« PreviousContinue »
Mr. Donge. I would not attempt to pose as an expert on that except general knowledge.
Mr. Judd. Well, heretofore it has been in the hands of the medical profession, hasn't it?
Mr. DODGE. Pardon?
Mr. Judd. The development of American medicine has been in the hands of the medical profession, has it not?
Mr. DoDGE. I would say so.
Mr. Judd. It turns out to be the best in the world, we are told this morning
Mr. DODGE. That is right.
Mr. Judd. Is there any reason why our medical care should be taken out of the hands that have given us the best in the world?
Mr. DODGE. I don't see any proposal to that effect.
Mr. Judd. There was quite some anxiety here this morning that the inedical profession was involved, as to the quality and kind of medical care we would have in this country if a doctor would be in the position where he would have the ear of the head of this department, and I just have to put a couple of ideas on the record at that point. I mean, it is said that the American Medical Association is putting up a hue and cry against the medical
The CHAIRMAN. There is altogether too much static in the back of the room there. It is difficult to hear the questions.
Mr. JUDD. About the medical profession being put in with these others, and it was said that there was opposition by the medical profession, creating a big hue and cry.
Well, there was a hue and cry because there ought to be a hue and cry, and putting in these special assistants, as I understand it, was not to placate the opposition, but it was to correct a defect in the previous reorganization plans that had come here to make sure that those giving us the best medical care in the world would have a chance to make sure that we continue to have the best medical care in the world, so that it wasn't opposition in an arbitrary sense; it was an attempt to get good legislation, and I can't allow it to go unchallenged—the whole implication of some of the discussion this morning.
The medical profession would be derelict in its duty if it were not seeking to correct a weakness which it properly pointed out and which I think the bill moves a long way to correct.
Again it was said this morning that the special assistant would be between, say, the Surgeon General and the Department. On page 3 of the President's letter it says: The Surgeon General, Commissioner of Education, and the Commissioner of Social Security will all have direct access to the SecretarySo that it is not that the assistant to the Secretary will be between in the line of command, but that the system vill be between the Secretary and the heads of these various divisions.
Mr. Dodge. That was made specific in the President's statement and is not even suggested in the plan.
Mr. JUDD. But it is understood that any proposals, even that are set by the Surgeon General of the Public Health Service to the Secretary will be brought to the attention of this special assistant insofar as they affect health matters, medical matters, so that he will know what is being proposed by whatever person or agency or division and
will be able to make recommendations and give advice on the basis of his professional knowledge; isn't that true?
Mr. Dodge. If he is to give advice, naturally he would have to know those plans.
Mr. Judd. I want to pursue another line for a moment. Do you think there is any real value in having in the Cabinet, exposed to all the other leading figures in the administration, the person that is to be the head of this Department? That is, the person responsible for carrying out these functions; that is, is there less danger that the head of the Department in the Cabinet, with all the various points that he represented, would go off building a separate empire or get off into socialized medicine, which is a thing that is always raised, than if he is off by himself in a separate agency, as the present Federal Security Agency, and is not a part of the Cabinet and is almost a free agent?
Mr. DODGE. Well, obviously, as a member of the Cabinet, you have two gains, as I see it: One, the importance and scope of the operations of this agency are brought to the attention for discussion of the other members of the Cabinet, and proposals connecting it, and in that they are better informed and able to carry on their duties as a Cabinet, and in the second place, it exposes the Secretary to the general attitudes and questioning of the members of the Cabinet on any proposal which is contrary to the best interests as it is interpreted.
Mr. JUD. So that actually when the suggestion was made that one reason-well, I will skip that and let your answer stand.
Mr. Donge. I might supplement that, Mr. Judd, if I may, by perhaps clearing up what appears to be a general area of confusion. I do not believe that the mere creation of this as a Department makes Mrs. Hobby a member of the Cabinet. She has been made a member of the Cabinet. I do not understand that there is any law which specifies who the members of the Cabinet shall be, that they consist of any group of advisers the President may wish to select and use for that purpose.
Mrs. Hobby was invited to do that when she became Administrator and that has not changed.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Judd, will you yield right there?
The CHAIRMAN. Doesn't section 1 of title 5 define what is and what is not the department?
Mr. Donge. Yes; I am sure it does, but I don't think
The CHAIRMAN. The only way to bring this in is by the first sentence there, “Creation of Department Secretary. There is hereby established an executive department.” The word "executive” is the only way that brings this one in.
Does that automatically make her a member of the Cabinet ?
Mr. DODGE. I don't know that it does, Mr. Hoffman. I haven't yet had anyone point out to me any statute or anything else which defines the membership of the Cabinet.
This does make a department, an executive department, but as I stated a few minutes ago, as far as the administration is concerned, she already is a member of the Cabinet.
The CHAIRMAN. Does she vote as a member of the Cabinet?
The CHAIRMAN. I thought she came in as a sort of invited guest. Maybe I am mistaken.
Mr. DODGE. I am sorry. I am there, too, and I'm
The CHAIRMAN. You wouldn't be if you were not the head of the executive department; would you?
Mr. JUDD. He isn't the head.
Mr. JUD. The fact is, though, that when the Federal Security Agency is given department status, she is on a par as far as salary, rank, and so forth, and in every sense an equal in prerogatives with Cabinet status. Whoever is the head of this Agency is therefore given more prestige and more standing and is on an equal basis. Is that correct?
Mr. DODGE. That is correct. It puts her post on a par with the other major executive departments of the Government.
Senator SMITH of Maine. As I understand it, there isn't any law setting up the members in the President's Cabinet. That is entirely the President's prerogative. Is that correct?
Mr. DODGE. That is as I understand it.
The CHAIRMAN. That is quite correct, but title 22 of section 5 fixes the compensation of the heads of departments.
Mr. Dawson of Illinois. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Judd. I recall, Mr. Chairman, when we passed the bill to unify the armed services we set up the Secretary of Defense, who is a member of the Cabinet, and the Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of the Air Force and the Secretary of the Navy, who are also called Secretaries, but they are not members of the Cabinet. They are on a little lower level as far as standing and rank and prestige are concerned.
Now I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. Dawson of Illinois. I am always intrigued by the logic and resourcefulness of my colleague. I was intrigued by your opening statement and I want to know, do you favor the Blue Cross health plan rather than the U. N. health plan?
Mr. JUDD. I certainly do.
Mr. McDonough. The question I had in mind was in line with the thinking of Mr. Judd that of course this adds to the prestige of the head of the Department, and we hope it will increase the efficiency and help serve the public better.
Concerning those who are under the jurisdiction of the Secretary, will those people get better service than they are now getting as a result of this Cabinet status? If so, shouldn't we consider the Veterans Administration in the same light and put it in the same category? By putting it on Cabinet status?
Mr. DODGE. I think it adds to the morale, let us say, of the staff of a department, to be put into this category. The question of service, I think, is a practical one and depends on the way the department is administered
Mr. McDonough. You think that that same thing would apply to the Veterans' Administration?
Mr. Dodge. I have no opinion on that.
Mr. Judd. This makes the Federal Security Agency more a part of the total team than it has been heretofore. Isn't that true! It integrates it more legally and officially, as well as from the standpoint of courtesy than it has been heretofore.
Mr. DODGE. That is one of the objectives.
Mr. Judd. It gives it more prestige and also subjects it to a little more control and influence from the whole team.
Mr. DODGE. That is right.
Senator SMITH of Maine. The chairman of the House committee advises me more than 5 minutes has been consumed.
The CHAIRMAN. Ten minutes.
Senator SMITH of Maine. More than 10 minutes. Will the Congressman withhold the rest of his questions until other members have had a chance ?
Mr. JUDD. Yes.
Mr. Dodge, from your statement I conclude that you are advancing three primary reasons for seeking approval of this reorganization plan. The first is that it will improve the public standing of this important agency,
Secondly, it will be easier to attract the most highly qualified persons to fill the major administrative positions in the Department.
Mr. DODGE. Right.
Mr. LANTAFF. And thirdly, to increase the effectiveness in the administration of common services by authorizing the new Secretary to “establish central administrative services in the field of procurement, budgeting,” and other fields.
Just what do you mean by "establishing administrative services in the field of procurement"?
Mr. DODGE. That and the other terms are the general business terms used in connection with the services that are common to every department of business, or an agency. That is, there are multitudes of things, and particularly in a large department—but even in a small one-that are of common use, and that is the area of personnel, of .supplies, of equipment, and everything that is of common use to the agency in all departments.
Mr. LANTAFF. Do you propose to set up a purchasing department, or department for procurement that will procure these common use items for all agencies within the Department?
Mr. DODGE. It does not set anything up as a matter of fact. It just authorizes whatever action is appropriate to an effective result.
Mr. LANTAFF. But you cite that as one of your reasons for setting this up: That it will increase the effectiveness in the administration of this particular organization by enabling the Secretary to establish central administrative services in the field of procurement.
If that is the philosophy and thinking in setting this up, it might be subjected to some of the criticism directed at a prior reorganization
plan by some of the distinguished members of the committee and the distinguished majority leader wherein it was said:
Reorganization Plan No. 27 is the answer to the bureaucrat's prayer. It provides increased power with which to extend the activities, influence, and payrolls of existing agencies, which every bureaucrat seeks. That is virtually all it does.
The plan in scarcely any particular follows any recommendation of the Hoover Commission.
I am wondering in view of the fact that the Congress set up the General Services Administration to secure the type of supplies you say will be secured by a separate setup within the new department, why we are abandoning that particular department when it was set up to cut down the costs of purchasing within the Federal Government?
Mr. DODGE. This is strictly an internal arrangement. It has nothing to do with cutting across the lines of the General Services Administration.
Mr. LANTAFF. I still wonder what kind of supplies you intend purchasing and what type of agency you intend setting up in this Department.
Mr. DODGE. We do not do this for the purpose of setting up things, but for the purpose of consolidating and eliminating whatever may exist in that area.
Mr. LANTAFF. That is my next question: What independent bureau, commission, or agency, is eliminated or abolished by this plan?
Mr. DODGE. None.
Mr. LANTAFF. Then the only purpose of the plan as proposed to Congress is to provide an administrative superstructure for the Federal Security Agency at an increased cost, initially at least, to the taxpayer?
Mr. DODGE. No, I don't agree to that. The purpose of the plan is to provide a large agency with the administrative structure appropriate to the agency in the form of a department through which we can add better administration, more efficiency, and reduced costs.
Mr. LANTAFF. In that connection, as the Director of the Bureau of the Budget, what reductions have you proposed or do you think you will propose in the budget pending before Congress for the Federal Security Administration?
Mr. DODGE. The Federal Security Administration budget has not yet been reviewed. I expect to do it this week.
Mr. LANTAFF. Therefore, you do not know at the present time the total reduction you propose in the Federal Security Agency?
Mr. DODGE. Not at the moment.
Mr. LANTAFF. In effect, is it not true that we are merely putting an administrative superstructure on the Federal Security Agency and not abolishing or consolidating a single independent bureau, commission, or board?
Mr. DODGE. We are not putting on a large superstructure. We are transferring what is there from an agency to a department and changing the status of certain individuals to a departmental status. The only superstructure of any kind that is being added to it is in the form of a special assistant,
Mr. LANTAFF. But it is going to cost more?