Mr. FOGARTY. I understand you did a pretty good job. They wanted to cut you back further than this; is that right?

Dr. SHANNON. That is correct.

I believe the Secretary argued very strongly for this program. He gave this item a very high priority.

Mr. FOGARTY. I thought he wrote a pretty good letter. I go along with him. I think most people interested in these programs would. I think it is a foolish thing to cut back in areas like this.

Mr. CARDWELL. I might point out, as Dr. Shannon says, the Secretary did support the original proposal for additional funds in this area. When it came to a question of priorities, and when the issue of the impact on the economy was raised, he did concur with the final decision. I think in his testimony several weeks ago he indicated this to the committee.

Mr. FARNUM. Mr. Chairman, I have to agree with you and the doctor, this is an area I do not think we can afford to cut back in when we have such a special need for trained personnel and when research plays such an important part in training that personnel. Maybe we can do something about it.

Mr. FOGARTY. Dr. Shannon, is this the last NIH item?

Dr. SHANNON. The last NIII item. We participate with part of the remainder of the Public Health Service.

REQUIREMENTS FOR A BUDGET INSURING CONTINUED PROGRESS AND

ACCOMPLISHMENT

Mr. FOGARTY. Now, as I said at the beginning of these hearings, this is the most conservative NIH budget I have ever seen.

Nothing I have heard in the last several days has given me any different opinion. It seems that the committee is, again, going to have to work out an overall budget plan that makes sense. Maybe the professional judgment budgets can give us some guidance or the NIH budget request to the Department. What I want to get is some idea of the really important factors that should be provided for in this budget.

Dr. SHANNON. It is a very complex thing.

Mr. FOGARTY. I know you are under wraps. But the committee needs some better idea of what it is important to provide for on an overall basis.

What I would like is a statement for the record setting out the important elements of program growth that must be provided for. What are the principles that ought to guide the budget action on these programs if we are to continue the progress and accomplishment of medical research through these programs?

Can you do that, Dr. Shannon?

Dr. SHANNON. I will have to supply that for the record. (The information requested follows:)

ELEMENTS AND PRINCIPLES OF PROGRAM GROWTH WHICH WOULD PROVIDE FOR CONTINUED PROGRESS AND ACCOMPLISHMENT of Medical RESEARCH

An assessment of the program elements for medical research conducted at or supported by NIH points to the following set of principles. In applying them to fiscal levels our point of departure is the NIH request to the Surgeon General for fiscal year 1967 funds.

First, provide for levels of support for medical research which cover the needs of ongoing research of more than ordinary merit and at the same time permit the entry of newly trained young scientists into fields of direct concern to NIH. NIH estimates of what it would cost to achieve this level of support were $47.9 million higher than the final allowances for competing research project grants; approximately $12 million higher for research fellowships; and $36.9 million for research training grants.

Second, expand the elements of NIH's program which are aimed at providing institutional stability. The general research support grant program is the key program designed to carry out this objective, and NIH's estimate was $26 million higher than the budget request.

Third, maintain the excellence of NIH's intramural research program by providing funds to (1) furnish and service the new space that will become available in 1967 through construction now in progress, (2) continue our existing projects of demonstrated merit and add to these a minimum number of highly worthwhile new research undertakings, (3) take care of the increased cost of living and new techniques and instrumentation in support of our current research, (4) finance mandatory increases, such as the annualization of pay raises. Direct operations estimates to provide this kind of support in 1967 were $37.5 million above the final request to the Congress.

Fourth, meet program deficiencies in special research programs not amenable to satisfaction through the ordinary grant. Among the most important of these special programs are primate centers, for which our reqeust was $1.4 million above the final allowance; animal resources, for which our request was reduced by $5 million; and pharmacology-toxicology research for which our full request was allowed.

Fifth, carry forward a limited number of programs of a developmental nature covering problems of broad significance, with a high expectation of success. Most important among them are the vaccine development program for which $303,000 more was requested than allowed; the artificial kidney for which the request was $2 million greater; the virus-leukemia program in cancer which would require $5 million more to reach our initial 1967 request; and the artificial heart for which the full request was allowed and for which the Bureau of the Budget has indicated it will submit a supplemental request if our current analyses of feasibility studies lead us to conclude that additional funds can be usefully spent.

Sixth, cut into the backlog of approved applications under the health research facilities construction program in order to provide the space for research and house the influx of new scientists that will be supported by the NIH and other Federal funds. We requested the full authorization of $100 million and were allowed $15 million.

Seventh, expand into full operation in its second year the new regional medical program (heart, cancer, and stroke centers). Grant proposals currently in preparation or for which a firm intent has been expressed to NIH would probably encompass the full authorization of $90 million for grants. Half of this amount was included in the President's 1967 budget request.

BUDGET REQUIREMENTS TO CONTINUE NEW NIH GRANT AT 1966 LEVEL

Mr. FOGARTY. I wish you would supply a table, institute by institute, showing the amount necessary to finance as many new research grants in 1967 as in 1966.

Dr. SHANNON. This we will be glad to do.

(The information requested follows:)

Department of Health, Education, and Welfare-Public Health Service-National İnstitutes of Health—Amount necessary to finance as many "new" NIH research grants in 1967 as in 1966

[Amounts in thousands]

1 Where the 1967 President's budget figures showed a lower number of grants for an Institute, the number was raised to the 1966 level. Those Institutes which were budgeted to receive an increase in number of grants are unchanged from the President's budget. Cost includes 20 percent indirect cost but does not include any "additional indirect cost."

BUDGET NECESSARY FOR A MINIMUM 15-PERCENT INCREASE

Mr. FOGARTY. Can you get another statement showing what would be necessary if a 15-percent increase were allowed in 1967 over 1966 to provide the minimum many considered necessary just to keep from falling behind.

Dr. SHANNON. We will be glad to supply that for the record. (The information requested follows:)

Comparison of the NIH 1967 President's budget with a revised 1967 estimate to provide a minimum 15 percent increase over 1966

11967 President's budget or a 15 percent increase over 1966, whichever is higher.

Mr. FOGARTY. Mr. Laird?

Mr. LAIRD. I have no questions.

Mr. FOGARTY. I thought you were going to say you agreed with me. Mr. LAIRD. Sometimes I feel like someone should come to the rescue of the administration, but I think for now I'll just not say anything on either side.

Mr. FOGARTY. Well, I guess I can't demand that you put your professional judgment on these things in the record, like I do the witnesses. Is there anything more you would like to say, Dr. Shannon. Dr. SHANNON. No, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. FOGARTY. Thank you very much for your usual excellent testimony.

This closes our hearings on the NIH budget for 1967.

SIGNIFICANT ITEMS IN HOUSE AND SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE REPORTS

ITEM

1966 House report

(1) The Committee is much concerned that the maximum amount authorized under the Public Health Service Act, $50,000,000 for the program authorized by the Health Research Facilities Act, Title VII, Part A and $6,000,000, the maximum authorzide by Part D for the construction of centers for research on mental retardation and related aspects of human development, is not adequate to meet national needs for construction of additional research facilities. As of December 1964, known demand, representing applications in hand or known to be in process, approximated $136,000,000. (Page 45)

ACTION TAKEN OR TO BE TAKEN

(1) The Health Research Facilities Amendments of 1965 provide a total of $280,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1967 and the two succeeding fiscal years.

Total appropriations of $400 million have been made by the Congress through 1966, $380 million for health research facilities and $20 million for centers for research on mental retardation.

I. The Health Research Facilities Act of 1956, as amended, authorizes $280 million over the 3-year period, fiscal 1967-69, for construction of new and improved non-Federal research facilities in the sciences related to health. This authorization is an increase over the previous one, which has been at the rate of $50 million per year for the past 4 years.

This program has provided an important stimulus for the conduct of meritorious research in the sciences related to health through the funding, on a matching basis, of new and remodeled research facilities in all areas of the Nation. The modern facilities thus provided have, in turn, enabled the Nation's colleges, universities, and nonprofit research institutions to maintain and expand their leadership in the research efforts leading to better health for the American people.

Since the inception of the program 1,759 applications have been received requesting a total of $648 million. Upon recommendation of the National Advisory Council on Health Research Facilities, the Surgeon General thus far has approved 1,330 grants totaling $361,473,088.

The following breakdown indicates the kinds of health research facilities that are being constructed through the provision of matching grants from this program:

Medical schools..

Dental schools_

Schools of public health..

Schools of pharmacy

Other health-related schools'.

Institutions other than health-related schools2.

Total_

$185, 863, 404 8,093, 302 8, 204, 747 3,657, 617 79, 299, 185 76, 354, 833

361, 473, 088

1 Includes schools of veterinary medicine, osteopathy, chemistry, and biological sciences 2 Includes State, county, and municipal health agencies as well as hospitals and independent research institutions.