« PreviousContinue »
the administration, are designed to accomplish the same purposes as expressed in H. R. 7841, but avoid the weaknesses which we believe are contained in H. R. 7841.
Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,
DEAR CONGRESSMAN HARRIS: This is with further reference to your request for the views of this Department on H. R. 7841, a bill to authorize a 5-year program of grants for construction of medical, dental, and public health educational and research facilities, and for other purposes.
As pointed out by President Eisenhower in his economic report, a temporary program of construction grants for expansion and improvement of health educational facilities is a necsesary complement to the Federal program for research assistance in these fields. This Department, therefore, favors legislation designed to carry out this objective. Aside from the following, however, we would prefer to leave comment on the technical aspects of such legislation to the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare which would administer its provisions.
It is noted that H. R. 7841 contains no provisions affording labor standards protection to the workers who will be employed in construction of health and educational facilities which under the terms of the bill would be financed by Federal grants. Labor standards for construction financed with this kind of Federal assistance are now contained in title VI of the Public Health Service Act. Health facilities constructed under direct Federal contracts are, of course, subject to the prevailing wage provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act and to the Federal 8-hour laws requiring the payment of laborers and mechanics of not less than time and one-half for work in excess of 8 hours a day. A similar provision is contained in title III of the Defense Housing Community Facilities Act of 1951, pertaining to construction financed in whole or part by Federal funds. Duties with respect to these and related labor standards provisions are given to the Secretary of Labor by Reorganization Plan No. 14 of 1950 and section 2 of the Copeland Act, as amended.
As a matter of principle, this Department would favor the inclusion in this bill of provisions which would secure laborers and mechanics the payment of not less than the prevailing wage rates in the locality as determined by the Secretary of Labor in accordance with the Davis-Bacon Act and not less than time and one-half for overtime work in excess of 8 hours in a day or 40 hours in a week, together with appropriate provisions for application of Reorganization Plan 14 and Copeland Act authority. Your committee may wish to consider an amendment along these lines. Suggested language that might be suitable for the purpose is enclosed. You will note that its inclusion of a 40-hour weekly limit on work at straight-time pay, which is consistent with the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act, would prevent the practice, which some contractors have adopted under the existing 8-hour laws, of working employees a 56-hour week of 7 8-hour days without overtime payment. The Bureau of the Budget advises that there is no objection to the submission of this report.
JAMES P. MITCHELL,
SUGGESTED LANGUAGE FOR AMENDMENT OF H. R. 7841
Amend section 804 by adding at the end thereof the following subsection (e): "(e) (1) All laborers and mechanics employed by contractors or subcontractors in the performance of construction work financed with the assistance of any grant of Federal funds under the provisions of this title shall be paid wages at rates not less than those prevailing on similar construction in the locality as determined by the Secretary of Labor in accordance with the Davis-Bacon Act,
as amended (40 U. S. C. 276a-276a-5), and every such employee shall receive compensation at a rate not less than one and one-half times his basic rate of pay for all hours worked in any workweek in excess of eight hours in any workday or forty hours in the workweek, as the case may be. The Surgeon General shall not approve such grant of Federal funds without first obtaining adequate assurance that these labor standards will be maintained upon the construction work.
"(2) The Secretary of Labor shall have, with respect to the labor standards specified in subsection (1) of this section, the authority and functions set forth in Reorganization Plan Numbered 14 of 1950 (15 F. R. 3176, 64 Stat. 1267, 5 U. S. C. 133Z-15), and section 2 of the Act of June 13, 1934, as amended (48 Stat. 948, as amended, 40 U. S. C. 276a)."
Hon. OREN HARRIS,
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,
Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,
House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.
DEAR CONGRESSMAN HARRIS: This is in reply to your request for a report on H. R. 11913, a bill which would be cited as the Medical and Dental Research and Training Facilities Act of 1958.
The purpose of this bill is essentially the same as that of H. R. 7841, a bill "To authorize a 5-year program of grants for construction of medical, dental and public health educational and research facilities, and for other purposes." The Department has submitted a report on H. R. 7841 to the committee. Since the two measures are designed to achieve the same objective, it is requested that you consider our report on H. R. 7841 as an expression of the Department's views respecting H. R. 11913.
For your convenience, we are enclosing a copy of the suggested language for amendment of H. R. 7841 which was attached to our report on that bill. As a matter of principle, we would favor inclusion of this language in H. R. 11913. Sincerely yours,
JAMES T. O'CONNELL, Under Secretary of Labor.
SUGGESTED LANGUAGE FOR AMENDMENT OF H. R. 11913
Amend the provisions of section 201 which would become, respectively, sections 806 and 906 of the Public Health Service Act by adding at the end of each of the latter two provisions the following new subsection (d):
"(d) (1) All laborers and mechanics employed by contractors or subcontractors in the performance of construction work financed with the assistance of any grant of Federal funds under the provisions of this title shall be paid wages at rates not less than those prevailing on similar construction in the locality as determined by the Secretary of Labor in accordance with the DavisBacon Act, as amended (40 U. S. C. 276a-276a-5), and every such employee shall receive compensation at a rate not less than one and one-half times his basic rate of pay for all hours worked in any workweek in excess of eight hours in any workday or forty hours in the workweek, as the case may be. The Surgeon General shall not approve such grant of Federal funds without first obtaining adequate assurance that these labor standards will be maintained upon the construction work.
"(2) The Secretary of Labor shall have, with respect to the labor standards specified in paragraph (1) of this subsection, the authority and functions set forth in Reorganization Plan Numbered 14 of 1950 (15 F. R. 3176, 64 Stat. 1267, 5 U. S. C. 133z–15), and section 2 of the Act of June 13, 1934, as amended (48 Stat. 948, as amended, 40 U. S. C. 276c)."
Hon. OREN HARRIS,
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE,
Chairman, House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,
House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in response to your request of April 17, 1958, for a report on H. R. 11913, a bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to authorize grants for research and teaching facilities for existing and new medical, dental, and public health schools; to extend title VII of that act (relating to health research facilities) for an additional 3-year period; and for other
Title I of H. R. 11913 would amend title VII of the Public Health Service Act to authorize annual appropriations of $30 million for an additional 3 years for the existing research construction grant program. In addition, it would expand the present National Advisory Council on Health Research Facilities, change its name to the "National Advisory Council on Health Research and Teaching Facilities" in harmony with the additional advisory functions with respect to the construction program for teaching facilities proposed in titles II and III of the bill.
Title II of the bill would add a new title VIII to the Public Health Service Act to authorize annual appropriations of $50 million for 5 fiscal years, beginning with the fiscal year 1959, for making grants to schools of medicine, osteopathy, dentistry, and public health for construction of facilities for research and teaching purposes. Title III of the bill would further amend the PHS Act to add a new title IX which would authorize an aggregate of $100 million to be appropriated over a 10-year period for a similar grant program to aid new schools in these same fields. For existing schools, grants could be made up to a maximum of 50 percent of construction costs, with a permissive higher ceiling of 66% percent in the case of schools which gave satisfactory assurances that freshman enrollment would be increased by 5 percent of the freshman enrollment in the base year 1957-58. In the case of new schools, the grant could also amount to 66% percent. For both of the proposed new programs the procedures for grant application and approval, the functions of the newly designated National Advisory Council on Health Research and Teaching Facilities, and the provisions for accreditation of schools and for recapture of payments, are modeled on the provisions of existing law governing the administration of the research construction grant program authorized by present title VII of the Public Health Service Act.
We are in complete accord with the basic objectives of the bill, which parallel those of legislation proposed by this Department and currently under consideration by your committee (H. R. 6874 and H. R. 6875). Both H. R. 11913 and our earlier legislative proposal would, in effect, authorize the extension, in time and appropriations authorizations, of the present research construction program and expand it to include grants for the construction, improvement, or equipment of teaching facilities for schools of medicine, dentistry, osteopathy, and public health. Under both proposals the expanded grant program would be administered by the Surgeon General with the assistance of a single advisory council.
The principal points on which H. R. 11913 differs from the proposal recommended by this Department are: (1) it would authorize total appropriations considerably in excess of the amounts recommended in our proposal; (2) it would permit grants in excess of 50 percent of the cost of construction in the case of new school facilities and in the case of facilities of existing schools which planned an expansion of enrollment of 5 percent or more; and (3) in lieu of an aggregate appropriations authorization with internal ceilings-one ceiling on grant funds for facilities for teaching in dentistry and for related research, and the other on grant funds for facilities for teaching in medicine and research in all sciences related to health other than dentistry-it would provide for three separate authorizations, covering different time periods: (a) one authorization for grants for research facilities, (b) one for grants for research or teaching facilities for existing schools, and (c) a third for grants for research or teaching facilities for new schools. On each of these three major points of difference, we believe the provisions of this Department's proposal are preferable. With regard to the amount of grant funds authorized, we recognize that the total volume of grant applications may exceed the appropriations authorized in
our proposed legislation. We believe, however, that it is neither necessary nor desirable to premise such a grant program on the assumption that all needed construction will depend on Federal aid or that the maximum grant authorized should be awarded to each approved project. Our experience in the admininstration of construction grant programs, in this and related fields, indicates the desirability of using Federal grant funds in such a manner as to stimulate maximum financial participation from non-Federal sources. In many cases it has been found that the availability of relatively modest Federal grants has provided the necessary stimulus for fund-raising efforts by project sponsors that have been successful in providing much larger amounts of additional funds from non-Federal sources. In view of the increasing budgetary burdens on the Federal Government, in the health field as well as in other areas of national concern, we believe that appropriations authorizations for medical and dental research and teaching facility grants should be kept at the lowest level capable of stimulating the essential expansion and improvement of such facilities.
For the same reasons we would be opposed to authorizing grants in excess of 50 percent of the cost of any project, especially where as would be the case for existing schools-the increased Federal share could be obtained in return for only a minor expansion of enrollment. We doubt that such a provision would in fact prove to be a significant stimulus for enrollment expansion. In our opinion most enrollment expansions accompanying new construction by existing schools will be based on considerations other than the amount of Federal construction aid available.
We also believe that the separate appropriations authorizations proposed in H. R. 11913 would produce unnecessary complexities. Particularly, we see no advantage in providing separate authorizations for research and teaching facility grants for four classes of existing schools, on the one hand, and research facility grants for various classes of applicants (including such schools), on the other hand.
For the reasons indicated above, we recommend enactment of legislation along the lines of H. R. 6874 and H. R. 6875 in preference to H. R. 11913. The Bureau of the Budget advises that it perceives no objection to the submission of this report to your committee.
Hon. OREN HARRIS,
ELLIOT L. RICHARDSON,
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT,
Chairman, Committee on Interstate, and Foreign Commerce,
House of Representatives,
Washington, D. C.
MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in reply to your request of April 17, 1958, for the views of the Bureau of the Budget on H. R. 11913, a bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to authorize grants for research and teaching facilities for existing and new medical, dental, and public health schools; to extend title VII of that act (relating to health-research facilities) for an additional 3year period, and for other purposes.
H. R. 11913 would add 2 new titles to the Public Health Service Act, as well as amend title VII of the act to extend the existing $30 million program of research construction grants for 3 more years. The new title VIII would authorize the appropriation of $50 million a year for 5 years, beginning July 1, 1958, for grants to medical, dental, and public health schools. These grants would be to assist in the construction of teaching and research facilities and would be limited to 50 percent of the cost of construction, except where assurances are given that the freshman enrollment in that school will be increased by 5 percent, in which case the grant may be increased to 66% percent. Title IX to be added by this bill would authorize the appropriation of $100 million for a 10-year period, beginning July 1, 1958, to assist new schools of medicine, dentistry, and public health to construct teaching and research facilities. Grants under this title could not exceed 66% percent.
The purpose of this bill is similar to other legislative proposals under consideration by your committee, including the administration-sponsored legislation embodied in H. R. 6874 and H. R. 6875. There are, however, several features of H. R. 11913 about which this Bureau has reservations concerning both their desirability and effectiveness. We would question, for example, the desirability of providing three separate series of authorizations, differing in purpose or segregated according to the status of the institutions. We believe that the administrative complexities resulting from these provisions, while serving no purpose in themselves, may operate to the detriment of the applicant institutions.
The Bureau of the Budget believes that the existing program for 50-percent grants to assist in the construction of health-research facilities has demonstrated the effectiveness of an equal sharing between the Federal Government and the educational institutions in the fields of medical, dental, and public health. Be cause of this experience, and in view of the ever-increasing competing demands for Federal funds, the Bureau of the Budget strongly recommends against the proposal to provide for a decreased level of non-Federal participation. We would also concur with the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare in their view that an increased grant would probably not be an effective stimulation to increased enrollment.
The existing authority for the program of construction grants for research facilities, as well as the administration-sponsored bills H. R. 6874 and H. R. 6875 for the expansion of this program to include educational facilities, contain provisions limiting the eligibility for Federal grants to public or nonprofit institutions. H. R. 11913 contains no such limitation, and we would question the desirability of permitting the eligibility to include proprietary institutions, even though, as we understand, at the present time no such institutions exist.
Therefore, for these reasons, the Bureau of the Budget recommends against the enactment of H. R. 11913, but urges the committee to give favorable consideration to the enactment of H. R. 6874 or H. R. 6875.
PHILLIP S. HUGHES,
Acting Assistant Director for Legislative Reference.
Mr. WILLIAMS. The first witness is our colleague from the State of Rhode Island. Mr. Forgarty, we will be glad to hear you at this time on your bill, H. R. 7841.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN E. FOGARTY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
Mr. FOGARTY. There are many actions of Congress on behalf of the American people in which it is simply not possible, except in hindsight, to be absolutely certain of the factual basis for the act. If Congress is to anticipate the needs of the people, instead of merely correcting deficiencies after an issue has become overwhelmingly evident, it must often legislate in the light of realistic estimates of future problems and needs.
It is my belief that, in hindsight, all of the proposed legislation that provides a backdrop for this hearing-including, I am frank to admit, the bill I recommended last year-may appear in the "too little and too late" category.
For, in dealing with the number of physicians and dentists and research workers and teachers in the health professions that are needed in this country in the years immediately ahead, we are able to make use not only of realistic estimates, but, also, of some hard facts which make forthright action now one of the great imperatives of our times.
I submit to this committee, which has a distinguished record in health legislation, that the time has come for us to stop turning our eyes away from these facts simply because there are a few people in high-policy places who tell us they do not exist.