Слике страница
PDF

honored to add my own endorsement and expression of best wishes.

To that end I could think of no more fitting expression than to share with my colleagues at this time President Johnson’s own comments of praise in announcing Mr. Gronouski’s appointment.

President J ohnson’s remarks follow:

GRONOUSKI APPOINTMENT

Early in 1964, speaking at V.M.I., I pledged my administration to a policy of building bridges across the gulf which had divided us for more than two decades from the people of Eastern Europe. I said then, "They will be”—I said—“bridges of increased trade,‘ of ideas, of visitors, and of humanitarian aid."

Our hopes for these people of these countries are identical to their own aspirations for their own future. We want to strengthen their ability to shape their own society, and we seek to bring every European nation closer to its neighbors in the ties of peace.

And so today I am very pleased to announce one of the most important steps this Nation has yet taken to implement that policy. I am asking a member of my Cabinet, a vigorous, intelligent, highly trained and deeply committed public servant—Postmaster General John Gronouski—to serve as U.S. Ambassador to Poland.

I have discussed this assignment at great length with Secretary Rusk and other top key ofiicials in the Department of State, and we believe that Mr. Gronouski’s appointment reaffirms our strong desire for increased trust and friendly cooperation between Poland and the United States.

Mr. Gronouski is going to Warsaw to do everything in his power to further increase understanding and good will between Poland and our country.

He is a grand and a very warm human being who enjoys people. His background and his experience uniquely qualify him to translate American ideals to Poland and Polish ideals to America.

POLISH TIES CITED

I have asked Mr. Gronouski to say to the peoples and to the leaders of Poland that a deep and historic bond exists between Poland and the United States. Let, therefore, trust grow between us. Let us strengthen that bond, and let us work together for the peace and the liberty that we all seek for all peoples everywhere.

John Gronouski is the man, I think, that can carry that message. America is in his blood, but so is Poland. He was born the grandson of a Polish immigrant. He is a member of the Polish Institute of the Arts and Sciences of Chicago, a director of the Pulaski Foundation, the honorary chairman of the committee for an endowed chair in Polish studies at the University of Chicago. In 1963 he became Postmaster General by selection of President Kennedy. He was the first American of Polish descent to ever serve in the Cabinet, and it was my great pleasure to reappoint him to the post of Postmaster General last February.

But John Gronouski is more. He is one of the very few men with a doctor of philosophy degree ever to sit in the Cabinet. As an expert on international economics and on Government finance, he has established a most outstanding record in one of the great progressive States of the Union—Wisconsin. He is a talented administrator who has opened up new paths of progress for the postal service of the United States.

Just as another very extraordinary American who I'm delighted to see here with us today, Ambassador Arthur Goldberg, left the Supreme Court to accept—a very extraordinary, highly significant diplomatic assignment, John Gronouski is now leaving the Cabinet with a distinguished record and high honor to serve his President and his country.

And he is, by the way, enhancing a very noble and unique tradition, for the man who really set up our postal service, our first Postmaster General, also went on to later serve his country as Ambassador. His name was Benjamin Franklin.

[graphic][merged small][graphic][merged small][merged small][merged small]

Mr. FALLON. Mr. Speaker, on Saturday the President signed into law Senate Joint Resolution 81, the authorization of $3 billion for the Interstate System for fiscal year 1967. On that occasion, Mr. Speaker, the President issued a statement which, in my opinion, was an outstanding expression of the position of the administration on the Nation’s future highway program.

Because of the significance of these remarks of the Chief Executive, under unanimous consent, I include them at this point in the REcoRn:

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT

With the signing of this legislation, we are authorizing the largest single year apportionment of Federal aid to the States for highways.

The highways to be built and improved under the Federal aid highway program will save time, save money, and save the lives of motorists. They will strengthen our national economy and our national defense. They will increase the markets for the products of our farms and they will give flexibility to the movement of people and goods in our growing urban areas. They will broaden the travel and recreational opportunities for all Americans. They will permit everyone to see the beauty and grandeur of America conveniently, comfortably, and safely.

This legislation also provides for the study of the orderly continuation of the Federal aid highway program. Congress has asked that it be provided with regular estimates of the future highway needs of the Nation. This administration, through the Department of Commerce and its Bureau of Public Roads. has a study underway of our future highway needs. On the basis of that study, I will, in January 1968, consider legislation for a program of Federal aid to the States for highways to continue after the expiration of the present program in 1972.

This legislation also provides the tools for a coordinated national attack on highway accidents. It provides that the Secretary of Commerce shall develop uniform standards for State highway safety programs. The death of over 48,000 persons on our highways last year and the prospect of an even greater total this year give urgency to a national safety efl'ort. The approach provided for by this legislation is in keeping with the traditional Federal-State relationship through which the Federal aid highway program has operated so successfully. It recognizes the primary responsibility of the States for highway safety and at the same time acknowledges the Federal Government’s responsibility to lead and coordinate.

This legislation, however, is but part of what is needed to insure that our highways will be able to meet the increasing demands placed upon them. I have proposed to Congress legislation to insure that the highway trust fund will receive the revenue it needs so that the States might receive Federal aid suflicient for the timely completion of the Interstate Highway System. I have also submitted to Congress legislation that will insure that the enormous public investments in highways will be protected from roadside blight and that highways will serve the increasing public demand for the beautiful as well as the merely utilitarian. The everyday driving of Americans provides the greatest opportunity to see and enjoy the beauty of our Nation. The higher standard of living and the increased leisure time of Americans have created a demand for scenic and recreational roads. I anticipate that the Congress will shortly act on these needs.

This proposed legislation meets a public need, in reality a public necessity and is going to be pursued with all the vigor of the executive department until acted upon.

We are a nation of almost 100 million drivers and 90 million vehicles. By 1970 we will be driving a trillion miles a year in America. We cannot depend on the roads of yesterday to carry the motor traflic of today and tomorrow. The life and pocketbook of every American are affected by the efiiciency of our motor transportation system. The legislation now before Congress is necessary if we are to meet the new needs essential to the progress of our motor transportation system.

I appeal to all patriotic citizens interested in the improvement and continued development of our highway system to unite to the end of making that system adequate, superior in construction and most important, attractive and beautiful.

[graphic][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][graphic][merged small][merged small]

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

A message from the Senate by Mr. Arrington, one of its clerks, announced that the Senate had passed without amendment a bill and joint resolution of the House of the following titles:

HR. 10342. An act to authorize the Honorable FRANCES P. BOLTON, of Ohio, a Member of the House of Representatives, to accept the award of Officer in the French National Order of the Legion of Honor; and

H.J. Res.632. Joint resolution to authorize the Administrator of General Services to enter into an agreement with the University of Texas for the Lyndon Baines Johnson Presidential Archival Depository, and for other purposes.

The message also announced that the Senate had passed, with amendment in which the concurrence of the House is requested, a bill of the House of the following title:

HR. 5688. An act relating to crime and criminal procedure in the District of Columbia.

The message also announced that the Senate had passed bills of the following titles, in which the concurrence of the House is requested:

S. 950. An act to make the antitrust laws and the Federal Trade Commission Act applicable to the organized professional team sports of baseball, football, basketball, and hockey and to limit the applicability of such laws so as to exempt certain aspects of the organized professional team sports of baseball, football, basketball, and hockey, and for other purposes;

S. 2042. An act to amend section 170 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; and

S. 2232. An act to amend the act entitled “An act to provide in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare for a loan service of captioned films for the deaf," approved September 2, 1958, as amended, in order to further provide for a loan service of educational media for the deaf, and for other purposes.

[graphic][merged small]

Mr. GERALD R. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from New York [Mr. GOODELL] may be excused as a conferee on the bill HR. 8283, an act to expand the war on poverty and enhance the effectiveness of programs under the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, and that the Speaker be authorized to appoint a Member to fill the vacancy.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Michigan?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, will the gentleman explain just what the purpose of this is?

Mr. GERALD R. FORD. Yesterday conferees were named on the bill HR. 8283, and unfortunately, and I hope unintentionally, a mistake was made in that the gentleman from New York [Mr. GOODELL] was appointed as a conferee even though he is not a member of the subcommittee of the Committee on Education and Labor which handled this particular legislation. By tradition and otherwise the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. AYRES], as ranking minority member of the full committee,

should have been appointed as a conferee. As a result I have checked with the gentleman from New York [Mr. GOODELL] and he is willing to step aside. It is the intent and purpose of the reso— lution to substitute the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. AYRES] as his replacement.

Mr. AYRES. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield ?

Mr. WILLIAMS. I yield to the gentleman. Mr. AYRES. The gentleman from

Mississippi, I believe, understands that the gentleman from Ohio is the ranking member of the Committee on Education and Labor and that it has been customary for the 15 years that I have been a Member of the House that the ranking Member be consulted, at least, for suggestions to be made to the Speaker on the appointment of conferees. I was not consulted and I did not know that the conferees had been named until I was called by the gentleman from California [Mr. BELL], a member of the committee, from the floor of the House.

In no way am I casting any aspersions on our great Speaker. He accepted the list that was given to him.

This is most unethical, most unorthodox, and most unusual.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's statement. In view of the fact that this was offered by the distinguished minority leader, of course I shall not object. I withdraw my reservation.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Michigan?

Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I just believe that We ought to understand what is going on within the comity of the Chamber, and of the privileges of individual Members of the House, and the precedents which have been established concerning the appointment of conferees on matters as vital as extending the Economic Opportunity Act, the Area Redevelopment Act, and the accelerated public works program.

This seems unduly strange and uncommon. I wonder if the chairman of the Committee on Education and Labor would care to comment about the situation, under the reservation of objection, in view of the “bypass,” which has obviously been worked here and what was the actual intent.

The SPEAKER. Does the gentleman from Missouri yield to the gentleman from New York?

Mr. HALL. Yes, I yield for that purpose.

Mr. POWELL. Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman from Missouri that what happened yesterday was purely a combination of accidents, because the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. AYRES] is not only my esteemed friend but is also a distinguished colleague, and he is the leader of the minority side of the committee. On everything I have always tried to clear with him, and always will try to clear with him, in connection with the Committee on Education and Labor.

Mr. HALL. But this was not done yesterday; is that true?

Mr. POWELL. That is correct. It was a combination of accidents, and I should like to apologize to my good friend from Ohio.

Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, under the circumstances, I do object.

The SPEAKER. The Chair can assure the gentlemen, the Members of the House, that there was no motive other than what was pure. These things occasionally happen, and the matter is then rectified.

Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Michigan? The Chair hears none—

Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, I do object, as I stated awhile ago, under the circumstances.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman does object?

Mr. HALL. I do object. I reserved my right, and I did object.

The SPEAKER. Objection is heard.

Mr. GERALD R. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Michigan?

There was no objection.

Mr. GERALD R. FORD. Mr. Speaker, this matter was called to my attention late, late yesterday afternoon. I sought to find out what had happened and why. I consulted with the Speaker. The Speaker, on being told the facts and circumstances, agreed with me we would try to remedy and rectify the situation this morning.

I believe it is most unfortunate that the incident occurred. I pass no judgment on how it happened or why it happened. However, I strongly feel that the Rscosn ought to be clear that so far as the Speaker is concerned, he had no part, or no involvement, in this regrettable incident. Our distinguished Speaker has worked with me in trying to remedy and rectify the situation. I thank him for his help and cooperation.

Mr. POWELL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that’ the distinguished leader of the minority side of the Committee on Education and Labor may be added to the conferees. In other words, Mr. Speaker, I ask that there be one more conferee on the Republican side.

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to obj ect—

The SPEAKER. The Chair would like to have the gentleman from New York confer with him before submitting that request. The Chair at this moment suggests that.

Mr. POWELL. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my request.

[graphic][merged small][merged small]

TRANSFER OF CONSENT CALENDAR AND SUSPENSION OF THE RULES

Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the call of the Consent Calendar and the authority for the Speaker to recognize for motions to suspend the rules, in order on Monday, September 6, 1965, be transferred to Tuesday, September 7, 1965.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Oklahoma?

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, and I hope I will not have to object, but I will until we can have the order of bills that may be called up under suspension so that we may know what legislation we can expect. Unless the gentleman withdraws his request with respect to bills under suspension rule, I will be constrained to object.

Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I cannot advise him of all of the bills at this time, because until the week closes and we are ready to submit the program, we will not be able to know just how many requests we will have.

Mr. GROSS. Then, Mr. Speaker, I object.

[graphic][merged small]

Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend my remarks.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Oklahoma?

There was no objection.

Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, I, of course, made the request, as I am sure all Members know, because Monday is Labor Day. We can meet Monday; we will have to meet Monday unless this permission is granted. And I might say to my good friend from Iowa that the matter of putting bills on the suspension list is within the exclusive power and jurisdiction of the Speaker. That jurisdiction lies with the Speaker.

The Speaker is not required under the rules or the customs of the House to make that announcement until he has finally made the decision. On the day on which suspensions of the rules are in order, the Speaker can recognize Members for that purpose as he deems fit. The only thing the gentleman can do, if he persists in his objection, is compel the House to meet on Monday, because the Speaker’s jurisdiction is clear.

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ALBERT. Iyield.

Mr. GROSS. Can the gentleman recall when the bills to be called under suspension were not announced to the House prior to the call of the calendar?

Mr. ALBERT. No; and I will say that when the Speaker has made his decision they will be announced so far as I am concerned. Of course the whole matter is within the control of the Speaker.

Mr. GROSS. I will say to the gentleman that when the House is informed of

the legislation to be brought up under suspension-—

Mr. ALBERT. The gentleman is gaining nothing, because the Speaker's prerogatives are clear. The gentleman is gaining nothing except forcing the House to meet on Monday, if that is what he wants to do.

Mr. GROSS. Until we know the bills that are to be called up under suspension the gentleman will continue to object.

Mr. ALBERT. The gentleman is not going to take over the prerogatives of the Speaker, even though he may attempt to take over the prerogatives of the minority leader. We desire to accommodate Members, but we cannot do so at the expense of the rules of the House.

The SPEAKER. The time of the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. ALBERT] has expired.

[graphic][merged small][merged small][merged small]
[merged small][graphic][merged small]

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill (HR. 3141) to amend the Public Health Service Act to improve the educational quality of schools of medicine, dentistry, and osteopathy, to authorize grants under that act to such schools for the awarding of scholarships to needy students, and to extend expiring provisions of that act for student loans and for aid in construction of teaching facilities for students in such schools and schools for other health professions, and for other purposes.

The motion was agreed to.

IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further

consideration of the bill HR. 3141, with Mrs. GRIFFITHS in the chair.

The Clerk read. the title of the bill.

The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee rose on yesterday the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. HARRIS] had 29 minutes remaining and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. SPRINGER] had 30 minutes remaining.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. SPRINGER].

Mr. SPRINGER. Madam Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. CUNNINGHAM].

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Madam Chairman, I am greatly concerned over an amendment which the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee, upon which I serve, has added to the bill to amend the Public Health Service Act, HR. 3141. This rider, adopted in executive session without an opportunity for those parties affected to present their views, does not affect the Public Health Service Act at all, but proposes to amend title VIII of the Nurse Training Act of 1964. The committee, under section 843 pertaining to definitions, has amended the term “accredited” in a manner which I feel will be highly detrimental to the nurse training program. The American Nurses’ Association, the National League for Nursing, the American Hospital Association, and the Department of Education are violently opposed to such change.

The Nurse Training Act at present provides that the Commissioner of Education is given authority to recognize any body or bodies for purposes of accrediting programs of nurse education. Under that act as it now stands, only nursing programs so accredited may qualify to receive Nurse Training Act funds. Pursuant to this authority, the Commissioner has recognized only the National League for Nursing as the accrediting body. The American Nurses’ Association—160,000 members—the National Hospital Association—approximately 9,000 associated hospitals—and many other professional medical groups endorse the selection of the National League for Nursing as the sole accrediting body for specialized programs of nursing because it is the only experienced national accrediting body recognized in the field of nurse education.

The amendment of the committee to which I am opposed proposes to eliminate the present requirement of the Nurse Training Act with regard to accreditation. Instead, it would provide that collegiate or associate degree programs—Z-year junior college nursing programs—could be approved or accredited by either a State approval agency or a regional accrediting agency. This change, in effect, removes these two groups of schools from the accrediting program of the National League for Nursing and removes from the Commissioner of Education the responsibility and decision as to the satisfactory accreditation of the collegiate and associate degree programs.

It is the consensus of opinion among informed professional medical groups of both practitioners and educators that this change would result in the weakening of the nationwide efforts being made to strengthen and improve the quality of nurse training. National accreditation by the National League for Nursing has provided a strong incentive for nursing schools across the country to improve and maintain the quality of their nurse education programs. The associate director of the American Hospital Association, Mr. Kenneth Williamson, has stated his opposition to the proposed change in accreditation as follows:

[graphic]

We have seen no evidence that the regional accrediting authorities which are responsible for accrediting institutions of higher learning in terms of their general educational quality are competent in the areas of professional nurse education. Their present programs and staff would have to be augmented extensively. The program developed by the National League for Nursing has fully demonstrated its competency.

The optional selection of State approval authority, of course, removes the requirement of accreditation entirely.

The question as to whether or not those programs of nurse education not specially accredited should be allowed to participate in the nurse training program was extensively discussed during the hearings in 1964 on the Nurse Training Act. At that time, after thorough consideration had been given to the matter, it was decided to maintain the administration bill intact in this regard and to limit NTA participation to those institutions which had secured proper accreditation. It was recognized then, as it is today, that many of the smaller nursing schools had not attained that minimum level of proficiency in the education of nurses to justify their continued existence at that level; these schools should be encouraged to improve their standards or to discontinue their nursing programs. National accreditation as a requirement of participation in the nurse training program provides the needed incentive to improve and maintain the quality of nurse training.

A letter which I received from Dr. John F. Gillespie, assistant professor of surgery at Georgetown University, in opposition to the proposed change in accreditation is typical of the hundreds of letters received by Members of this House from professional medical groups across the Nation. Speaking on behalf of himself and the dean of the Georgetown School of Nursing, Dr. Ann Douglas, he states in part:

The nursing school dean and myself are further prepared to show facts that National League for Nursing accredited programs, admit, retain, and graduate the largest number of students, have the lowest proportion of failures on State board examinations, and attract better faculties. In my opinion, such an amendment ' ' ' is a step backwards in nursing education as well as evidence of a lack of knowledge of the responsibilities nursing has, not only to the

medical profession, but to the community as a whole.

I am constrained to agree with Dr. Gillespie and the many other professional people who have urgently requested me to oppose this ill-conceived change in the manner of accreditation for purposes of the Nurse Training Act.

Madam Chairman, when we debated the rule I stated that I was for the rule and for the bill, but there is a major

flaw in the bill, and that is the purpose of my speaking now. This is called the Rogers amendment. It is a tail end provision of this bill and has nothing to do with the bill we are now discussing, HR. 3141, as we know it. I first became concerned with the Rogers amendment to HR. 3141 after receiving a letter from the director of nursing at the Nebraska University College of Nurses. After receiving that, I went into the matter in depth and I was amazed at the harm the Rogers amendment would inflict upon the nursing profession.

Madam Chairman, the amendment is a front for a handful of junior colleges. Out of thousands of junior colleges only slightly more than 100 have nursing schools. Compare this with the nearly 1,000 nursing schools which have been accredited.

Madam Chairman, this is the crux of the matter, accreditation. Junior colleges can be nationally accredited, if they qualify. Some of them have. The Rogers amendment, without doubt, does violence to our wonderful nurses and that great profession. They want to be the best in the world, and they are. Have you ever had, have the Members ever had, their “tender care” as a patient? Well, I have. The Rogers amendment will tend to destroy this wonderful profession, and this highly respected profession, because it will reduce the standards now prevailing in the nursing profession.

Madam Chairman, last year we passed a Nurse Training Act. We gave authority to the Ofilce of Education to choose the accrediting agency for these nursing schools. The Office of Education chose the highly qualified National League for Nursing as the accrediting agency.

Now, Madam Chairman, the junior college lobby is the agency which is supporting the Rogers amendment, which isuclm the tail end of this very important b .

Madam Chairman, there are only slightly more than 100 junior colleges out of approximately a thousand which have nurse training programs. These are 2-year courses. The high caliber of nurses we have and their needs cannot be provided with 2-year nurse training programs which are not nationally accredited. The Rogers amendment proposes to let the bars down, to allow the State agency to do the accrediting.

Madam Chairman, a State agency is not equipped or qualified to accredit a school of nursing, a highly technical school.

If this provision remains in the bill in its final form, you can be assured that the nursing profession as we know it will suffer irreparable harm.

Those against the Rogers amendment are many. Yesterday we had a splendid speech opposing the Rogers amendment by the gentleman from California [Mr. COHELAN], and I believe one other, but there are a great number of very respected organizations which are violently opposed to the Rogers amendment. For example, the American Nurses Association with a membership of 160,000, the National League for Nursing which has a huge membership, and they are the accrediting agency that has been desig

nated as such by the Oflice of Education. Others opposed to the Rogers amendment include the American Hospital Association with 9,000 amliated hospitals. and I understand that over 50 hospital associations on the State level are against the Rogers amendment.

Madam Chairman, of great significance is the fact that the Office of Education under the Department of Health. Education, and Welfare is against the Rogers amendment. There are also hundreds of professional and medical groups who oppose it.

I might say also that the Rogers amendment is opposed to the President's program.

When we had the Nurses Training Act up last year, it was the administration's position that the accrediting of nursing schools should be under the Office of Education and HEW. In this bill we are going to destroy what the administration wants, and I want to support the administration in this matter.

When we go back into the House I will ask permission to include various letters of opposition to the Rogers amendment to which I have referred. If the Rogers amendment should prevail—and I certainly hope it will not—it means that at least 50 accrediting agencies—one in each of the 50 States—will do the accrediting. They are not equipped to accredit the highly complex nursing school.

These State agencies under the Rogers amendment can accredit a college as such, but when it comes down to the professional schools they are not equipped to pass on the accreditation of the nursing schools.

You will hear some arguments in favor of the Rogers amendment, but as far as I am concerned they are of little or no value. As I said, there is a little group of people, about 100, as I understand it, junior colleges that are back of the Rogers amendment.

Madam Chairman, I understand by the 160,000 members of the American Nurses’ Association, highly qualified people, and I refer to them. They are the ones who give you “gentle care” if you are hospitalized. I stand with the 9,000 hospitals represented by the American Hospital Association. I stand by the aidministration and the Office of Educat on.

So in summary, Madam Chairman, may I say that this was snuck into this bill at the last minute with no hearings. There were no hearings on it to be sure. It was put in during an executive session, and it does damage to the great nursing profession, it does damage to the Presi— dent’s program.

What we need and what we must have in this country are highly qualified nurses, and the only way we can assure professional nurse's training is to not go along with the Rogers amendment but to leave accreditation to the National League of Nursing as it now is. I do hope that this amendment will be knocked out of the bill. I had originally proposed an amendment to do that, but I have so much respect and regard for my dear chairman, the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. HARRIS] and we have had some conversations and think we have another way of getting at this problem. But if the Rogers amendment stays in the final bill, and I feel it will not, you will see a downgrading of the wonderful women who are in the nursing profession.

So I hope that all of you here in this Chamber will take this to heart and will give the support that is needed because we want to continue to have excellent training for our nurses. We certainly will not get such training under the Rogers amendment.

As I said, I have all of these documents from the administration and from the departments—HEW, and so forth, and when we go back into the House, I will ask permission to insert them in the RECORD as part of my remarks.

Madam Chairman, I include at this point in the RECORD, the letters to which I have referred:

THE UNIVERSITY or NEBRASKA, COLLEGE or MEDICINE, Omaha, Nebr., August 20, 1965. Hon. GLENN CUNNINGHAM, Representative, U.S. Congress, House Oflice Building, Washington, D.C.

MY DEAR Ma. CUNNINGHAM: I am concerned about the information received from the National League for Nursing about bill HR. 3141, which includes an amendment to the Nurse Training Act, 1964 (Public Law 88—851, sec. 843—F) . This amendment would replace professional accreditation of baccalaureate and associate degree programs in nursing with either regional accreditation or State approval of the educational institution. If this amendment has been considered in committee and reported to the House of Representatives for consideration, I hope you will consider the following points and plan to vote against the amendment.

As a member of both the American Nurses Association and the National League for Nursing as well as the director of the University of Nebraska School of Nursing, which is accredited, I believe the negative implications which this amendment has for continued high quality accreditation of nursing programs could be disastrous to the profession. It is to the best interest of the consumer of professional nursing, the public, as well as the nursing student for accreditation of schools of nursing to remain in the hands of the nationally approved agency which is the National League for Nursing.

Some statements in support of my beliefs are as follows:

1. The National League for Nursing is presently recognized by the National Commission on Accrediting, by the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and by the American Nurses Association as the national accrediting agency for baccalau— reate and higher degrees in nursing.

2. The accrediting agency of the National League for Nursing is stafi‘ed with experts in nursing and nursing education who are qualified to give the kind of guidance needed by schools of nursing in planning and improving their educational programs.

3. The National League for Nursing has established policies and procedures for accrediting all nursing programs which are of a quality to warrant immediate accreditation as well as for those who have the potential for achieving accreditation.

4. The National League for Nursing has taken steps which will give junior colleges with high quality programs the opportunity to achieve accreditation and thereby enable them to benefit from the Nurse Training Act.

5. A change in accrediting agencies would delay progress in nursing education at a time when nursing can least afford delays.

6. State and/or regional agencies do not have and probably could not get enough prepared people to carry out accreditation programs for professional schools of nursing.

'7. The present accreditation policies of the National League for Nursing have controlled the quality of nursing education and hence the quality of nursing care. Nursing studies have shown that: the majority of nurses in 1964 graduated from NLN accredited schools, the best qualified faculty members are with NLN accredited schools, most State board failures are from nonaccredited schools, and the largest number of State board failures are from nonaccredited associate degree programs.

Your vote against the amendment to the Nurse Training Act of 1964 (Public Law 88—851, sec. 843—F) will retain the National League for Nursing as the professional agency for accrediting all nursing programs. I strongly urge your consideration and support.

Very truly yours,
IRMA M. KYLE, R.N.,
Director, School 0,‘ Nursing.

[graphic]

AMERICAN HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION, August 25, 1965. Hon. LIs'rEa HILL, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

DEAR SENA'roa HILL: This association strongly supported the new and progressive amendments to the Public Health Service Act which pertained to teaching facilities and the training of professional health personnel. We expressed our detailed support of the proposals embodied in the legislation (HR. 3141) as it was being considered by the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.

We are greatly concerned, however, over an amendment which the House committee added to Title VIII of the nurse training program. The committee, under section 843 pertaining to definitions, has amended the term “accredited" in a manner in which we feel will be detrimental to the purpose of the program.

The act at present provides that the Commissioner of Education is given authority to recognize any body or bodies for purposes of accrediting programs of nurse education. He is, thereby, given authority to determine that an accrediting body is desirable and competent for accrediting programs of nurse education in collegiate, in 2year junior college and in the 3-year hospital schools of nurse education.

The Commissioner of Education has recognized the accrediting program of the National League for Nursing. We endorse this selection as the league is the only experienced national accrediting body recognized in the field of nurse education.

The amendment adopted by the House committee provides that collegiate or associate degree (2-year junior college program) programs of nurse education must be approved or accredited by either a regional accrediting agency or a State approval agency. This change in effect removes these two groups of schools from the accrediting program conducted by the National League for Nursing, and it provides only that the 3year hospital programs of nurse education will be under the accrediting program of the National League for Nursing. A definite weakening of the nationwide efforts being made to strengthen schools of nursing would result. The optional selection of State approval authority, of course, removes the requirement for accreditation entirely.

This amendment removes from the authority of the Commissioner of Education the responsibility and decision as to the satisfactory accreditation of the collegiate and 2-year schools; and in essence, breaks down the responsibility of the Federal Government for the conduct of the program.

It would be most unfortunate at this time for the Commissioner of Education to be forced to recognize multiple accrediting authorities. Such an approach would prove very detrimental to the development of one nationwide program of accreditation. It will likely result in different standards for schools and varying qualifications of their graduates, The products of these three schools of nursing all take the same qualifying examinations within the States. We believe, therefore, different basic accrediting of the schools makes no sense whatever and will prove to have an unfortunate effect upon the efforts being made to strengthen the 3-year hospital schools of nursing and to improve the programs of certain of those schools through the national accrediting efforts.

We have seen no evidence that the regional accrediting authorities which are responsible for accrediting institutions of higher learning in terms of their general educational quality are competent in the areas of professional nurse education. Their present programs and staff would have to be augmented extensively. The program developed by the National League for Nursing has fully demonstrated its competency.

There appears also to be a basic fallacy attached to the proposed amendment as it suggests that one accrediting authority has competency for all programs of education within a college or university including all the various highly specialized and professional schools. This basic policy suggests that one accrediting authority would be competent to cover not only the university in general but the school of law, the school of engineering, the school of medicine, the school of dentistry, the school of nursing, etc., etc. The regional accrediting authorities responsible for overall accreditation of an institution of higher learning may rely upon the certification of accrediting authorities for various professional schools within the university. However, schools of medicine are accredited by a voluntary program which is the same for all medical schools and which is carried out by a liaison committee between the Association of American Medical Colleges and the American Medical Association. The accreditation of schools of dentistry is carried out by the American Dental Association.

There has been expressed some concern on the part of the 2-year junior college programs of nursing education that they were required to pay the accrediting fees estab— lished by the National League for Nursing. This is, of course, a fact. Since the National League for Nursing is a voluntary program it must be supported by charges assessed to cover the costs of the accrediting program. Thus, the 2—year junior colleges, as well as the collegiate schools and the hospital schools, would each be required to pay a fee. The apparent desire of the junior colleges to avoid this fee seems a small justification for removing them from the requirement presently provided in the law. As we see it, it seems a very small price to pay in return for the substantial Federal assistance that is offered. It is, of course, necessary that all programs of nurse education covered under the act must face the cost of providing for their special accreditation. This means that the 2-year junior college programs would be faced with the same essential costs which would be required by a national accrediting authority and cannot expect to avoid costs of accrediting programs by attempting to place themselves under the authority of the various regional educational accrediting bodies.

Finally, I believe it is quite appropriate to compare the situation that would result from the proposed amendment to what would happen if we returned to the days of having a variety of accrediting or approval authorities for schools of medicine. No one familiar with the whole situation would suggest that

« ПретходнаНастави »