Mr. LANTAFF. That is an additional cost?

Mr. DODGE. It is additional cost.

Mr. LANTAFF. So that you only consider salaries and haven't considered the administrative costs that go with setting up those offices. They will have secretaries to work for them, and office space, and there will be other administrative costs.

I assume from the objections filed to the reorganization plan previously considered by Congress that the administrative overhead compares equally with the cost of the salary. So that when you consider your administrative overhead the cost will be about double what you have estimated. Is that right?

Mr. DODGE. I am afraid that is not right, because, as I said, after all, you are just transferring names and functions. They already have the administrative apparatus that goes with the jobs.

Mr. LANTAFF. If we are just doing that it merely means we are taking out two people who are under civil service and replacing them with assistant secretaries who are not going to have civil-service status?

Mr. DODGE. The change does contemplate making two present civilservice status people assistant secretaries. That is right.

Mr. LANTAFF. Then we should put that down as a fourth reason. Mr. DODGE. Pardon?

Mr. LANTAFF. Then we should put that down as a fourth reason for the advocacy of this particular plan.

Mr. DODGE. No. As a matter of fact, not, because I believe that both those positions are vacant at the moment.

Mr. LANTAFF. That is all.

Senator SMITH of Maine. Mr. Brownson.

Mr. BROWNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Dodge, is it your thought that after this Reorganization Plan No. 1 is passed that it may be that Congress will be approached with further requests for legislation to reorganize this new department we are setting up?

Mr. DODGE. I have had no intimation to that effect.

Mr. BROWNSON. In other words, the thing that disturbs me is this: I just came back from my office and have a desk full of mail from people who didn't vote last fall for reorganizing only superficially an agency that existed under the Truman administration. They wanted a complete reorgainzation which would provide economy and efficiency. From what they have read in the papers they are not satisfied that this plan No. 1 is a complete reorganization because we are lifting up all those people we protested against during the campaign and moving them over bodily into a new agency with a better administrative setup.

It disturbs me to know that every time we reorganize something we do not eliminate anything. I can't see how we are ever going to get any economy if we don't start eliminating parts of the departments and agencies as we reorganize.

Mr. DODGE. One of the purposes of this is to provide an administrative and executive setup that can lead to those considerations.

Mr. BROWNSON. You do predict that this will, after a reasonable period of operation, result in economy and that steps can be taken to get rid of some personnel who have proven not to be satisfactory?

Mr. DODGE. I am sure it will within the limits Congress has set.
Mr. LANTAFF. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BROWNSON. Yes.

Mr. LANTAFF. In that connection you are vigorously pursuing the duties contemplated of you by Congress to assure that these reductions are made?

Mr. DODGE. That is my intention.

Mr. BROWNSON. Thank you very much.

Senator SMITH of Maine. Mr. Hoffman, Congressman Brownson has completed his questioning. Do you have another member?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. We have another member of the minority here-Congressman Holtzman.

Mr. HOLTZMAN. Mr. Dodge, we are all agreed now, are we not, that this plan is substantially the same as the 1950 plan which was submitted by President Truman? Is that corect?

Mr. DODGE. Substantially, I would say.

Mr. HOLTZMAN. I should like to read the conclusion of the Republican minority in connection with the 1950 plan, and I quote:

In the absence of conclusive evidence to show the need for elevation of the present Federal Security Agency to Cabinet rank, the House of Representatives should reject the plan by approval of House Resolution 647.

Has anything, Mr. Dodge, transpired since the writing of this minority opinion to change the situation?

Mr. DODGE. I think two things, sir: A change of administration and a change of administrators.

Mr. HOLTZMAN. So that you stand for the proposition that we are a government of people rather than a government of laws.

Mr. DODGE. No, sir, I do not. I think perhaps under different circumstances, if I can believe what I have been told, the plan presented a year ago might have been approved.

The CHAIRMAN. Is that all?

Mr. HOLTZMAN. No further questions.

Mrs. HARDEN. Mr. Chairman, I am going to support the Reorganization Plan No. 1. I have more confidence in Mrs. Hobby than I have in Oscar Ewing. I believe that my question has been partially answered. It is: What economy would be evidenced if this plan is adopted?

Mr. DODGE. As I said before, it is very difficult to spell out those things before Mrs. Hobby and her organization have an opportunity really to go to work on that particular problem. As a pure business proposition I would never hesitate to spend $32,500 a year to get the kind of administration that could lead to economy.

Mrs. HARDEN. Thank you. I have no further questions, Mr. Chair

man.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Judd, you had some further questions, did you? Mr. JUDD. Yes. Thank you for yielding at this time.

Mr. Dodge, I was interested in your statement about the fact that there were two reasons why there was a different situation now than there was in 1950. I think the third one is even more cogent. That is, the reasons for the change in administration.

The American people rejected the philosophy that the whole previous administration advocated and, therefore, a new administration is not following the need, but it is following the mandate of our

people in a democratically arrived at decision. The people have confidence in the philosophy of the administration they chose. They did not have confidence in the philosophy and behavior of the administration which they rejected. To me that is the most important thing in the whole picture.

Mr. HOLTZMAN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. JUDD. Yes.

Mr. HOLTZMAN. I might remark the American people are following the precedent set by President Truman in his 1950 reorganization plan.

Mr. JUDD. President Truman was not elected in 1950, as I recall it. I would like to ask Mr. Dodge a few questions about his statement on page 3. Do you have a copy of that statement?

Mr. DODGE. Yes.

Mr. JUDD. On page 3, where you are reviewing the functions of these agencies, in your first paragraph there, in the middle of the paragraph you say—

stimulation of education and the provision of financial assistance for its development * *

Just what does that mean? Does that mean Federal aid to education? Is that understood?

Mr. DODGE. Yes. Surely. As it is now included in the operation of the Agency too.

Mr. JUDD. All you mean there is carrying on the financial assistance program that has already been adopted by the Congress and the country?

Mr. DODGE. And whatever additions the Congress sees wise to make. Mr. JUDD. But that does not imply they are going to expand the program of Federal aid to education, does it? The word "development" might imply that you are planning to expand it in the sense of the bills we have had every 2 years for 30 years wanting the Federal Government to start paying portions of the salaries of teachers in all States of the Union.

Mr. DODGE. I do not believe that the Agency can do that without the action of Congress.

Mr. JUDD. I know it cannot, but the words "stimulation of education" are in there and I do not know whether "stimulation" goes over to the "provision of financial assistance for its development," or not. I think it ought to carry out its mandate, but not to stimulate the public sentiment to try for more money to be sent to Washington, a portion of which is to be sent back to help pay the teachers.

Mr. DODGE. May I call your attention to the fact that the statement says, "stimulation of education," and goes on to say, "and the provision of financial assistance for its development."

Mr. JUDD. For its development.

Mr. DODGE. Yes.

Mr. JUDD. The other or last clause of that paragraph says, "and the financing of public assistance activities." There you mean the same thing?

Mr. DODGE. Exactly.

Mr. JUDD. Just carrying on of the public assistance activities as they are unless the Congress or appropriate agencies make a change in them?

Mr. DODGE. I might answer it this way: This is a mere summary of functions.

Mr. JUDD. That is what I wanted to make clear. One more question.

To come back to this question of the special assistant to the Secretary, which says that this person must be chosen from among persons who are recognized leaders in the medical field with wide nongovernmental experience, do you think under that language anybody could ever be appointed to this special assistant position who was not a physician.

Mr. DODGE. It might not be a practicing physician, but he might have had wide medical experience.

Mr. JUDD. That is right, but this is what I am referring to: You get some fellow, for example, who is a State secretary of a medical association, or a medical society, and many of those people are not physicians. Or, he may be the editor of a journal and may not be a physician. Yet you would say that he was a recognized leader in the medical field.

The reason I ask this is because I want him to be a doctor, because only a physician can understand an awful lot about the practice of medicine, which is important if we are to have the kind of health we want. If you were to turn it around and say, "who are recognized leaders with wide nongovernmental experience in the medical field," I would like it much better. It says, "who are recognized leaders in the medical field with wide nongovernmental experience." It can be the editor of a medical journal, or a Ph. D., or something.

Is it your understanding this is to be a person who is not an executive, or a promoter of a medical society, or something of that sort, but a man who has been in the business of administering or providing medical care to people?

Mr. DODGE. I can't prophesy the interpretation to be put on these words, but I would remind you that this is subject to the interpretation put on by the Administrator or Secretary and the President, with the consent of the Senate.

Mr. JUDD. Of course, that is what I do not like. It is the one thing about this language which I do not see why they did not say it, that it had to be a person with medical training and medical experience. Mr. DODGE. I would assume, Mr. Judd, that that was the intention, from what I know about it.

Mr. JUDD. I assume so, but I do not suppose there is any way to amend it. But just as you said, somebody could get in there who did not interpret it the way you do, and under this language they could appoint most anyone, I am afraid.

Mr. DODGE. I do not believe that that is the intention, Mr. Judd. Mr. JUDD. I think, Mr. Chairman, in our committee report we ought to make clear that that is the interpretation that this committee has on it, if it does have that, before we move that the House act upon it.

You said in answer to my question about providing educational and public assistance and health, and so forth, that a great deal of work of this, that is, most of the work of this whole Department is in assisting the States and in carrying out a program where the Federal Government's role is essentially secondary. As I understand it, that is one reason why these were put together into somewhat of a wastebasket.

Mr. DODGE. Correct.

Mr. JUDD. Because it puts together all of those functions where the Federal Government does not have a primary responsiblity, but a secondary function. In the Department of State the Federal Government is primary. The Departmentof Defense has to be primary. The Department of the Treasury has to be primary, and so on. But in this Agency all of its work is in assisting private and local agencies in carrying on their functions. Is that correct, Mr. Dodge?

Mr. DODGE. That is correct.

Mr. JUDD. Therefore there is an advantage in having all of these together in the Cabinet in a particular pigeon-hole where everybody understands that the functions carried on by this Department are secondary and in assistance of groups of citizens, or cities, municipalities, States, and so on. Is that correct?

Mr. DODGE. That is correct.

Mr. JUDD. Thank you very much.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Brooks.

Mr. BROOKS. I have no questions.

Senator SMITH of Maine. Mr. Chairman, may I say a word?
The CHAIRMAN. Certainly.

Senator SMITH of Maine. Mr. Dodge, this noon I made a statement that we hoped to conclude the hearings this afternoon. I should have included the words, "as set up for today." A list of witnesses was handed to me and I intended to say we would hope to hear all of them today and then recess to the call of the chairman of the House and Senate committees.

I would like to ask one question here, if I may. What are the plans for General Counsel, Solicitor or Chief Legal Officer? Is it planned to set up such a position?

Mr. DODGE. I am not aware of it. I do not know.

Senator SMITH of Maine. As it stands then, the General Counsel, or the Solicitor, would be as it is at the present time? There would be no way of changing the General Counsel or the Solicitor of the various agencies?

Mr. DODGE. To the Federal Security Administrator?

Senator SMITH of Maine. Yes.

Mr. DODGE. NO. They are subject to the appointment of the Administrator or Secretary.

Senator SMITH of Maine. Thank you.

Mr. CONDON. Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Condon.

Mr. CONDON. Mr. Dodge, I want to pursue the matter of cost one step further. I believe you have $32,500 now. You stated that that would be all the people on the payroll. Is it not a fact that one of the jobs which we created was for $15,000 a year, so that presumably the administrative cost of that job would be added in the ratio Mr. Lantaff referred to?

Mr. DODGE. I said with that execption.

Mr. CONDON. That would move it up another $15,000, up to $47,000. Isn't that correct?

Mr. DODGE. I do not know. It would all depend on what internal arrangements are made in the Department. It might be possible, I say, to provide this new appointment with secretarial and other assistants without adding to the expenses of the Department at all.