very extensive hearings, and we attempted to reconcile the various interests that were involved. The primary difficulty was that of relation; that is, fitting it into a department in such a way that it was reasonably satisfactory to the professions involved. That bill was reported out, and I expect the report on that bill has been made available to the committee. Because of my participation in that legislation, I felt it was really my duty to submit this resolution for the consideration of the committee, and that is why I happen to be in this picture. Mr. Chairman, I have a relatively short statement which I have tried to organize in a fairly orderly manner. If it pleases the committee, I would prefer to read that. The CHAIRMAN. Senator, we would be glad to have you read your statement. Senator FULBRIGHT. On behalf of myself, Senator Taft and Senator Hunt, I have introduced Senate Resolution No. 147, disapproving the proposed Reorganization, No. 1, to create a Department of Welfare. Although I realize that the President is not bound by the recommendations of the Hoover Commisison in proposing reorganizations under the authority of Public Law 109, I do think it is important that every proposal submitted under that act should be considered and compared with the proposals of the Commission. The Hoover Commisison spent many months of study and the effect of its report is a complete entity of organization. I do not mean to imply that there should be no deviation from the recommendationsand as a matter of fact I am sure there are some with which I shall not agree-but it is important that one proposal should not, by its own terms or effect, preclude another recommendation for reorganization, without complete awareness that that is being done. Reorganization Plan No. 1 points out that final conclusions upon the related Hoover Commission recommendations have not been reached, and that they can be effectuated by additional reorganization plans or legislative action. Yet the present head of the Federal Security Agency, who would become the "Secretary of Welfare" under this plan, "objects vigorously to the Commission recommendation which would transfer the Public Health Service from the Federal Security Agency to a proposed United Medical Administration, embracing all Federal hospital facilities." (Quoting from a statement of Senator John L. McClellan, Congressional Record, July 18, p. 9806.) Thus I think it clear, at least as concerns this official of the administration, that Congress, by failing to disapprove this plan, is precluded from considering the related recommendations of the Hoover Commission. And in view of his proposed Cabinet status, it would seem quite logical that his influence upon the administration as a whole would prevail. Particularly is it apparent when it is considered that there would be no Cabinet officer to speak, in the meantime, for the recommended United Medical Administration, and as a matter of fact there will be a number of other officials, whose capacities would be reduced by the creation of such an agency, who could be expected to speak against it. I should make it clear that I am not speaking for or against the creation of a United Medical Administration. But I am attempting to emphasize the point that the President and the Congress should decide directly whether or not the recommendation of the Hoover Commission in this respect should be followed; that it should not decide that the agency should not be created by the indirect method of approving this plan. If the committee and the Congress approve this plan, it should realize the effect of that approval upon t'e related recommendations of the Commission, whether good or bad. I believe, also, that the President should advise the Congress as to what is intended with respect to the related recommendations, so that Congress may effectively exercise its own powers under the Reorganization Act. I should also like to make it clear that I am not opposed to the creation of an executive department which would have general jurisdiction over Federal activities in the fields of health, education, and security. As a matter of fact, as I mentioned a moment ago, Senator Taft and I introduced a bill in the last Congress establishing such a Cabinet position for a Department of Health, Education, and Security. We felt at that time, as I said in my statement before this committee on behalf of S. 140, that * * * It is simply a question of setting up an efficient, economical unified administration to handle such a program as the Congress has approved or may approve in the future and that the committee and the Congress are not asked to decide what health programs should be adopted, or what is the proper scope of Federal activity in the schools, or whether social security benefits should be available at the age of 50 or 70. In other words, I believed then, as I do now, that this proposal should be one of good housekeeping, or economical and efficient administration, rather than what might be called program legislation, emphasizing one or more of the fields of Federal activity involved in the proposed Department. I judge this also to be the purpose of the Hoover Commission and the Reorganization Act. It was for this reason that Senator Taft and I though it especially important that the three divisions under the proposed Department be maintained under an Under Secretary for each, with professional qualifications in his field. The committee reported out a bill which, although eliminating the requirement of professional qualification, maintained the distinctions between the functions and their equal ranks as Bureaus of Health, Education, and Security, with an Under Secretary for each. In this committee's report on that bill (S. Rept. No. 242, 80th Cong., 1s sess.) it said: The committee was of the opinion that there should be some definite administrative procedure outlined, as provided in S. 140, in order that proper recognition might be given to the various services to be included in the new Department, and specific provisions have been included in the bill as reported, in an effort to eliminate possible discriminations aganst any of the several fields involved. Another provision of that bill to which considerable importance was attached was section 3, which reads, in part, as follows: * * * these objectives shall be carried out to the fullest possible extent through State and local agencies, public and voluntary, and in such manner as to preserve and protect to the highest possible degree the independence and autonomy of State and local agencies, public and voluntary, in education, health, security, and related fields. The committee report had this to say of that language: Section 3 of the act provides adequate safeguards to insure State autonomy of operation and control under local supervision and administration of the program in the public interest. This section was recommended and approved by a very large percentage of witnesses who appeared at the hearings. No similar provision is included in Reorganization Plan No. 1. It seems to me that there are two extremes to which the reorganization of these functions of the Federal Government could go. On the one hand, as the various professional groups have advocated in the past, we could establish separate departments for each field, each with Cabinet representation. This is also the method adopted by most, if not all, the States. There are quite logical arguments for this viewpoint. Each group may feel that its function may be confused with another; for example, that association with welfare activities would give education the connotation of charity and social service. Each group may feel that otherwise it will be subordinated to the will and domination of an administration not fully cognizant of the problems of their own field. On the other hand, there is the view that the functions should be combined as one; and this, apparently, is the purpose of Reorganization Plan No. 1. The plan provides that: All the functions of the Department of Welfare and of all offices and constitu ent units thereof, including all the functions of the Federal Security Administrator, are hereby consolidated in the Secretary of Welfare. This means, of course, that the Secretary shall exercise the powers of the Commissioner of Education, and the Surgeon General. These, as I have indicated, constitute the extreme positions under which such a reorganization might be made. I believe there are arguments for both; but I do not believe the proper answer lies in either. I believe that the functions are related, and that is is highly desirable that they be coordinated. Senator Taft takes the position in his testimony before the committee that the functions are actually separate; that their only substantial relation is that they are fields in which the States and local governments have primary responsibility and in which the Federal Government, by reason of its power to tax for the general welfare and to spend the income, has a secondary responsibility of assisting the States and local governments in discharging what to them is a primary responsibility. I believe this to be true, and 1 also believe that the problems themselves are related, that ignorance and poverty and disease are interrelated in cause and effect, but I also believe that these are problems necessitating cooperative responsibility and compromise, without which there may be domination on the one hand or stalemate on the other. I believe the bill which Senator Taft and I introduced, and which. this committee in the last Congress substantially approved, presented a compromise of these divergent views on a reasonable basis. I believe it important that compromise and cooperation be secured if we are to solve problems which are related, and I do not believe we will solve them if we fail to secure the cooperation of one or more of the groups involved. I do not believe that Reorganization Plan No. 1 should be approved. It seems evident from the proposed title of the Department, the personnel involved, and the history of the relations within the Federal Security Agency of its constituent offices, that the Department will be dominated by the concept of welfare. I do not believe it will be able to secure the cooperation and the active participation necessary for progress in the fields of education and health. Mr. Chairman, that completes my statement, unless there are any questions. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any questions of the Senator? Senator O'CONOR. Mr. Chairman, may I make this inquiry? Assuming, for the sake of the discussion, that this plan would be supplemented, or that there later would be passed specific legislation on united medical services, which bill is now pending, as I understand, before the Labor Committee-introduced by Senator Thomas-would you feel that the purpose of the Hoover Commission recommendation was fulfilled? Senator FULBRIGHT. That would be in accord with the recommendations of the Hoover Commission, but I think that if you accept this reorganization plan to a very great extent you preclude any action. That is as a practical matter, but not necessarily so. In fact, I had forgotten that this Reorganization Act, which gave the President the authority to submit this, had gone so far as to authorize the creation of a new department. I think that was put in rather late in the considerations. I thought to do this it would take legislation and, of course, that is what we were attempting to do in S. 140. Senator O'CONOR. Senator, the reason I asked you, and what caused me to have a little doubt in my mind, is the fact that President Hoover himself, when he came before us on June 30, testified as follows: I am now reading from page 19 of the printed hearings: I wish to say at once that the seven plans are all steps on the road to better organization of the administrative branch. They are, insofar as they go, substantially in accord with the recommendations of the Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government. Then, in answer to a question from Senator McCarthy, on page 24, when the Senator was inquiring as to whether or not it all could be accomplished in one step, Mr. Hoover said this: The creation of that agency (referring to the United Medical Service Administration), I am advised, will require specific legislation before the President could transfer agencies to it. Then Senator McCarthy asked the following question : Senator McCarthy. Do I understand, then, that your thought is that plan No. 1 is definitely a step forward, and that when we pass the necessary legislation to make it possible, that can be improved to the extent that it will conform substantially to the Hoover Commission's recommendaions? Mr. HOOVER. They can be, if the rest of the program is carried out; yes. Apparently he, in speaking for the entire Commission, did have in mind that supplemental legislation would be required, and that is why I was wondering whether or not your whole plan, which we were in favor of as members of this committee, could not be effectuated by the passage of the other legislation if this plan is adopted? Senator FULBRIGHT. I think it would be possible to do it. I think it would behighly improbable, if we accept this reorganization plan, because it is contemplated that these medical services will be in it; that is, such as are now in existence. Of course, as the Senator well knows, there is very strong opposition to the United Medical Service Administration. I understand that the Veterans' Administration and the veterans' organizations are very strongly against it; and, as a practical matter, I do not know whether that can be done or not. Since this committee has considered this very seriously and it has been under consideration for a long time-my thought has been that the proper approach, it seems to me, if they want a department, would be to follow the conclusions of this committee. That simply was my thought. This proposal to have no restrictions was, of course, submitted to this committee at the same time as S. 140. That was the Aiken proposal, I believe, which was very similar to this proposal of Reorganization Plan No. 1; and the committee, after thorough consideration, I thought, decided to take this other approach. It comes down to this, I think: We all know that the medical profession is very strongly against this Reorganization Plan No. 1. as they were then, in any idea that they would be subordinated to the welfare influence or the domination of the welfare concept of this whole field. They desired a separate department. In the report of the committee, we recognized that, but as a practical matter, we thought-and I am speaking for the committee in the sense that this is about what was said in the report that is impractical, it is not going to create three separate departments. In order to make some progress, that was the best we could do, in giving them quite a degree of autonomy within it; that is, an Under Secretary who was responsible for that department. We first. as I said, provided for professional qualifications for the Under Secretary. That was stricken out because of very serious objections, but it did maintain a fairly definite organization which could not be changed by the Executive; and a provision that could be set up in that legislation to try to protect the individual characteristics of these three departments. In that instance, I was especially interested in education and health. Senator O'CONOR. Thank you, Senator. Senator MCCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, I hope that the Senator can stay here. I understand Mr. Ewing is going to testify, and some of us might have some questions to ask the Senator. Senator FULBRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I am chairman of the RFC subcommittee of the Banking and Currency Committee, and we have hearings scheduled at 10:30 this morning, when we shall hear the testimony of the American Bankers Association. Senator MCCARTHY. I gather that your feeling is that if we want any Department of Welfare we should report out the bill which this committee studied for about 2 years. Senator FULBRIGHT. I think it was the unanimous view of the committee, as I recall it if there was any opposition it was one or twothat that seemed a very reasonable way to solve the matter. After all, medical profession, whatever one may think of their attitude, is a very important part of our society; and I think that they, along with education, deserve ser us consideration when a major change of this sort is proposed. While it may not be a perfect solution, to me it is one that is very practical and more likely to engage the cooperation of these various groups, than one which is of an arbitrary nature. |