spect for either of you if you did not believe your life's work the most important of all. We now have 132 separate commissions in the Government, and instead of merging, which is the purpose of this bill, if we began to separate them we would have 500. The head of the Public Health Service would never get a chance to get near the White House, or near the Congress, either to see the President or to see the Congress. The only hope for good organization is to bring these important bureaus together, so that the Public Health Service can have a representative at the Cabinet table.

Do you think under the Treasury the Public Health Service-and I am interested in it as much as you are could ever have the chance of enlisting the Secretary of the Treasury's active interest to present their views with the same enthusiasm and the same intimate knowledge, either to the Cabinet or to a committee of Congress that the Public Health Service will have in a Department which names as its activity the Department of Public Welfare? That is the first step to be promoted. In my opinion, this is the first chance the Public Health Service has had, in my years of service here to receive, proper recognition at the hands of the Government.

Dr. WOODWARD. The danger is that the expert public health information filtering through the Assistant Secretary, the Under Secretary, and the Secretary to Congress and the President, will be so diluted as to be ineffective.

The CHAIRMAN. You have the Public Health Service filtering through the Assistant Secretary along with the financiers, and you have the Coast Guard with them, and they have absolutely no relation to the Treasury. Here is the Secretary of the Treasury, interested in floating a bond issue, and the head of the Public Health Service comes to him to talk about sanitation.

Dr. WOODWARD. I am familiar with that.

The CHAIRMAN. This is the greatest advance in the Public Health Service.

Dr. WOODWARD. I am not quarreling with you on that. We want to get the most effective organization we can with the least danger to the future of the medical profession.

The CHAIRMAN. We all have the same object. If we do not accomplish anything it is not our fault.

Dr. WOODWARD. We shall be glad to help you out.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will recess until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.

(Whereupon, at the hour of 11:15 a. m. the committee recessed until 10 a. m. on the following day, Saturday, Aug. 7, 1937.)

(Statements from associations interested in public works follow:)

STATEMENT OF AMERICAN ENGINEERING COUNCIL

The American Engineering Council appreciates the opportunity which you have extended through the Secretary of the Select Committee on Government Reorganization to summarize for the consideration of your committee some of the conclusions reached through years of serious study by a number of committees of nationally known engineering authorities, on both public and private administrative management, who have concerned themselves with recurring manifestations of the distressing need for the reorganization of the Federal Governmtns' administrative agencies. Although it covers a long period of time, the entire statement is applicable to conditions in the executive branch of the Government which might be improved by the enactment of legislation similar to S. 2700, introduced by the late Senator Robinson of Arkansas, and you are respectfully requested to include it with other testimony submitted during the hearing for publications.

Engineers believe that the President should have effective managerial authority over the executive branch of the Federal Government commensurate with his responsibility under the Constitution of the United States, but they are not as concerned with strengthening the executive as they are with the larger aim of strengthening the administrative management system of the United States as a whole. They feel that the need for reorganization of the many agencies rests not only on the idea of savings, as considerable as they may be, but upon a very real need for a more economical and effective organization which could be more easily understood and controlled by the people. It is realized the reorganization of the many units of the executive branch of the Federal Government is an enormous undertaking, but engineers urge reorganization under direction of the Chief Executive on the basis of standards set by Congress to provide up-to-date management for whatever activities may be decided upon by the people.

Engineers have for many years favored the use of the merit system in personnel administration, and they now endorse the idea of expanding civil service to cover all nonpolicy determining positions. They recognize the civil service system as a valuable part of Government management under a nonpartisan Civil Service Commission and urge salary adjustments throughout the service so that the Government may attract and hold in a career service men and women of the highest character and ability. Such a career is possible only when Government service is concentrated and most of its positions are filled through civil service. In that way, opportunities for advancement open up to employees in the whole career system instead of the limited confines of a small service. Under such circumstances, engineers feel that direct appointments by the President should be reduced to a very small number of only the highest positions, and all other civilian positions should be filled by the heads of departments, without fixed term, through civil service with adequate tests to determine fitness.

Engineers, who have made enormous contributions to the social advancement and economic welfare of their country and civilization, feel that they are qualified by training and experience to advise their Government regarding engineering and public-works activities. On that assumption, they recommend the creation of a Public Works Department to which the President should be authorized to transfer such major engineering and construction work for Government agencies as may be practicable. Engineers believe that a Public Works Department should be authorized to coordinate the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of all large-scale public works which are not incidental to the normal work of other departments, to act as an agent of other departments on engineering public works, to administer Federal grants to national, State, and local agencies for construction purposes, and to gather information with regard to public works needs and standards throughout the Nation. They believe that a relatively small staff could and should direct such work in the hands of engineers in private practice and contractors in private business throughout the United States, without confusion and waste or the loss of valuable time.

Such reorganization should promote efficient Government in all of its branches, because it is now extremely difficult even for persons charged with executive duties and legislative responsibilities to properly comprehend many of the problems that arise among scores of scattered agencies. As related functions falling in the same field or having the same general purpose could be brought into organic connection and their operations made capable of consideration, as a whole, it should be easier for the Chief Executive to formulate programs for submission to Congress; and Congress should be able to give more intelligent consideration to legislation and reach less hurried decisions regarding appropriations. The service agencies could perform their work with more certainty, and the public could more readily comprehend the work of the Government, more directly exercise that general control which should obtain under a popular government, and more easily transact business with the Government's agencies.

In general, engineers agree that our public works are well designed, honestly executed, and administered without conscious or deliberate waste or extravagance, but as long ago as April 1886, a meeting of prominent engineers held in Cleveland, Ohio, recognized the need for the elimination of overlapping activities among Federal Government agencies. A number of general suggestions were made at that time, but the engineers confined their recommendations to proposals for the coordination of Government engineering and construction work. Some of those ideas appeared in the Cullom-Breckenridge bill in 1888, which proposed to improve the public-works situation by the elimination of certain duplications.

In April 1919, representatives of almost every State and every phase of engineering met in Chicago, Ill., and formulated the opinion that all public works and the engineering connected with it could and should be placed under one management.

That opinion was accepted by an even larger meeting of representative engineers in Washington, D. C., in 1920, which fostered a general program of Government reorganization and endorsed S. 2232, which had been introduced in the Sixty-sixth Congress to create a Department of Public Works for the sake of economy in the conduct of the Federal Government's construction business. Numerous sugges

tions have been made and modified as a result of observation and experience, but a majority of engineers remain firm in their conviction that the elimination of duplication, confusion, and waste is as essential to the stability of good government as it is to success in private enterprise.

As it became evident that succeeding Congresses were seriously interested in reorganization and that legislation for merging of public works functions was likely to have careful consideration, it was decided in May 1925 that the American Engineering Council should make an open-minded comprehensive study of all Government engineering, construction, operation, and maintenance activities. To that end, seven experts were appointed on a special committee which was provided with funds to make an exhaustive investigation and report the facts as they found them, without regard to the effect on proposed legislation. The results of the study, which eventually made use of the services of some 300 engineers in 26 States, were read into the hearing on H. R. 8127 of the Seventieth Congress in April 1928. They took every possibility into consideration and concluded that all public works functions should be concentrated in one department with the necessary divisions and subdivisions.

In March 1932, the American Engineering Council appeared in hearings before the House Committee on Expenditures on H. R. 6665 and H. R. 6670 which were introduced during the Seventy-second Congress, and advocated the establishment of a Public Works Administration which would include major engineering, construction, operation, and maintenance functions. Consideration of this problem continued into 1933 and in February 1933, council modified its ideas with reference to the jurisdiction of a Public Works Department so that none of the activities of the War and Navy Departments would be included or served by the public works organization, notwithstanding the fact that there are sound reasons for including them in any comprehensive reorganization program.

Each succeeding year, including 1937, the representatives on the assembly of American Engineering Council from 49 national, State, and local engineering organizations within the United States have held "to the principle that the responsibility for engineering public works of the Federal Government should be concentrated, so far as practicable, under one qualified head." Recognizing "the inexpediency of committing itself in advance to details as to how best to put this principle into effect", council is under instructions from the engineering profession "to continue to support all efforts likely to result in the ultimate unification of engineering public works activities."

In recent weeks, the American Society of Civil Engineers, which is a member of the American Engineering Council, passed a resolution supporting the "enactment of suitable legislation designed to create a Federal Department of Public Works, as proposed by the President of the United States, with definite provision for excluding the Army engineers and their river and harbor work from this Department." It is felt that the Engineers Corps of the Army is now doing such creditable work on a special program of so great importance that any disturbance would be most unwise, even though certain definite economies might accrue from the transfer of nonmilitary duties.

It should be understood that engineers do not contemplate any serious disruption of the functions of the Government agencies which might be placed under the jurisdiction of a Department of Public Works. It is a matter merely of concentrating related services and should not necessarily involve consolidations. Consequently, existing working organizations need not be disturbed by the reorganization processes, and all questions of redistribution of duties and the like would remain for decision by proper authority in the light of subsequent experience and investigation.

As a guarantee of maximum economy in the cost of public works operations and as a safeguard against the gradual acquisition of a large force of permanent public works employees and the temptation to make work for them, engineers suggest that the Secretary of Public Works be authorized to employ, from time to time, according to actual need and by contract at fair rates of compensation, outside technical or construction services of competent persons, firms, or corporations for the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of such work as may be placed under the management of a Public Works Department. In that way, the engineering and construction resources of the Nation in men, equipment and

materials would be known and immediately available for effective cooperation with both arms of national defense should need for it ever arise.

With the establishment and maintenance of such a flexible Department of Public Works, there would be an adequate administrative, supervisory, and advisory organization for the direction of public works activities in any emergency. By bringing the major engineering and larger public works functions together and the conservation of construction resources, it would be possible to develop a more complete plan of public works whereby the planning, timing, and financing of public construction could be coordinated with economic conditions. Such a Public Works Department could perform many functions by joint action with other agencies. Thus public construction could be made to serve as a balance wheel in our national economy and with preparations made on a long-time basis a Department of Public Works might well become a centralized agency to help relieve unemployment during periods of economic depression.

In order that the American Engineering Council's motive with reference to Government reorganization may be better understood, it is explained that council is a nonprofit educational institution incorporated under the laws of the District of Columbia 17 years ago to provide means for the unification of the engineering profession in viewpoint, thought, and action on social and economic questions, involved in public affairs, without interfering with the specialized technical field or the autonomy of member engineering societies. Its constitution states that "the object of this organization shall be to further the public welfare wherever technical and engineering knowledge and experience are involved, and to consider and act upon matters of common concern to the engineering and allied technical professions." In that concept of public service, council accepts the responsibility of fostering clear thinking by engineers on public questions, or promoting factual analysis of engineering economic problems and for publicizing resulting engineering opinion. It is, therefore, an unbiased nonpartisan organization of engineering societies unmoved by anything but the desire to serve the public in an advisory capacity. American Engineering Council welcomes any opportunity to be of service to Members of Congress and their committees.

STATEMENT OF FRANCIS P. SULLIVAN, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS, AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS

The following suggestion is submitted for an amendment to the proposed reorganization act, which will have the effect of clarifying the situation with with respect to the employment of professional services in the Government Departments, in which the architectural profession is deeply interested.

It is perhaps not necessary for me to point out the necessity of the proper design of Federal structures. On the practical side, the measure of skill and care with which the plans of these buildings are prepared determines the efficiency with which they can be utilized in the public service and the economy with which the expenditure of appropriated funds is made. But, aside from the utility of the buildings, there is another aspect of almost equal importance. The Federal Government buildings in the various communities throughout the country represent to the average citizen his most familiar contact with our national Government and stand to him as the symbol and outward expression of the greatness of his country. There are great numbers of people who come to Washington for the sole purpose of seeing the city and the great Federal buildings here and there is no question that their patriotism and their pride in their country is greatly stimulated by looking upon the dome of the Capitol rising above the headquarters of the Government, the refined beauty of the White House, and the dignity of the numerous fine structures in this city.

Similarly, in their own communities they are stimulated in a more or less degree by the official structures of the Government when these are dignified and worthy. The Government is also in an unique position to perform a service in the education of its citizens, of distinct advantage in the intellectual life of the country, by holding up before the people the highest standards of excellence in design and craftsmanship, utilizing for this purpose every aesthetic resource of the Nation, so that every citizen may have the opportunity of seeing, in at least one building in his community, good architecture, good painting, and good sculpture. For some years past there has been observed in those agencies of the Government having to do with the planning of Federal structures, an increasing tendency to entrust the design of these buildings to drafting forces within their own organizations, thereby failing to take advantage of the experience and ability of architects in private practice.

I do not wish to say anything which might seem to reflect upon the ability or the devotion to duty of the architectural employees of the Government departments. I have the highest respect for many of them. The American Institute of Architects, at its last convention, testified to the accomplishments of the present Supervising Architect of the Treasury Department by conferring upon him the honor of a fellowship in the institute; but I believe that these very Government employees, insofar as they are men of architectural training, would agree with the opinion of the profession at large that the best type of architecture cannot be obtained from a salaried governmental designing force, but that the greater originality and vitality which is the result of the broader contacts and more varied practice of outside architects makes their work of greater value to the Government.

The present Government Bureaus have an important and necessary part to play in coordinating the activities of those engaged in the design of public buildings, determining schedule requirements and carrying out the intricate and essential administrative functions laid down in the law and regulations. There is also a very large volume of work connected with repairs, alterations, and extensions of buildings which they are better equipped to handle than anyone outside of Government employ.

But in the design of complete structures, particularly those of major importance, it is the opinion of the American Institute of Architects that best results are obtained through the employment of capable architects in private practice, under the direction of the Government construction bureaus.

The Congress has recognized this condition by customarily incorporating in the laws authorizing public buildings legislative permission authorizing the heads of departments, where deemed to be desirable and advantageous, to employ professional services by contract, but in the absence of such specific legislation it has been held by the Comptroller General that the provisions of section 3709 of the Revised Statutes apply to such cases and that such services can be engaged only upon the basis of competitive bidding which is, of course, not applicable to professional services.

It is accordingly suggested that at the end of title II of the bill the following provision be incorporated:

"The head of any department or independent establishment authorized to enter into contracts for the construction of public buildings, or to direct the preparation of sketches, estimates, plans, or specifications for the same, including the supervision or inspection thereof, may, when deemed by him desirable and advantageous, employ, by contract or otherwise, the technical or professional services of individuals, firms, or corporations without reference to the civilservice laws, rules, and regulations, or to the Classification Act of 1923 as amended, or to section 3709 of the Revised Statutes."

May I add further that although the pending bill contains no provision for the creation of a Department of Public Works, the American Institute of Architects has, in the past, expressed its advocacy in principle of the creation of such a Department, insofar as study and analysis may show that the control of the construction activities may advantageously be combined.

STATEMENT OF Behalf of THE CONSTRUCTION LEAGUE OF THE UNITED STATES WITH RESPECT TO PROPOSED LEGISLATION FOR THE REORGANIZATION OF THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS OF THE GOVERNMENT

We recognize the importance and scope of the problems inherent in any sincere attempt to formulate legislation to effect comprehensive and advantageous improvement in the administration of governmental departments and agencies through the transfer, consolidation, elimination, or regrouping of departmental services, functions, and activities.

In presenting this statement for the consideration of the Joint Committee on Government Organization attention will be directed to a single phase of such reorganization concerning which, as a national organization composed of 15 representative national associations and groups engaged in the important phases of construction activities and 15 affiliated State construction leagues and building congresses, we have a very definite interest.

We refer to the desirability of creating a Department of Public Works under the jurisdiction of which would be placed such appropriate and essentially similar services, functions, and activities as might be shown, as the result of adequate study and analysis, to be in the public interest through the insuring of more effective and efficient administrative methods, both within such department and in the discharge of the business activities within its jurisdiction; the elimination