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

-------