Senator HUMPHREY. In my State we do not; we have a plan like this. Senator MCCARTHY. You talk about the pressure. Are you going to say that Senator Hunt's testimony-who stated that he had had 14 years' experience in that field-is bad pressure?

Take the testimony of Senator Fulbright, the testimony of Senator Taft-is that pressure bad?

Senator HUMPHREY. The Senator is evading the question. I simply asked you what is the nature of your telegrams; what is the nature of the source of those telegrams; what is the nature of your letters?and you have hundreds of them, as I have. The obvious simple fact is that the medical profession of this country, instead of getting on the United Medical program, instead of working for the bill that is before our subcommittee in the Senate Labor and Public Welfare Committee, instead of doing that, have not lifted one finger in behalf of the bill, but are fighting this program.

Senator MCCARTHY. That is wrong.

Senator HUMPHREY. You say that is wrong? I may say to the Senator from Wisconsin that I am on the subcommittee that is considering the bill.

The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, can we not defer this discussion until we get to executive session?

Mr. Ewing, is there anything further that you wish to add now? Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, I add one word; that I do feel very strongly that under this Reorganization Act of 1949, if a plan that is as innocuous as plan No. 1 cannot be put through, it means that you cannot put any reorganization plan through that is controversial at all; that it will be just the noncontroversial plans that can be put through. I think the whole test of our act to reorganize the Government is right in plan No. 1 and plan No. 2.

Thank you very much. I am sorry to have taken so much time, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Ewing. We will go into executive session now.

(Whereupon, at 11:50 a. m., the committee proceeded into executive session.) (The statements, telegrams, and letters referred to above are as follows:)

Will you please make the statement in support of the reorganization plan, Mr. Whitehouse's wire, and the photostatic copy of the resolution part of the record of your hearings on these plans?

Sincerely yours,

WILLIAM LAVELLE,

Assistant Legislative Director.

STATEMENT BY PAUL SIFTON FOR THE CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS, IN SUPPORT OF THE PRESIDENT'S REORGANIZATION PLAN NO. 1, GIVING THE FEDERAL SECURITY AGENCY CABINET STATUS AS THE DEPARTMENT OF WELFARE

The Congress of Industrial Organizations appears here in support of the President's Reorganization Plan No. 1.

We favor Reorganization Plan No. 1 because the efficient administration of the responsibilities assigned to the Federal Security Agency, affecting as they do most of the people of the United States, requires the Cabinet status and the unified internal authority of a Federal Department of Welfare.

STATEMENT OF HON. HUBERT H. HUMPHREY, UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA

I

The Senate Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments, in reporting favorably the Reorganization Act of 1949, quoted the Bureau of the Budget on pages 7 and 8 of the committee report, as follows:

"Section 5-Subparagraphs (1) and (2) -Creation of new departments: The bill deletes the prohibitions contained in subparagraphs (1) and (2) of the 1945 act against creation of new executive departments by reorganization plan. At least one agency-the Federal Security Agency-has been established by plan which obviously is of departmental magnitude and importance and should have been designated as an executive department. No good purpose has been served by the old prohibition."

This language was practically an invitation to the President to submit a plan that would make the Federal Security Agency an executive department. It was accepted by the President as such and he accordingly submitted plan No. 1.

II

The opponents of plan No. 1 argue that it is objectionable because it would give the new department an integrated type of organization. These opponents refer to the fact that the holding-company type of organization was approved by the Senate Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments of the Eightieth Congress in reporting out S. 140, a bill to convert the Federal Security Agency into a Department of Health, Education, and Security. On the other hand, the Hoover Commission strongly recommends an integrated type of organization.

In submitting plan No. 1 the President thought he should conform to the recommendations of the Hoover Commission so far as possible and hence plan No. 1 provides for an integrated department. Had plan No. 1 provided for a holdingcompany type of organization the same people would have opposed it because it did not conform with the recommendations of the Hoover Commission.

III

Objections are made to calling the new department the "Department of Welfare." This name was selected because it was understood to be the choice of the Hoover Commission. A bill was drafted by lawyers for the Hoover Commission which provided for a new "Department of Welfare." This was introduced by Senator McCarthy. In the face of this, it is difficult to understand his objections to the name proposed by the President.

1

STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY DR. CHESTER D. SWOPE, CHAIRMAN, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC RELATIONS, AMERICAN OSTEOPATHIC ASSOCIATION

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, on behalf of the American Osteopathic Association, may I express our appreciation for the opportunity of commenting on the President's Reorganization Plan No. 1, making the Federal Security Agency as executive department, now under consideration by this committee.

I am chairman of the department of public relations of the American Osteopathic Association and engaged in private practice as an osteopathic physician in the District of Columbia with offices in the Farragut Medical Building.

We would have preferred enactment of S. 140 in the form favorably reported by this committee during last Congress because that measure not only would have changed the status of the Federal Security Agency from an independent agency to an executive department but it laid down certain necessary fundamental policies to be followed by the new department. Mr. L. L. Gourley, of Washington, D. C., our legal counsel, testified during the hearings on that bill and I wish to confirm the recommendations made during that testimony as being equally applicable today.

Among those recommendations was the necessity for a broader representation of the health professions on health advisory committees set up at the Federal level. Although the osteopathic profession are licensed in all the States, they are denied representation on the health advisory committees set up by the various divisions of the Federal Security Agency. This denial of a voice on advisory committees has resulted in adoption of policies prejudicial to the contribution which otherwise might be made by the osteopathic profession in the public interest for effecting the objectives of Federal-State cooperative programs, both at the State and Federal levels.

The Office of Vocational Rehabilitation in the Federal Security Agency set up an extralegal medical advisory committee at the Federal level, without osteopathic representation, and when the osteopathic profession requested certain modifications in the program the question was referred to the medical advisory committee which was dominated by representatives of a single school of practice. The recommendation of the advisory committee was adverse and the Federal administrative agency took the position that it was bound by that conclusion. In other words, the advisory committee was permitted to determine the administrative policy.

Of course, I have heard it said that many recommendations of advisory committees are ignored by the parent agency. That would suggest that advisory committees are used as buffers on the one hand or as yes-men on the other. One remedy for that would be the necessity for a Federal agency to include in its annual report to Congress a full account of the recommendations made by advisory committees. If that were required and fair representation granted on these advisory committees it would assure that Congress would be informed on just how administrative policies are arrived at in implementing the congressional intent.

In reporting S. 140 of last Congress the Senate Committee on Expenditures in Executive Departments made this comment in Senate Report No. 242:

"Section 5 (c) provides for the appointment of advisory committees to advise and consult with the Secretary with respect to major policies in the fields of health, education, and public welfare, as to policies, procedures, and other matters involving technical questions in the public interest. Witnesses representing various health groups, including osteopaths, optometrists, pharmacists, and chemists, contended that under the present administration of health programs, there was a tendency to appoint only persons qualified in medicine to advisory committees affecting policies in the field of health. In order to insure that proper recognition might be given to representatives of other health activities, an amendment has been included in the bill in its present form qualifying for appointment on advisory committees persons who are recognized as proficient in any health field under their respective State laws."

Now it might have been expected that such a statement on the part of the committee would have obtained the respectful attention of the Feedral Security Agency as an indicated reform of procedure. So far as osteopathic representation on any health advisory committee in the Federal Security Agency is concerned there is no evidence that such has been the case.

Furthermore, failure of the Federal agency to include osteopathic representation on health advisory committees induces the States to follow suit by denying representation on State advisory committees in the respective programs. Over the period of years during health grant-in-aid programs the State agencies have been coerced or intimidated into following Federal administrative patterns. In connection with another Federal-State cooperative health plan administered at the Federal level by the Federal Security Agency, another congressional committee, the House Labor Committee during the Seventy-ninth Congress specifically indicated that State plans for maternal and child health and services for crippled children should be approved at the Federal level should the State agency determine that the services of the osteopathic profession and the osteopathic hospitals were to be utilized in effecting the program. Specifically, that committee favorably reported out H. R. 3922 of the Seventy-ninth Congress, including the following provision:

"Nothing in this act shall be deemed to prohibit the inclusion in State plans of provisions for osteopathic services furnished by duly licensed practitioners of osteopathy within the scope of their practice as defined by State law, or for purchase of care from osteopathic hospitals meeting standards established under the State plan."

That recommendation of the House Labor Committee also might have been expected to obtain the active respect of the Federal agency, but the fact is, that the Federal Security Agency refuses to approve State plans which include osteopathic services for children under the maternal and child welfare programs. Reorganization Plan No. 1 will provide for an integrated department and clothe the head of the department with the necessary power and responsibility to carry out the policies of all the divisions of the department. We think that is good organization and we believe it will result in the adoption of policies less steeped in petty bureau prejudices.

Senator JOHN MCCLELLAN,

BOSTON, MASS., July 20, 1949.

Chairman, Senate Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.:

The executive committee of the Association of State and Territorial Health Officers urges the creation of a United Medical and Hospital Administration Agency as provided in S. 2008. Introduced by Senator Thomas of Utah. Pending the development of such an agency or a separate Department of Public Health, the association wishes to endorse the creation of a combined department of health, education, and security as a second choice. The Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1949-Department of Welfare was presented by the President to create such a department. The association recommends that the name of this Department be the "Department of Health, Education, and Security," provided that the creation of a combined department does not in the future preclude or in any way jeopardize the creation of a separate health department or separate united medical and hospital administration agency.

The president of the association, Dr. R. H. Hutcheson, of Tennessee, in testifying before the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare early in July in a statement referring to S. 1106, S. 1456, S. 1581, and S. 1679, stated: "We are still willing to make second choices and are especially gratified to see that this bill requires that the ‘Administrator' shall have demonstrated outstanding ability in the fields of medicine and administration. We want to go on record -as stating, without fear of successful contradiction, that the present organization of the United States Public Health Service is sufficiently organized, staffed with well-trained specialists in all branches of medicine, and allied arts and sciences, and, in general, big enough to be given the leading role in any reorganization plan. We know what anyone who will take the trouble to investigate superficially can learn that no agency of the Federal Government has the respect of comparable branches of State government equal to that enjoyed by the United States Public Health Service.

"The reasons are obvious. We would like to think that this state of affairs will continue." The State and Territorial health officers are anxious to preserve the excellent Federal-State relations which have existed between the Public Health Service and the several States. We are primarily concerned that the Public Health Service should serve as a nucleus about which all other Federal health services both in preventive and curative medicine be built.

In conclusion, therefore, realizing the improbability of the formation of a separate Department of Public Health, the association wishes again to endorse as it did in 1947 and again in 1949 the creation of a combined Department as proposed by the President in the Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1949 with the amendment that the name of the Department be changed to that of "Health, Education and Security." This suggestion is respectfully submitted by the State health officers who are concerned with the title of "welfare". The term "welfare" may be misunderstood by many people as meaning charity.

We believe that the suggested title of "Health, Education and Security" is not only more descriptive but therefore more acceptable to a majority of the people.

R. H. HUTCHESON,

President (Tenn.).

L. E. BURNEY,

Secretary (Ind.).

V. A. GETTING,

Member of Executive Committee and Spokesman (Mass.).

WASHINGTON, D. C., July 21, 1949.

Hon. JOHN L. MCCLELLAN,
Chairman, Committee on Expenditures in Executive Departments,
Washington, D. C.:

We understand certain organizations may oppose Reorganization Plan No. 1 for reason it should not be allowed to go into effect prior to the establishment of United Medical Administration proposed by Hoover Commission. The Disabled American Veterans is unalterably opposed to the creation of a United Medical Organization or any other Government organization that would take away operation veterans' hospitals from Veterans' Administration. Would appreciate this wire being inserted in hearing records.

J. M. WAINWRIGHT,

National Commander, Disabled American Veterans.

Hon. JOHN L. MCCLELLAN,

WASHINGTON, D. C., July 22, 1949.

Chairman, Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments,
Senate Office Building:

National Women's Trade Union League strongly supports President's proposal for Department of Welfare contained in Reorganization Plan No. 1. Importance of health, social-security, and educational programs to our people warrants Cabinet status. Further believe administration of these services facilitated by holding them together.

ELISABETH CHRISTMAN, Secretary.

Hon. JOHN MCCLELLAN,

WASHINGTON, D. C., July 22, 1949.

Chairman, Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments,
United States Senate, Senate Office Building:

General Federation of Women's Clubs, a national organization with a voting membership of approximately 1,300,000, is officially on record as favoring "the creation of a new executive department headed by a member of the President's Cabinet to promote the national interest in health, welfare, and education, and to administer Federal programs in these fields." We believe such a department would constitute a testimonial to the importance this Nation places on human welfare and that administration of programs in this field would thereby be strengthened. We therefore earnestly hope that the Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments will report favorably on Reorganization Plan No. 1 to constitute the Federal Security Agency a Department of Welfare. Would appreciate having this wire included in record of hearings of committee. Mrs. C. D. WRIGHT,

Chairman, Legislation Department, General Federation of Women's Clubs.