Part: 12         Session: 123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536         Page 302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318319320321322323324325326327328329330331332333334335336337338339340 of 1143

the House and Senate. This would bring the subject out in the open and give the AMA a chance to be against it. He said he would introduce such a bill. I suggested that the funds should be written into the Senate appropriations with a matching-grant wording, as we tried to get in this year's appropriation, but he said, “No, it won't work that way. We have to have a bill.” I said, “Will you ask Senator Hill to be a co-sponsor?” I felt that Hill's interest would be greater in fighting for the funds and not sacrificing him to the Hill-Burton construction money if his name was on the bill. Bridges said, “Yes, I will ask him,” and he did so. I also spoke to Hill about it and Hill said that he would go along with Bridges.

This matching grant meant...

It was 50-50; the Federal Government would give half of the money, if the university would raise the other half.

Bridges also asked Downey to see that such a bill was prepared. The Hill-Bridges Research Construction Bill, S-849 was written with the aid of the Public Health Service, of course. It was opposed by the American Medical Association, just as I had foreseen.

On the following page is a listing of the AMA's objections put forth in a letter from Dr. George Lowe, the Secretary and General Manager of the AMA. This letter is outrageous, considering