October 18, 1972 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE

to the people and to deliver on the promises they make to the people.

Although the choices are not easy, I am withholding my approval from 9 Congressional spending programs that would

breach the budget by $750 million in fiscal

year 1973 and by nearly $2 billion in fiscal year 1974.

Each of these measures by itself might seem justifiable, or even highly desirable.

But the hard fact is that they cannot

be considered by themselves; each has

to be considered in the broader context

of the total budget-in terms of how that

total weighs on the taxpayers, and how

it affects the struggle to curb rising prices. I am withholding my approval from

the following bills: LABOR-HEW AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATION ACT (H.R. 16654)

This is the second time I have vetoed

inflated appropriations this year for the

Department of Health, Education, and

Welfare. This amounts to a textbook

example of the seeming inability or un- willingness of the Congress to follow a prudent and responsible spending policy.

In my budget for fiscal year 1973, I re- quested that the Congress provide an increase of $2.1 billion over fiscal 1972

funds for the HEW programs contained

in this bill. On top of that generous increase-which would have provided substantial expansion while recognizing

competing priorities in other program areas-the Congress amassed a budget- breaking additional increase of $1.8 billion. I vetoed this in August because it was clearly excessive and unwarranted.

The bill now before me contains the same face amount as the measure I

previously vetoed. In a partial conces- sion to that veto, however, H.R. 16654

contains authority for the overspending

to be held to $535 million-a result that

would still amount to pressure for higher

taxes.

This administration is second to none in its demonstrated concern and clear

accomplishments in health, education

and manpower matters. My budget rep- resented a balanced and rational approach to the funding of many high priority domestic programs in a time of

tight budget resources, while continuing

this Administration's shift of priorities and funds toward the human resources activities of the Government.

H.R. 16654 is as unwarranted as the

version I vetoed last August. PUBLIC WORKS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ACT

AMENDMENTS OF 1972 (H.R. 16071)

This bill would unnecessarily add vast new authorizations for Federal programs which have been shown to be ineffective

in creating jobs or stimulating timely

economic development. Public works

projects have notoriously long leadtimes--so by the time this spending be- came fully effective, the need for such

stimulation would be passed and the

stimulation would be inflationary.

The bill would stimulate increased

bureaucracy in the regional commissions

by using them as a funding rather than a planning and coordinating level of

government.

It would also provide assistance to

workers and firms affected by Federal

environmental actions. These provisions

would be highly inequitable and almost

impossible to administer. The unemployment benefits provision would fragment

and undermine our basic Federal-State

unemployment insurance system and its

costs would be essentially uncontrollable.

The proposed pollution control facilities

loan program has only vague and un- specified objectives.

AMENDMENTS TO THE MINING AND MINERAL

POLICY ACT (S. 635)

This bill would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to provide matching

categorical grants to establish and support a mineral research and training institute in each of the 50 States and

Puerto Rico, as well as grants for related

research and demonstration projects. It

would fragment our research effort and

destroy its priorities. Such an inflexible

program would preclude us from taking

advantage of the best research talents of

the Nation-wherever they may be. The

Federal Government's ongoing programs

of similar and related kinds of research,

currently funded at about $40 million an- nually, have provided a flexible and efficient means of meeting minerals problems of the highest national priority and can readily be adapted to continue to do

SO.

AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ACCELERATION ACT

(S. 3755)

This bill would increase Federal ex- penditures and raise percentage participation in categorical grant programs

with specific and limited purposes. I believe this would be inconsistent with

sound fiscal policy. Airport development

funds have been almost quadrupled since

1970 under this administration. FLOOD CONTROL ACT OF 1972 (S. 4018)

This measure would authorize Federal

projects which would ultimately cost

hundreds of millions of dollars. It con- tains projects never approved or recom- mended by the executive branch. In addition, it contains a number of objection- able features such as authorizing illdefined and potentially costly new programs, and limiting my authority to es- tablish criteria and standards to meas- ure the feasibility of water resources projects in determining which ones to

recommend for congressional authorization. However, a number of projects in

this bill are in my judgment justified and

I will recommend legislation to authorize

their construction early in the next

Congress. UPGRADING OF DEPUTY U.S. MARSHALS

(H.R. 13895)

This would raise the pay of some 1,500

deputy marshals by as much as 38 percent, through wholesale across-the-board

upgrading. There Is no justification for

this highly preferential treatment,

which discriminates against all other

Government employees who perform work of comparable difficulty and re- sponsibility and whose pay is now the same as that of deputy marshals. NATIONAL CEMETERIES ACT OF 1972 (H.R. 12674)

This bill would block the orderly system of surplus land disposal established

by general law and Executive order, by requiring an unusual Congressional ap- proval procedure before any VA land

holdings larger than 100 acres could be

sold.

These property transfer restrictions

would undermine the executive branch's

Government-wide system of property

management and surplus property disposal which is designed to assure the best

and fullest use of Federal property. It

would impede the Legacy of Parks program and the procedures for disposing

of surplus Federal property under the

Federal Property and Administrative

Services Act and Executive Order 11508.

Also, the bill deals inconsistently with

the serious problem of burial benefits for

the Nation's veterans and war dead. It

commissions a study of this problem at

the same time it preempts the results

of such a study by authorizing new burial benefits which would annually add

$55 million to the Federal budget beginning next year. The Administrator of

Veterans' Affairs already is at work on such a study, which will identify the

alternatives for improving burial and

cemetery benefits. In the interim, it

would be unwise to commit additional

Federal resources as proposed by this

bill.

VETERANS HEALTH CARE EXPANSION ACT

OF 1972 (H.R. 10880)

The liberalizing features of this bill

would unnecessarily add hundreds of

millions of dollars to the Federal budget.

It would open the VA hospital system

to nonveterans and would expand the

type of direct medical services available

from VA. By providing direct medical

services to veterans' dependents, the bill runs counter to this Administration's na- tional health strategy which would pro- vide national financing mechanisms for

health care and sharply reduce the Federal Government's role in the direct pro- vision of services.

The bill also purports to set mandatory

minimums on the number of patients

treated in VA hospitals. In testimony on this bill, the Veterans' Administration

strongly objected to this provision on the

grounds that it was totally unnecessary

and could result in inefficient medical

treatment and wasteful administrative

practices. The tragic result would be a lower quality of medical care to all

patients.

While I strongly support the VA health care system and will continue to encour- age its improvement in the future, I cannot approve a bad bill.

REHABILIrATION ACT OF 1972 (H.R. 8395)

This measure would seriously jeopardize the goals of the vocational rehabilitation program and Is another example of

Congressional fiscal irresponsibility. Its

provisions would divert this program

from its basic vocational objectives into

activities that have no vocational element whatsoever or are essentially medical in character. In addition, it would

proliferate a host of narrow categorical

programs which duplicate and overlap

existing authorities and programs. Such

provisions serve only to dilute the re- sources of the vocational rehabilitation

program and impair its continued valuable achievements in restoring deserving American citizens to meaningful employment.

H.R. 8395 also would create organiza37203