Nevertheless, I think it is equally important, perhaps, that there should be at the Cabinet level an individual who is able to carry on a great deal in the way of correlation of these educational activities. These educational activities are, in a sense, all over the lot here in Washington, D. C., and while it may not be possible to subtract them from their respective agencies and concentrate them in any one place, it is possible to engage in a great deal more correlation of educational effort here in Washington than has so far proved to be the case. I do not think that a Cabinet officer and others who are directly connected with educational administration are the only means by which this can be done. There is one other sort of thing that I have long urged the Federal Government to undertake, and that is to set up a Federal council of education, composed of the representatives of those divisions of Government here in Washington which have educational functions and who might, therefore, sit around the table with a Cabinet officer who had the responsibility for education and do a great deal in the way of correlating activities that are of an education nature

here at the Federal level.

I had not intended to comment, Mr. Chairman, on the close relationship between these three activities that are now major parts of the Social Security Agency, but I cannot refrain, I think, from pointing out the fact that at the level of higher education particularly there must be an intimate relationship between education on the one hand and medicine and all the other forms of therapeutic education on the other. It is perfectly well known, of course, that doctors are prepared in medical schools located in institutions of higher education, and that the individuals who are in charge of these respective universities must be prepared to undertake activities in the field of medical education the same as they are prepared to undertake them in any other form of higher education. The relationship, therefore, at this level seems to me to be so clear that it needs certainly no further elaboration.

I would like to make also one other remark about this particular situation. You might have inferred from what I have said so far that I would be in favor of a separate Department of Education. Throughout the years, I have not been in favor of a separate Federal Department of Education, because it has never seem to me that the functions of the Federal Government in the field of education are of such a nature as to require a separate department for that activity alone. I would therefore not urge anything which would seem to me to tend to give notice to the States that the Federal Government was talking over the function of education when, as a matter of fact, under our form of government the control of education properly resides within the States themselves. On the other hand if I were the most violent proponent of a separate Federal Department of Education, as I am not, I think I would still be in favor of setting up this Federal Department of Welfare because it would seem to me that under these situations education might be able to demonstrate, if that proves to be the case, its extreme importance and therefore the fact that it deserved to be a separate Federal Department.

I think we have in the history of the Cabinet one interesting illustration of this situation. When the Department of Commerce and Labor was set up, both functions proved to be of such great importance that not long thereafter they were separated and each became separate Department unto itself. It is possible, therefore, that if and

a

when a Department of Welfare is set up we might at some time in the future feel that it was desirable to have a separate Department of Health or even a separate Department of Education. Neither at the moment seems to me to be desirable, but both are possible over the long future.

Now, Mr. Chairman, in conclusion may I call your attention to the fact that a little over 2 years ago the American Council on Education and the National Social Welfare Assembly appointed a joint committee or commission composed of approximately 25 persons representing the fields of education, social work, and public health, to examine into this matter of what was at that time called a proposed Department of Health, Education, and Security. This committee employed a very competent individual, Mr. C. D. Jackson, to go into all of the arguments for and against the establishing of such a Department as is here contemplated. Those arguments were set forth in a printed report, copy of which I have in my hands. It is my opinion, sir, that this document is even now the best boiling down of all of the arguments for and against this proposal. On the basis of the information which was thus provided, the committee held a number of meetings and came out with its final conclusions which are represented on two short printed pages. I would like, if I may, the privilege of reading those to you. I think it will take me only a very few minutes.

1. The committee recommends that an executive Department of Health, Education, and Security, headed by a Secretary of Cabinet rank, be established at this time by the Congress of the United States.

2. The committee recommends that such Department be assigned responsibility to promote the general welfare of the people of the United States by aiding and fostering progress throughout the Nation in the fields of health, education, security, and related services contributing to individual family and community wellbeing.

3. The committee recommends that this objective be accomplished by legislation converting the existing Federal Security Agency into such an executive Department and transferring the powers and duties of the Agency and its Administrator to the new Department and its Secretary. The matter of transferring to the Department any additional functions or units of other governmental agencies performing related services should be left for subsequent legislative action or for Executive action by the President under his power dealing with governmental reorganization.

I am going to omit the fourth paragraph which is longer than the others and a little more in detail.

5. The committee recommends that legislation should provide for the appointment of an Under Secretary and at least two Assistant Secretaries who can aid the Secretary in the over-all management and direction of the affairs of the Department. The committee believes that functional operating divisions or other units of the Department should be headed by career officers with high professional and administrative competence in their particular fields. These latter positions should be nonpolitical in character.

6. The committee recommends that the legislation include a provision that would make clear and assure that the creation of such an executive department does not confer any powers upon the Department or its officials to supervise or control State and local agencies, public or voluntary, operating in the fields of health, education, security, or related services.

I think, sir, this concludes the very informal statement which I appreciate the opportunity of having submitted to you. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Doctor. Are there any questions, Senator Schoeppel?

Senator SCHOEPPEL. How do you and Mr. Studebaker agree or disagree on this general proposition?

Dr. Zook. I do not know exactly what Mr. Studebaker might say with respect to this. I only know what my own experience is and what my own belief is with respect to this. May I still further say that I am sure you must be referring to the fact that there were some disagreements between Mr. Studebaker and the present Administrator of the Social Security Agency?

Senator SCHOEPPEL. Not on their personal disagreements, but disagreements as to policies. That is what I have in mind, sir.

Dr. Zook. Yes. I simply wanted to say that it seems to me that we should separate that kind of thing from the consideration of this proposal here. I do not believe that the matter of whether Mr. Ewing should be the head of this Department or not is germane to the discussion of this issue.

Senator SCHOEPPEL. I take it that you are interested in keeping and maintaining on the local level to the States their prerogatives, rights, and privileges, that the sundry State constitutions grant unto the educational departments of the respective States.

Dr. Zook. I think that no one here in Washington has been a more consistent upholder of that principle. I said that one of the main reasons why I did not favor a separate department of education was because it seemed to me that that might give notice to the country that the Federal Government was really intending to take over the function of education. May I say, further this gives me the opportunity to do so that I think that no Federal legislation with respect to education should require or prohibit the expenditure of Federal subsidies for the support of private schools. That seems to me to be so completely a State function that it is unwise on everybody's part to try to

boss that situation around from Washington, D. C. Senator SCHOEPPEL. I am glad to have your view on that. The CHAIRMAN. I do not quite understand why there would be any more power in a department of education to dominate the States and their policies with reference to education than there would be by having the education department in a department of welfare, with the Welfare Secretary having the same power that the Secretary of the Department of Education would have. Where do you make the distinction?

Dr. Zook. I think it would be extremely difficult to prove that.
The CHAIRMAN. If you think so, give us the reasons.

Dr. Zook. I am only saying that it seems to me it would be saying that education is of such tremendous importance that the Federal Government will take over. That is pretty largely a matter of opinion, Senator.

The CHAIRMAN. There is no basis in fact for it.

Dr. Zook. I wouldn't quite say that.

The CHAIRMAN. Name one.

Dr. Zook. I don't think it would be very easy to name one.
The CHAIRMAN. I do not, either. Thank you.

Senator SCHOEPPEL. There is one other question I would like to ask. You elaborated on the educational activities of the Agricultural Department by way of illustrating how various departments have certain educational features and factors involved. Now let us assume that this situation were developed to a point where it would be acceptable that a Cabinet rank be set up. Do you think in your coordinating activities that type of educational activity might be desired to be transferred out of that department into this one agency for direction?

Dr. Zook. You will notice I did not use agricultural extension or labor extension as being the kind of activities that were so germane to the success of the particular departments there named that it seemed to me they were necessarily integral parts of those departments. I have, therefore, often felt that agricultural extension and labor extension might very well be carried on by the educational organization that is here in Washington rather than by the divisions of agriculture and labor, respectively. They do not seem to me to be so germane to the success of the Department of Agriculture and Labor, respectively, as is the case in other situations.

Senator SCHOEPPEL. No further questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Doctor.

Dr. Zook. I wonder, Mr. Chairman, have you had a copy of this report, and if not, may I leave it?

The CHAIRMAN. You may file it. It will not be printed in the record.

It will be filed for reference only.

Thank you very much, Doctor.

Thank

Dr. Zook. Thank you.

(The document referred to is on file with the committee.)

The CHAIRMAN. General Hawley?

(No response.)

Dr. Borzell? Will you come around, please. Before you begin, may I ask the reporter to incorporate in the record a statement which has been handed to me from Dr. William C. Woodward and a statement from Dr. Robert E. S. Young.

(The statements referred to follow :)

AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION,

Washington, D. C. July 29, 1949.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURES IN THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS,

Washington, D. C.

GENTLEMEN: There is attached a statement submitted by William C. Woodward, M. D., who at different times was commissioner of health of Washington and Boston and who for years was the legislative representative of the American Medical Association.

It was his great desire to present this statement in person, but due to his age and to the extreme temperature, he has decided that it would be unwise for him to come and has asked me to present his statement to the committee on his behalf.

Respectfully submitted.

JOS. S. LAWRENCE, M. D.
Director, Washington Office.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM C. WOODWARD, M. D., FORMER COMMISSIONER OF HEALTH OF WASHINGTON, D. C., AND BOSTON, MASS.

I have read generally whatever I have seen published in the press concerning the proposed Federal Department of Health. Nothing has come to my notice, however, relating to our one-time National Board of Health, and I have been surprised at the small number of people who are aware that there ever was such a board organized and operating. The fact that such a board was at one time created by Congress may be useful in arguing in favor of an analogous agency, a Federal Department of Health, and a knowledge of how that board was destroyed may be of use in the present campaign for a department.

The National Board of Health was organized under an act of Congress, approved March 3, 1879, entitled "An act to prevent the introduction of infectious and contagious diseases into the United States, and to establish a National Board of Health." To facilitate your study of that organization, if you are not already familiar with it, I enclose in duplicate a copy of that act, copied from the National Board of Health Bulletin, vol. I, No. 1, page 1, June 28, 1879. The copy of the act as published does not give a citation to its official source, the United States Statutes at Large.

I am under the impression that the passage of this act was due to one or more epidemics of yellow fever at or about the time of its enactment, but of this I cannot be certain. The records of the association ought to show something about this. What is now known as the United States Public Health Service was then known as the United States Marine Hospital Service. It seems to have had its origin in the fact that seamen and others engaged in interstate and foreign trade sometimes had difficulty in obtaining treatment when sick or injured because they were not residents of the States in which they happened severally to be, and the Federal Government found it necessary to provide for them in some way. As our customs service gradually developed, the Marine Hospital Service was charged with various duties connected with it and in that way became involved in such interstate and foreign quarantine work as the Federal Government then undertook. It undertook very little for most if not all of the States claimed the right to maintain their own quarantine services, and did so. Congress, however, by "An act to prevent the introduction of infectious and contagious diseases into the United States," approved June 2, 1879, vested the National Board of Health with authority over interstate and foreign quarantine. When it appeared that the Board would take over from the Marine Hospital Service its function in that field, the Marine Hospital Service objected, and a bitter rivalry arose. Unable to procure the abolition of the National Board of Health, the Marine Hospital Service seems to have been able to have the appropriations necessary for the Board's operation discontinued, and the National Board of Health existed for a number of years on paper only.

Meanwhile the Marine Hospital Service succeeded in having its name changed to, I believe, the Marine Hospital and Public Health Service, and later to the Public Health Service, taking on public-health functions. It was eager to assume the role of a Federal department, if not actually to become one, and for many years fought bitterly and by every means within its power to prevent the creation of a national department of health. Of course, my knowledge as to what it did with respect to this matter is largely hearsay, but it comes generally from reliable sources for I was a very active member of the Committee of One Hundred, organized to procure the establishment of such a department, and also of the committee of the American Medical Association, created by the house of delegates, for the same purpose. At about that time a vacancy occurred in the office of health commissioner of the city of Chicago, and an officer of what is now the United States Public Health Service was allowed to accept the appointment. That he was active in aiding the then board of trustees of the association to defeat the purpose of the house of delegates, I am sure, for I have seen a letter written by him to a fellow officer in the Public Health Service in which he said, "I was sent to Chicago to keep the American Medical Association quiet, and I have done so." What the position of the Public Health Service is now with respect to the creation of a department of health, I haven't the slightest idea.

Sometime in the nineties, I believe, a clause was inserted in one of the appropriation bills repealing the act creating the National Board of Health, after it had been in fact dead for a number of years because of lack of appropriations.

[Copied from National Board of Health Bulletin, vol. 1, No. 1, p. 1, June 28, 1879] CONSTITUTING ACT

The National Board of Health was organized under the following act of Congress, approved March 3, 1879, entitled "An act to prevent the introduction of infectious and contagious diseases into the United States, and to establish a National Board of Health":

“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That there shall be established a National Board of Health to consist of seven members, to be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, not more than one of whom shall be appointed from any one State, whose compensation, during the time when actually engaged in the performance of their duties under this act, shall be $10 per diem each and reasonable expenses, and of one medical officer of