« PreviousContinue »
Mrs. BAYLOR. That is true.
Under the present plan, the Surgeon General and the Commissioner of Education retain all the statutory authority and duties now vested in them. The Public Health Service and the Office of Education remain intact as statutory entities with statutory functions. The Surgeon General and the Commissioner of Education will have the same relationship to the Secretary of the new department that they now have to the Federal Security Administrator.
So I assume from that the President shares your views, that the situation would not be changed other than to elevate it to a departmental status, and that is what you oppose.
What is your position with reference to the Office of Education being made an independent agency of the Government, or as to whether or not it should be elevated within itself to a departmental status?
Mrs. BAYLOR. We feel that it would function best as an independent agency. That would be more in keeping with the tradition of American education than it would be to elevate it to Cabinet status.
The CHAIRMAN. There is one other argument made, a very strong argument, on behalf of this plan, by the supporters of it, and that is that the Office of Education, and also the Public Health Service, should have representation in deliberations of the Cabinet and in high-level Cabinet decisions made regarding the policies of the Government.
Under this plan, do you feel that the Commissioner of Education, the head of the Office of Education, would actually have a voice in Cabinet meetings by having the Secretary of the Department speak?
Mrs. BAYLOR. Well, there, again, it would depend on the primary interest of the Secretary.
The CHAIRMAN. In other words, the plan does not give assurance that the views of the head of the Office of Education or the Commissioner of Education, would have his views expressed at the Cabinet meetings.
Mrs. BAYLOR. No. It would have to be channeled through the Secretary.
The CHAIRMAN. The Secretary might entertain opposite views to those of the Commissioner; is that not correct?
Mrs. BAYLOR. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. I think that has occurred in the recent past. Has it not?
Mrs. BAYLOR. Yes; it has.
Senator Mundt. I congratulate Mrs. Baylor on a very penetrating and pertinent statement. It seems to me she has pretty well summarized the case for education.
Inasmuch as the American Association of University Women favored the recommendations of the Hoover task force for the creation of a Federal Board for Education, I take it that you feel this other proposal would be a step in the wrong direction because it would instigate a change that would fail to produce those recommendations of the Hoover group; is that right?
Mrs. BAYLOR. That is true.
Senator MUNDT. And human nature being what it is, if you make a change now, it would almost be inevitable that it would delay the possibility of getting a Federal Board for Education, because those in authority would say, “Let us try this new thing out first."
Mrs. BAYLOR. That is correct.
Senator MUNDT. So it would be slowing down the progress instead of helping it.
Mrs. BAYLOR. It would preclude, I am afraid, the chances for a National Board of Education.
Senator MUNDT. It is my opinion that you do not have to be quite as pessimistic as your statement indicated when you referred to the Federal Board of Education as an “ivory tower dream.” It seems to me that if this change is not produced, there should be a good possibility then of actually following up those Hoover recommendations.
Mrs. BAYLOR. I sincerely hope that the recommendations of the task force will be given consideration.
The CHAIRMAN. Senator Smith, do you have any questions?
The CHAIRMAN. Mrs. Baylor, you have the compliments of the Chair for presenting a very intelligent and a very persuasive statement on this question.
Mrs. Baylor. Thank you for permitting us to appear before you, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Is Mr. Markoff present?
STATEMENT OF SOL MARKOFF, REPRESENTING THE NATIONAL
CHILD LABOR COMMITTEE, NEW YORK, N. Y.
The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed, Mr. Markoff.
Mr. MARKOFF. My name is Sol Markoff. I represent the National Child Labor Committee.
I want to thank this committee for the opportunity to present our views on this question which is before it.
The CHAIRMAN. Is the National Child Labor Committee an agency of the Government?
Mr. MARKOFF. No, it is not. It is a private agency chartered by congressional act in 1907. It is entirely a private agency. It is devoted to a program which includes the elimination of harmful child labor and the furthering of educational opportunities for children and young people.
The affairs of our agency are governed by a board of trustees distinguished men and women drawn from many fields, including education, the clergy, law, medicine, social welfare, labor, and industry. Currently, we have a national contributing membership of 16,000 persons, representative of all States in the Nation.
We are particularly interested, naturally enough, in those activities of the Federal Security Agency which affect the welfare, education, and health of children.
But we know, too, from long experience, that often the welfare of children is interrelated with, and dependent upon, the economic security of adults, the health of family heads, and, in short, the general well-being of the whole population. And so we have always followed
with close interest all the programs and services of the Federal Security Agency which affect the welfare of adults as well as children.
The services of the Federal Security Agency reach millions of people and involve millions of dollars each year. Measured by the amount of money spent and the number of people served, the activities of the Federal Security Agency surpass some agencies of Cabinet rank. It deserves—even more, it requires—a status which would demonstrate that the Government's concern for its human resources is not a subordinate function, and is as important as the conservation of natural resources, the postal system, and industrial and commercial development, now being administered by such agencies as the Department of the Interior, Department of Agriculture, Post Office Department, and the Commerce Department.
The present plan makes it clear that professional powers will continue to be in the hands of competent professional leaders. The Surgeon General, the Commissioner of Education, and the Commissioner of Social Security, all are to be appointed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and all of these officers will be required to have professional qualifications for their duties. All will report directly to the Secretary and not to any subordinate officer.
The present plan also makes it clear that health and education are not considered inferior to welfare functions. While all the activities of the Federal Security Agency add up to the total welfare of the Nation's people, the term "welfare" is sometimes narrowly construed, as in the sense of local welfare departments which administer relief, and is not always considered in its broadest sense as encompassing health and educational functions.
The proposed name of the new agency, Department of Health, Education, and Security, while longer than the one suggested last year, is more explicit, and should remove any doubts that may linger as to the parity of each of the three major fields of welfare activities: health, education, and security.
In addition to giving welfare functions of the Government the Cabinet status they deserve, the plan proposed by the President would also increase economics, and efficiency of operations, and thus improve quality of services.
Under the plan, the Secretary would be permitted to establish central administrative services for the Department in the interest of economy and efficiency. He will be able to centralize in the Department such services as procurement, budgeting, and accounting. But this power, it is explicitly set forth, will not permit him to infringe in any way on the professional responsibilities of the Surgeon General, the Commissioner of Security, and the Commissioner of Education.
The CHAIRMAN. May I ask you a question at that point?
The CHAIRMAN. You say that the Secretary would not be permitted to infringe on the professional responsibilities of the Surgeon General, the Commissioner of Security, and the Commissioner of Education. If he determines the amount of the budget and submits recommendations for a budget to support the staff and facilities that are necessary to do an effective job, he could submit an inadequate budget, and would that not have the effect of producing some interference and infringement?
Mr. MARKOFF. In that event, it might. I don't have any reason to believe that the Secretary would do that.
The CHAIRMAN. We just heard the testimony of a witness representing a very fine group of American women, stating that under the present set-up, even without that authority, the present Federal Security Administrator has been able to cause these services to suffer, particularly in the field of education, and that this would only give him more power and give to the Secretary of the new department more power.
If they are correct in their view with reference to the present situation, it seems to follow that the opportunity at least would be present, and greater than it is now, to infringe upon these services.
Mr. MARKOFF. In reading the statement which accompanied the President's proposal, it seemed to me he had that situation, or a very similar one, in mind, because he stated that the centralization of these administrative services would in no way, and should in no way, be given to the Secretary in such a way that he would infringe on the professional quality of the job.
The CHAIRMAN. Under this centralization of services, if he has the power, he can use it.
Mr. MARKOFF. The President, it would seem to me, would be directing this new Secretary not to interfere in any way with the professional responsibilities.
The CHAIRMAN. You read a lot in there that is not actually in the language.
Mr. MARKOFF. I inferred that from that statement, that it was a mandate to the new Secretary not to interfere in the exercise of these functions.
The CHAIRMAN. All right, you may proceed.
The President's plan does not include the recommendation made by the Hoover Commission for placing all governmental health activities in an independent United Medical Administration.
But such a step seems to be possible by legislative action only, not through the medium of a Presidential plan of reorganization. Bills to establish such an independent medical agency have been before Congress for some time now, but don't appear to have had much support.
In any event, nothing in the Presidential plan would seem to bar such a development in the future, if the Congress desired it. An analogous example exists in the establishment of a labor department in the States and in the Federal Government. The creation of independent labor departments in many of the States and in the Federal Government, came about only after there had first been established a combined Department of Labor and Commerce.
Then eventually both of those activities were made separate operational functions.
Under the present plan the three divisions of health, education, and security, would have the same functions they now have. No new functions are to be added, none taken away. What the new department will have that the old agency lacks, however, is an increase in status and prestige-a well-merited one, in view of its importanceand a greater possibility for more efficient operations and improved service.
The creation of a department such as proposed by the President has received strong, bipartisan support ever since the administration of President Harding. The issue is above politics and personalities.
There is no greater and nobler effort Government can give than to concern itself, as a primary task, with the health, education, and security, of its citizens. The foundations of our Goveroment rest on that sturdy rock, conceived, as it was, “to promote the general welfare” of its people.
We sincerely hope that this Congress will not prevent the President from putting his plan into effect.
The CHAIRMAN. Does your organization favor the compulsory health insurance program?
Mr. MARKOFF. We have not taken any position on that, sir.
any questions, Senator Mundt?
The CHAIRMAN. Is there anyone else present who wishes to testify this morning? According to the list prepared by the staff, we have four witnesses to hear this afternoon.
The committee will stand in recess until 2 o'clock this afternoon.
(Thereupon, at 11:55 a. m., the committee recessed, to reconvene at 2 p. m., of the same day.)
(The committee reconvened at 2 p. m. upon the expiration of the recess.)
The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order.
STATEMENT OF EARL N. PARKER, ASSISTANT GENERAL DIRECTOR,
FAMILY SERVICE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, NEW YORK, N. Y.
Mr. PARKER. My name is Earl N. Parker and I am the assistant general director of the Family Service Association of America.
The CHAIRMAN. Will you identify that a little more, please? We get these names of associations and I do not know some of them.
Mr. PARKER. Sir, that appears in the first part of my statement that I shall present. The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed.
Mr. PARKER. This association is a federation of 250 family service agencies in more than 200 cities throughout the United States and Canada. The services to families in difficulty rendered by these agencies were first established in this country over a hundred years ago and over the period of a century have been developed to a high level of skill. These agencies have assisted many hundreds of thousands of families in a whole range of problems-economic, health, vocational adjustment, housing, school, and also in making the personal and emotional adjustments which enable individuals and families to live happily and productively. Those are predominantly roluntarily financed agencies, Mr. Chairman.