what the Davis-Bacon Act was in-
tended to do, to say that the prevail-
ing wage shall be that which prevails
in the city or the locality or the sub-
division or the area where the con-
struction is taking place.
Mr. Chairman. I thank the gentle-
man for yielding.
Mr. JONES of Missouri. Mr. Chair-
man, will the gentleman agree that
the amendment I have offered recog-
nizes the policy that is followed by
union labor throughout the country?
Mr. LANDRUM. I think so.
Mr. JONES of Missouri. And that
in the various States there are dif-
ferent rates that apply. The difficulty
we get into is this, that in the more
restrictive trades we have a smaller
number of people and there may be
perhaps only one union in the entire
eastern half of the State of Missouri.
They set one rate. When we get down
into the Carpenters Union or the
Bricklayers Union, and unions like
that, we will have different locals in
different localities, and each local will
have a different rate of pay. That is
what we are trying to accomplish in
this amendment today.
Mr. LANDRUM. Exactly. What
should be clearly understood is that
we do not seek to destroy the principle
involved in Davis-Bacon. What we de-
sire to do is to prevent the application
of a wage rate from an area far re-
moved, which would completely throw
out of kilter and out of line the wage
rates of the locality where the con-
struction is taking place. There is
nothing wrong with fringe benefits.
We know that fringe benefits are part
of the wage cost. But we do not want
the fringe benefit question to throw
wages out of line as decisions of the
Administrator in the past have done.
Mr. JONES of Missouri. Mr. Chair-
man, I want to thank the gentleman
for his contribution. This amendment
does not affect the fringe benefits at
all. This affects the basic hourly wage
which should be determined by the
State agency.
Mr. LANDRUM. And it does not
-------
1844
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
lower the basic hourly wage in the
area in question.
Mr. JONES of Missouri. No; in
other words, it maintains the highest
wage prevailing.
Mr. ROOSEVELT. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. JONES of Missouri. I yield.
Mr. ROOSEVELT. I realize what
the gentleman says is correct, but the
argument against the amendment is
on the question of feasibility of ad-
ministration.
Mr. JONES of Missouri. I beg to
differ with the gentleman. I think this
would make it easier to administer,
we would have less confusion than
you have under the present law where
the godfather is here in Washington
saying what the wage shall be in
Podunk, Mo. I do not think he knows
what the wage is there, whereas the
man in Jefferson City, Mo., who is ac-
quainted with the State of Missouri,
knows what the prevailing wage is in
the community affected.
Mr. ROOSEVELT. If the gentle-
man will yield further, of course the
Department here does get the infor-
mation from that area. They do not
just guess at it. They get the infor-
mation from the local contractor and
from everybody concerned. They do
get the local information. It would be
infeasible to do it any other way.
Mr. O'HARA of Michigan. Mr.
Chairman, I move to strike out the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I want to reempha-
size a point that seems to have been
lost here. This act is an attempt by
the Federal Government to place in
its invitations to bid a wage schedule
which it requires the contractor to
observe on the Federal job in ques-
tion. It is just as if you or I were
building a house and told the contrac-
tor that we wanted red brick instead
of yellow brick, or that we wanted
him to pay his carpenters on our job
$3.58 an hour, or whatever the rate
is. That is all it is.
Mr. Chairman, if the Federal Gov-
ernment is going to exact such a re-
quirement, as it or any of us has a
right to do, it should be the one that
is to decide what it is going to require
its contractor to pay. It should not
turn that decision over to someone
else over whom it has no control, over
whom it has no influence, no audit
control, no anything.
Mr. LANDRUM. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. O'HARA of Michigan. I yield
to the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. LANDRUM. The Federal Gov-
ernment, the city government, and
the State government participate in
the building of a hospital, each pay-
ing one-third. Does the gentleman
think the city government and the
State government should have no say
whatever as to what the prevailing
wage is; you are going to leave that
up to the Secretary of Labor?
Mr. O'HARA of Michigan. We are
discussing an amendment offered by
the gentleman from Missouri [Mr.
JONES]. It does not have anything to
do with city and State contributions.
Mr. JONES of Missouri. The gen-
tleman has mistaken the whole import
of the amendment.
Mr. O'HARA of Michigan. Let us
take the substitute offered by the gen-
tleman from Michigan. It refers to
those jobs in which there are some
city and other governmental contribu-
tions. It may be 1 percent. In all those
cases the construction is based upon
an application initiated by the State
or local agencies who have agreed to
and want to come into this program
with the understanding the Federal
Government will help on these terms
and conditions. That is not the same
as turning the decisionmaking power
over to somebody the Federal Govern-
ment never heard of, who may occupy
an office only recently and specifically
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1845
created for the purpose of making
these determinations. Such decisions
should not be made by anyone but a
responsible agency of the Federal
Government.
Mr. Chairman, I ask for defeat of
both the substitute and the original
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is
on the substitute amendment oifered
by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr.
GRIFFIN].
The substitute amendment was re-
jected.
The CHAIRMAN. The question now
recurs on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Missouri [Mr.
JONES].
The question was taken; and on a
division (demanded by Mr. JONES of
Missouri) there were—ayes 32, noes
64.
So the amendment was rejected.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. GOODELL
Mr. GOODELL. Mr. Chairman, I
offer an amendment.
[p. 1226]
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. GOODELL: At the
end of the bill add the following:
"SEC. 5. (a) Any person aggrieved by a de-
termination of fringe benefits for laborers or
mechanics issued pursuant to subsection (b) of
this Act may obtain judicial review of such
determination in an action against the Secre-
tary of Labor and the contracting agency in a
district court of the United States praying the
court to enjoin the application of fringe bene-
fits wage determination to the invitation for
bids for the advertised contract and to deter-
mine the prevailing fringe benefits lawfully
applicable thereto.
"(b) Notwithstanding any other provision
of law, such an action may be brought only in
the United States court for the district in
which the work is to be performed and shall be
commenced within fifteen days after the publi-
cation of the advertised specifications contain-
ing the challenged fringe benefits determina-
tion.
"(c) The summons and complaint in such
an action shall be served as provided by the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, except that
the delivery of the summons and complaint to
the officer or agency as required by the rules
may be made by certified mail beyond the ter-
ritorial limits of the district in which the action
is brought.
"(d) Pending a final adjudication, the court
may issue a temporary restraining order direct-
ing the Secretary of Labor and the contracting
officer to relieve all bidders from stipulating
that they will comply with the specific determi-
nation being challenged: Provided, That if such
order is issued, the court may require any
bidder to whom the contract is awarded, to post
an indemnity bond sufficient to guarantee the
fulfillment of any legal fringe benefit obliga-
tion, should the challenged determination be
ultimately sustained.
"(e) At the conclusion of any hearing on
the merits, the court shall, in any case in which
it finds that the prevailing fringe benefits orig-
inally promulgated were not determined in
accordance with law, establish such prevailing
fringe benefits as it deems to be in accordance
with law. Such decision by the court shall,
within thirty days after its issuance, become
effective as the determination of the prevailing
wage for the project concerned, unless a peti-
tion for review of such decision is filed within
such period.
"(f) In carrying out its functions under this
section, the court shall have access to all data
and material upon which the Secretary of
Labor relied in making his original prevailing
fringe benefits determination, but the court
shall accord no presumption of validity to any
such determination by reason of any prior
administrative finding, act, practice, policy,
or rule.
"(g) Any party aggrieved by the decision of
the United States district court may appeal
such decision by filing within thirty days a
petition for review in the United States court
of appeals for the circuit within which such
district court is situated. The decision of such
court shall be final, subject to review by the
Supreme Court of the United States upon
certiorari or certification as provided in section
1542 of title 28 of the United States Code.
"(h) For the purposes of this section, an
aggrieved person shall include any contractor,
subcontractor, bidder, prospective bidder, labor
organization, employee, prospective employee
and any contracting agency public or private
adversely affected by the prevailing fringe
benefits determination issued by the Secretary
of Labor.
"(i) Nothing herein shall be construed to
limit the right of the Secretary of Labor at
any time to rescind his original determination
and to make such adjustments, revisions, or
modifications as he deems appropriate.
"SEC. 6 (a) Whenever it is claimed that any
contractor or subcontractor has refused or
failed to pay the fringe benefits that he is
required to pay by reason of a determination
issued by the Secretary of Labor pursuant to
-------
1846
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
subsection (b) of this Act, to employees with
respect to whom such determination is applica-
ble, the contracting agency shall promptly
notify the contractor or subcontractor of such
claim, shall investigate the claim and shall issue
a ruling in writing which shall either deny or
sustain such claim, and which shall set forth
the reasons therefor. No penalties, including
the withholding of funds from the contractor or
subcontractor, shall be imposed under the terms
of Acts to which this section applies prior to
such ruling. The contractor or subcontractor
against whom the claim is made, and any com-
plaining employee, shall be notified of any
ruling made by the contracting officer or any
other official designated by the contracting
agency, at least twenty days before it is to
become effective.
"(b) Any contractor or subcontractor ag-
grieved or adversely affected by any ruling
made pursuant to subsection (a) of this section
may bring a de novo action against the United
States of America or any contracting agency of
the United States or its officers, in the United
States district court for the district wherein
the violation is alleged to have occurred. Such
contractor or subcontractor may bring an ac-
tion against a contracting agency of a State in
any State court of competent jurisdiction. The
court shall grant such relief as is appropriate,
and may stay any penalty imposed under the
terms of Acts to which this section applies,
pending the completion of judicial review.
"(c) Any employee aggrieved or adversely
affected by any ruling made pursuant to sub-
section (a) of this section may bring an ac-
tion, in the United States district court wherein
such violation is alleged to have occurred, or
in any State court of competent jurisdiction,
against the contractor or subcontractor, or any
surety, to recover the amount of unpaid wages
due under this Act. Such action shall be subject
to the two year statute of limitations provided
by the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947 (6 Stat. 84;
29 U.S.C. 255). Such employee may maintain
such action on behalf of himself and other em-
ployees similarly situated, but no employee shall
be a party plaintiff to any action unless he
gives his consent in writing to become such a
party and such consent is filed in the court in
which the action is brought. The court in such
action shall, in addition to any judgment
awarded to the plaintiff or plaintiffs, shall alsc
award reasonable interest on the amount of
such judgment. Nothing in this subsection shall
confer additional rights on an employee given
a right of action on a payment bond pursuant
to the requirements of the Miller Act (49 Stat.
793, as amended, 40 U.S.C. 270 et seq.).
"(d) In any action brought pursuant to
subsection (b) or (c) of this section, the court
shall have authority to determine the obliga-
tions of the contractor or subcontractor under
the wage provisions of his contract, and
whether or not the contractor or subcontractor
has failed to comply with them. No presump-
tion of validity shall arise by reason of prior
administrative finding, act, practice, policy, or
rule.
"(e) Any party aggrieved by the decision of
the United States district court may appeal
such decision by filing, within thirty days, a
petition for review in the circuit court of the
circuit within which such district court is
located. The decision of such circuit court shall
be final, subject to review by the Supreme
Court of the United States upon certiorari or
certification as provided in section 1254 of title
28 of the United State Code.
"(f) The provisions of this section shall be
incorporated in, and made a part of, any con-
tract to which this section is applicable.
"(g) In no event shall the judicial review
provisions herein be construed to extend beyond
the prevailing fringe benefits as defined in this
Act."
Mr. GOODELL (interrupting the
r^ad'ng of t^e amendment). Mr.
Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that further reading of the amend-
ment be dispensed with. This is H.R.
9590, limited to fringe benefits.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objec-
tion to the request of the gentleman
from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. GOODELL. Mr. Chairman, I
will not belabor this point. For the
record, I want to offer this amend-
ment, which would provide judicial
review limited to the fringe benefit
determinations. I do this for several
reasons.
The fringe benefit determination is
going to be infinitely more compli-
cated and more difficult than the cash
wage determination has been in the
past. The record of the last 33 years
of the Davis-Bacon Act I think justi-
fies the act. I am proud that it had
Republican sponsorship originally. But
I think the history of the act thus far
also demonstrates the need for some
kind of review procedure. It illus-
trates, as dramatically and directly as
any situation could, the importance of
our court system in this country, the
very deep significance there is to every
citizen having a right when he feels
he is aggrieved by the interpretation
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1847
of a bureaucrat or an administrator
to take that into court and get an
interpretation by a person who is com-
pletely objective, who has no influence
brought to bear on him. That is the
court system we have. We can be very
proud of it.
One argument made against making
the fringe benefit section susceptible
to judicial review is that it will delay
the proceedings. This is not true. The
judicial review section which I am of-
fering permits an aggrieved individ-
ual who feels that the determination
of the Secretary of Labor is erroneous
to bring an action in Federal court
within 15 days after he receives no-
tice as to what wages he is supposed
to pay on this particular job. This is
the notice that comes from the Fed-
eral agency before a contractor bids
a job. All of the various prospective
bidders receive this notice, detailing
how much they are supposed to pay
in each category of skill and craft.
If the contractor differs with the
determination of the Secretary of La-
bor in any way in the categories of
pay laid out by the Secretary's deci-
sion, within 15 days after the Secre-
tary's determination he must go to
court. He must then convince a Fed-
eral district judge that he has a prima
facie case, that there is something
here that should be determined, that
the Secretary has varied from the in-
tent of Congress and the law in his
determination. If the judge decides
against a complainant, then the case
is finished. He can do nothing more,
and he proceeds to bid for the contract
at the stipulated wage rates the
Secretary has set.
If the judge thinks there is a case
here, he may issue a restraining order
against the Secretary. That restrain-
[p. 1227]
ing order permits the bids to go on.
It simply applies to the wages that
are being challenged. Bidding and
construction may go on while the
court deliberates on the specific points
at issue.
If the contractor has won the first
round before the Federal judge, the
judge may then make him post a bond
to be sure he will pay whatever wages
the court ultimately determines are
applicable here. He also will have to
pay interest on those wages. The
worker would be protected, the Gov-
ernment would be protected, the con-
tractor would be protected. Aggrieved
parties will simply have the right to
go into court for an interpretation of
the law in a very proper procedure.
Mr. LANDRUM. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GOODELL. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Georgia.
Mr. LANDRUM. So the amend-
ment which the gentleman now pro-
poses would apply only to fringe bene-
fits?
Mr. GOODELL. It would apply
only to fringe benefits.
Mr. LANDRUM. To the calculation
of the fringe benefits as to prevailing
wages.
Mr. GOODELL. That is correct.
Mr. LANDRUM. The reason the
amendment will not apply to the
Davis-Bacon Act as a whole is simply
because the rule under which we are
considering this amendment prevents
the offering of an amendment to have
the acts of the administrator reviewed
in the court.
Mr. GOODELL. That is correct.
Mr. LANDRUM. That then is the
reason why we had the vote on the
previous question.
Mr. GOODELL. That is exactly
right. I would prefer to make the en-
tire act subject to judicial review.
Every other wage-fixing law we have
has a judicial review provision in it.
The only alternative now is to make
judicial review applicable to fringe
benefits alone.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
-------
1848
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
gentleman from New York has ex-
pired.
Mr. ROOSEVELT. Mr. Chairman,
I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, may I suggest to my
colleagues that the colloquy we have
just heard is evidence of what is hap-
pening here. You are being asked to
do by indirection what could not be
done directly by the previous vote in
the House.
Mr. LANDRUM. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROOSEVELT. I yield to the
gentleman.
Mr. LANDRUM. We intend no
such thing. I do not think the gentle-
man means to say that.
Mr. ROOSEVELT. I should like to
explain the effect of this.
Mr. LANDRUM. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield further?
Mr. ROOSEVELT. I must decline
to yield to my colleague. I would like
to make my point.
I want to point out to the gentle-
man, if this is adopted, the minute
any part of the wage was challenged
because of the fringe benefit part, it
would stop all of it. Every bit of
that wage determination would come
to a halt and not just the fringe bene-
fit part. None of the rest could go into
effect and, therefore, it would com-
pletely stymie the administration of
the act. That must be very clear. I
feel very strongly, as I think I pre-
viously said in the House, what we are
really debating here is a matter which
should come before the committee be-
cause there are two, and at least one,
other alternatives to this, and that is
administrative review. We have just
had administrative review suggested
and put into operation by the depart-
ment. We do not know how it will
work. We think an argument can be
made for administrative review rather
than judicial review. This is certainly
not the time to decide that. That is
the committee's job to decide. I would
respectfully ask the Members of the
Committee to allow the committee to
do its job and let us pass this bill on
its merits and not get it mixed up
with other matters that should be
more fully debated.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from California has ex-
pired.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike out the last word.
Mr. GOODELL. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. GRIFFIN. I yield to the gen-
tleman.
Mr. GOODELL. I would just like to
point out to the gentleman from Cali-
fornia, I read an implication at least
in his earlier remarks that this would
hold up the letting of contracts and
the building process. This is not true.
It permits the entire construction
procedure to go forward. It merely
separates the determinations that are
challenged and the contractors bid-
ding are on notice that the court is
holding these particular wage deter-
minations for decision by the court.
Contractors go right ahead. They bid
on the project and the Government
can or other agencies can continue
with the construction. No Labor De-
partment determinations are held up
at all, incidentally, unless the court
has decided there is a pretty good
case here. But when the court makes
its decision, if the contractor has been
paying a lower wage than the court
decides is prevailing in that area,
then the court orders the contractor
to pay the higher wage plus interest.
The workers are protected because the
court has the right to require that a
bond or other security be posted to
see that enough money is available to
pay the extra portion of wages chal-
lenged by the contractor in court.
Mr. ROOSEVELT. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GRIFFIN. I yield to the gen-
tleman.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1849
Mr. ROOSEVELT. I am sure nei-
ther of us is a contractor, but I must
say that common sense tells me that
a contractor who does not know an
important part of his wage scale be-
cause of fringe benefits would be in a
very poor position to start to work on
a contract with this hanging up in the
air and going forward in a court
procedure.
Mr. GOODELL. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GRIFFIN. I yield to the gen-
tleman.
Mr. GOODELL. Most contractors
are very much in favor of judicial
review. They feel this is a workable
way to proceed. They have been work-
ing on the judicial review amendment
and have been trying to develop some-
thing that would work. We have suc-
ceeded in doing so, I think, in this
proposal. This has been analyzed by
the union lawyers. They have come
back with their objections and, frank-
ly, none of them hold water. This ju-
dicial review would work. The con-
tractors themselves are ready to
accept this kind of approach. Actu-
ally, as a practical matter what would
happen is that only the extreme cases
would get to court. Every time we
have judicial review proposed in any
legislation, the argument is made that
you are going to flood the courts with
a wave of litigation.
It does not happen that way. There
are all sorts of reasons why individual
contractors would not wish to take
these cases to a court, unless the situ-
ation were an extreme one.
The basis for the proposal is not
one of promoting litigation. What we
are looking for is some kind of con-
trol over the administrator. If there
is that control over the administrator,
a review procedure, then he will make
fairer decisions. He will not go way
off the reservation, the way he has,
ignoring in effect what the law says.
We will see, I believe, that here as in
the case of other wage-fixing laws
with judicial review procedures, there
will not be a lot of litigation.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. Chairman, if
judicial review is provided, I don't
think we need to worry about the lo-
cal contractors being able to bid. They
are familiar with the prevailing wage
rates in their own local communities.
Unfortunately, it often is the Labor
Department that does not know, or
does not want to know, what the local
prevailing rates are. In many cases,
when the Labor Department sets an
unrealistic wage rate in a community,
this operates against the interest of
local contractors and local workers,
and favors outside contractors and
workers. Such a result is contrary to
the true intent and purpose of the
Davis-Bacon Act.
In my own congressional district,
for example, the record of our com-
mittee's hearings reflect that a non-
profit foundation desired to build a
home for elderly people and applied
for Federal aid under a housing act.
However, the Labor Department set
wage rates which were not realistic
for the community. Instead of using
the wage rates actually prevailing in
the small communities where the home
was to be built, the Department used
wage rates prevailing in a larger
metropolitan city some 50 miles away.
What could anybody do in such a
situation? Those in charge of the
project could not go to court to do
anything about it, because there is no
judicial review provided for under the
present act.
Under the circumstances, those who
planned the home decided to build it
without Federal aid.
The amendment offered by the gen-
tleman from New York is a sound
amendment. It has been carefully
worked out. The gentleman from New
York has worked hard on it and he is
to be highly commended for his au-
[p. 1228]
-------
1850
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
thorship and advocacy of it.
Of course, I believe that judicial re-
view would apply to the whole act,
but let us make a beginning and at
least apply it to this fringe benefit
bill. If this amendment is adopted,
I shall vote for the bill.
Mr. GILL. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike out the requisite number of
words.
I shall not require 5 minutes.
I merely point out that in the lan-
guage of H.R. 9590, which is the sub-
stance of the amendment which has
been offered, the court, once its juris-
diction is asked for, would give no
presumption of validity to any deter-
mination by reason of any prior ad-
ministrative act of the Secretary of
Labor; in other words, it would all
start over from scratch, which would
mean it would not be a short hearing.
That would mean that all data would
be presented. It would mean that per-
haps several months of proceedings in
the trial court would be required be-
fore there could be a ruling on the
motion. After that there would be an
appeals procedure.
As a result of it all, the contractors
would be delayed from 6 months to 2
years, depending upon how far the
procedure went. No contractor in his
right mind, in a competitive situation,
would become involved in a bid if he
did not know what his final labor cost
would be.
I have one final point to make. It is
not true that the industry associations
are all in favor of this amendment.
The industry associations are split.
Even half of the General Contrac-
tors' Association is in favor of the bill
as written.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is
on the amendment offered by the gen-
tleman from New York [Mr. GOOD-
ELL].
The question was taken; and on a
division (demanded by Mr. GOODELL)
there were—ayes 43, noes 90.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. Chairman, I
demand tellers.
Tellers were ordered, and the chair-
man appointed as tellers Mr. ROOSE-
VELT and Mr. GOODELL.
The Committee again divided, and
the tellers reported that there were—
ayes 63, noes 106.
So the amendment was rejected.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. GOODELL
Mr. GOODELL. Mr. Chairman, I
offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. GOODELL: On line
4, page 4 insert the following new paragraph:
"For the purposes of determining prevailing
wages pursuant to this subsection, the Secre-
tary shall not consider any contributions paid
by any employer to any fund, plan, or program
unless the fringe benefits provided thereby are
payable to all laborers and mechanics who have
made or on whose behalf a contribution has
been made to such a fund, plan, or program."
Mr. GOODELL. Mr. Chairman,
earlier in the debate we had a discus-
sion of this problem of determining
whether all the employees are eligible
for benefits under a fringe benefits
plan, and also the problem of the Sec-
retary determining whether contribu-
tions have been made for all the em-
ployees who are employed by a given
contractor.
This amendment is very simple. It
says that if the Secretary of Labor
investigates in an area and gets a
report from a contractor that certain
fringe benefits are provided, and the
contractor makes contributions and
pays them into a fund or to an insur-
ance company which makes the bene-
fits available, the Secretary must then
determine that those for whom the
contributions are made are eligible
for benefits. As a practical matter, in
many, many instances contributions
are made for employees where the em-
ployees themselves are not eligible for
benefits and will never be eligible for
benefits. In effect it says that you
should not give credit to a fringe bene-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1851
fit plan for which contributions are
made unless the employees for whom
the contributions are made will re-
ceive the benefits.
Fringe benefits do not prevail in an
area unless the benefits are available
to the employees themselves.
This is a very simple and direct
amendment. It says that the Secre-
tary shall not consider any contribu-
tions paid by any employer to any
fund, plan or program unless the
fringe benefits provided thereby are
payable to all laborers and mechanics
who have made or on whose behalf a
contribution has been made to such
fund, plan or program. What can be
any more simple equity than this?
Give them credit for their fringe bene-
fits plan but let us see to it that the
workers for whom contributions are
made are going to receive the benefits
of this plan. This settles completely
the argument we had earlier about
this question whether a large percent-
age of the employees do benefit from
these fringe benefit plans or not.
Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption
of the amendment.
Mr. SICKLES. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, it is true as far as
the language is concerned that this is
a very simple amendment. It is a
brief amendment. But the amendment
ignores the history as to how these
funds came into existence and how
they are managed and operated. In
the normal industry, one which does
not have a very large turnover of
employees, it was very easy for the
labor organizations to negotiate with
their employers directly for fringe
benefits. But this was impossible in
the building industries, so they wejit
to the device of making certain con-
tributions, usually 1, 2, 5, or 10 ceMftc
each, to jointly negotiated funds.
These were unit payments irtto the
funds. Trustees of these funds then
established the rules concerning the
benefits to be received from these
funds.
Because of this casual employment
it is necessary to establish the number
of hours it is necessary to work each
month in order to be eligible for bene-
fits in subsequent months. It is neces-
sary to determine what the waiting
period is to be before benefits are
started. Sometimes it is 1, 2, or 3
months. There are also corresponding
periods after the employment is ter-
minated, 1, 2, 3 months, and I have
known it to go up to a year. So
while there is an initial waiting peri-
od, there is also a termination period,
there is also a period when an em-
ployee may be ill and still receive
benefits. This entire matter is studied
by the board of trustees and this
board of trustees determines the rules
and regulations.
The effect of this amendment, if
adopted, would establish some sort of
vesting and would give the impression
that the employee would be eligible for
benefits by virtue of the contribution
having been made on his behalf with-
out any concern for rules and regula-
tions of a particular fund.
There are different kinds of pro-
grams. The rules must determine how
much time is worked in order to get
a vacation, for instance. There are
apprenticeship benefits. One or two
cents per hour is contributed. There
is a basis for every employee in the
bargaining unit, but the only persons
who receive the direct benefit are the
apprentices, those people who have to
be trained. So you have different
kinds of benefit programs. You can-
not have this kind of amendment on
this bill because, Mr. Chairman, you
are so confusing the whole industry
that it will have to go back and re-
write all the rules and regulations
which have been established.
There is no attempt by these funds
to exclude great numbers of em-
ployees. It is not good for the Indus-
-------
1852
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
try to exclude great numbers of em-
ployees. They have established rea-
sonable rules and regulations so that
those employees who are substantially
connected with the industry will re-
ceive benefits, not only when they are
working and when they are sick, and
have reasonable termination periods
after their employment has ceased.
Mr. GOODELL. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SICKLES. I yield to the gen-
tleman from New York.
Mr. GOODELL. The gentleman is
saying we should put our stamp of
approval on programs where they
withdraw from the worker's pay a
certain amount, yet'he is not eligible
to receive benefits.
Mr. SICKLES. There is nothing
wrong with saying that if a certain
amount of mo«Bf -for each hour
worked by each employee in a bargain-
ing unit, that the only employees who
actually receive the benefit will be the
apprentices.
Mr. GOODELL. The apprentice
program is different. We do not call
the apprentice program a fringe bene-
fit program. That is set up by the
unions that work with tee employers
and employees. What I am talking
about is the fringe benefit programs
we are covering in this act, hospitali-
zation, retirement, and other types of
benefits. The worker has money paid
to a fund instead of to him in cash,
so that he will get those benefits.
As a practical matter all my amend-
ment does is this: If they do not
want to make a worker eligible for 3
months after he starts working, then
they should not withhold money for
him to pay for fringe benefits. It
should go directly to him in cash until
he has fulfilled the requirement to
enter the plan, whether it should be
3 or 6 months, or a year. In the
meantime he should not be compelled
to pay for other's benefits when he is
not a participant in the plan.
[p. 1229]
Mr. SICKLES. In order to answer
the gentleman's last question, may I
say the whole provision of these rules
is to provide for the employee when
he becomes eligible. He has a reason-
able waiting period. He will then be
entitled to benefits. If you were to
say that during the waiting period no
money will be withdrawn on his be-
half, the money will go directly to
him, this would become such an ad-
ministrative burden that it would be
impossible to handle.
Mr. GOODELL. Why?
Mr. SICKLES. Because they would
have to distinguish which were old
employees or new employees.
Mr. GOODELL. That is not diffi-
cult. Whatever the eligibility stand-
ards are, the worker should not be
compelled to pay into the plan or have
the contractor pay in for him, until
that worker is eligible to share in the
benefits. In the case of retirement
plans, they could withhold from a
worker's pay as soon as he is eligible
to start participating in building up
benefits.
Mr. SICKLES. That is the reason
why this is important. It is a ques-
tion of benefit for that particular em-
ployee so that after his employment is
terminated he will be continued for a
certain period.
Mr. GOODELL. The gentleman
could not advocate taking the money
from the worker when he is not eligi-
ble for benefits; could he? Surely a
fund could be actuarily sound if no
one employed less than 3 months, for
instance, either contributed, had the
employer contribute for him, or bene-
fitted under the fringe benefit plan.
After 3 months, contributions could
start and benefit eligibility could start.
Many variations on this are possible.
Normal hospitalization, accident in-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1853
surance, and so forth, should not be
hard to set up on this basis.
Mr. SICKLES. I am trying to tell
you after they first become eligible
they may not have benefits for 3, 6,
or 9 months after termination of em-
ployment.
Mr. ROOSEVELT. Mr. Chairman,
I ask unanimous consent that all de-
bate on this amendment and all
amendments thereto close in 5 min-
utes.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objec-
tion to the request of the gentleman
from California?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair rec-
ognizes the gentleman from California
[Mr. BELL].
(By unanimous consent, Mr. BELL
yielded his time to Mr. GOODELL.)
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from New York
[Mr. GOODELL].
Mr. GOODELL. Mr. Chairman, I
should like to emphasize that all this
amendment does is say that they can
set their plans up any way they want
to, but when they start withholding
money from employees' wages and
supposedly contribute this to a fringe
benefit plan, the employees should be
eligible to receive benefits under that
plan. If they want to set up a require-
ment that the employee must work 3
or 6 months for a contractor before
he is eligible for a plan they can do
it, but during that 3- or 6-month pe-
riod they cannot take money out of
his wages and apply it to a fringe
benefit plan from which he cannot
benefit. That is all it does. If some-
body argues we cannot do this and
keep the funds actuarially sound, then
I do not understand them, because in
all of our health plans, all of our vari-
ous fringe benefits to which we con-
tribute, the minute we start contribut-
ing to them out of our salaries we are
eligible for benefits. That is all we
are saying here.
Mr. SICKLES. If the gentleman
will yield, I think the gentleman has
(lit it on the head, and I do not mean
to be anything but kindly. When the
gentleman suggests that the only time
bhey should contribute is for that par-
ticular month in which they are eligi-
ble under the rules, then he does not
understand the fundamental processes
of these plans in order to make them
solvent.
Mr. GOODELL. I understand that
these plans now exclude many work-
ers from benefits while these workers
contribute to plans. I do not suggest
that any worker should be automati-
cally eligible to participate in fringe
benefit programs. Nor do I suggest
that the same problems exist in the
construction industry as elsewhere.
Workers change jobs, move around
and work for different contractors in
the construction industry. The point
is, Should we consider fringe benefit
plans as prevailing in an area without
the Secretary even considering how
many workers participate in the plans
and benefit by them? On page 2, lines
7 and thereafter the bill says "costs
of providing benefits to laborers and
mechanics."
Does this mean benefits to a major-
ity of laborers and mechanics, 30 per-
cent of them under the 30-percent
rule, or what? My amendment simply
says that if they do not benefit, the
Secretary does not count them.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair rec-
ognizes the gentleman from Iowa [Mr.
SMITH].
Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Chair-
man, the proposed amendment would
make pension plans contain unwork-
able provisions in order to qualify.
An employer sets up a pension plan
under which an employee might re-
ceive a pension after 10 or 15 years of
employment. The employer does not
want to have to pay a pension 20
years from now for a person who
worked 1 day for him. This amend-
-------
1854
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
ment would provide that everyone
who contributed must participate in
the benefits. There is no employer
pension plan that does not require a
participant to be an employee for a
certain number of years in order to
receive benefits. An estimate is made
as to how many will not qualify and
this is considered in the actuarial val-
uations made from year to year. They
estimate there must be a certain con-
tribution made in order to provide a
definite and determinable pension for
those who stay a certain number of
years. Requiring an employer to pay
a pension to those who only work a
few days or are casual employees
would increase the amount the em-
ployer would have to pay into the fund
in order to provide pensions for regu-
lar employees. A pension plan that
would qualify under this proposed
amendment would either provide less
benefits for those regular employees
or would cost the employers more. I
do not think this kind of interference
with employers pensions plans is war-
ranted or should be our policy and I
urge defeat of the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair rec-
ognizes the gentleman from Illinois
[Mr. PUCINSKI]
Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Chairman,
with all due respect to my colleague
from New York, I do not think he
understands the complex nature of
these particular pension funds. In the
building industry, they are unlike any-
thing else in this country. That is
why the committee provided this broad
language:
The rate of contribution irrevocably made by
a contractor or subcontractor to a trustee or to
a third person.
You will note we said "to a trustee
or a third person" and we mean the
total amount he pays and not the
amount he pays for each employee. In
many instances the agreement pro-
vides for a lump sum payment for all
the employees instead of individual
employees. The purpose of this bill is
to make a contractor who pays fringe
benefits eligible to compete for Fed-
eral construction jobs along with those
who pay no fringe benefits. This is
the key question; that total amount he
pays in fringe benefits, not what he
pays per each individual employee.
Mr. GOODELL. That is irrelevant.
Mr. PUCINSKI. It is not irrele-
vant. The question is how much that
contractor has to pay in that commu-
nity on a particular contract and not
how much he pays to each individual.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair rec-
ognizes the gentleman from California
[Mr. ROOSEVELT].
Mr. ROOSEVELT. Mr. Chairman,
it seems obvious to me from the de-
bate and the kind of argument that
has been initiated on this amendment
that it is impractical. Therefore, I
ask the defeat of the pending amend-
ment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is
on the amendment offered by the gen-
tleman from New York [Mr. GOOD-
ELL].
The question was taken; and on a
division (demanded by Mr. GOODELL),
there were—ayes 39, noes 138.
So the amendment was rejected.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MB. HALL
Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. HALL: Add
"SEC. 5:
"JUDICIAL REVIEW OF 'FRINGE BENEFITS'
"(a) Notwithstanding any other provision
of law any person aggrieved by a wage fringe
benefits determination for laborers or me-
chanics issued pursuant to the Act of March
3, 1931, as amended (46 Stat. 1494, as amended;
40 U.S.C. 276a) or pursuant to any other Act
under which prevailing wage fringe benefits
provisions are determined may obtain judicial
review of such determination in the United
States court for the district in which the work
is to be performed, in all cases involving con-
struction for educational (primary, secondary
or advanced) construction: Provided, That such
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1855
action is commenced within fifteen days after
the publication of such wage determination.
"(b) The Court may stay such fringe bene-
fits wage determination, pending artindirn+in.i
[p. 1230]
under such terms and conditions for the secu-
rity of the adverse party as are proper.
"(b) The court shall conduct a hearing; on
the merits and where it finds that a wage de-
termination of fringe benefits was not in
accordance with law, shall establish such a
prevailing wage and benefits as it deems to be
in accordance with: Provided. That the findings
and order of the Secretary of Labor shall be
prima facie evidence of the facts stated.
"(d) An appeal may be taken from the deci-
sion of the United States district court within
thirty days from the entry of the judgment by
a petition for review in the United States court
of appeals for the circuit within which such
district court is situated. The decision of such
court shall be final, subject to review by the
Supreme Court of the United States upon
certiorari or certification as provided in section
1524 of title 28 of the United States Code."
Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I shall
not take the 5 minutes.
Like my colleague, the gentleman
from Missouri who propounded the
first amendment, the cost is too great
based on assessed valuation and levies
for consolidated school districts in
southwest Missouri that are using
Federal funds. It is a paradox that
this might be known as our President
said, "As the educational Congress"
and yet we are raising costs including
fringe benefits which will be a direct
cost to the taxpayer for constructing
elementary, secondary, and advanced
educational units.
There is an extra expense. This
cannot be a saving or a budget-con-
scious Congress if we continue to vote
for these extra expenses and benefits
which lead to extra expenses.
What happens now is that these
wage determinations usually turn out
to be whatever the prevailing union
scale is or the fringe benefits are in
the nearest large city.
This has been previously explained,
but I have had this experience brought
to my mind with reference to two
projects in my own district in recent
months. They were consolidated school
districts. They were under the accel-
erated public works project bill. I can
name the counties. They are under
these educational fringe benefits.
In each of these cases, the initial
\vage determinations were so out-
rageously high that the mayors of the
towns have had to object. They have
said that the projects would have to
he abandoned unless the determina-
tions could be changed.
During the past year on two occa-
sions we have gone to the Labor De-
partment and finally have been able
to have the wage levels changed so
that they actually reflect prevailing
wages. I would presume that in the
future they will accurately reflect the
fringe benefits which are prevailing in
these areas, instead of those prevail-
ing in the two large metropolitan
areas of Kansas City and St. Louis.
I feel that the passage of this bill
will result in a reduction of between
6 to 15 percent in the amount of funds
for educational facilities, under the
program approved during the last ses-
sion by the committee and recom-
mended to the House by that same
committee.
This also would take away the actu-
al funds available under other pro-
grams, by raising the labor costs to
the local assessed valuation and levies
of the individual, albeit consolidated,
districts.
As a result, Mr. Chairman, I sub-
mit this will tend to offset any budget
cuts we have made.
I believe this is especially applica-
ble, inasmuch as we shall not have a
judicial review provided.
Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield for a ques-
tion?
Mr. HALL. I am glad to yield to
the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. PUCINSKI. The gentleman
said this would raise the cost of con-
-------
1856
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
struction. I wonder if my colleague
from Missouri is aware of the fact
that if anybody ever feels he is ag-
grieved—any contractor, or the com-
munity in this case—he could file a
case in the Court of Claims to recover
whatever amount of wage determina-
tion he believed was incorrect or too
high? If he could convince the Court
of Claims he was correct, a rebate
would be available. Is my colleague
aware of that procedure?
Mr. HALL. I thank the gentleman
from Illinois. I am aware of that
procedure.
I am also aware of the fact that if
the construction never gets started or
off the ground and is killed by the
community itself, which had an incen-
tive to provide educational facilities,
then there would come no reclamation
after the fact in any court.
Mr. PUCINSKI. I do not quite un-
derstand the gentleman. If there is a
feeling that the wage determination
has been set too high, they could al-
ways file a claim in the court of
claims for recovery under the present
act. I believe there is a provision for
judicial review to the extent that the
gentleman has mentioned in his re-
marks, in the bill presently before
the House. It has been in the law for
33 years.
Mr. HALL. The only purpose of
this amendment is to make the fringe
benefits additionally subject to review,
in educational construction only.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. HALL. I am glad to yield to
the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. GRIFFIN. From my knowl-
edge of the Davis-Bacon Act I would
take sharp issue with the gentleman
from Illinois and his statement that
such relief is available.
Mr. GOODELL. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HALL. I am glad to yield to
the gentleman from New York.
Mr. GOODELL. Going a little fur-
ther on this subject, the only time
when relief would be available would
be, first, when the Federal Govern-
ment was a party. In many, many
cases that is not true. Second and
most important, nobody ever gets to
the Court of Claims with Davis-Bacon
issues. There have been no substan-
tial cases which have gone to the
Court of Claims under the Davis-
Bacon Act. The chief reason is that
there are too many punitive, adminis-
trative powers in the law.
Mr. ROOSEVELT. Mr. Chairman,
may I inquire if there are any further
amendments at the desk?
The CHAIRMAN. There are no
further amendments at the desk.
Mr. ROOSEVELT. Then, Mr.
Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that all debate on this bill end in 5
minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objec-
tion to the request of the gentleman
from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Chairman, my
colleague from New York [Mr. GOOD-
ELL], if I may have his attention,
raised a question as to the Federal
Government being a party to the suit.
Of course, this bill would not apply
unless the Federal Government is in-
volved. It involves the Federal Gov-
ernment and, if there is a determina-
tion of excessive wage rates, certainly
the community, the contractor, and
the Government, acting in concert,
can seek relief in the court of claims.
Secondly, I do not see where the
gentleman can say that you cannot get
into the Court of Claims any time
that you have a valid claim. I am not
aware of any system that precludes
you from getting into that court.
Naturally, you must have a valid
claim before a court will accept juris-
diction.
Mr. GOODELL. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1857
Mr. PUCINSKI. I yield to the gen-
tleman.
Mr. GOODELL. The point I made
was that the only time you can get to
the Court of Claims is when the Fed-
eral Government actually builds the
project itself. As you and I know, the
Davis-Bacon Act applies in many
cases where the Federal Government
is not actually the builder or the own-
er. It applies to the State and local
governments involved with Federal
aid. It applies where private parties
are involved.
Mr. PUCINSKI. The Federal Gov-
ernment is always there in a super-
visory capacity.
Mr. GOODELL. But you cannot
get into the Court of Claims on that
basis. It has to be the Federal Gov-
ernment actually building the project
and retaining ownership of the proj-
ect. That is the first thing.
The second thing is that on any
wage determination dispute you can-
not get to the Court of Claims at all
in questioning the Secretary of La-
bor's decision as to what wage pre-
vails in an area.
Mr. PUCINSKI. The author of this
amendment stated one reason why he
was offering it was to preclude exces-
sive costs to communities building
schools with Federal funds. I submit
if such a situation should ever oc-
cur, then both the Federal Govern-
ment and the local community acting
together have a right to seek relief
and recover from the Court of Claims.
Therefore, it would seem to me that
the law is now sufficient and the
amendment is not necessary.
Mr. GOODELL. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield further?
Mr. PUCINSKI. If I have any time,
I will yield.
[p. 1231]
Mr. GOODELL. I would just read
you a legal memorandum on this
point:
The Court of Claims has no jurisdiction
whatever over Federal aid contracts prosecuted
by State and municipal governments on which
a large volume of Davis-Bacon Act problems
are involved.
The proof of the pudding is that
you have never had any of these cases
get to the Court of Claims and they
cannot because they do not have juris-
diction of such cases.
Mr. PUCINSKI. The gentleman
will recall that out of some 50,000
wage determinations handed down by
the Labor Department every year,
less than one-half of 1 percent are
ever challenged. This might well ac-
count for the reason why no cases are
taken to the Court of Claims.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair rec-
ognizes the gentleman from Califor-
nia [Mr. ROOSEVELT] for ZVn minutes
to close debate.
Mr. ROOSEVELT. Mr. Chairman,
in closing debate may I first thank my
colleagues for what I think has been a
good debate and simply say that of
course I oppose this amendment. It is
another judicial review amendment.
We have been up and down the street
on this matter a number of times to-
day. This time we are asked to give
judicial review to a very selected few
employers and not to the rest of them.
As far as I am concerned, if we are
going to give this to anybody, let us
give it to everybody and not to a spe-
cial few. The amendment is obviously
an unfair amendment to the industry
itself. I hope it will be defeated and
the bill will pass.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is
on the amendment offered by the gen-
tleman from Missouri [Mr. HALL].
The question was taken; and on a
division (demanded by Mr. HALL),
there were—ayes 23, noes 118.
So the amendment was rejected.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule,
the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose;
and the Speaker having resumed the
chair, Mr. KARSTEN, Chairman of the
-------
1858
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union, reported that that
Committee, having had under consider-
ation the bill (H.E. 6041) to amend
the prevailing wage section of the
Davis-Bacon Act, as amended; and
related sections of the Federal Airport
Act, as amended; and the National
Housing Act, as amended pursuant to
House Resolution 582, he reported the
bill back to the House.
The SPEAKER. Under the rule
the previous question is ordered.
The question is on engrossment and
third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed
and read a third time and was read
the third time.
Mr. MARTIN of Nebraska. Mr.
Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER. Is the gentleman
opposed to the bill?
Mr. MARTIN of Nebraska. I am,
Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman
qualifies. The Clerk will report the
motion to recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. MARTIN of Nebraska moves that the bill,
H.R. 6041, be recommitted to the Committee
on Education and Labor.
The SPEAKER. The question is on
the motion to recommit.
The motion was rejected.
The SPEAKER. The question is on
passage of the bill.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr.
Speaker, on that I demand the yeas
and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The question was taken; and there
were—yeas 357, nays 50, answered
"present" 2, not voting 22, * * *.
[p. 1232]
1.13e(3)(b) June 23: Passed Senate, pp. 14768-14770
AMENDMENT OF PREVAILING WAGE SEC-
TION OF THE DAVIS-BACON ACT, FEDERAL
AIRPORT ACT, AND NATIONAL HOUSING
ACT
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President,
I move that the Senate proceed to the
consideration of Calendar No. 932,
H.R. 6041. The bill has been cleared
with the minority leadership.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
bill will be stated by title.
The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. A bill
{H.R. 6041) to amend the prevailing
wage section of the Davis-Bacon Act
and related sections of the Federal
Airport Act and the National Housing
Act.
Mr. BARTLETT. This bill is one
I have long supported, and is similar
to one I cosponsored, S. 450. I pre-
pared for delivery on the Senate floor
a speech supporting the bill, and dis-
cussing other needed Davis-Bacon
amendments.
Mr. President, in 1931 Congress
passed the Davis-Bacon Act, a meas-
ure designed to insure that the wages
paid by Federal construction contrac-
tors would be commensurate with
those prevailing in similar civilian
occupations in the area where the con-
struction was taking place.
Thus was the policy established that
the Federal Government was not to
be a party to the depression of local
labor standards. The policy has since
been reaffirmed over a dozen times
through the inclusion of the prevail-
ing wage concept in other laws.
Davis-Bacon's passage represented a
bipartisan effort, and its support
came from various segments ot so-
ciety—contractors who were being un-
derbid by others paying substandard
wages, local workmen who were being
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1859
underbid by cheap outside labor, local
communities suffering from unemploy-
ment. The Davis-Bacon Act was
[p. 14768]
sorely needed, and it has been gen-
erally effective. Under its provisions,
the Department of Labor has deter-
mined equitable wage levels for the
construction trades in various areas
and has set up enforcement machinery
and an appeals board. Certainly the
act has helped maintain Alaska's la-
bor standards and economic health,
important as Federal projects are to
the State's construction industry and
labor force. In fiscal 1964, for exam-
ple, appropriations for a $44% million
military construction program were
approved for Alaska. The Bureau of
Indian Affairs Alaska budget con-
tained over $6 million in construction
funds; the figure for the Department
of Health, Education, and Welfare
was some $4 million. More could be
cited. Davis-Bacon obviously repre-
sents an economic safeguard essential
to Alaska's welfare.
Nonetheless, the 33 years since the
law's enactment have brought many
changes in the Nation's economic pat-
terns and, as we might expect, these
changes have left the legislation in-
adequate in certain respects. One
such change involves a new concept of
"wages." Davis-Bacon does not define
its usage of the word "wages" in pre-
cise terms, and because of the act's
requirement that wages be paid "un-
conditionally," the Labor Department
has not felt free to include in its cal-
culations those fringe benefits to em-
ployees which are contingent in na-
ture. "Unconditional" remunerations
such as some vacational allowances
may be included, but most health, wel-
fare, pension and other guarantees
and programs cannot be considered.
In 1931 such indirect or deferred pay-
ments were almost negligible in terms
of the total wage picture, but such is
no longer the case.
Fringe-benefit programs have be-
come numerous and their economic
role has become steadily more impor-
tant.
In the construction industry alone
there are more than 4,000 welfare and
pension funds; well over 70 percent
of building tradesmen are covered by
such programs. The Wall Street
Journal has pointed out that overall
payments to private welfare and pen-
sion funds have multiplied 7 times
since 1946, to a record high of 7 per-
cent of wage and salary earnings.
It is true, as Secretary Wirtz testi-
fied before the Committee on Labor
and Public Welfare on February 21,
1964:
Fringe benefit plans have become an integral
part of the fabric of our modern industrial
society and that employer payments to these
plans represents a firmly established wage cus-
tom and practice.
In the Seattle area fringe benefits
paid to building laborers represent an
increment equivalent to 9 percent of
the basic wage. For painters and
plasterers the figure is 8 percent, for
bricklayers and plumbers, 7 percent.
Precise figures are not available for
Alaska—where the cost index is sub-
stantially higher—but we may assume
that the relative size of fringe bene-
fits is comparable to that computed
for the State of Washington.
Yet those responsible for adminis-
tering the Davis-Bacon Act must still
operate under an antiquated concept
of wages. Fringe benefits cannot be
included in their calculations.
What is the result of this gap, this
widening gap, in Davis-Bacon cover-
age?
There has been a recurrence of the
inequities and abuses Davis-Bacon was
intended to eliminate. The Federal
Government again has become a party
to the depression of local labor condi-
tions. Contractors are in effect en-
couraged to eliminate fringe benefits.
Even if they do not wish to do so, they
-------
1860
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
are forced to such action by the neces-
sity of competitive bidding and the
willingness of some of their competi-
tors to omit fringe benefits from their
cost calculations. From such a de-
pression of the wage scale stem other
maladies: the encouragement of the
importation of cheap outside labor by
contractors, the growth of unemploy-
ment in the local community, and the
economic difficulties of both imported
and local workers who find that their
payments and benefits are not suffi-
cient for the security of their fami-
lies or adequate to the scale of living
in their communities.
Fortunately, the need for the inclu-
sion of fringe benefits in the calcula-
tion of prevailing wages has received
considerable congessional attention.
Numerous bills have been introduced
to this effect in both Houses since
1955. Last session I cosponsored a
bill (S. 450) which would include
fringe benefits in Davis-Bacon calcula-
tions. A similar measure was intro-
duced in the House (H.R. 6041) and
was passed by that body on January
28, 1964. The Senate Committee on
Labor and Public Welfare held hear-
ings on the House bill and reported it
favorably on March 17. I strongly ad-
vocate passage, without weakening
amendments.
A second shortcoming of the Davis-
Bacon Act as it now stands is that it
lends itself to rather narrow and eva-
sive interpretations as to the extent
of its coverage. Contractors and con-
tracting agencies often draw a fine
line between construction and instal-
lation. Sometimes, for example, electri-
cal work contracted for military in-
stallations has been exempted from
the act's coverage on the grounds that
it represents installation rather than
construction. Whatever one thinks
about the legitimacy of such distinc-
tions—and their evasive intent can
hardly be masked—the fact remains
that Davis-Bacon as it now stands is
limited to construction contracts.
Now, just as it makes little sense to
guarantee the equity of rates paid by
construction contractors if we are to
allow evasive interpretations, it makes
little sense to guarantee construction
wages if we are to allow those who
contract for the maintenance of the
same installations to pay substandard
wages—not only without fringe bene-
fits, but also below the basic wages
prevailing elsewhere in the community
for maintenance work.
The same considerations that led to
the passage of the Davis-Bacon Act
require us to extend its coverage to
maintenance contracts.
The depression of local wage rates
by Government contractors is intol-
erable, whether the contractors in
question are engaged in construction
or in maintenance.
Again, we in Alaska have particu-
lar reason to appreciate Davis-Bacon's
inadequacies in this respect. A sub-
stantial portion of the operating budg-
et of the military services and of other
Federal agencies in Alaska is con-
tracted maintenance work—electrical,
mechanical, custodial, and other serv-
ices. And we know from experience
that the present absence of safeguards
encourages contractors to enlist work-
ers at substandard wages and leads
budget-conscious agencies to let their
maintenance contracts go to such con-
tractors. Sometimes this leads to the
importation of cheap outside labor;
more often it has meant that the only
persons who can afford to take main-
tenance jobs are those who have other
employment and desire a supplemen-
tary income.
Hence, we have the widespread
practice of "moonlighting" in Alaska,
by servicemen and others. Those need-
ing full-time employment do not bene-
fit from the job markets the Armed
Forces and the agencies cre'ate. Local
people who desperately need these
maintenance jobs are either edged out
entirely or are given a substandard
wage when and if they are hired. The
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1861
Federal Government again becomes a
party to local unemployment and wage
depression.
Unfortunately, the need for the ex-
tension of Davis-Bacon to mainte-
nance jobs has not received the con-
gressional attention it deserves. Bills
have been introduced in the House to
this effect—H.R. 273, H.R. 4798—but
have not had hearings. Another
House bill, H.R. 1678, would not have
specifically amended Davis-Bacon but
would have nonetheless provided that
contractors or subcontractors doing
Government maintenance work be paid
wages commensurate with the wages
and fringe benefits prevailing in the
particular area, as determined by the
Secretary of Labor. However, after
subcommittee hearings on H.R. 1678,
the House Committee on Education
and Labor on June 10, 1964, reported
an altered measure, H.R. 11522. The
reported bill would provide that Fed-
eral contractors' "service employees"
be paid rates comparable to those paid
Federal employees in analogous posi-
tions. Maintenance workers would
thus come under the provisions of sec-
tion 202(7) of the Classification Act
of 1949—5 U.S.C. 1082—a representa-
tive or board of the contracting agen-
cy would hence fix an equitable rate.
Such a bill has its difficulties. For
one thing, it does not stress adher-
ence to a locality's prevailing wage
to the extent that Davis-Bacon does;
such adherence is naturally important
to Alaska, with her higher cost of liv-
ing. Furthermore, H.R. 11522 does
not provide for direct Labor Depart-
ment administration. It instead allows
the agencies themselves to set the
wage levels by which their contractors
will abide. And we know from experi-
ence that, despite their best intentions,
economy-minded agencies are tempted
to tolerate a low wage scale on the
part of their contractors, in the in-
terest of obtaining inexpensive service.
The Labor Department occupies a
[p. 14769]
more objective posture and is subject
to fewer pressures. Moreover, its ad-
ministration of the present Davis-
Bacon Act has been such as to inspire
confidence. At any rate, I hope that
when and if the House considers H.R.
11522 it will amend the bill so as to
bring it in line with Davis-Bacon pro-
visions and procedures.
I have myself cosponsored a bill to
extend Davis-Bacon to maintenance
contracts, S. 495, introduced by the
able senior Senator from California,
Senator KUCHEL, and cosponsored by
the distinguished senior Senator from
Minnesota, Senator HUMPHREY, on
February 28, 1963. The bill would
simply amend the act so that "mainte-
nance work on a public building or
public work, including the replace-
ment, modification, reconstruction, and
demolition thereof, shall for the pur-
poses of this Act, be deemed to be a
contract for the construction, altera-
tion, and/or repair thereof." The De-
partment of Labor would see that
Federal maintenance contracts contain
the prevailing wage as a minimum
wage. I regret, however, that hear-
ings have not yet been held on this
measure; I hope that either this or
the House bill will in the near future
receive the Senate's consideration.
Mr. President, we are often remind-
ed that the laws we pass and the
standards we set in 1 day are not
sufficient for the demands of the days
that follow. Indeed they may be per-
nicious, in that they make us believe
we have met problems which are in
reality unmet, and lull us into com-
placency. The Davis-Bacon Act was a
well-conceived measure, and its impact
has been salutary. But unless we
modify the measure to meet today's
conditions and needs, its efficacy will
be compromised.
I have suggested two urgently need-
ed amendments which, I believe, would
contribute to the law's updating; the
inclusion of fringe benefits in its cal-
culation of prevailing wages and the
-------
1862
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
extension of its provisions to mainte-
nance as well as construction con-
tracts.
It is my hope that the Senate will
respond to the need for such legisla-
tion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the motion
of the Senator from Montana.
The motion was agreed to; and the
Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
bill is open to amendment. If there be
no amendment to be proposed, the
question is on the third reading and
passage of the bill.
The bill (H.R. 6041) was ordered
to a third reading, read the third time,
and passed.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President,
I move that the Senate reconsider the
vote by which the bill was passed.
Mr. McNAMARA. I move to lay
that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President,
I ask unanimous consent to have print-
ed in the RECORD an excerpt from the
report (No. 963), explaining the pur-
poses of the bill.
There being no objection, the ex-
cerpt was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
H.R. 6041, which was passed by the House
on January 28, 1964, is designed to modernize
the Davis-Bacon Act by bringing its standards
into conformity with modern wage payment
practices. It recognizes that fringe benefits
which were unknown when this act became law
a third of a century ago now constitute an
integral part of the wages of millions of
workers. It further recognizes that these fringe
benefits must be reflected in prevailing wage
determinations under the act if its underlying
principle—that Federal funds should not be
used to depress prevailing local wage standards
on federally supported construction work—is
to continue to have real meaning.
PASSAGE OF DAVIS-BACON AMENDMENTS:
A GREAT ACHIEVEMENT
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President,
the Senate has acted wisely in pass-
ing H.R. 6041 without amendment.
This legislation passed the House of
Representatives in January by the
overwhelming vote of 387 to 50. It
was favorably reported by the Senate
Labor and Public Welfare Commit-
tee by a vote of 13 to 2.
It has been my privilege to join
with the distinguished assistant mi-
nority leader, Mr. KUCHEL, in the 87th
and 88th Congresses in proposing
similar legislation. On January 23,
1963, I introduced S. 450 on behalf of
myself and Senators KUCHEL, CLARK,
HART, ENGLE, DOUGLAS, MORSE, CASE,
JAVITS, KEATING, PROUTY, SCOTT,
BARTLETT, GRUENING, WILLIAMS of
New Jersey, METCALF and INOUYE.
The objectives of the original Sen-
ate legislation (S. 450) and H.R. 6041
are similar. The Davis-Bacon Act was
first enacted in 1931 and was revised
in 1935, to represent what was then a
comparatively effective instrument for
preventing the purchasing power of
the Federal Government from under-
mining existing labor conditions in
the construction industry.
Since 1935, however, experience has
revealed many drawbacks in the
framework for administering the
Davis-Bacon Act. In fact, changing
conditions in the construction industry
have required a new look at the way
the act operates today. That is the
purpose of this bill—namely, to pro-
vide a basis for taking a new and
more realistic look at the Davis-Bacon
Act.
Since 1935 the Secretary of Labor
has confined himself to determining
the basic hourly wage rate as the only
prevailing rate required by the act.
Nowadays, however, this basic hourly
wage rate falls far short of reflecting
the actual hourly labor costs on con-
struction jobs. Collective agreements
throughout the industry now cover
many additional payments for the wel-
fare of workers—payments which did
not exist in 1935. For example, most
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1863
agreements in many areas of the coun-
try now provide for payments, on an
hourly, or payroll basis, to so-called
health and welfare funds, so as to
provide much needed sick and hospital
and medical benefits to construction
workers and their families. Payments
are also frequently required to be
made to pension funds and to supple-
mentary unemployment benefit funds.
Many agreements also require pay-
ments to various training funds of di-
rect benefit to journeymen and ap-
prentices whose skills are the lifeblood
of the construction industry and the
mainstay of those who depend upon
this great industry for their liveli-
hood.
As the report of the Committee on
Labor and Public Welfare points out,
recent surveys have shown that the
payments to these funds are not only
a substitute for direct wage increases
which workers would otherwise have
received as a part of their basic hour-
ly wage rate but, in addition, that
these payments now are a very large
part of the hourly wage costs in the
construction industry.
These payments cannot be ignored
or discouraged because they exist to
benefit workers for whom they are
made. Yet under the interpretation
of the present act they are ignored
and discouraged. Day after day the
law is extending an open invitation to
outside contractors to bring low wages
and cheap labor into higher wage com-
munities because these lower labor
costs give them a successful bidding
advantage on Government work.
This type of unfair wage competi-
tion was the very reason for the enact-
ment of the Davis-Bacon Act in the
first place. It is the purpose of this
legislation to upgrade the act so that
it will once more carry out its original
purpose.
Passage of H.R. 6041 will not place
all construction contractors on equal
competitive terms. It will not inter-
fere with the prevailing wage rates
paid in the community but will pro-
tect local contractors from unfair
competition.
It has been a personal privilege to
serve as principal sponsor of this
legislation in the Senate. It is also
my pleasure to compliment the dis-
tinguished Senator from Michigan
[Mr. McNAMARA] for the prompt and
expeditious manner in which he has
handled this legislation. This is a sig-
nificant improvement and moderniza-
tion of the labor law of this country.
[p. 14770]
1.13f REORGANIZATION PLAN NO. 14 OF 1950
64 Stat. 1267
REOEGANIZATION PLAN NO. 14 OF 1950
Prepared by the President and transmitted to the Senate and the House of
Representatives in Congress assembled, March 13, 1960, pursuant to the
provisions of the Reorganization Act of 1949, approved June 20, 1949.
LABOR STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT
In order to assure coordination of administration and consist-
ency of enforcement of the labor standards provisions of each of
the following Acts by the Federal agencies responsible for the
-------
1864 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
administration thereof, the Secretary of Labor shall prescribe ap-
propriate standards, regulations, and procedures, which shall be
observed by these agencies, and cause to be made by the Depart-
ment of Labor such investigations, with respect to compliance
with and enforcement of such labor standards, as he deems desira-
ble, namely: (a) The Act of March 3, 1931 (46 Stat. 1494, ch.
411), as amended; (b) the Act of June 13, 1934 (48 Stat. 948, ch.
482) ; (c) the Act of August 1, 1892 (27 Stat. 340, ch. 352), as
amended; (d) the Act of June 19, 1912 (37 Stat. 137 ch. 174), as
amended; (e) the Act of June 3, 1939 (53 Stat. 804, ch. 175), as
amended; (f) the Act of August 13,1946 (60 Stat. 1040, ch. 958);
(g) the Act of May 13, 1946 (60 Stat. 170, ch. 251), as amended;
and (h) the Act of July 15, 1949, ch. 338, Public Law 171, 81st
Congress, First Session.
[p. 1267]
1.13g SUSPENSION OF PROVISIONS OF DAVIS-BACON
ACT OF MARCH 3, 1931
Proclamation No. 4031, February 25, 1971, 36 Fed. Reg. 3457
PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS
Title 3—The President
PROCLAMATION 4031
PROCLAIMING THE SUSPENSION OF THE DAVIS-BACON ACT OF MARCH
3, 1931
By the President of the United States of America
A Proclamation
Section 1 of the Davis-Bacon Act of March 3, 1931 (46 Stat.
1494, as amended, 40 U.S.C. 276a), provides:
". . . every contract in excess of $2,000, to which the United
States or the District of Columbia is a party, for construction,
alteration, and/or repair, including painting and decorating, of
public buildings or public works of the United States or the Dis-
trict of Columbia within the geographical limits of the States of
the Union, or the District of Columbia, and which requires or
involves the employment of mechanics and/or laborers shall con-
tain a provision stating the minimum wages to be paid various
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1867
are dependent upon determinations by the Secretary of Labor
under the Davis-Bacon Act, were suspended until otherwise pro-
vided by Proclamation No. 4031 of February 23, 1971; and
WHEREAS, I have today issued Executive Order No. 11588;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, RICHARD NIXON, President of the
United States of America, do by this Proclamation revoke Procla-
mation No. 4031 of February 23, 1971, as to all construction con-
tracts for which solicitations for bids or proposals are issued after
the date of this Proclamation, whether direct federal construction
or federally assisted construction subject to the previous Procla-
mation No. 4031.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this
twenty-ninth day of March in the year of our Lord nineteen
hundred and seventy-one and of the independence of the United
States of America the one-hundred ninety-fifth.
RICHARD NIXON.
[FR Doc.71-4716 Filed 4-1-71 ;3:00 pm]
[p. 6335]
U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1974 O - 466-441 (Vol. No. 3)
-------
DATE DUE
U.S. Enviroomennl Protection Agency
Region V, Library
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 606QA
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1865
classes of laborers and mechanics which shall be based upon the
wages that will be determined by the Secretary of Labor to be
prevailing for the corresponding classes of laborers and mechanics
employed on projects of a character similar to the contract work
in the city, town, village, or other civil subdivision of the State in
which the work is to be performed, or in the District of Columbia
if the work is to be performed there . . .";
Various other acts provide for the payment of wages, with these
provisions dependent upon determinations by the Secretary of
Labor under the Davis-Bacon Act.
The Nation is now confronted by a set of conditions involving
the construction industry which, taken together, create an emer-
gency situation:
—Construction industry collective bargaining settlements are
excessive and show no signs of decelerating.
—Increased unemployment and more frequent and longer
work stoppages in the construction industry have accompa-
nied the excessive and accelerating wage demands and set-
tlements in the construction industry.
—The excessive and accelerating wage settlements in the con-
struction industry have affected collective bargaining in
other industries, thus contributing to inflation in the over-
all economy.
—This combination of factors in the construction industry
has threatened the basic economic stability of the construc-
tion industry and thus the Nation's economy.
—Construction industry employers and employee representa-
tives have been unable voluntarily to agree upon any ar-
rangement which would ameliorate these conditions.
—The Federal Government is planning to expand its direct
and financially-assisted construction, in part to reduce
unemployment in the construction industry and in the na-
tional economy.
—The Federal Government anticipates that a larger portion
of total resources will be devoted to construction activity as
the economy expands.
—The Davis-Bacon Act and other acts dependent upon it
frequently require contractors working on federally in-
volved projects to pay the high negotiated wage settlements
to mechanics and laborers, thereby sanctioning and spread-
ing the high rates and thus inducing further acceleration
contributing to the threat to the Nation's economy.
Section 6 of the Davis-Bacon Act provides:
-------
1866 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
"In the event of a national emergency the President is author-
ized to suspend the provisions of this Act."
WHEREAS I find that a national emergency exists within the
meaning of section 6 of the Davis-Bacon Act of March 3, 1931 (46
Stat. 1494, as amended, 40 U.S.C. 276a).
NOW, THEREFORE, I, RICHARD NIXON, President of the
United States of America, do by this proclamation suspend, as to
all contracts entered into on or subsequent to the date of this
proclamation and until otherwise provided, the provisions of the
Davis-Bacon Act of March 3, 1931, as amended, and the provisions
of all other acts providing for the payment of wages, which provi-
sions are dependent upon determinations by the Secretary of
Labor under the Davis-Bacon Act;
And I do hereby suspend until otherwise provided the provi-
sions of any Executive Order, proclamation, rule, regulation or
other directive providing for the payment of wages, which provi-
sions are dependent upon determinations by the Secretary of
Labor under the Davis-Bacon Act;
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this
twenty-third day of February in the year of our Lord nineteen
hundred seventy-one, and of the Independence of the United
States of America the one hundred ninety-fifth.
RICHARD NIXON.
1.13h REVOCATION OF PROCLAMATION OF
SUSPENSION OF PROVISIONS OF DAVIS-BACON ACT
Proclamation No. 4040, April 3, 1971, 36 Fed. Reg. 6335
Title 3—The President
PROCLAMATION 4040
PROCLAMATION REVOKING PROCLAMATION NO. 4031 OP FEBRUARY
23,1971
By the President of the United, States of America
A Proclamation
WHEREAS, the provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act of March 3,
1931 (46 Stat. 1494, as amended) and the provisions of all other
acts, Executive Orders, proclamations, rules, regulations or other
directives providing for the payment of wages, which provisions
------- |