Summary of high and low dollar budgets, fiscal year 1968—Continued Difference between President's budget and low budget submitted by Item (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Explanation Summary of high and low dollar budgets, fiscal year 1968-Continued 1 Includes $1,000,000 for research grants sponsored by the Social Security Administration. This amount had been separately requested in a new proposed appropriation account of Social Security Administration. This amount is included here because the Budg et Bureau disallowed the request for a separate appropriation account. 2 Includes addition of $217,000 to remedy instructional deficiencies in school of dentistry. ANNUAL PERCENTAGE BUDGET INCREASE Mr. FLOOD. Leaving out the grants for construction and the regional medical program, the total increases are about $78 million or just under 8 percent. With a little prodding from Mr. Fogarty you made a pretty strong case for the proposition that programs such as yours require an annual increase of about 15 percent in funds just to maintain the same level of effectiveness. Well, in this budget where are you going with 8 percent? Dr. SHANNON. Well, sir, your memory may be better than mine but that included the entrance of scientists we were training into the research field. That 15-percent figure was made up of three elements. The first was the increased cost of doing business, which we estimated would be 3.5 or 4 percent per year; the second element was the increased support for on-going scientific research as a result of the increased sophistication of techniques; this brought it to about 10 percent. Finally, we felt that about 5 percent additional would be requireduntil about 1975 when things started to turn over and the plant was established-for the entrance of new scientists. Mr. FLOOD. Your memory is as good as mine. That is what you said. Dr. SHANNON. I wanted to emphasize that I did include about 5 percent for the entrance of scientists we were training into the research field. Mr. FLOOD. I know, but what happened? Have you fallen from grace or what? Dr. SHANNON. I think the general answer to that is that the President and the Bureau of the Budget, in their wisdom, felt other programs could compete more effectively for new money than we could. Mr. FLOOD. Mr. Natcher, will you proceed while I answer the rollcall. RESTRICTED GROWTH OF FELLOWSHIP AND TRAINING PROGRAMS Mr. NATCHER. Dr. Shannon, I notice there is no overall increase in the number of new fellowships you can support with this budget and there is actually a decrease in the number of training grants. How do you fit this in with all the talk about the need for more trained people in the field of medicine at this time? Dr. SHANNON. All I can say is that we hope the present stringency of these funds will not hold too long because there are not sufficient funds for the plans we had for the next decade. I think the Bureau of the Budget has taken the attitude that for the moment, as they see the balance of the books, these programs must pause in their develop ment. APPROVED RESEARCH GRANTS COMPARED TO AVAILABLE FUNDS FOR 1966 Mr. NATCHER. Tell us in general what the situation is in regard to the number and dollar value of research grant applications that were approved during 1966 compared with available funds, and place a table in the record showing it by institutes. Dr. SHANNON. Could we furnish that for the record? (The information follows:) |