(The statement referred to is as follows:)

TESTIMONY OF THE CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURES IN THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS IN SUPPORT OF REORGANIZATION PLAN No. 27, JULY 6, 1950.

The Congress of Industrial Organizations urges that Reorganization Plan No. 27 be accepted by this Congress. We have consistently supported every effort to give departmental status to health, education and security functions of our Government. We believe such a move is long overdue and that it ought to be accomplished, here and now, during the present session of the Congress. Labor, commerce and agriculture are all represented in the Cabinet. But we regret that, be we labor, business or agriculture, we have no real representatives of our combined needs of health, education and security to whom we can turn in the Cabinet.

These matters are of importance to us and to all citizens. They are the things that come closest to home in the daily lives of all of us.

There isn't a person raising a family of children who isn't anxious to see that they get the best education possible within the framework of our democratic education system.

There isn't a person who is not concerned with keeping his wife and children— as well as himself—in the soundest possible health.

And there isn't a person who is not concerned with his security-and whose thoughts do not turn to the day when he will no longer be able to hold down a job and earn regular wages.

From the outset, the CIO has been one of the strongest supporters of the principle on which the Federal Security Agency was originally established. We have always held that matters of health, education, and social and economic security do not represent separate problems. They are all parts of the same problemto give the individual a better chance to make something of himself and to strengthen the structure of family life.

Today, we feel more strongly than ever about these things. For labor, as well as Government, industry and agriculture, is looking forward to the future. We know that the productive capacity of the Nation can be almost indefinitely expanded to provide more of the good things in life for everybody. We can develop the earning capacity which will permit us to purchase our rightful share of the goods and services which are produced-and thus support the level of the Nation's purchasing power.

Certainly, it is the strong, healthy, mentally alert person who can look forward to some measure of genuine security in old age who represents the country's strongest asset.

To give Cabinet status to these important functions of health, education, and security means recognition of the importance which they bear to the life of our Nation. We can no longer afford to say that the health, education, and social and economic security of our people are matters of secondary concern. They are matters of primary and fundamental concern. And it is up to us to make this crystal clear as a matter of practical working democracy.

We sincerely hope that this committee will support Reorganization Plan No. 27. We urge with the complete conviction of the entire CIO that you do so.

Mr. FERNBACH. I find myself in disagreement with the previous witness. I speak not as a professional seeking a counsel of perfection. Our organization represents about 20,000,000 customers of the services of this Government agency, including wives and children. We are tremendously interested in this agency of government, and any activity that will increase its stature and increase its ability to function effectively and intelligently on behalf of these men, women, and children. We find ourselves often in disagreement with the professionals, whether they be educators or doctors or social workers. But we appreciate the inevitability and the very human nature of their position in this situation. All professional groups tend to seek special

status.

Were every agency and profession to fulfill its desire to attain for itself the status that it feels its function deserves, we would have a very complex Federal Government. We do not presume to state with finality the specific structure that a Department of Health, Education, and Security should take within the Federal Government. We say here and now, however, that the Federal Security Agency should move, if only in transition, to Cabinet status.

Senator IVES (presiding). Right there, I do not think the previous witness would differ with you on that when you are talking about the Security Agency, if you leave out of it the educational feature and the health feature.

Mr. FERNBACH. Well, I think that would be rendering the body rather short of its vital organs. I presume that the issue before the Congress at this time is to both help and vote on the situation.

Senator IVES. It may be to vote up or vote down. You recall, this is a broad field, and requires a lot of exploration, over a period of time. Even though this is favored, it is still subject to amendment by legislative enactment. And it does seem to be a feeling among legislators that they would rather have an independent agency of some kind—we have gathered that, and I can see very definitely that there may be some merit to the point that the Security Agency ought to be of Cabinet rank as a Department.

Mr. FERNBACH. Yes.

Senator IVES. I can see both angles on the thing. I do not necessarily have to have them all tied together.

Mr. FERNBACH. We did not indicate that there were not merits to the arguments on all sides. We know that this issue has been before the Congress not just a matter of 3 months, and not only for 1 or 2 years but for about 10 years; we understand there has developed some consensus of opinion in the development of this discussion. We understand this particular proposal involves an effort to adjust the administrative procedure to the points of view that were presented, I believe, in the last session of Congress.

Senator IVES. I believe it is an effort potently in that direction. Mr. FERNBACH. Yes. We seek action because action is important, more important than perfection.

Senator IVES. You believe in the trial and error approach?

Mr. FERNBACH. Not too much error; you must hazard some in a democracy.

Senator IVES. You are bound to get some error if you have the trial part.

Mr. FERNBACH. Democracy always involves calculated risks; and we must not stand still.

I think that is as briefly as we can present our attitude on this subject.

Senator IVES. We are grateful to you indeed, Mr. Fernbach, for your statement.

Mr. FERNBACH. Thank you, Senator.

Senator IVES. I believe we have time to hear from Mr. Philip Schiff, of the American Association of Social Workers.

Do you have a brief statement, Mr. Schiff?

STATEMENT OF PHILIP SCHIFF, CHAIRMAN OF THE NATIONAL PUBLIC SOCIAL POLICIES COMMITTEE OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF SOCIAL WORKERS

Mr. SCHIFF. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to submit this for the record.

Senator IVES. I believe you can read it in the time we have left. Mr. SCHIFF. My name is Philip Schiff. I am chairman of the national social policies committee of the American Association of Social Workers, whose membership of over 13,000 men and women are to be found engaged in every aspect of social welfare, on every level of employment in governmental and private agencies, in schools of social work as post-graduate students, and as members of their faculties. This membership is organized into 107 chapters covering most States of the Union and Puerto Rico and Hawaii.

For many years we have looked forward to the time when such a proposal as submitted by the President in the form of Reorganization Plan No. 27 would become the law of the land. In May of this year at Atlantic City our delegates' conference once more unanimously affirmed its belief in the need to establish such a department as is envisioned under plan No. 27. It is our firm conviction that this plan deserves the support of both major parties. This belief has come about as a result of our daily experiences and contacts with those elements of our population who are in need of those services which are envisioned under this plan.

As a professional group and as responsible members of our democratic community, we are aware of the need for a dynamic and progressive social policy with which to approach the important social problems affecting large numbers of people throughout the country.

We are conscious of the fact that there is nothing new in the idea of establishing such a department. In 1923 President Harding and his Cabinet made a series of official recommendations concerning the organization of the Federal administrative machinery. Included in the recommendations was one which called for a Department of Education and Welfare with four main divisions-Health, Education, Social Service, and Veterans' Relief-each to be administered by an Assistant Secretary responsible to the Secretary of the Department. President Hoover evinced a keen interest during his administration in integrating the social-service activities of the Government, without too much success.

President Roosevelt was given wide authority in 1933 to reorganize and transfer Federal administrative agencies In 1937 a joint committee of the House and Senate, with Senator Robinson as the first chairman, and later Senator Byrnes, recommended the establishment of a Department of Social Welfare, whose purposes were, among other things, stated as follows:

To advise the President with regard to social welfare; to administer Federal health, educational, and social activities; to conduct research in these fields; to administer_Federal grants; to protect the consumer; to conduct the Federal aspects of Federal-State programs of social security.

In 1946, S. 2053 was introduced by Senators Fulbright and Taft, creating a Department of Health, Education, and Security; this resolution with slight modification was introduced by these two Senators under S. 140 It is our belief that a careful comparison of

S. 140 with the present Reorganization Plan No. 27 will find them alike in most details.

Thus we see historically that every official proposal for the reorganization of the social-welfare services of government, whether such proposals came from the executive or congressional sources, recommended the amalgamation of health, education, and welfare services into one major department of government.

If further evidence is required to point up the importance of the integration of the services into one major department, one can find it in the excellent report of the Women's Foundation report as submitted by its committee of consultants on community reorganization under the cochairmanship of Mrs. Eugene Meyer and Dr. Leonard W. Mayo.

Thus we can see that public opinion for the most part has called for recognition of Cabinet status to that phase of our governmental services which embodies the functions of health, education, and security. In terms of personnel and volume of expenditures, the Federal Security Agency now exceeds several existing Cabinet departments. Because of the scope of its program and their importance to the 150,000,000 individuals in this Nation, it should have the prestigage and recognition of Cabinet rank.

The plan now before Congress has been drafted with a view to meeting the objections raised against the previous proposals. It makes clear that professional powers and authority will continue to be in the hands of competent professional leaders. This is done by specifically providing for the offices of Surgeon General of the Public Health Service, Commissioner of Education, and Commissioner of Social Security, all to be Presidential appointments by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to have professional qualifications for their duties, and to report directly to the Secretary.

In the interests of efficiency and economy, it permits the Secretary to establish central administrative services for such activities as procurement, budgeting, accounting, library and legal services, but specifically limits this power so that there may be no infringement on the professional responsibilities of the Surgeon General, the Commissioner of Education, and the Commissioner of Social Security.

Another change in the name of the proposed Department, the phrase "Department of Health, Education, and Security" in place of "Department of Welfare," prevents any possible implication that the functions of health and education are considered or might become subordinate to those of welfare, as claimed last year.

The plan does not embody the recommendation of the Hoover Commission that all health activities of the Federal Government be placed in an independent United Medical Administration, but bills to establish an independent medical agency have been before Congress for over a year and have had little support, either within or outside the Government, and considerable opposition, especially on the part of veterans' groups.

It is difficult for us as an association to see in this proposal anything but a great advance in providing a streamlined service at lower cost to those who are served in the great areas of health, education, and security.

Our great interest in helping to promote this plan lies in the fact that it is a challenge to our profession to work with men and women women of good will at the never-ending task of giving our democracy

a richer meaning for all. We see in this plan an even greater opportunity to devote our skills, our specialized knowledge and insight, to human and social problems which confront our country today.

This statement of policy represents a distillation of many hundreds. of discussions of local and national groups within our association. We hope it will help resolve a favorable report by your committee on plan No. 27.

I would like to point out in connection with Dr. Zook's testimony, which I listened to over at the House side the other day, that Dr. Zook said, contrary to Mr. Fuller's testimony, that a poll was taken and that there was a decision to support plan No. 27.

I cannot conceive of Dr. Zook coming before any committee without some kind of approval, as was given to him in connection with this plan.

Senator IVES. I know Dr. Zook, and I have a high regard for him, and I am sorry I missed his testimony.

Mr. SCHIFF. I am sorry, too, Mr. Chairman; and I am sure you will take the time to read it. It is a document of great magnitude and importance delivered by a man who has made a very deep and broad study of the problem, and whose ideas should receive serious consideration, contrary to what was said by the witness who testified ahead of the last witness.

Perhaps I might be pardoned for being a little resentful of the manner in which our profession is kicked around because it is thought by some that social welfare would take over that Department. Instead, it is our experience day in and day out to have worked with educators as we should and with the health people as we should. To us the American child or adult is a total human being, and I for one, as an American, would not want to segmentize any part of that human being. In practice, and certainly the educators should know, it would be apparent you cannot create a separate compartment and say "You are education here completely and solely, without reference to anything that goes on about you.'

I know as a professional in the field for 25 or 30 years that we have got to look at that problem in its totality.

Senator IVES. Speaking of New York, you know that New York has three separate departments for education, health, and social welfare?

Mr. SCHIFF. Yes.

Senator IVES. New York has gone a long way toward keeping politics out of it. As the previous witness indicated, the board of regents is elected over a period of years and also the board of social welfare there, that elects the commissioner of social welfare. The health commissioner is appointed by the Governor. So they are segregated to start with and they have tried to keep partisan politics out of that field.

Mr. SCHIFF. I for one agree with you absolutely. I do not care who would be the Secretary under this plan if appointed by the President and approved by the Senate. I think there is enough ability in the Congress at the present time, to stop any shenanigans where politics is involved in the fields of education or health or social security. I think American public opinion is just too smart to permit that kind of thing to take place. Furthermore, we have not designated the Secretary of any department to legislate.