« PreviousContinue »
have as good a concept of what is in the public interest as we politicians in the executive and legislative branches of the Government. In the field of social security I quite agree that there government has to step in with the establishment of laws, rules and regulations, for making of payments and so forth.
I wonder whether in your mind you think you and I as politicians are as able to make decisions in the public interest in health and education as we are in the field of social security?
Mr. EWING. Well, No. 1, whether it be good or bad, under our constitution this responsibility is in Congress and in the President, whether they be politicians or statesmen. I think that even under that set-up professional advice always is listened to and in large part followed because I think that we all listen to these professionals.
On the other hand, I think you would agree with me that it is not always wise to follow the profession. I think, for instance, if the professional soldiers had their way, we would all be in uniform and it is for that very reason that a layman, under our practice, is Secretary of Defense. The necessity of getting lay judgment in on these things in connection with professional judgment is evidenced by the fact that that is the very reason that the jury system exists, which I as a lawyer know, to put a check on some of the high-flown theories of us lawyers. Senator MUNDT. I am not sure you quite get the gist of my question. My question was, Do you share with me the feeling that there is a difference in emphasis which can be made legitimately between educational and health functions vis-à-vis social security functions from the standpoint of the important part that should be played in them by us politicians, or do you think that they are all three peas in the same pod?
Mr. EWING. I would rather be inclined to think they were all three the same. I think everyone in the welfare field would agree with that statement. And in my operations of the Federal Security Agency, I have seen a lot of it and I would be inclined to say that; yes, sir, Senator.
Senator MUNDT. That pretty well defines the area of disagreement which we have. To me I can understand completely the function of the Federal Government in the field of social security. I can understand the function of the Federal Government, too, in the field of health and education; but in my view the Federal Government should play a less prominent part and less directive part in the field of health and education than it does in social security.
Mr. EWING. I beg your pardon, I misunderstood your question. I do not disagree with that one iota. The whole statutory basis upon which the Office of Education operates definitely limits that. We merely collect information and disseminate it, and I have forgotten the exact wording, but it is a very limited field. And I think it would be tragic for the Federal Office of Education to get into the operations or in any remote control of education. It is a local thing. We can be a clearinghouse or something like that for information, but control is the last thing that is involved in any of our thinking, directly or indirectly.
Senator MUNDT. Feeling that way about it as I do, I am somewhat distressed by the fact that we are mixing into one department and under one administrative head functions which, if I understand your statement, you and I believe should be left primarily to local control
and local management, to wit, especially education, with functions which you and I agree should be in large part regulated by the Federal Government, such as social security insurance, which is a national problem that has to be approached on the national level.
So we are trying to incorporate in one cake some ingredients which, it seems to me, are perhaps not easily assimilable.
Mr. EWING. Senator, my point is that they are already put together. There is nothing in this plan that puts them together any more or any less. I think as an original proposition, you would have an argument that would have to be answered. But the fact is that they are already in the Federal Security Agency, and until Congress sees fit to establish a separate independent agency, they have got to remain some place. It seems to me education is infinitely better off if it is in a position where it does have a Cabinet representative than if it is simply in an agency headed by an administrator.
Senator MUNDT. That would be certainly true if you had a Secretary of Education.
Mr. EWING. And I think it is better to have a Secretary who represents three interests than to have no Secretary at all.
Senator MUNDT. Unless that might tend to delay the time when you had a Secretary at all or unless that might tend to bring education under the jurisdiction of a Secretary who tended to feel that the politicians had as important a function to perform in the field of education and health as they have to perform in the field of social security.
Mr. EWING. Well, I know that argument is made that it would delay that, and I have answered it and given my reasons why I do not think it is sound.
Senator MUNDT. It could depend, of course, entirely on the Secretary who sits in at the Cabinet meetings. If he were a fellow who believed the time was not ripe to make a separate Secretary of Education or who believed the size of the operation or importance of it was not sufficiently great, and if each time the Cabinet met he whispered in the President's ear, "Leave things as they are," it certainly could affect it.
Mr. EWING. Yes, but an Administrator of the Federal Security Agency can do the same thing.
Senator MUNDT. Not at the Cabinet meetings.
Mr. EWING. No; but he can have his say.
Senator MUNDT. That is all I have to say, now, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Ewing.
Mr. EWING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The committee will recess at this time, and will resume hearings this afternoon at 2 o'clock in the Labor and Public Welfare Committee room on the Senate floor of the Capitol just off the Senate Chamber, room P-26.
This afternoon we are going to ask the witnesses we have listed to testify, and we are going to conclude with those scheduled today. We will have some interruptions due to votes that are scheduled in the Senate, but we are going to continue until this list that is scheduled for today is exhausted and everyone is given an opportunity to present his views.
The committee stands recessed until 2 o'clock.
(Whereupon at 12:25 p. m., the committee recessed to reconvene at 2 p. m., this same day in room P-26, the Capitol.)
The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order.
As announced this morning, it is our hope that we can conclude these hearings tomorrow, and in order to do so, I am going to have to ask witnesses to try to help us conserve time and just touch the highlights of this issue. At hearings this morning we permitted the representatives of the executive branch of the Government who favored the plan, and the Senators who testified in opposition to the plan to have full time to cover the issue thoroughly, and gave them all of the time they wanted. We do not want to preclude you from presenting your case and your points of view, but we do ask you to cooperate, and we are not trying to definitely limit time, but we hope if you have a prepared statement you can file it in most cases and comment upon the salient features of it. Thus we hope that witnesses will in their direct testimony before us try not to consume more than 10 minutes, and thus we will be able to hear all witnesses and get their principal points of view.
All right, Mr. Stebbins.
STATEMENT OF DR. ERNEST L. STEBBINS, DIRECTOR, JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF HYGIENE AND PUBLIC HEALTH, BALTIMORE, MD.
Dr. STEBBINS. I am Dr. Ernest L. Stebbins, and I am here as the authorized representative of the Association of Schools of Public Health. The association has considered the proposed Reorganization Plan No. 27 and we are of the opinion that it would be desirable for the improvement of public health. Most of the members of the Association of Schools of Public Health feel that a Department of Health would be desirable, but that that being impossible perhaps at the present time, that the proposed reorganization would be a step in the right direction. Moreover, the members of the association feel that there are points of joint interest in the fields of education and welfare and health, and therefore they wish me to go on record as a representative of the association as being in favor of the bill.
We believe that the importance of the subjects included within the fields of health, education, and welfare are of tremendous importance, and that they certainly jointly deserve the status of a department in the Government. We believe that the status of a department will lend prestige, recognition of the importance and permanence of the problems represented in this field.
That is all that I have to say, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. Doctor, your prepared statement may be printed in the record at this point.
(The statement referred to follows:)
STATEMENT BY DR. ERNEST L. STEBBINS
I, Dr. Ernest L. Stebbins, director of the Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health, am speaking as an authorized representative of the Association of Schools of Public Health. The association which I represent has as members all of the accredited schools of public health in the United States and Canada. It has not been possible to hold a meeting of the association since the submission of Reorganization Plan No. 27. It was necessary, therefore, to
communicate with the executive officers of all of the schools having membership in the association, and it is as a result of this communication that I present the point of view of the association to your committee.
There are 10 members of the association, one of which is the University of Toronto School of Hygiene and Public Health, and inasmuch as this University is not in the United States, it is not included in the opinions expressed by the association. There is a general feeling among the members of the association that a Department of Health would be desirable. However, there is unanimous opinion that the reorganization proposed would be a step in the right direction and, therefore, is unanimously supported by the association. We believe that there are real and positive advantages in the creation of a Department of Health, Education, and Security. We believe that it has been the policy of this Government to place the most important functions of government in the hands of executive departments, whose heads form the President's Cabinet. It is believed that the creation of a new executive department and a new Cabinet post responsible for governmental activities in these three related fields would be a recognition of these activities as a major and permanent responsibility of government and that the public prestige and dignity which these fields of activity would thus attain would be of value in furthering the objectives of these programs. The participation by a representative of these fields of interest in the highest executive council would result in greater attention on the part of the executive branch of the Government to matters pertaining to health. It is further believed that such representation would be of great value in obtaining well-balanced consideration of over-all Government policy in these fields.
It has been suggested that the creation of a Department of Health, Education, and Security might inhibit a consolidation of all medical activities of the Government, as recommended by the Hoover Commission. It is our opinion that Reorganization Plan No. 27, if effectuated, would have the opposite effect. creation of an executive department in this field would, we believe, facilitate such a development.
Senator SCHOEPPEL. Do you feel, Dr. Stebbins, if it went into effect as it is, and while you may favor something different, as you have testified to here, and while you are willing to take a lesser organizational plan, do you feel that by the acceptance of this plan, if we should accept it, it might preclude a progressive development along the very line that you have just mentioned a while ago as being most favorable?
Dr. STEBBINS. No, I think not. In fact in our discussions among members of the association, it was felt that this would be apt to lead to that, and that it would not in any way inhibit the development of a department dealing solely with medical and health matters.
Senator SCHOEPPEL. Then that might later on, in your viewpoint, entail either a divorcement or setting it up in another department or a separate department, I take it?
Dr. STEBBINS. Yes, and I think that I speak for all of the members of the association that in our opinion that would be desirable. Since that has not been proposed, and because of the apparent opposition to the creation of a large number of departments, it might not be possible. This would be our second choice.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Doctor.
Dr. STEBBINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The next witness is Elizabeth Wickenden, Washington representative of the American Public Welfare Association. STATEMENT OF ELIZABETH WICKENDEN, WASHINGTON REPRESENTATIVE, AMERICAN PUBLIC WELFARE ASSOCIATION
Miss WICKENDEN. My name is Elizabeth Wickenden, and I am the Washington representative of the American Public Welfare Association. I would like to file my statement, if I may, and speak very briefly and informally.
Our organization is the organization of State and local welfare departments and people engaged in public welfare at all levels of Government. We have long supported the idea that the Federal Security Agency should be elevated to Cabinet status. We feel that the scope and character and importance of these functions clearly warrant that recognition and we feel that this particular plan has been very well conceived to combine the advantages of giving those functions the voice and place in the deliberations at the Cabinet level, and still protecting the professional character of the administration at the bureau level.
We are very pleased to see that the offices of the Surgeon General and the Commissioner of Education and the Social Security Commissioner are retained in their professional character, rather than taking on the political cast that inevitably goes with a Cabinet or sub-Cabinet level. We think that that would not be so desirable because it would subject those functions to the shifting tides of political change as is traditional with little Cabinet positions.
It seems to us that this plan involves such a simple question of prestige and recognition for the functions involved that it is difficult to understand how it could have become so controversial. I would like to take two or three moments on that.
There is always a problem if you are for something that involves intangible, but very real values, namely prestige and recognition, it is hard to answer some of the arguments that are made against such a program, but I would like to give our views on some of these fears and objections which have been made.
One of the objections you hear quite frequently is that in some way this is going to expand the functions of the Federal Government in these areas and particularly in some of the more controversial areas, like health insurance. Of course, I don't need to say to this committee, it has been said so often, that that cannot be done without special legislation. It neither adds nor subtracts from the substantive programs of the Federal Government in these fields.
Another objection that is made very frequently has to do with the character of the personnel or leadership that would be appointed to such a Cabinet department. Of course, there again it depends entirely as at present on who the President chooses to appoint, and who the Senate chooses to confirm. But it is puzzling to me that there is this constant reference to welfare domination. I speak for an organization which represents welfare, and we do not feel that welfare has been dominant. Mr. McNutt, who was the first Federal Security Administrator, was a lawyer, a former dean of a law school, and his affiliations would be more nearly with education. Mr. Miller was from the American Legion, not strictly a social worker in the sense that we think of them, and of course Mr. Ewing was formerly a corporation lawyer. So it is a little bit hard to understand how this feeling or fear of welfare domination entered into the picture. We certainly do not seek it or feel that it is a problem.
The third argument that one hears most frequently is one about which we have quite strong convictions and that is the feeling that there should be separate departments for health and education. We have never advocated a separate department for public welfare in our fairly limited sense of the word, and we do not feel that the character of these functions at the Federal level is such as to warrant such a de