The Federal Government is bankrupt by a fair interpretation under the rules which govern private business. We carry today such a staggering burden of debt that we must begin to pay it instead of beginning to add to that burden. And if we build a single hospital, if we grant the money to build a single hospital, then we are committed to the building of thousands and thousands of hospitals and to drafts upon the Treasury of such a stupendous nature that it is almost impossible to estimate.

Gentlemen, we simply cannot: that is, the Federal Government cannot at this time assume obligations of this extent and especially obligations which are bound to grow as the program develops.

Beyond that, there is a proposition of a serious import as to the financial side of it. I think that that phase of it was very well set forth by Governor Tuck in his inaugural address a couple of weeks ago when he was installed as Governor of Virginia. It was also emphasized by our colleague, the distinguished gentleman from Texas, Mr. Sumners, chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary in announcing his retirement from the House In other words, that the Federal Government has through extending its financial largesse to the States practically superseded the State government in many respects

I remember when I first came to the floor of the House more than 30 years ago, a third of a century ago, there was not one day in which there was not a speech on the floor on States' rights. Why, Mr. Chairman, I have not heard a speech on the floor on States' rights for years. Why? Because the States, in order to secure these vast sums from the Federal Government, have waived all States' rights. They have practically yielded up their sovereignty. In many respects, State lines have been wiped out and becoming more indistinct every day.

The Federal Government, through the power of its largesse, through the influence of appropriation which the States desire to enjoy, has taken over many of the prerogatives and much of the jurisdiction and a great deal of the authority formerly exercised by the States.

To recapitulate, Mr. Chairman, we are entering upon a program the end of which cannot be forseen.

The stupendous nature of the obligation to which it commits us cannot be with even moderate accuracy foretold. The Federal Government must, from now on, exercise the greatest economy. It must begin to pay its debts. It cannot assume additional obligations, especially obligations of this character.

And I trust the committee will consider very carefully before it reports that phase of this bill which provides for grants to the States, even for the building or for the maintenance of hospitals which should be financed and maintained by the States and the counties and the municipalities, themselves.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to appear before

you.

Mr. PRIEST. We appreciate your appearance before the committee. I think all of us realize that you have had in the past few years very grave responsibilities as chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, that you still have, and that you are considering them very seriously as the nature of the responsibility demands.

We always appreciate your suggestions and look forward any time to having you come before the committee and give us your suggestions. Mr. CANNON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WINTER. I would like to make this statement: That I am very happy to have heard what the distinguished gentleman from my neighboring sister State of Missouri has said. He represents one of the finest agricultural districts west of the Mississippi River. I am sure he is speaking the language of the people in our area when he makes the statement which he has made to this committee this morning.

Mr. PRIEST. We will now have the statement of Mr. Goodman.

STATEMENT OF LEO GOODMAN, WASHINGTON REPRESENTATIVE, UNITED RETAIL, WHOLESALE AND DEPARTMENT STORE EMPLOYEES OF AMERICA, C. I. O., WASHINGTON, D. C.

Mr. GOODMAN. I am very happy to follow the distinguished gentleman of the Appropriations Committee. I am sorry that he has seen fit to leave the committee room, so that it will be impossible for him to discuss some of the items that I hope to raise in connection with the consideration of this bill, that his Committee has just voted for the care, prevention of disease, and the treatment of disease of the hogs and livestock in this country.

I am surprised that his committee would deem fit to take on as they just have in H. R. 5605 the stupendous task of arranging for the wellbeing of the livestock in this country, but he feels that the task of taking on a program to provide $75,000,000 to arrange for the wellbeing of the human beings of this country is too stupendous for the Federal Treasury.

It would seem to me, Mr. Chairman, that one ought to have a balance of first things first. It would seem to me that human beings should come for consideration before the Congress before we consider, Mr. Chairman, as is considered in this bill, and I will read you a few of the items.

On page 20 of 5605 is a section entitled, "Diseases of Animals," for the scientific investigation of diseases of animals and necessary expenses of investigation of tuberculosis serums and analogous products, the Congress appropriated $855,000, and an additional $75,000 to enlarge the Zoological Laboratory at the Agricultural Research Center. On the same page, under the topic headed "Eradicating Tuberculosis and Bangs Disease in Livestock," the Congress appropriates $6,750,000 for the control and eradication of the diseases of tuberculosis and Bangs disease of cattle.

Page 21, under the heading, "Inspections in Quarantine" the Congress appropriates $1,125,000 for inspection work relative to the existence of contagious diseases in livestock.

On the same page, the Congress appropriates in connection with the act of March 4, 1913, for the preparation of virus serum toxin, $300,000. On page 22, for the eradication of foot, mouth, and other contagious diseases of animals, the Congress appropriates $305,000.

On page 25, when we get to the more delicate matter of concerning the Federal Government with the diseases of fruits and vegetables,

the Congress appropriates $1,991,000 for vegetable and fruit and specialty crop diseases and for forest diseases, $291,200.

And on page 28, Mr. Chairman, the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee has just reported to the House and put through the House a bill which appropriates for insect disease control $2,791,000.

The Federal Government has hired thousands of experts and prepared and distributed millions of copies of a volume, a copy of which I hold in my hand, entitled "Keeping Livestock Healthy."

What about the human beings in this country? Are we to have State rights only when human beings are involved? Are we to have economy only when it is possible to save the life of a mother bearing child and hospital bed instead of in the squalor of a slum?

It would seem to me, Mr. Chairman, that this committee has a very excellent bill before it, that the people of this country are not in accord with Governor Tuck of Virginia, are not in accord with the retiring Congressman, Mr. Sumners of Texas.

And if I understand the thousands of members of my organization who live in Congressman Cannon's district, they are not in accord with him in the statement that he has presented before this committee today.

The CIO is vitally interested in the health of its members as any organization ought to be that is concerned with human beings.

We have considered this problem at great length. We are not newcomers to the problem of consideration of health matters.

In November, 1944, the CIO, at a convention held in Chicago, adopted a program in anticipation of the successful conclusion of the war, known as the "Murray Reemployment Plan," a copy of which is being handed to each of you.

(The booklet referred to is filed with committee.)

Mr. GOODMAN. That plan discusses many of the problems we are now facing today. We anticipated many of the reconversion problems that have since become so acute in the country. I do not intend to discuss the full program, but I do want to call the committee's attention to the section beginning on page 24, entitled "Health, Education, and Security," and under the subject of "Health," I would like to read the mature judgment of the representatives of 6,000,000 people, workers and breadwinners, representing a population in this country totaling well close to 30,000,000.

Our nation is woefully underequipped to provide adequate medical care to all the people. We should go in for a great expansion of hospital and clinical facilities. Every neighborhood in our big cities, and every crossroads hamlet and farm in America should be within safe and easy reach of a good hospital. The Federal Government should begin immediately to stimulate the States and local governments to prepare plans for the construction of such facilities. It should help financially by procedures similar to those used in housing. The demands which such a program will make on the industries producing building materials and clinical equipment will have a vital stimulating effect on our economy.

Even more important than building new hospitals is the training of more doctors, dentists, psychiatrists, and nurses. The war has given many Americans decent medical care for the first time in their lives. We have learned that in spite of underemployment among doctors, we did not have enough of them to go around if everyone in the country got proper treatment. We need to draw hundreds of thousands of additional men and women into these services before

we will have enough. This will mean new jobs, more purchasing power and a broader basis for prosperity.

We need a new and modern program of industrial safety. Avoidable accidents continue to take an inexcusable toll of injury on the job in our mines, mills, and factories. We ought to have a complete overhauling of our State industrial safety codes and a thorough examination of the possibilities of Federal stimulation and assistance for wise preventive measures. Our workmen's compen

sation laws are feeble and outmoded in most States and should be revised. Better clinics and other facilities should be installed by industry for the treatment of accidents and illness on the job. The States and Federal Government should enact whatever legislation may be necessary to bring this about.

We consider this bill that you now have before you is one that provides not only more adequate medical care for the American people, but one that will provide jobs for returning veterans, one that will make it possible for us to develop the economy of this country by developing the medical profession on a broader basis, so that it can give service to all of the people of this country and that in itself is an industry, an industry that could be expanded tremendously, so that no one in this country need go without adequate medical care. I will grant that we are up against the country's strongest monopoly. Mr. Anderson has already told you of some of the practices of the American Medical Association.

I am not here to give the committee a full, detailed picture of that problem. The Supreme Court has ruled on it once. I am sure that under the administration of this bill, when it is passed, the Supreme Court will have an opportunity again and again to slap down the efforts of the American Medical Association to prevent the American people from securing adequate medical care.

The American Medical Association, through its policies, and practices, has reduced the number of men in the medical profession, year by year, for the past 30 years.

The American Medical Association has gradually reduced the number of doctors each year turned out by the medical schools. They have reduced the number of medical schools. They have set up practices of oppression, practices which represent the worst type of oppression, far worse than any form of trade union closed shop that has been criticized so widely in Congress under which any person who deviates one iota from their program can be punished with the most devious and most unfair methods that man can conceive.

And yet the American Medical Association has been pressuring Congress and members of this committee to establish an advisory committee, an advisory council which they will control.

I was glad to hear Mr. Anderson, a witness before me, raise the kind of problems that makes it essential that you have a fair advisory committee that will represent the consumer of medical care as much as the practitioner, the man who is in the business of securing his livelihood because of his profession.

Mr. PRIEST. Mr. Goodman, if I may interrupt, you believe, also, that the council should not have administrative authority?

Mr. GOODMAN. I do. I support the position taken by Mr. Lamb and expand on that in my statement which, if the Chair cares me to, I will now read.

Mr. PRIEST. We would be very glad to have you read your statement. We are a little crowded for time.

If there are some points that you could condense and mention and extend it in full in the record, it would be appreciated.

Mr. GOODMAN. I will be glad to put this statement in full in the record and bypass that and go to just one more additional point, or rather two more additional points.

(The paper is as follows:)

STATEMENT ON HOSPITAL SURVEY AND CONSTRUCTION ACT

I am appearing here today, jointly with Mr. Robert Lamb, on behalf of the CIO in support of H. R. 5628, the "Hospital Survey and Construction Act," introduced by Mr. Priest, the chairman of the subcommittee.

We wish to compliment Mr. Priest on his sponsorship of this important bill. The pasage of this bill will do much to improve the health of the American people. It is a bill which is greatly needed. We urge its enactment in its present form.

All three of the other hospital construction bills pending before your Committee, H. R. 2498, H. R. 2755, and S. 191 as passed by the Senate, have defects which are not contained in the Priest bill. In our opinion only the Priest bill meets the needs of the consumers of hospital care and the conditions laid down by President Truman in his message of November 19, 1945, on a National Health Program in which he stated first that:

* * * lay down minimum national stand

"The Federal Government should ards for construction and operation. * * and that

"In approving State plans and individual projects, and in fixing national standards, the Federal agency should have the help of a strictly advisory body

* **

We endorse the principle of Federal grants-in-aid for hospital surveys and construction. But we believe that in order to assure that Federal funds are properly used-and used only for the specific purpose intended by the Congress— that there must be adequate minimum standards that must be observed in both the construction and operation of hospitals. Under the bill it is proposed that $75,000,000 a year of Federal funds will be expended over a 5-year period. We believe that this money should be invested only in projects that meet the very highest standards. It would be unfortunate if the money were used to construct abortion mills or hospitals that did not meet the very highest modern standards embodying the latest scientific equipment and layout. Should just one mother or child die in any hospital built with funds under the bill due to the failure to include a requirement that the hospitals have adequate standards, I am sure that you would agree that it would have Nation-wide repercussions. We should not even allow the possibility of such an event occurring.

We endorse, therefore, the provisions of section 623 (a) (7) of the Priest bill regarding minimum standards for the maintenance and operation of hospitals. In the last analysis, these provisions are a protection to the members of this committee, the entire Congress, the taxpayer, the State, the hospital and the individual who will use the hospital. I am sure that the commitee which has done so much to improve the health of our Nation would not want to see a bill enacted which might result in any tragedies such as I have mentioned.. In the matter of a strictly advisory council only the Priest bill meets this condition. We are strongly opposed to the provisions in the other three bills before the committee which provide that private persons or organizations can dictate the policy to be followed in the administration of a public law. The provisions of these other bills relating to advisory councils were designed to place the final policy-making authority in the hands of the American Medical Association and the American Hospital Association. We consider these provisions a dangerous precedent.

In our opinion the Congress should hold the Surgeon General responsible for the administration of the law, under the supervision and direction of the Federal Security Administrator. We do not believe that Congress should deliberately abdicate its authority by placing a veto power over the Surgeon General in the hands of a private body not responsible to the Congress,

The hospital construction bill involves money; it involves a question of which communities and which projects in these communities-should get how much.. We do not believe that any powers over any such matters should be placed in