of the Agency, the policies it was following, and the persons who were in charge, and therefore the fact that the words mean the same doesn't mean that the two situations are the same. It is justifiable and important to do it now where I think it would have been very unwise to do it in 1950.

Mrs. HOBBY. Thank you.

Senator SMITH of Maine. Mr. Hoffman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Lantaff.

Mr. LANTAFF. Mrs. Hobby, I want to congratulate you on your selection as an Administrator. We all have confidence in you, and I know you are going to do a job for all of us, a job that all of us and all the American people expect you to do.

The one observation that I was interested in was the observation that was made that the passage of this particular reorganization plan would enable you to get your team on the field, so to speak.

Now, according to other evidence which has been presented to the committee here, under existing laws, and under the existing organization of the Department, you do now have the authority to appoint your Deputy Administrator, your General Counsel, the Commissioner of Social Security, the Chief of the Children's Bureau, as appointed by the President, confirmed by the Senate; Surgeon General by the President, confirmed by the Senate; the Commissioner of Food and Drug Administration by the Administrator and the Commissioner of Education by the President, confirmed by the Senate.

So, it would appear to me that, under the existing organization, you do have the opportunity to get your team on the field, so to speak, without passage of this legislation creating additional jobs.

Is it not true that the only additional team members that you would be able to put on would be the assistants provided for by this bill, either special assistants or undesignated assistants, and the two assistant secretaries who have been taken out from under civil service and given assistant secretarial status? Aren't those actually the only two people you would be able to fill as far as vacancies are concerned with the passage of this legislation?

Mrs. HOBBY. Well, sir, I might be frank to say they are very key policy-making jobs, and actually the Chairman on the Social Security is now a civil servant.

Mr. LANTAFF. Well, I am talking about this particular legislation. To cure the defect, for example, that has been pointed out about civilservice people in these top-policy jobs, actually this legislation will not correct that; it will enable you to replace only two of those people, will it not?

Mrs. HOBBY. Well, coupled with what I think is a very great advantage in giving the Secretary the staff person who can relate and correlate health matters, which are now all over the Agency, to see if we can do some top thinking there

Mr. LANTAFF. Well, that is a new job.

Mrs. HOBBY. Yes.

Mr. LANTAFF. I am talking about replacing these people that have civil-service status and are now occupying the policy positions. Actually you are going to be able to replace two of those under this particular plan; is that not right-the two assistants to the Secretary or two Assistant Secretaries?

Mrs. HOBBY. Yes, and the Commissioner of Social Security.

Mr. LANTAFF. Well, he would be appointed by the President?
Mrs. HOBBY. Yes.

Mr. LANTAFF. That is right.

So, actually these two assistants are the ones we are talking about and the others about which Dr. Judd complained and you talked about were the civil-service people frozen in the job. We are only talking about two of them under this plan, are we not?

Mrs. HOBBY. Under that plan; yes, sir.

Mr. LANTAFF. Which we are asked to approve?

Mrs. HOBBY. Well, it is before you.

Mr. LANTAFF. So, actually, we are not to get the impression that this plan is the panacea

Mrs. HOBBY. I don't mean

Mr. LANTAFF. For all ills

Mrs. HOBBY. To give that impressión, Mr. Lantaff.

Mr. LANTAFF. And you can actually get your team on the field as it is now without passage of this plan?

Mrs. HOBBY. I hope I haven't said anything that misrepresents this. I hope I have not misrepresented the plan to you.

Mr. LANTAFF. No; I am merely commenting that I think some words were put out in your mouth to the effect you couldn't get your team on the field without the adoption of this reorganization plan, and I was concerned as to whether or not that was true because I haven't made up my mind whether to support or oppose this plan. If that is true I would certainly think you should be given that power, but now it appears you don't need it and you will only be able to replace two of those people who have been frozen in their jobs. Senator SMITH of Maine. Mr. Hoffman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Brown.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mrs. Hobby, you have been in charge of Federal Security Administration for just under 60 days?

Mrs. HOBBY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Is that correct?

Mrs. HOBBY. That is correct.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I understood you to say, I believe, you have not yet had the opportunity to visit all the various offices and agencies which come under your jurisdiction as the head of the Federal Security Agency; is that correct?

Mrs. HOBBY. That is correct, sir.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. And I thought I heard the word "debris" mentioned a while ago. If you haven't had the opportunity to visit all the various offices and agencies and branches that come under your jurisdiction, of course, you haven't had much of an opportunity to look in the corners where you usually find the debris; is that correct?

And if you got the opportunity to look about you just a little bit, as you do as a housekeeper, and you find any debris, what will be your attitude? Will you attempt to clean it out?

Mrs. HOBBY. Well, sir, I always did in my business, and I never took an oath to my business and I did take an oath to this Gov

ernment.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. And did you bring a broom with you when you came?

Seriously speaking, in an agency which has about 37,000 employees, something like that the latest count hasn't been made it is such a large department that it is rather hard to comprehend it; it spreads over a great deal of territory, as you have learned, I believe-you may find the opportunity to make a great many savings.

I recall in the investigation conducted by the task force of the Hoover Commission we found quite a number of employees in one of the divisions which comes under your jurisdiction busily engaged keeping records that hadn't been required by law since 1939. Now, if you find a situation like that, what would be your action?

Mrs. HOBBY. It would be very simple. I would do away with it, Mr. Brown.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. And if you don't need the employees, you would, of course

Mrs. HOBBY. Whatever

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Let the employees go

Mrs. HOBBY. The procedure

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Somewhere else to work?

Mrs. HOBBY. I understand there is a procedure in the civil service when you do not need an employee that the employee is declared available, and they go through a procedure in the agency on those. Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Now, under the provisions of the Reorganization Act for 1949, which has just been extended, the only positions that can be created under a reorganization plan are in two classifications: Either those that are to be filled with presidential appointments subject to confirmation by the Senate or those in the classified service under civil service.

Mrs. HOBBY. Yes; I understand that.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Therefore, in this Reorganization Act, you would not have the opportunity of passing on any employees except those specifically provided-the Under Secretary, the two Assistant Secretaries and the special assistant

Mrs. HOBBY. That is correct, sir.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. And the Commissioner; is that correct?
Mrs. HOBBY. Yes, sir; that is correct.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. These positions to which you referred a moment ago, which now come under civil service, which you hope will be placed in a policy-making classification, were put under civil service by Executive order in the past and not as a direct result of the law passed by Congress. If those policy-making positions are taken out from under civil service, it would have to be done by a general Presidential Executive order or by an act of Congress that would apply to all Government agencies and all Government departments on an equal basis and not just along with this particular department or agency; is that correct?

Mrs. HOBBY. I would think so, Mr. Brown.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I am sure anything that is applicable to the Federal Security Agency would have to be applicable across the board, so far as the Civil Service is concerned.

Mrs. HOBBY. By Congress or

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. That would depend not upon what you might. desire to do, but would depend on what the President might desire to do in his wisdom or judgment or what the Congress might decide to do. Mrs. HOBBY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Is that correct?

Mrs. HOBBY. Yes, sir; it is.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. And, therefore, what we are dealing with here today are only the posts and jobs actually outlined in this reorganization plan and nothing else?

Mrs. HOBBY. That is the way I understand it, sir. I believe that is true.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I think that is all I have.

Senator SMITH of Maine. Mr. Hoffman, do you have any more questions?

The CHAIRMAN. Of the 37,000 employees in your Department today, under the present rules and regulations, how many have you had the privilege of selecting?

Mrs. HOBBY. One.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. McDonough.

Mr. MCDONOUGH. Yes.

Mrs. Hobby, do you anticipate any duplication of the functions of the Labor Department insofar as health, education, and vocational rehabilitation is concerned in your Department, in the new reorganization and in the existing Labor Department?

Mrs. HOBBY. Sir, I believe I really know what you are talking about. Not that I am aware of. At least it hasn't been discussed.

This doesn't change the functions or the duties in the vocational rehabilitation, and I assume if we don't duplicate them now, we wouldn't then.

Mr. MCDONOUGH. But under the reorganization plan now, do you think you have authority to prevent duplication of functions that are now being performed in the Labor Department?

Mrs. HOBBY. Oh, I couldn't, I am sure, interfere with anything the Labor Department does. I mean, that is outside of my charter and my responsibility.

Mr. MCDONOUGH. I have a long-distance telephone call from California about the possibility of a change in the child-development program if this reorganization plan goes through. Do you know of any anticipated change in that section!

Mrs. HOBBY. No, sir. As I said to the Senator, to begin with, we have not worked out a definitive chart, and I think, in my own mind, it will be some time before we do.

I don't want to upset procedures and channels until I think I know enough about it to get a workable chart to begin with.

Mr. MCDONOUGH. Well, as far as that part of the program is concerned now, any change you may make, would you say you would make it for the better or would you limit the functions?

Mrs. HOBBY. Well, sir, I hope any change I will make will be for the better, but I am sure that will always be a matter of opinion. Mr. MCDONOUGH. That is all.

Senator SMITH of Maine. Any more questions?

Are there any questions that

Mr. Condon.

Mr. CONDON. Mrs. Hobby, I want to ask you the same question I asked Mr. Dodge, and that is: At this specific time you are not in a position to point your finger to any particular savings of any particular dollar, any positions that would be eliminated, or any specific

savings that would be made if this bill making your Department a Cabinet executive department would pass; is that correct?

Mrs. HOBBY. Sir, I couldn't do it, in all candor and in justice. You can't consider a budget of that magnitude along with the other things that have to be done in Federal Security Agency and give an answer I think is worthy of a Member of the Congress.

Mr. CONDON. Well, I wasn't worrying what change you might make in the budget request. I mean, as a result of this specific legislation creating certain high-level positions and making yourself a Cabinet officer and making yours as an executive department, are you in a position to point out specifically one dollar that would be saved? Mrs. HOBBY. No, sir; I am not.

I think many dollars can be saved, but to point out a specific thing— as you are aware so much better than I, that 93 percent of the dollar that is appropriated to the Agency is a grant-in-aid grant, over which Federal Security Administrator has very little authority-in business we would call it a noncontrollable item-and so for me to say to the Congress who has set up formula by law for grants-in-aids to the States, where I can save money, is just not wise.

There are 62 cents out of each dollar that have been appropriated. Out of the 612 cents the one federally operated constituency is the Pure Food and Drug, and out of that 612 cents comes the operation of that department.

I sincerely believe that once we have had time to evaluate and to assess that we can effect economies, and I am sure that we can do a better job in terms of efficiency and eliminating waste in time and effort.

Mr. CONDON. Well, now, as I understand from Mr. Dodge this morning, there is only approximately $130 million-maybe it was $135 million. I mean the noncontrollable items take up all the rest of the $1,900,000,000, whatever that figure was. Now, as a direct result of just this bill-I mean, other bills may come along later; but as a direct result of this bill, which gives you Cabinet status and gives you certain top-level people at a higher salary, can you give us any estimate or any intelligent answer or guess in terms of dollars

Mrs. HOBBY. No, sir; I cannot.

Mr. CONDON (Continuing). That this bill will save?

Mrs. HOBBY. No, sir.

I can give you an example, if you want, in business. In terms of taking over a business which was operating at a loss at one time, putting in good top administrative personnel and turning it from red to black, I believe that is a good standard business operating procedure.

Mr. CONDON. There is one question. I don't know whether you know the answer to this, but just as a matter of curiosity-it is not terribly important-the 1950 bill would set up a Department of Health, Education, and Security. This bill sets it up as Health, Education, and Welfare. I was wondering if you know the sig nificance, if any, for the change of the word "security" to the word "welfare," because "welfare" has a sort of invidious connotation these days when a lot of people use that word.

Mrs. HOBBY. No; not that I'm aware of. It has been called different things, and there have been a great many suggestions, I might