In this connection, it is understood that the confidential committee draft of the proposed reorganization bill contained somewhat similar prohibitions regarding the Forest Service, which were eliminated before the bill was introduced. The reason for such elimination is not apparent. Certainly its inclusion should be in the interest of good administration.

Section 203, pages 12 and 13, is apparently intended to take from the heads of the executive departments and place in the President the appointment of chiefs of bureaus and similar agencies reporting directly to the heads of the executive departments. The enactment of this provision would go a long way toward the establishment of such positions as purely political. Such a condition would be disastrous, particularly in the case of a department such as Agriculture, where men with technical training and experience have in general been advanced to fill vacancies of this kind. The danger here is that political rather than actual qualifications would govern the selections and that the key positions in the entire Government service would be thrown open to political manipulations of all kinds. Section 204, page 13, provides that all offices and positions of the various governmental agencies shall, with certain exceptions, be covered into the classified civil service, upon the expiration of 1 year or less if the President so desires. Positions which the President finds are policy-determining in character, and those mentioned in the preceding paragraph are specifically excepted. In this case, it is these exceptions that appear to be inimical to good administration, and would be particularly discouraging to those who have been led to look forward to Government service as a career. In fact, this or any future President could by this provision classify as policy-making practically any Federal position except purely clerical.

There appears to be no good reason for changing the name of the Department of the Interior to that of Conservation. In case such a change is made, however, the activities of that department should be limited to the conservation of our inorganic national resources.

To summarize, this organization therefore recommends:

1. The amendment of the bill to provide for a broad classification of the activities of the several executive departments, that of Agriculture to follow in a general way those contained in H. R. 12498, Seventy-fourth Congress.

2. That specific exception be made prohibiting the transfer of the Forest Service, Soil Conservation Service, and Biological Survey to any other department. 3. That the provision for the appointment of chiefs of bureaus and of similar agencies by the President be eliminated from the bill.

4. That the provision permitting the President to classify these and other similar positions as policy making be likewise eliminated.

5. That in case the name of the Department of Interior is changed to that of Conservation, its activities as related to conservation be strictly limited to the conservation of our inorganic national resources, such as minerals and oils. STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE TIMBER PRODUCTS BUREAU, SPOKANE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

RESOLUTION

Whereas the timber products bureau of the Spokane Chamber of Commerce has reason to believe that an attempt may be made to amend H. R. 6462, otherwise known as the Taylor bill, which was recently passed by the House of Representatives and is now before the Senate, to provide for the transfer of the Forest Service from the Department of Agriculture to the Department of the Interior; and

Whereas the timber products bureau is strongly opposed to such transfer for the reason that the growth and development of the Forest Service and its problems are closely related to and associated with the responsibilities of the Department of Agriculture and for other reasons: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the timber products bureau recommend to the committee national legislation of the Spokane Chamber of Commerce that a vigorous pr be lodged with our Senators against any amendment or amendments to the bill having for their purpose the transfer of the Forest Service from the ment of Agriculture to the Department of the Interior. (Passed unanimously at the meeting of the timber 16, 1934.)

STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY HARRIS A. REYNOLDS, SECRETARY, MASSACHUSETTS FOREST AND PARK ASSOCIATION

There can be no question of the desirability of reorganization and rearrangement of some functions of the executive branch of the Federal Government. S. 2700 is an attempt to accomplish that end. We believe that this measure places too much power in the hands of the President, especially in the abolition of functions and agencies created by the Congress. Section 4 under title I-Reorganization, as to effective date of Executive order, permits Congress to make the order effective in less than 60 days, but does not specifically give it the power to annul such order. In the creation of new departments the bill is inconsistent and indefinite. For example, the functions of the proposed Department of Public Welfare, the Natural Resources Planning Board, the Civil Service Administration and Accounting and Auditing, are set forth in unmistakable language, but the provision for a Department of Conservation merely changes the name of the Department of the Interior without defining its duties.

The reason for the failure of the framers of this section of the bill to define the functions of this new department are perfectly evident to anyone who has followed the work of the Federal Government in the conservation of natural resources. They know that reorganization of the conservation agencies is probably the most controversial in the whole problem. They know that to divulge or define the real purposes back of this proposal for a conservation department would be to condemn it. Hence, they have merely proposed a change of name without defining the functions of the new department. It is presumed, of course, that the bureaus to be assembled under that department would carry on as before, but there is nothing in the section to express the will of Congress as to the policy under which this shall be done.

No one will deny that differences in viewpoint between the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture as to the methods of management of the natural resources in public ownership have been a bone of contention for generations. The forest reserves were taken from the Department of the Interior and placed under the Department of Agriculture because of the lack of public confidence at that time in the Department of the Interior to properly manage those areas. Even that chastisement did not bring reform in the methods of management of the remaining areas under its control. For example, its failure to prevent over-grazing on millions of acres of the public domain has resulted in destruction of the soil on those areas by erosion. The soil carried down by erosion is filling dams built at tremendous public expense for reclamation, by the same department, thus nullifying their usefulness. It is not the announced intentions of the Secretary, but the record of the Department that concerns the conservationists of the country. Certainly there is little in the record that would justify this proposed change of name. The word "conservation" has come to mean far more than its original use implied, and if strictly interpreted, bureaus from practically every present department of the Government could be transferred to this new department.

As a matter of fact, the main purpose back of this proposal is to enhance the prestige and political influence of the Department of the Interior by placing the Forest Service, the Soil Conservation Service, and the Biological Survey under its management. The power given the President by the first section of this bill would accomplish that purpose. But perhaps this proposal should not be taken too seriously. Every Member of Congress knows the friction that has existed for years between the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture and that this proposal for a new Department of Conservation, undoubtedly forced into this bill by the present Secretary of the Interior, is merely another blossom on that hardy perennial of interdepartmental jealousy. There is no assurance that a change of attitude on the part of that Department would be accomplished by simply a change of name and certainly no economies would be effected by a shift of management of the Forest Service or any other agency now dealing with the organic resources, that would offset the dangers of reduced efficiency and of subjection to political expediency under the renamed Department. Even if this section of the bill was passed, it would set up a long series of congressional battles before the forest conservationists of the country would submit to the return of the Forest Service to the old Department under a new name. If the public ever really wants a Department of Conservation it will demand a new model and not a rebuilt one of questionable design.

No statement of policy of the proposed Conservation Department has as yet been made in which the conservationists of the country could have the slightest confidence. This is a matter of vital importance to the welfare of the country.

The Secretary of the Interior has publicly expressed his determination to have the management of the Forest Service under his control. He knows that the word "conservation" is popular and that the public might naturally favor a governmental agency under that name. But, it has not been shown that this proposed Department would in any way improve the work now being done in conservation or make any savings of public money. As has been pointed out, this section of the bill carefully avoids placing upon the Secretary of the proposed Department any obligations as has been done in the case of other proposed Departments, and we cannot believe that the representatives of the people will entrust any Department with the conservation of the Nation's natural resources without some instruction written into the fundamental law creating that Department. On the conservation record of the present Department of the Interior we earnestly urge that section 402, pertaining to the creation of a Department of Conservation, be stricken from the bill.

The Massachusetts Forest and Park Association vigorously protests not only the possibility, inherent in this bill, of placing the Forest Service, the Soil Conservation Service, or the Biological Survey under the control of the Department of the Interior, but to the application of the term "Conservation" to the present Department of the Interior.

The CHAIRMAN. Is Dr. Woodward here this morning?

Dr. WOODWARD. Mr. Chairman, Dr. Cary will be the first to address you.

The CHAIRMAN. We will hear Dr. Cary then.

STATEMENT OF DR. EDWARD H. CARY, CHAIRMAN, LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITIES COMMITTEE, AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Cary, would you kindly give the stenographer your name and state the organization on behalf of which you appear? Dr. CARY. Edward H. Cary, Dallas, Tex., chairman of the legislative activities committee of the American Medical Association. The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed.

Dr. CARY. Mr. Chairman, we received your telegram, and we are very grateful to you for being permitted to come before you. As you know, we are deeply interested in the health and happiness of the people, and we believe the science of medicine can be developed best in the hands of medical men.

We believe, if there should be any change contemplated in regard to medicine and its correlation, other than the Army and Navy, it should be in a department with a medical man at its head.

In our interpretation of the bill we recognize that anything could happen to the Public Health Department that might seem desirable to the Executive; and while we are not at all afraid of the disruption of the Public Health Department, as medical men we are convinced that it will operate best if it is so planned, or so headed, that it will have the ready cooperation of the medical profession throughout the country.

The CHAIRMAN. Exactly what section is it, Doctor, that you have in mind which will affect the Public Health Service? May I ask if it is the section with reference to the Department of Welfare?

Dr. CARY. Yes, sir; Department of Welfare and Conservation, and National Resources Planning Board.

The CHAIRMAN. The provision for the establishment of a new department, and the specific provision that the Secretary of Welfare shall promote public health, safety, and sanitation-is that it?

Dr. CARY. Yes, sir. We have before us also, at least, we have in hand the Brookings report, which has been made for the select committee, as I understand it, this committee.

The CHAIRMAN. No; it was made for another committee.

Dr. CARY. Then you will have to forgive me. We have the telegram from you stating it was a select committee, so we associated the two. But there have been several suggestions made, Mr. Chairman, as to just what would be done with Public Health.

The American Medical Association has gone on record, and I would like to submit here a couple of paragraphs which were passed by the board of trustees of the American Medical Association and referred to its house of delegates at the Atlantic City meeting, and which was then endorsed by the house of delegates, which expresses the attitude of the medical profession as regards this particular subject, entitled "Reorganization of Governmental Medical Activities." I might place this in the record and not trouble you to read it, if you desire it.

The CHAIRMAN. We would be happy to have you do so. (The paper referred to is as follows:)

[Extract from minutes of meeting of board of trustees, American Medical Association, Chicago, Jan. 8, 1937] REORGANIZATION OF GOVERNMENTAL MEDICAL ACTIVITIES

Recognizing that committees of the Senate and of the House of Representatives of the United States Government and a special committee appointed by the President are at this time concerning themselves with the reorganization of Government activities with a view to greater efficiency and economy, and recognizing also that the President, in his opening address to Congress, indicated that he would shortly present to the Congress recommendations for such reorganization of governmental activities in the executive branches, and recognizing moreover the great desirability that all activities of the Federal Government having to do with the promotion of health and the prevention of disease might with advantage be consolidated in one department and under one head, the board of trustees of the American Medical Association would recommend that such health activities as now exist be so consolidated in a single department which would not, however, be subservient to any charitable, conservatory, or other governmental interest. It has been repeatedly said that public-health work is the first problem of the State. It is the opinion of the board of trustees that health activities of the Government, except those concerned with the military establishments, should not be subservient to any other departmental interests. This reorganization and consolidation of medical departments need not, under present circumstances, involve any expansion or extension of governmental health activities, but should serve actually to consolidate and thus to eliminate such duplications as exist. It is also the view of the board of trustees that the supervision and direction of such medical or health department should be in the hands of a competently trained physician, experienced in executive administration. Adopted.

Dr. CARY. I would like to read just a part of it.

"This reorganization and consolidation of medical departments need not, under present circumstances, involve any expansion or extension of governmental health activities but should serve actually to consolidate and thus to eliminate such duplications as exist. It is also the view of the board of trustees that the supervision and direction of such medical or health department should be in the hands of a competently trained physician, experienced in executive administration."

The CHAIRMAN. This bill provides for the creation of a new depart

ment.

Dr. CARY. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. While the President would have the power to transfer a bureau, it seems logical that if a new department were established that the Public Health Service should be transferred from

the Treasury, where, in my opinion, it never should have been, to this department, but it would not involve anything that would be antagonistic to the view expressed in this resolution. It would be my hope that it would offer greater opportunity for the Public Health Service in the Welfare Department.

Dr. CARY. We feel that might be true, Mr. Chairman, provided there was some definite control, or at least some definite group which would be in sympathy with public health, that would know all about public health, that would control the activities of public health.

The CHAIRMAN. We must all hope that the President will appoint only a physician, or someone who is in sympathy with the aims of the Public Health Service. To my mind, this would give the Public Health Service, in which Bureau I have been greatly interested through the years, improved Government machinery.

Dr. CARY. Mr. Chairman, there are many angles to this. For instance, there is the social-welfare side, the social-service side, the social business point of view, the social labor point of view, and the medical point of view, and the educational point of view, and, as I understand it, all of these are to be grouped, more or less; that is, the things that are related to medicine and related to these other groups would be under this appointee, who would be, supposedly, a Cabinet officer. Now we feel that the Cabinet officer might not have as broad a vision of this question of public health as he would have if he was clothed, possibly, with a more direct control of that.

We feel that this Department of Health is so big, it represents so much, as far as the public welfare is concerned, that it should stand on its own legs-that there should be a department of health. Now, if that is not contemplated by the Executive, or the committee, or the Senate, then we feel it would be very sound policy that someone, some group that would directly represent education, directly represent public health-that is, the medical profession, its view on public health-directly represent business, and industrial, and other groups of that type, which would all be social welfare, and the groups which would naturally be more or less correlated and associated, and public health would have some rather definite representation—that is, the medical profession-if its conception of what constitutes an active, progressive, and sound public-health policy would be properly represented.

We, as a profession, are deeply concerned in that public health will not be isolated and become simply a department of some social-welfare worker, with an attitude rather limited to that view, rather than the broader view which we have in mind.

We would like to see public health protected in that fashion. Primarily, we would like to see it, as I say, stand on its own feet, because it constitutes one of the great problems of government. Public health means very much to the people. Its ever-growing science of medicine is being utilized to prevent diseases, for the welfare of the public, and all that, and it stands out this day much stronger and with much more force than it did a long time ago, when it came through the Marine Department into the Treasury, and so on.

I agree with you that apparently it has no real reason for being in the Treasury Department. On the other hand, it is left to itself, if you will allow me to say so that it is able to carry on rather independently, even though coming through a department of that kind.