CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE

I therefore find no reasonable justification for the extensive changes to

the NIH mandated by S. 540. In order

to better serve the promise and the

future of our national biomedical research enterprise, I am withholding

my approval of this bill.

RONALD REAGAN.

THE WHITE HOUSE; October 30, 1984.

S. 2574

MEMORANDUM OF DISAPPROVAL

I am withholding my approval of S.

2574, the "Public Health Service Act

Amendments of 1984," which would

extend and amend various health professions and services authorities. I

have been assured by the Department

of Health and Human Services that

the Continuing Resolution provides

adequate authority fur these programs

for fiscal year 1985.

S. 2574 is a seriously flawed piece of

legislation. The most serious of its

many objectionable provisions include

the following:

First, the bill contains authorization

levels substantially in excess of my

1985 Budget. Full funding of all the

programs in the bill through 1987

would total $2.4 billion, 41 percent

more than the $1.7 billion contained in

the Budget.

Moreover, S. 2574 would continue to

increase obsolete Federal subsidies to

health professions students and would

maintain the static and rigid categorical framework to deliver such aid. The

ability of medical schools to supply our society with health professionals

has changed dramatically in the last

20 years. Today, our medical schools

are producing nearly 16,000 new doctors each year. Although there may be

some shortages of physicians and

nurses in particular areas of the country, the Nation as a whole is facing a

future surplus-not shortage-of physicians and nurses. Under these circumstances, S. 2574, a bill which continues excessive taxpayer subsidies to

health professionals and maintains a

rigid unworkable categorical framework, cannot be justified.

S. 2574 takes the wrong approach to

health professions training. In contrast to the Administration's proposal

for a single, omnibus reauthorization

of all health professions authorities,

which would permit maximum program flexibility to address current

needs, the bill not only reauthorizes

the existing plethora of narrow, categorical authorities, but also creates

new programs. This approach to

health professions training is outdated

and failh tu respond to the rapidly

changing iwalth care environment.

A more appropriate approach would

recognize that the surplus of physicians has reduced the need for Federal

financial assistance and would improve

incentives for health professionals to

locate in areas of the country where

shortages exist. The Administration's

health professions proposals would

help meet these objectives.

S. 2574 would also repeal the Primary Care Block Grant authority-a

key reform proposed by the Administration and enacted by the Congress in

1981 designed to restore State control,

strengthen administrative efficiencies,

and improve the delivery of health

services. Thus, this bill would reverse a

successful trend of increased State acceptance of health care responsibility

that the Administration initiated. The

block grant programs for preventive

health and health services and alcohol

and drug abuse have been successful.

The primary care biock grant was

made optional by the Congress, and

States have been hesitant to accept it.

However, to close out the option at a

time when States should be willing to

consider another step toward greater

autonomy is counterproductive and

unacceptable.

This bill contains numerous other

provisions that are either unnecessary

or unacceptable, including authorization for new Federal National Health

Service Corps scholarships that are

not needed, since the number of scholarship recipients already bound to subsidized medical practice in rural areas is adequate.

For all these reasons, I find S. 2574

unacceptable.

RONALD REAGAN.

THE WHITE HOUSE, October 30, 1984.

S. 1967

MEMORANDUM OF DISAPPROVAL

I am withholding my approval from

S. 1967, a bill "To compensate the

Gros Ventre and Assiniboine Tribes of

the Fort Belknap Indian Community

for irrigation construction expenditures."

S. 1967 would reimburse the Gros

Ventre and Assiniboine Tribes of the

Fort Belknap Indian Community for

$107,759.58 in tribal funds expended

under applicable law for the construction of irrigation projects on the Fort

Belknap Indian Reservation from 1895

to 1913. In addition, interest would be

paid at 4 percent from the date of expenditure of the tribal funds until the

date of payment of the principal pursuant to the bill.

On November 20, 1962, the Indian

Claims Commission, after due deliberation, issued a detailed opinion carefully considering and dismissing

(among other claims) a claim for the

same reimbursement that would be

provided by the bill. Fort Belknap

Indian Community v. United States, 11

Ind. Cl. Comm. 479, 510-518, 543-549

(1962). The Commission found that

construction of the irrigation system

was "requested by the members of the

Fort Belknap Community," that it has

been of great and continuing benefit

to the tribes, and "that its construction and maintenance have been consonant with the fair and honorable

dealings clause within the meaning of

the Indian Claims Commission Act."

11 Ind. Cl, Comm. 518-519. The tribes

took no appeal from that decision.

The fair and impartial administration of justice and the protection of

public resources from meritless special

appropriations both require that those

who have availed themselves of judicial remedies in asserting claims

against the United States, and have

had their claims fully and fairly adjudicated under our Constitution and

laws, receive no more or less than that

to which they have been adjudged to

be entitled. Twenty-two years after

the claims of these two tribes were dismissed by an impartial tribunal established by the Congress specifically to

adjudicate such claims, this bill would

authorize and appropriate to them all

that they were previously found not to

be entitled to.

Under the circumstances, the enactment of the bill would set aside established principles of justice and thereby

encourage other and future efforts to

obtain by legislation that which has

been denied by a just adjudication,

For these reasons, I find the bill unacceptable.

RONALD REAGAN.

THE WHITE HOUSE, October 17, 1984.

S. 607

MEMORANDUM OF DISAPPROVAL

I have withheld my approval fror S.

607, the "Public Broadcasting Amendments Act of 1984."

This bill would authorize appropriations of $200 million, $225 million, and

$250 million, respectively, for fiscal

years 1987, 1988, and 1989 for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. It

would also authorize appropriations of

$25 million, $35 million, and $40 million for the Public Telecommunications Facilities Program administered

by the Department of Commerce for

fiscal years 1985, 1986, and 1987.

Public broadcasting has an important role to play in assuring that a

wide variety of information and entertainment choices are made available to

American viewers and listeners. Under

S. 607, however, the authorizations for

Federal subsidies to public broadcasting would increase dramatically. When

all of the demands on the Federal

budget are taken into account, I

cannot endorse the levels of spending

on public broadcasting contemplated

by this legislation. They are incompatible with the clear and urgent need to

reduce Federal spending.

It is important to note that currentyear funding for these two programs

totals only $174 million. The Oxley

amendment would have resulted in a

generous and barely affordable increase of 15 percent, to $200 million. S.

607 goes much further and raises firstyear funding by 29 percent to $225

million for the two programs. By the

.732 January 22, 1985