Page images

Mr. McDonougH. What is the present personnel of the combined bureaus that will be centralized under this law?

Mr. DODGE. About 37,500 persons.

Mr. McDonough. Will they be increased or decreased as a result of this change?

Mr. DODGE. We are expecting a decrease.

Mr. McDONOUGH. You believe that the endorsement of the American Medical Association is an assurance that there will not be a promotion of socialized medicine from here on?

Mr. DODGE. I have no way to have an opinion on that.

Mr. McDonough. Do you think it is more of an assurance than there was heretofore given?

Mr. DODGE. I understand, not by direct contact with them, that that has been one of their primary concerns, and I would assume that they would not support the plan unless they thought this provides more assurance than has existed in the past.

Mr. McDoNOUGH. That is all.

Senator SMITH of Maine. Are there some other questions, Mr. Chairman?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. I believe Mr. Brown of Ohio has another question. I understand you have another appointment this afternoon.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. First of all, Mr. Chairman, I have learned a great deal this morning. If I may be permitted to make a very short statement of a small personal nature, I would appreciate it. I am the author of some of the legislation which created the Hoover Commission, and served as a member of the commission. So, I am rather amazed to learn that our commission was opposed to plans of this type and opposed to the special assistant idea. That was the first information I have that such was the situation.

I think the reason, Mr. Dodge, why the President submitted Reorganization Plan No. 1 in 1953 in its present form, providing for the naming of a Special Assistant, was because he recognized it would be impossible to get a member of his Cabinet, if his plan goes through, to head this department who would be an expert on all things, unless he made the appointment from Congress, for of course here in Congress we have experts on everything. So for that reason, knowing that whoever might head this Department, could not be expected to be omnipotent and to know the answers to all problems, and especially to be an expert in the field of medicine and health, he has provided in this plan for the appointment of a Special Assistant with special professional qualifications. This Special Assistant is to act only as an adviser to the head of the Department who, of course, will not be expected to have these professional qualifications and professional knowledge of medicine and health and other technical matters; is that correct?

Mr. DODGE. That is correct. And with that he also suggested the appointment of the advisory committee on the other phase of education.

Mr. Brown of Ohio. Then in the educational field, feeling that probably the Department head would probably not be a school teacher or college professor-let us hope not—that therefore there would be an advisory commission set up where he or she could get professional





advice, that is, advice from professionals in the field of education; is that not correct?

Mr. DODGE. That I believe is correct.

Mr. Brown of Ohio. Then I presume that the head of this Department could be such type of an executive that he or she would exercise sound judgment and ordinary discretion, at least in considering the advice that he or she might receive, and in the end it would be the head of the Department, the Cabinet member, who would pass final judgment and would make recommendations to the President, himself, and to the Congress, as to what action might be taken in the fields coming under his jurisdiction.

Mr. DODGE. I believe so.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. The Special Assistant to the Secretary to be created here, or the advisory commission, would not have power to make policy, is that correct?

Mr. DODGE. That is right.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. They would not administer anything but would simply give professional help to and advice to the person who heads the Department, who is not presumed to be an expert on every single matter, any more than the President is. That is correct, is it not?

Mr. Dodge. I believe it is, and you draw a parallel there. The President of the United States could not be a technical expert on every subject connected with Government, and he takes advice from every quarter, including the Congress of the United States, and in that he is assisted in making decisions.

Mr. Brown of Ohio. And we created a Director of the Budget, you, Mr. Dodge, for the purpose of helping the President on budgetary matters. Of course, the other day we also provided for an economic adviser to the President; is that not correct !

Mr. DODGE. That is correct.

Mr. Brown of Ohio. So this is not an unusual procedure. It is not anything new, this idea of having an assistant to the head of a Department to advise in certain matters. That is done all throughout Government, is it not?

Mr. DODGE. I am sure my associates in government would join with me in the statement that no matter what position we hold we need advice and we welcome it.

Mr. Brown of Ohio. That situation has been recognized time after time in Congress by providing for these advisory groups, by law, as well as by executive action.

Mr. DODGE. That is correct.
Mr. Brown of Ohio. I hope this clears up thạt situation.

Mr. DODGE. And that is true in other departments. They have them not only in this department but in other departments.

Mr. Brown of Ohio. May I make one short statement, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Dawson of Illinois. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Brown of Ohio. On this particular point, yes.

Mr. Dawson of Illinois. Then that would justify the appointment ment of an adviser on education.

Mr. Brown of Ohio. I am sorry the gentleman was not listening. Instead of one assistant adviser on education the plan provides for a committee to advise on education.

Mr. Dawson of Illinois. But we pay this man. Why not pay a special assistant there? I think it is just as important as it is to provide a doctor.

Mr. Brown of Ohio. The gentleman well knows that there are various viewpoints across the country on education, and therefore it is given the broadest possible interpretation so as to encompass the views of the various States and the people on education throughout the country, so that is why there is the provision for an advisory committee.

Mr. Dawson of Illinois. That doesn't exist in the medical profession.

Mr. Brown of Ohio. No, I don't think so; not so much.

Let me go further, Mr. Dodge. I would like to say this, if I may, for the record: In this very room not too long ago a committee of the Congress, the so-called lobby committee, conducted an investigation into the activities of the head of the Federal Security Agency in connection with public health matters, in which it was clearly demonstrated by the testimony and by the record that the Federal Security Administrator had used his office, had used public funds, for the purpose of influencing legislation and, to speak plainly, to lobby for a socialized medicine bill, as it is called, or, as he called it, a government medicine bill. Let me express the hope that neither the Federal Security Agency as it is now constituted, nor the new Department, if it is created as provided in this plan, will ever engage in an activity such as that, which was contrary to every precept we have ever had as to the division of power between the legislative branch of government on the one hand, and the executive branch of government on the other hand. That is one activity I hope we can keep away from in the future, for it was one of the reasons why the Congress was opposed to the other reorganization plans mentioned a moment ago.

The CHAIRMAN. Assume that in 1954 the election goes the other way, then what are you going to do about it?

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I am not going to do anything about it. I will be back with you.

The CHAIRMAN. I am glad you have such confidence.

Mr. DonD. I note that the distinguished Congressman from Ohio was very active in the Hoover Commission matters and I want to be sure that I understand him correctly. Did I understand him to say that the Hoover Commission was not opposed to the creation of these new jobs between the head of the agency and the subordinates?

Mr. Brown of Ohio. I don't quite get your question. Did you say not opposed to the creation of the two positions?

Mr. Dopp. I have always understood that the Hoover Commission and the Citizens Committee were principally concerned with this matter.

Mr. Brown of Ohio. Let us differentiate. There was a Hoover Commission.

Mr. Dond. I will take them one at a time.

Mr. Brown of Ohio. The Hoover Commission had legal authority and the Committee for the Hoover Report was a very fine group, but they were different organizations.

Mr. Dodd. I would like to be straightened out if I have been in error. The Hoover Commission was very much in favor of and strongly recommended that we establish clear lines of power and it was opposed to the special assistant medical advisory position because he or she will stand between the Administrator and the Surgeon General. Isn't that the kind of thing that we were told the Commission was opposed to?

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. The Hoover Commission recommended a clear line of command. In some instances we recommended the creation of new and additional Assistant Secretaries. There was no prohibition in any recommendation of the Hoover Commission, that I can recall, against the appointment of some person for a specific job as an assistant. In fact, we provided in some instances that there should be special duties assigned to these assistants, such as personnel.

Mr. Dond. I want to make an observation on that point.

Senator SMITH of Maine. If this is going to be prolonged, could we wait until 2 o'clock this afternoon? The cochairman is very anxious to recess so that we could get back before 2 o'clock. Would you like to complete it now?

Mr. Judd. Mr. Chairman, we haven't had an opportunity to be heard the first time yet.

Mr. Brown of Ohio. I have completed my statement.

Senator Smith of Maine. We will start again at 2 o'clock this afternoon. For clarification purposes, the cochairman has several questions she would like to ask Mr. Dodge at this point. I ask unanimous consent that this be permitted.

I have in my hands some questions on the Office of Education and I ask unanimous consent to request Mr. Dodge to provide answers for the hearing at this point. They are very brief.

(Questions from Office of Education and answers for Mr. Dodge follow :)

QUESTIONS ON THE OFFICE OF EDUCATION It has been reported that the morale of the Office of Education is at an all-time low, due to uncertainty in tenure, and due to a recent reduction in the staff. Personnel were terminated in the GI Education Division, and some permanent employees with long experience were separated from the office. We cannot afford to give the loyal teachers and educators of the country the impression that the Federal Government is not interested in education, or in the Office of Education.

1. What steps are you taking to conserve the fine staff of the Office of Education until the new fiscal year starts?

2. What steps are you taking to assure the loyal staff that their jobs are not in jeopardy?

3. I have been told that there are some unused funds in vocational education that may be transferred to other divisions of the Office of Education to help meet this financial crisis. Are you making a determined effort to transfer these funds?


The present budgetary problem in the Office of Education arises from the refusal of the Congress to appropriate funds required to make up a deficiency occasioned by the Veterans Readjustment Act of 1952. That act placed certain responsibilities upon the Office of Education in connection with the approval of institutions for participation in veterans educational programs. The act was passed too late for funds to be provided in the 1953 budget for the Office of Education, and the Bureau of the Budget approved a deficiency apportionment of the appropriation of the Office of Education so that the work could be started.

Within the past 2 weeks, the Congress considered supplemental estimates required to make good the deficiency in the appropriation for the Office of Edu

cation. A full hearing was held by the House Appropriations Committee, and the amount was denied as unjustified by the law. On the Senate side, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee requested the views of the new Director of the Bureau of the Budget concerning this item, but the committee did not wait for the Director's answer although a prompt and favorable reply was prepared and transmitted to the chairman, and it likewise omitted funds.

As a result, the Office of Education finds itself in a great difficulty and is obliged to make serious reductions in the staff of the Office. The Bureau of the Budget believes that since the congressional action was taken so recently in the light of knowledge of its consequences, there is no new basis for resubmission of the supplemental estimate for reconsideration. The Bureau of the Budget still believes that the Office of Education needs these funds to meet its responsibilities under the various laws which it administers, and if the Appropriations Committees believe they have no basis for reconsideration in the absence of another submission, the Bureau is ready to comply. The necessary funds could be transferred out of balances in the appropriation for vocational education.


The traditional function of the Office of Education has been to collect statistics and information for the use and guidance of State and local school systems and to serve the schools on request in an advisory capacity. Is this to continue to be the main function of the Office of Education or is the Office to become more and more an agency for dispersal of funds for special programs set up by Congress, such as aid to federally impacted areas, as would seem to be indicated when cuts in personnel are made in the permanent staff of the Office of Education?


The way in which an agency applies a reduction in appropriations is determined by the agency itself. However, the agency must apply this reduction in such a way as to carry out as far as possible the total of the clearly defined programs for which it is responsible under law. In the case of the Office of Education, this includes financial responsibility and accountability in 1953 for $60 million for maintenance and operation of schools, $140 million for school construction, and $18 million for vocational education.


What will be the function and composition of the Advisory Commission to the Secretary? How many members? From what fields? Function?





In his message transmitting Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1953, the President said :

“There should be in the Department an Advisory Committee on Education, made up of persons chosen by the Secretary from outside the Federal Government, which would advise the Secretary with respect to the educational programs of the Department. I recommend the enactment of legislation authorizing the defrayal of the expenses of this committee. The creation of such a committee as an advisory body to the Secretary will help insure the maintenance of responsibility for the public educational system in State and local governments while preserving the national interest in education through appropriate Federal action."

The staff of the Federal Security Agency is preparing a recommendation as to legislation, setting forth appropriate details of selection, appointment, and compensation for this proposed committee. I understand that this recommendation will be available shortly after Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1953 has been acted upon.

Senator SMITH of Maine. Also I ask unanimous consent to include the statement of the American Medical Association, dated March 16, 1953, signed by Elmer L. Henderson, M. D., past president.

(The statement referred to is as follows:)

« PreviousContinue »