Page images


I was wondering why.

Mr. DODGE. Merely to strengthen the general distribution of functions for the Administrator.

Mr. CONDON. In other words, one change between this plan and the one that President Truman submitted in 1950 is that you, in presenting your plan, feel that it is unnecessary to spell out the duties of these Assistant Secretaries; is that correct?

Mr. DODGE. In the area of administrative operations and as assistants to the Secretary.

Mr. Condon. All right. I am sorry to interrupt you.

Would you mind going ahead with the others? There was a $5,000 increase there.

Mr. DODGE. Yes. Another assistant head of the Federal Security Agency under its present form, appointed by the Administrator, has a salary of $10,000, and he become an Assistant Secretary at a salary of $15,000 with an increase.

Mr. CONDON. That is a $5,000 increase to some person now performing the general functions, if not the exact functions; is that correct?

Mr. DODGE. That is right.

The fifth one is the Commissioner for Social Security, who was appointed by the Administrator at $14,800 per annum, which stays the

Mr. CONDON. There is no increase in that wage?
Mr. DODGE. That is right.

That is a supergrade status of GS-18, and then the addition is the Special Assistant to the Secretary for Health and Medical Affairs, appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate with a salary of $15,000.

Mr. Condon. That is a new position which is not now being filled? Mr. DODGE. That is right.

Mr. CONDON. Am I correct in my understanding that, with the exception of that Special Assistant, all of those other positions were called for in Reorganization Plan No. 27 in 1950?

Mr. DODGE. No, except this: Under that plan there was one Assistant Secretary. In this case there are two.

Mr. Condon. In other words, President Truman's plan proposed to eliminate 1 high rank, and you are adding 2 new high officials where President Truman proposed to eliminate 1; is that correct?

Mr. DODGE. Well, except that in the plan you speak of there was a provision for an Administrative Assistant Secretary which is replaced by one of the Assistant Secretaries.

Mr. CONDON. I see; so that the only real change, the only real difference, is the addition of this one $15,000 a year job; is that right?

Mr. Dodge. That is right.

Mr. Condon. One further question. Will there be any tendency or any need or will it be the fact that when you elevate your top officials by paying them more it will cause the assistants also to be elevated all the way down the line?

In other words, by placing this agency in Cabinet status, does that mean that there will be higher paid jobs at lower echelons in the agency?

Mr. DODGE. No; I don't see any reason why it should. They are all under civil-service status as it stands.


Mr. CONDON. So that no one will receive a wage increase except four people that you specifically mentioned, plus the creation of the $15,000 a year job; is that correct ?

Mr. DODGE. So far as I know, except normal wage increases that would go with service and responsibility.

Mr. Condon. Wait a minute; that adds up to only $27,500 according to my computation. Is there another $5,000?

Mr. DODGE. Well, let me see.

Mr. CONDON. I have $5,000 to the Cabinet member, and I have an Under Secretary who will get $2,500 increase, and I have two assistants at $5,000 apiece, and a new job at $15,000.

Mr. DODGE. Well, as I have them here, the first one is $5,000; the second one is $2,500; the next one is $5,000; the next one is $5,000; the next one is zero; the next one is $15,000—$32,500.

Mr. Condon. I see; $32,500. I just couldn't add. That was my fault.

Now, I notice one other rather significant or maybe it isn't significant–change in comparing the plan that President Truman presented over here and the plan that President Eisenhower is giving us now.

As I went through it, I could not find any counterpart of section 6 of Reorganization Plan No. 1 that you are presenting to us.

That section provides as follows:

The Secretary may, from time to time, make such provisions as the Secretary deems appropriate, authorizing the performance of any of the functions of the Secretary by any other officer or by any agency or employee of the department.

Does that mean that if Congress places a certain responsibility on the head of this program that that responsibility can be delegated by the Secretary without regard to what Congress has instructed in enabling legislation?

Mr. Dodge. You can delegate the job of performing the work, but you cannot delegate the responsibility, particularly if it is already established by statute.

Mr. CONDON. What was the purpose of putting that in? That was not part of President Truman's plan. I am just wondering what you have in mind under section 6.

Mr. DODGE. Because in any administrative operation the authority to delegate functions serves two purposes: First, to relieve the Administrator of certain mechanical requirements of the job; and second, to more clearly establish the functions of the individuals and their responsibility.

Mr. CONDON. I assume that we all know that when we say, for example, under existing law, the Federal Security Administrator is charged with the responsibility of doing so and so, and we obviously expect him to work with and through subordinates and to have reports prepared by others, perhaps, but the authority and the responsibility is on the Secretary.

Mr. DODGE. That is right.
Mr. Condon. Now, is this an effort to escape from that?
Mr. DODGE. No.

Mr. CONDON. Why is it necessary at all? Because it seems to me obviously we know that the Secretary is going to work through other individuals in the Agency on many of the things that we expect him to have responsibility for.

Why do you need additional statutory authority such as that contained in section 6?

Mr. Dodge. We will quote you a point on that.

Mr. FINAN. If I may, Mr. Congressman, I would like to make a couple of observations in connection with that question. First of all, section 2 (c) of Reorganization Plan No. 27 of 1950 contains a provision that reads as follows:

The Secretary may, from time to time, make such provisions as he shall deem appropriate authorizing the performance by any other officer or by any agency or employee of the Department of any function of the Secretary.

Mr. CONDON. I see. Then that was taken, word for word, from President Truman's proposal.

Mr. FINAN. Yes, sir. One of the reasons for that is that while it is true that the statutory functions of the Public Health Service and the Office of Education are in those constituents of the Federal Security Agency, it is also true that the bulk of the social-security functions are placed by law in the Administrator and are now delegated to subordinates for their performance.

Under the terms of this plan those functions would then rest in the Secretary who, of necessity, in order to have them performed, would delegate them to subordinate officers and agencies of the new department. In other words, the situation would prevail in the new department exactly paralleling what exists today in the Federal Security Agency.

Senator Smiru of Maine. Will the Congressman yield?
Mr. CONDON. Yes.

Senator Smitii of Maine. I have before me an analysis of the top positions, the 6 appointed by the President, and comparison of the 3 plans concerning the positions taken from the overall study. I ask unanimous consent that it be placed in the record at this time, as it will help in the understanding of this.

Mr. Hoffman.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection.

Senator Smith of Maine. Without objection, it will be included as exhibit C.

(President Eisenhower's plan to elevate Federal Security Agency to a Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and comparative analysis of Reorganization Plan 1 of 1953 with plan No. 27 of 1950 and plan No. 1 of 1949, exhibit C, are as follows:)

EXHIBIT C.-President Eisenhower's plan to elevate the Federal Security Agency

to a Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Comparative analysis of Reorganization Plan 1 of 1953 with Plan 27 of 1950 and

Plan 1 of 1949

[blocks in formation]

Source: Prepared by Glenn K. Shriver, Senate Committee on Government Operations.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Judd.
Mr. CONDON. I am not finished.

The CHAIRMAN. You have had 12 minutes, and if you would just as soon wait until the next round

Mr. Condon. All right.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Judd.

Mr. Judd. Mr. Dodge, you said this morning that there were about 37,500 people in the Federal Security Agency, employees and executives. Have you a rough breakdown of how many are associated with the health activities, how many with the education activities, how many with the social security activities, approximately?

Mr. DODGE. Well, yes. The total is 37,538, of which 15,170—some 40 percent, approximately-is in the Public Health Service, and the remainder is spread among the other services.

The largest other number is 14,288, connected with the social security and Bureau of Old Age Insurance.

Mr. Judd. Yes. Now, how about the budgets? Do you have a breakdown as to roughly how much of total expenditures or funds handled by this department are in the field of health and how much in education and how much in welfare?

Mr. DODGE. Well, the total estimated expenditures for 1953 and 1954 are both in the range of $1,900,000,000.

Mr. JUDD. The total?

Mr. DODGE. That is the total. Of this amount roughly $1,800,000,000 or $1,770,000,000 is in grants and aid to States.

Mr. JUDD. For what purpose?

Mr. DODGE. Well, the principal amounts are the Bureau of Public Assistance, $1,340,000,000; the Public Health Service grants are $155,000,000; Vocational Rehabilitation, $23,000,000; Office of Education, $215,000,000.

Those are the principal Mr. Judd. Office of Education, $215,000,000 ? Mr. DODGE. Those are the principal components of the $1,800,000,000?

Mr. Jud. So that in funds expended, I would just guess roughly, about 80 percent are in the social security field.

Mr. DODGE. Well, as a matter of fact, according to my computations here, of the total expenditures, about 93 percent of them are in grants and various forms of aid and in other administrative expenses.

Mr. Judd. Yes, but you said $155,000,000 of that was in public health grants. I was trying to break down, if I could, about how much of this money would be in the social security field, how much in the health, and how much in the educational fields respectively.

Mr. DODGE. I don't have figured out the percentages here, but in the public-assistance field it is

Mr. JUDD. 1.3 out of 1.9?
Mr. DODGE. Yes.
Mr. JUDD. Which is about 70 percent.
Mr. DODGE. Seventy percent of the total.
Mr. Judd. Yes. Well, is that one reason, perhaps, why a special

JUDD assistant was provided for the health program, because, after all, the title is "Health, Education and Welfare.” Welfare is down at the tail end, but the tail end has, by all odds, the biggest share of the money.

Mr. DODGE. That is right, but the burden of the payments under the welfare end of it—that is, the old-age insurance and things of that kind-are statutory obligations.

The others are interrelated with special services rather than payments.

Mr. Judd. That is, there is not much influence public opinion or develop sentiment or support or opposition to the program through the payment of obligations or statutory obligations as there is to various other

programs. Mr. DODGE. Right.

Mr. Judd. Now, it was said this morning that the quality of American medical service was the world's best. Have you any suggestions as to why it is the best in the world?

[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »