91st Congress ) HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ( D ocument

&d Session j ( No. 91-216

DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, AND HEALTH, EDUCATION, 

AND W ELFARE APPROPRIATION ACT, 1970

MESSAGE

FROM

THE PRESIDENT 0E THE UNITED STATES

RETURNING

WITHOUT APPROVAL THE ACT (H.R. 13111) MAKING APPROPRIATIONS

FOR THE DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, AND HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND

WELFARE AND RELATED AGENCIES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING

JUNE 30, 1970, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

J a n u a r y 27,1970.—Ordered to be printed

To the House of Representatives:

I return herewith, without my approval, H.R. 13111, an Act, “Making Appropriations for the Departments of Labor, and Health, Education, and Welfare and Related Agencies for the Fiscal Year Ending 

June 30,1970, and for Other Purposes.”

The issue is not whether some of us are for education and health 

programs and others against.

There are no goals which I consider more important for this nation 

than to improve education and to provide better health care for the 

American people.

The question is how much can the Federal Government afford to 

spend on those programs this year ?

The enrolled bill is $1.3 billion over my budget request for the 

Department of Health. Education, and Welfare (H EW ).

It is the largest increase over my budget recommendations of any 

appropriations bill for 1970.

It is the largest excess over a Presidential request ever provided by 

the Congress for the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

I have taken this action for four reasons:

One, these increases are excessive in a period of serious inflationary pressures. We must draw the line and stick to it if we are 

to stabilize the economy.

37—011 0— 70------1
a

Two, nearly nine-tenths of these increases is for mandatory

programs which leave the Executive Branch no discretion whatever either as to the level or the purpose of the added expenditures. This fact sharply differentiates this appropriation from 

other inflated measures that I have approved.

Three, the added funds are largely for lower priority programs.

Four, because of the lateness in the fiscal year, increases of this 

magnitude cannot be used effectively in many cases.

DEFICITS FEED INFLATION

The inflation we have at the start of the Seventies was caused by 

heavy deficit spending in the Sixties. In the past decade, the Federal 

Government spent more than it took in—$57 billion more. These 

deficits caused prices to rise 25% in a decade.

That is why I ordered Federal spending cut this year.

In April i969, I reduced the 1970 budget proposed by President 

Johnson by $4 billion. In July, I cut another $3.5 billion. Seventy-five 

percent of new direct Federal construction projects were deferred.

But Congress increased other spending by three and a half billion 

dollars.

PRIORITIES HAVE BEEN REASSESSED

Of the $7.5 billion reduction I proposed for 1970, $4.1 billion was 

in defense spending. We are reducing defense spending to the minimum 

consistent with our national security. Defense spending went down

from 1969 to 1970. It will go down again in 1971.

HEW spending is rising. Outlays for the Department are presently 

estimated to increase in fiscal 1970 by $6.1 billion above 1969, a 13% 

rise. The}' will increase further in 197i.

For the first time in twenty years, next year’s budget will provide 

more funds for human resources than for defense.

THE FISCAL 1 9 7 0 BUDGET

For the Congress and the Nation to understand my decision on the 

HEW appropriations, I must report today on current budget estimates 

for fiscal year 1970.

There are essentially two kinds of Federal Government spending: 

—uncontrollablewhich are already committed either because a program is automatic or because contracts were let before the fiscal 

year began and now payment is due; and 

—controllahles, where budget decisions can be made to have programs reduced or eliminated to hold spending down.

Although we made deep cuts in “controllables” in 1970, the overruns in “uncontrollables” have fully absorbed these cuts and now far

exceed them.

The original spending ceiling set by the Congress in July was $191.9 

billion, plus $2 billion allowance for designated uncontrollables. Actions taken by the Congress since then, and those now anticipated, 

would increase the ceiling another $1.8 billion. The result is an automatically revised Congressional ceiling of $195.7 billion.

It is the “uncontrollable” outlays—driven upward by the very inflationary forces we weie trying to contain—that have frustrated the 

efforts of both the Executive and the Congress to hold down spending.

Since I submitted my budget estimates in April, interest on the public debt has increased $1.5 billion. Spending for health insurance has 

increased $.7 billion, in large part because inflation requires us to pay
a

higher hospital and doctor bills for the senior citizens entitled to

care..

Taking into account all the changes which we can presently assess, 

we now estimate 1970 outlays at close to $198 billion, more than $2 

billion in excess of the ceiling. All of this overrun is attributable to 

“uncontrol lables.5 ’

We faced these difficult budgetary facts of life in preparing the 

1971 budget which I will send to the Congress on February 2. I will 

submit a budget for fiscal 1971 which will sharply reduce “spending 

momentum,” evidence of my determination to restore price stability.

THE DECISION ON II.R. m ill

Confronted with these budget overruns in 1970, I reached my decision in December to veto the HEW appropriation unless it was reduced 

by the Congress, and publicly stated my position.

Over four-fifths of the increase in H.R. 13111 is for education. Even 

without this large increase in education funds, the Federal Government in 1970 will spend over $10 billion for education—the most in 

our history. We care deeply about the need to improve our Nation’s 

schools. But we must ask two questions:

First, will the $1.1 billion which the Congress added for education go to those who need it the most ?

Second, will it increase the quality of American education ? This 

is the appropriate role of the Federal Government in a system in 

which Federal aid for public schools is 8% of the $40 billion total 

spent by State and local governments.

My answer is that these congressional increases do not target the 

scarce resource of the Federal Government in ways I can accept in this 

period of budget stringency. I must veto H.R. 13111.

Schools have as much at stake as anyone in our efforts to curb inflation. As an official of a major school system recently wrote: “the Costof-Education Index makes it abundantly clear that inflation itself is 

far more damaging than any of the attempts to bring it under control.”

Another 6% rise in prices this year would add more than $21/4 billion 

to the costs of public schools without any improvements in either 

quality or quantity. Twice as much as the $1.1 billion in increases for 

education proposed by the Congress will be swept away if we do not 

hold firm in our resolve to curb inflation.

IMPACTED AREAS AID

Nearly $400 million of the HEW increase would be for grants to 

schools in federally-impacted areas. In 1968. this program paid $5.8 

million to the Nation’s richest county (which had a population of 

500,000) and a total of $3.2 million to the 100 poorest counties (with a 

combined population of over 3 million).

For many school districts, these payments exceed the cost to local 

schools of educating the children of Federal employees. Often, the 

program enables wealthy districts to exert a lower tax effort than other 

districts in the same State.

Four successive Presidents have tried to reduce or reorient this 

program. Yet the Congress in this bill not only perpetuates this unfair 

program, it adds money to it. It is wrong to sharply increase the impacted school aid program in the face of the need to make long-overdue reforms in this law. The Administration will make recommendations for reform of this program based on a study requested by the 

Congress. I will submit these recommendations shortly.
4

EXCESSIVE INCREASES

The Conference Bill would increase the 1970 budget by $575 million 

for vocational education, equipment and other categorical education 

grants, and for Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education 

Act.

This is a 34% increase over the 1969 appropriations for these programs. In 1970, these increases—some for worthy programs—are just 

too large. Moreover, they come at a critical time in the development of 

education policy. The present system of Federal aid to education is 

much too inflexible; it frustrates planning by local officials and the 

development of creative new programs. Results—in terms of improved 

student performance—have fallen far short of our expectations.

That is why in my education message which I will shortly be submitting to the Congress I will propose a new and searching look at our 

American school system.

We are placing new and strong emphasis on experimentation and 

evaluation to learn about more effective approaches to education. We 

have undertaken a thorough review of the Title I program for disadvantaged children to repair its deficiencies. I have proposed consolidation of grant authorizations to give States and localities more 

flexibility and responsibility for action. I will recommend other actions 

in the coming weeks.

INEFFICIENT USE OF LIMITED FEDERAL RESOURCES

The Conference Bill provides $100 million in Federal appropriations 

for college construction grants and capital contributions for National 

Defense Student Loan funds above my request. For both construction 

and college student aid, the Congress has already authorized Federal 

interest subsidies for loans by private lenders. This is a much more 

efficient method of financing, which takes advantage of the loan placement and collection machinery of private lending institutions, while 

reserving Federal appropriations for other purposes where loans 

cannot be used.

FAILURE TO RECOGNIZE PRIORITIES

At the same time that the Congress was adding large amounts to 

these existing education support programs, it refused to vote the $25 

million I requested for innovation in elementary and secondary education. These funds would have been used to develop and test promising 

approaches for improving student achievement—such as new ways to 

teach reading and the use of older children to teach younger children.

The refusal to grant these modest research and development funds 

comes at a time when the Nation is devoting less than one-half of one 

percent of its total investment in education to research. We do not 

know enough about how to get more for our education dollars; we 

must intensify our efforts to find out.

THE PROBLEMS OF CONGRESSIONAL DELAY

The lateness of congressional action on the appropriations for HEW 

creates serious problems.

School budgets are prepared in the early months of a calendar year. 

Teachers are customarily employed in the* Spring and early Summer 

before academic sessions begin in September. Large, unplanned Federal grants coming only a few months before the close of the year will,
9

if experience is a guide, be used disproportionately to substitute for 

other school revenues and to make hasty purchases, not essential for 

school improvement.

The Nation has had bitter experience with the waste of large amounts 

allocated to education late in the school year. This was particularly 

true in the first year of funding for Title I. Money to help educate 

poor children went—not for teachers and well-planned programs— 

but often for unneeded equipment. A pattern of spending was established that has plagued this program ever since, creating management 

and operational problems that are still unsolved.

Not only does late funding result in waste when a full year’s appropriation is crammed into three or four months, it also creates a spending rate bulge. This is the kind of “on-again, oflP-a.<rain” relationship 

with States and localities that we are trying to avoid, because it hampers intelligent community planning.

MISDIRECTED HEALTH FCXDS

For HEW in 1970. the Congress also added $104 million above my 

request to the Hill-Burton appropriation for grants to build and 

modernize community hospitals. This increase was voted despite the 

growing awareness that a more pressing need is to fund ambulatory 

care facilities which offer an alternative to expensive hospital care. 

This is what was proposed to the Congress last April. While this point 

is recognized in the report of the Senate Appropriations Committee, 

the appropriation bill itself allocates most of the increased funds to 

grants for lower priority purposes rather than for needed out-patient 

facilities.

For hospital construction, the Administration has recommended legislation authorizing guaranteed loans, which would create a program 

much more responsive to today’s needs. Combined with the reimbursement formulas for construction under Medicare and Medicaid, this 

approach is efficient and equitable, and avoids having the Federal 

Government pay twice for hospital beds.

The amounts added by the Congress for health research represent 

less than one-half of 1% of the total appropriation. Taken separately, 

I would not have vetoed these increases. £)n the contrary, when the 

budget for 1971 is submitted to the Congress it will make a strongly 

increased commitment for health research, where advances can be made 

to serve the health needs of the Nation—cancer, heart disease, population research and environmental health.

FORCED SPENDING

Nearly nine-tenths of this congressional increase—about $1.1 billion—is for mandatory programs. The Executive Branch would have 

no control over these appropriations once H.B. 13111 was signed into 

law.

Left without any latitude in these areas, we mav be faced with the 

need to 'make offsetting and disproportionate reductions in highpriority programs. Because so much of the budget at this time of the 

year is already committed, the areas remaining where offsetting reductions can be made are limited. To a disturbing degree, they consist of 

health service programs, scientific research, manpower training, food 

and nutrition, and other programs that continue to be identified by the 

Administration and the Congress as vital to the Nation’s needs.
0

OFFICE OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY EARMARKING

One issue remains to :be dealt with that has arisen since my decision 

of last December to veto H.R. 13111.1 am very concerned about a provision which was struck from the bill last week. The effect of this action 

would be to require the Executive to allocate funds for the Office of 

Economic Opportunity (OEO) according to specific earmarks.

The amount available for OEO programs is not at issue. Rather, the 

issue is the effective use of resources.

To set requirements upon the use of OEO funds with less than 

5 months of the fiscal year left will disrupt -many of its ’programs. We 

will be forced to increase some programs well beyond planned spending 

levels and to make damaging reductions in others, particularly Head 

Start, Legal Services, VI'STA, JOBS, and programs for migrants and 

senior citizens.

I ask the Congress to reconsider its action, and restore the flexibility 

necessary to enable OEO to use its funds to the best advantage of the 

poor. The Congress will Shortly begin its review of my 1971 budget 

recommendations. This will 'provide an opportunity for a timely and 

orderly examination of the objectives of OEO, its performance and 

■program levels.

WIIAT NEXT?

I have vetoed this bill because the increases for HEW voted by the 

Congress are mandatory, and because in the context of present efforts 

to curb inflation they are misdirected and excess! ve.

If the veto is sustained, I will immediately seek appropriations 

which will assure the funds necessary to provide for the needs of the 

nation in education and health. No school will need to be closed, no 

child need have his education interrupted or impaired as a result of 

this veto action.

Another approach to a solution would be for the Congress to remove 

the requirement in the law that all formula grant funds must be spent, 

leaving it to the Executive Branch to take the necessary action. (In its 

actions setting ceilings on obligations and expenditures for fiscal years 

1968 and 1969, the Congress provided such flexibility.)

Provision must also be made so that impacted area aid funds are not 

cut off for hardship-case school districts. Until we come to agreement 

on a basic reform of this program, I believe we should work out a 

temporary solution which involves full funding for children whose 

parents live and work on Federal installations and partial funding for 

children whose parents do not live on Federal installations. In addition, I favor a specific “No Hardship Clause” which will guarantee 

that no school district will, as a result of these changes in the impacted 

school aid program, have a school budget less than 95% of what it had 

in 1969.

In working together to resolve this appropriations problem, care 

must be taken to avoid the extreme rhetoric which freezes positions. 

All Americans are “for schools” and “against inflation.” The suggestions which I have made will do much to meet both objectives.

I believe this action is in the long-range interests of better programs 

for education and health. Above all, it is in the vital interests of all 

Americans in stopping the rise in the cost of living.

R ic h a r d N i x o n .

T h e W h i t e H o u s e , January 26,1970.