314 



Tliree committees held hearinirs on the alternative proposals for 

 Federal intervention in distribution programs : the House Committee 

 on Bnnking and Currency,^ the Senate Committee on Labor and Public 

 Welfare/" and the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Com- 

 merce." 



Major testimony before both House and Senate committees in sup- 

 port of the administration's program for voluntary distribution came 

 from medical staff members of the PHS and DHEAY. other officials of 

 the Department, the Bureau of the Budget, spokesmen for the Ameri- 

 can Medical Association, pharmaceutical producers, and State and 

 local health officials. Individual Democratic Members of Congress and 

 spokesmen for the American Federation of Labor testified in support 

 of a greater Federal involvement. 



DiMribution — The admmistration plan 



Support for the administration's program was voluminous and 

 Anrtually the same in all hearings. And despite controversy and in- 

 tervening testimony relating to the need to revise PHS standards, and 

 investigation of scientific matters, the bulk of information presented 

 consistently supported the administration progi-am for voluntary dis- 

 tribution at the State level. Democratic sponsored proposals for stand- 

 by and long-term mandatory Federal control received little support. 



The House Banking and Currency Committee was the first of the 

 congressional committees to hold hearings on the distribution alterna- 

 tives. Dr. Leonard Scheele, Surgeon General of the Public Health 

 Service, led off for DPIEW. His initial testimony before the committee 

 (May 6 and 13) was speculative — the National Advisory Committee 

 in DHEW had not yet prepared detailed recommendations for distri- 

 bution. Nevertheless, when questioned as to the pros and cons of Fed- 

 eral control. Dr. Scheele said that a voluntary program would work, 

 and that medical doctors as well as the pharmaceutical profession had 

 pledged their cooperation. 



Asked by Representative Wolcott as to whether the existence of con- 

 trols by the Government would speed up the program at all, Dr. 

 Scheele replied : 



No * * * I don't think it would speed it up. As a matter of fact, I have tried 

 to visualize what we would have to do in establishing the controls. It seems to 

 me it might slow it down, rather substantially * * *. To place that kind of a 

 program would mean the acquisition of a substantial staff of the type we don't 

 have.^^ 



To various questions about the extent and effectiveness of the statu- 

 torv^ responsibilities held by PHS in the instance of vaccine distri- 

 bution, Dr. Scheele continued to support existing regulations: 



"U.S. Congress, House. Committee on Banking and Currency. Salk vaccine hearings 

 before the » ♦ • on H.R. 5599. 5611. 5690. .5987. H.J. Res. 297, 29R, 299, 300. and .302. 

 May 6 and 13, 1955. 84th Cong, first sess. (Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 

 1955). 92 p. 



" U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Labor and Public Welfare. Pollomvelitis vaccine 

 hearings before the * * * S4th Cong., first sess. (Washington. U.S. Government Printing 

 Office. 1955). 17S p., 2 parts: Part 1, on S. 1984, and S. 2147, June 14 and 15. 1955, 

 Part 2. on S. 1925, 1976 and S.J. Res. 68. May 16, 1955. 



^ U.S. Congress, House. Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. Pnliomyelitis 

 vaccine hearings before the * * * 84th Cong., first sess. (Washington. U.S. Government 

 Printing Office. 1955), 228 p., 2 parts: Part 1, on Poliomyelitis vaccination assistance 

 legislation. May 25 and 27. 1955, and part 2, on scientific panel presentation on polio- 

 myelitis vaccine. June 22 and 23, 1955. 



^ House. Committee on Banking and Currency. Salk vaccine hearings, op. cit., p. 55. 



