Page images
PDF
EPUB

Furthermore, we should not forget that the Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government was not established as, and did not and does not purport to be, the final "supreme court," as it were, for the reorganization of the executive branch of the Government. The duties of the Commission as set forth in section 10 of the act establishing it were to study and investigate the governmental organization and to report its findings and recommendations to the Congress. There was not, and could not be, any advance commitment on either the part of the Congress or the President to accept without question and to put into effect whatever the majority of the members of the Commission recommended. There were differences of opinion among members of the Commission on frequent occasions, as, for example, in its recommendation concerning a United Medical Administration where seven members dissented and one abstained. It is true that four of these dissents did not object to the proposed transfer of the Public Health Service, but they showed divergence of opinion on other basic issues. The recommendations of the Commission are not binding on the Congress, and have not been so considered, as witness a number of recent congressional actions.

Certainly each and every recommendation of the Commission is entitled to the most serious consideration. But I submit that to object to any reorganization plan simply on the basis that it does not conform to every Hoover Commission recommendation on the subject, is not enough. It is incumbent on the objector to prove his case, or at least to defend it. I do not think that the objections raised on this score to the instant reorganization plan can be sustained on their merits.

The plan is also opposed by some persons who are against the President's program for national health insurance. They contend that a secretary of a department can argue more effectively for national health insurance than an administrator of an agency. The answer to this is that any program for national health insurance can only be established by the Congress, and Congress will decide the issue on what it thinks is for the best interest of the country, not on whether the program is advocated by an administrator or a secretary.

If it is proper for a reorganization plan to be defeated solely because a special-interest group disapproves one or another of the President's substantive programs currently operating or contemplated-then virtually no reorganization plan can be approved. Such an argument, in effect, asks Congress to disregard the congressional desire to bring about economy and efficiency in Government through reorganization; moreover, it would waste practically all of the work of the Hoover Commission.

Still another objection raised to Reorganization Plan No. 1 was that no economies could be expected to be achieved in the immediate future as a result of the adoption of the plan. I believe that important economies, both in efficiency in the operation of the programs and in actual savings can be effected if this plan is to become law. I call your particular attention to section 6 of the plan authorizing the Secretary, in the interest of economy and efficiency, to establish central administrative services in the fields of procurement, budgeting, accounting, library, legal, and other services and activities common to the several agencies of the Department, and to effect such transfers of

personnel, property, records, and funds available for such administrative service activities as may be necessary for the conduct of the services so established. Lack of the authority which would be conferred by section 6 of the plan has been a serious handicap in our attempts to eliminate duplication of administrative services among the various units of the Federal Security Agency.

We have made some preliminary study of the savings that can be achieved if this reorganization plan becomes effective. Modest savings can be accomplished but, as the President has said, it is impracticable to estimate them precisely at this time. I may say that I was questioned on this point when I was before the House committee which considered Reorganization Plan 27, and I told them that our preliminary studies at that time would fully justify a statement that at least $100,000 would be saved if the plan were allowed to become effective. Those studies are not yet complete and, furthermore, they do not take into account increased efficiencies which are very difficult to actually measure in advance by means of dollars and cents. As far as we can now determine, however, the savings that can be effected under this plan would be as great or nearly as great as they would be under a fully integrated department.

And aside from the cash savings to be achieved, there will unquestionably be gains in the effectiveness of services which, although they cannot be reduced to dollars and cents, will be equally important. Not only will the taxpayer be saved money but he will get a better value for what is spent.

I think departmental status for these programs particularly timely now. I look on these health, education, and security programs, and their counterparts in the States and localities, as a powerful defense against communism, socialism, totalitarianism, and all other "isms" which depend for their birth and growth on ill health, inequality of educational opportunity, and individually insecurity. To continue to treat these programs as subordinate in our Government structure— to reject this plan which would give them equal recognition in the highest councils of the executive branch-would be interpreted by those who seek to discredit the United States in world circles and here at home as evidence of our lack of concern with the individual wellbeing of the American people. Favorable action on this plan would constitute a message to the Nation and to the world that the United States places the health, education, and security of the individual in the forefront of its national interest.

Mr. Chairman, there is just one thing I would like to say in concluding, I would like to read a little excerpt from Senator Taft's testimony before this committee in support of the Fulbright-Taft bill on February 28, 1947.

Senator TAFT. Mr. Chairman, I merely wish to support the bill which Senator Fulbright and I introduced to create a Department of Health, Welfare, and Education.

I have felt that these fields are all fields in which the Federal Government has a secondary responsibility, so to speak. They are State and local matters. While the three different matters are really entirely separate, to my mind, and do not belong together necessarily, they do have the similarity of being fields in which the Federal Government's responsibility is really a secondary responsibility. It is obviously impossible to have three departments, I think, one for each, and it seemed to me proper to group them in one department.

I joined with Senator Smith in a bill creating a Ñational Health Agency consolidating all the health activities of the Federal Government in one agency which

was independent and directly responsible to the President. That bill differs slightly. When we introduced that, there was no department, and there may be no department.

Before this bill is finally reported out, there are some changes in the health branch that I would like to make to conform to the National Health Agency, but the only difference between the two bills is that in the National Health Agency bill the head of the Agency reports directly to the President, whereas under this bill he would be the Under Secretary of Health in this new Department, and would report to a cabinet officer.

I think it is important that health be separate from welfare, and that they each be separate from education, but I see no reason why a man cannot be found of Cabinet rank of sufficient standing to be able to represent all three interests in the President's Cabinet.

Personally, it seems to me that you are going to get better representation in the administration for those activities if they have a Cabinet member sitting in the Cabinet all the time who can bring up constantly the interests of health, welfare, and education to the President.

As I say, I have always believed in a complete separation of health from welfare and from education at the local level, and at the State level, where those matters are administered on a much more full-scale basis where the administration actually occurs to the greatest extent. Those agencies are usually completely separate, and they are separate in nature.

I did not like the idea of having one Under Secretary under the Cabinet officer through whom the health, welfare, and education would have to channel going up to the Cabinet officer. It seemed to me that they ought to be able to go directly to the Cabinet officer in each case because of the fact that if you get this Under Secretary, he is a more or less anonymous figure who may be a welfare man completely, bossing health and education, or he may be a health man bossing welfare, and so forth. So I insisted when we introduced it, that each of these three departments be kept separate, that each of the Under Secretaries report directly to the Cabinet officer-and that that is the plan of the bill which Senator Fulbright and I introduced.

I do not know that I have any more to say, except that these interests have become of greater and greater concern. The Federal Government, in my opinion, is going to have to extend more Federal aid in those fields, leaving, according to my theories, the complete administration in the States, but prescribing certain standards as the basis for Federal aid.

I believe very strongly that they ought not to be up by themselves running an independent game, but they ought to be tied right into the President's administration, and they ought to have a representative in the Cabinet.

I believe the Federal Security Agency and the Federal Loan Agency floating around in midair has not been a good Government organization, and it seems to me that matters of that kind should have a department of the Government.

I do not see why it would mean any more bureaucratic organization or any greater expense than already exists. In fact, I should think such a man might assume more responsibility toward coordinating the work, getting the health staff assigned all to health, welfare to welfare, and education to education, than if you do not have a department.

The CHAIRMAN. I have one or two questions I would like to ask. If I understand your prepared statement correctly, you oppose the Hoover Commission recommendation with reference to a United Medical Administration to embrace the Public Health Service.

Mr. EWING. I believe that for the time being it is better to leave the Public Health Service where it is. And. I might add to that, Senator, my principal objections to the establishment of a separate United Medical Administration are because it is proposed to take the military hospitals and the veterans' hospitals away from their present organizations. This would be a very serious thing, and your own dissent to that states my own position very well on that, Senator. The CHAIRMAN. I am trying to establish where we are in this plan. You do oppose that recommendation of the Hoover Commission report?

Mr. EWING. In its total form, I do.

The CHAIRMAN. I am speaking particularly with reference to the Public Health Service and whether we include it in the new medical services or administration. That is the way I interpreted your testimony.

Mr. EWING. That is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well. I also interpret your testimony that you oppose a separate department of health and education.

Mr. EWING. I would not say that. There are very good arguments that can be made for that, Senator McClellan, and I just do not know whether I am ready to cross that bridge.

The CHAIRMAN. I beg your pardon, if you did not cross it. I thought you did in your testimony. I did not want to misunderstand

you.

Mr. EWING. No, I do not say that categorically at this time.

The CHAIRMAN. All right. I was just trying to determine what the testimony was on the part of the departments affected by these reorganization plans. We also have testimony of the individuals or representatives of the groups that are affected and involved in these changes that we make by reorganization. We hear them charge that the executive branch of the Government is undertaking to do something against their interests by these plans and vice versa. When we have the executive representatives here, they take a position that it is a selfish interest group that is upholding the plan.

So we are confronted with weighing these plans. It has been contended that if this plan goes into effect that it does not preclude the Congress or even the President, under a new reorganization plan, from again doing something else for the Health Department or the Education Office.

I wanted to establish, if I could, if the Congress undertakes to do something else about it hereafter in conformance with the Hoover Commission recommendation, would we still be confronted with the opposition of the executive branch of the Government. I asked this question in a different form of the representatives of the Bureau of the Budget. I think we ought to all lay our cards on the table. That is what I am trying to do. In other words, do not hold out hope to us that you still have a chance to do anything you want to later without telling us, if you mean to do it, that you are going to oppose it when we try it.

Let us lay the cards face up now, and try to settle this issue. That is what I am trying to get at.

Mr. EWING. Well, Mr. Chairman, as to the United Medical Administration, as proposed by the Hoover Commission, in that form I would recommend against it.

The CHAIRMAN. What about as to the separate department?

Mr. EWING. As to the separate departments, I would view that far more favorably.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Mundt, did you have a question?
Senator MUNDT. Yes, Mr. Chairman..

On the matter of separate departments, Mr. Ewing, in your statement you said this:

For my part I am strongly of the opinion that the grouping of these three types of Government activity-health, education, and social security-in a single agency and in a single department is an arrangement materially advantageous to all three and to the people for whose benefit they have been established. I think it would be a serious mistake to separate them.

From that I gather and the chairman did that you opposed the separate departments.

Mr. EwING. I do as of today. I think that as to education, for instance, Senator Mundt, just considering the matter of size, that you cannot set up a separate department for an organization measured in a personnel of 800 people.

Senator MUNDT. Do you think size is a proper criterion to apply as to whether or not an activity should be administered?

Mr. EWING. You are quite right; it is not the only one, it is one. Senator MUNDT. How big does bureaucracy have to become before it is entitled to the part of the President's Cabinet?

Mr. EWING. I am quite frank to say that size is not the only thing, but I do think that you have some very important functions that have small operating units that I still do not think would be entitled to separate departmental status.

Senator MUNDT. In my mind, size is of no consequence at all as a matter of importance of the function. I would like to comment that they are doing a big job of public service with a personnel of 800, and I would not be inclined to reward them with Cabinet status if they could expand their unit from 800 to 8,000. I do not think that is a good criterion as to whether it is important enough to have Cabinet status.

Mr. EWING. I would still feel that with an organization the size of 800 in personnel I would seriously question whether it was justified.

Senator MUNDT. What would you say is the minimum to which bureaucracy must grow before they can be rewarded with a Cabinet status?

Mr. EWING. Let me rephrase that question to say to what size the personnel of the organization must grow.

Senator MUNDT. All right.

Mr. EWING. I do not know. I think some of our departments now have 3,500 or 4,000, I am not sure what their size is.

Senator MUNDT. The Commissioner of Education has to be pretty busy appointing new personnel if he is going to get to Cabinet status. He has to expand his payroll 500 percent before he has a Chinaman's chance of getting there.

Mr. EWING. There is obviously a twilight zone where it is very hard to draw the line. I think 36,000 or 34,000 is definitely on one side of the line and I think 800 is pretty definitely on the other side. Where the line should be drawn in the twilight zone it would be difficult to say.

Senator MUNDT. I would like to ask you one other question. Quoting from your statement on page 4, you say:

It seems to me that the insistence of the several professions on separate departmental status is a complete misconception of the consideration that should be given professional skills in the direction of governmental structure. It is the well being of the individual, not control by doctors, educators or social workers with which the Government's health, educational and social security functions are primarily concerned.

I was wondering who should be the umpire to determine what is in the public interest?

Mr. EwING. I think that the Congress has got to be, very definitely, the President and Congress, the lawmaking body.

Senator MUNDT. In the field of health and in the field of education, I would be inclined to think that perhaps professional people might

« PreviousContinue »