The CHAIRMAN. Do you think they would feel free to talk in executive session?

Dr. SHEARON. The amount of fear inside the Public Health Service is a most unfortunate situation, and fear is rather rampant inside the whole Federal Security Agency at the present time. It is too bad.

The CHAIRMAN. The whole Congress has to pass on this program, and not just this committee. How could we give them assurance that their confidences would be protected; and, if we did protect them, the other Members of the Congress would not have the information: I do not see that an executive session to let them express their views in secret and in confidence would accomplish anything.

Dr. SHEARON. Is it not unfortunate for the United States that we have such a condition that Federal officials are afraid to speak out their true opinions, for fear they will lose their jobs if they so speak? I think it is unfortunate.

The CHAIRMAN. That is a matter of individual opinion. There are a lot of people who believe in a welfare state and a police state. Dr. SHEARON. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. After all, it is a matter of individual opinion. That is something that addresses itself to the American people. Dr. SHEARON. That is correct.

I have a few scattered points here.

I might say that a Federal agency will not help to distribute medical personnel, whether it is headed by a physician or by a layman. We had an experience with War Manpower Commission during the war when surely everybody wanted to do his patriotic duty, and you just couldn't get physicians to go to certain parts of the country. They wouldn't go. Neither would you go and I wouldn't go. There are just parts of this country where nobody wants to go but the few people who live there. That is an unfortunate thing, and it can't be overcome by Federal fiat or compulsory health insurance. They found that in Germany. After 60 years of compulsory health insurance they were still clamoring that they couldn't get physicians into rural areas.

It is stated that what you need is a Department of Welfare, a tripartite one, headed by a good Administrator, and I ask if any of the three successive Administrators of the Federal Security Agency have had administrative experience. It has been some other kind, legal in the case of Mr. Ewing. He had not been in the welfare or health field until 1947 when he came down to Washington as a political appointee, with political ambitions. I am not saying that in any personal way, but I am trying to indicate that we have not so far in 10 years had men who were necessarily able Administrators with long administrative experience. It hasn't turned out that way.

I think that it is not a question of opposition by the medical profession. The thing is that it is wrong in principle to centralize in any single agency or department as much power as would be vested in this particular Department covering health, education, social security, and welfare. The social-security program last year cost approximately 2.5 billion dollars. That is a lot of money. It is dangerous for one man to control the expenditure of such sums and to control rules and regulations. As Mr. Ewing testified last year, under crossexamination in regard to the Wagner-Murray-Dingell bill, he said,

"The final authority would be vested in me," in one person. He stated that himself.

So it is concentration of power in a single agency and a single individual that would be bad. It has been suggested that the President might even, after giving Mr. Ewing a 60-day appointment, might even appoint a physician to head the Welfare Department. I would say that that was just as bad as to appoint anyone else. I think a physician might well be vulnerable when it came to controlling so much money, so much power over everyone in the United States. It is just a bad proposition, it seems to me.

I should like to point out that part of the time there has been not a single physician in the Social Security Administration, and the rest of the time there has been one. Yet that lay agency has taken upon itself to attempt to control the Public Health Service and to write legislation. It is a very serious situation and that is the kind of thing which we have seen going on now for more than 10 years. Why shouldn't people be suspicious? They would be very stupid if they were not suspicious that it would be even worse if the Federal Security Agency were elevated to departmental status.

Now, if I may go back to my testimony, one of the things I pointed out last time was the fact that there has been this enormous increase in expenditure. It is an alarming increase, it seems to me. We have not had the savings that were promised. Near the top of page 2 of my testimony you will see a table which I think is very startling, namely, the increase in expenditures from 743 million dollars in 1946 up to 1.5 billions dollars at the present time, doubled in 5 years, and the proposed programs would increase that rate of expenditure very, very greatly.

If the education bill goes through, you start in with $300,000,000, and you know when you start in with $300,000,000, pretty soon you are up to $500,000,000, and so on up. There are increases in the Public Health Service expenditures, and great increases proposed for social security. That would then put one man in charge of those multibillion-dollar programs. I think it is too much.

Now I wish to point out that if you are going to make these transfers of functions out of the Federal Security Agency you had better make them in advance because it will be almost impossible to get health and medicine out of the Welfare Department afterward. It has been suggested that the present Welfare Department idea is all right as far as it goes, and later on we could take out health and medicine.

However, Mr. Ewing himself has stated that he is opposed to any such transfer, and of course the President also opposed it. So it doesn't seem as though there would be much likelihood of having the Hoover Commission recommendations carried out later on. I think it would be even harder to carry them out after the Department were set up.

What you are here called upon to decide is whether the health and medical services of this Nation are to be controlled by lay administrators and lay policy makers. The only way to protect our national health services is to place them in an independent agency beyond the reach of lay political control, under qualified medical supervision. Certainly the Hoover Commission proposal does call for medical supervision of these highly technical programs.

That becomes evident. If you work in the two agencies you see the difference in the type of personnel. In the Social Security Administration you have economists, statisticians, and analysts, many clerks, actuaries, and so forth, a totally different type of personnel from what you have in the Public Health Service, where you have physicians, dentists, nurses, sanitary engineers, and men who are engaged in pure science in the National Institutes of Health. When you attempt to put a lay person in charge of that scientific personnel, it simply doesn't work out. They don't talk the same language. They don't even know what the scientist is talking about.

During the past year and a half Mr. Ewing has demonstrated to what length he will go in fighting for the nationalization of medicine without having any understanding of what is involved administratively. Were he elevated to the Cabinet and allowed to keep the FSA virtually intact, I think we might expect a new drive in 1950 to nationalize medicine, and no one doubts that that is the political strategy.

It must be realized that the FSA is essentially an inflated Social Security Administration with a costly overloaded superstructure. Before 1939 the Social Security Board operated with a budget well under $1,000,000,000, but since the FSA has taken over the operating functions of society security much larger sums are being demanded from Congress. Of the total amount of specific appropriations for 1950, 82 percent is for social security. That indicates in itself how the welfare and social-security programs dominate by money alone, and also the number of personnel. In its 1950 budget the Social Security Administration asked for $1,226,863,000, or five times as much as the $273,000,000 requested for all other bureaus and divisions in the FSA, including the Public Health Service and the Office of Education. In other words, Social Security now takes five times as much as these smaller agencies.

This dominance of the welfare branch of the FSA has placed undue emphasis on the programs, personnel, and funds of welfare and socialsecurity bureaus. More than that, there has been a growing tendency to emphasize the welfare, rather than the scientific, approach to health and medical matters. The powerful social-security staff has lorded it over the Public Health Service. Nonmedical personnel have dictated to medical staff. The situation is absurd and dangerous, insofar as programs for improvement of national health is concerned. It has even been proposed to bring medical research, medical education, and hospital-construction programs within the purview of the social-security system. That was all written up in Senate Committee Print No. 5 of 1946 on medical-care insurance, and this committee should take a look at that report which actually stakes out what the Social Security Administration would do in fields that you might think were far afield from social security. These proposals have been made by lay administrators greedy for power and for the control of multibillion dollar Federal appropriations.

Since plan No. 1 proposes that a specific individual, the present Federal Security Administrator, be elevated on a temporary basis to the post of Secretary of Welfare, it is incumbent on this committee to pass on the qualifications of the official in question. I wish to file with the committee as part of my testimony to be incorporated at this point

a summary of some of the activities of Mr. Ewing since his appointment as Federal Security Administrator in 1947. I gave a copy to the members of the committee.

The CHAIRMAN. That will be examined.

Dr. SHEARON. It is a factual statement. These things have come

out in print.

The CHAIRMAN. If it does not deal in personalities it will be admitted to the record.

(The statement referred to above is in the files of the committee.) Dr. SHEARON. I have nothing against Mr. Ewing one way or the other. I am pointing out-

The CHAIRMAN. You are the one who mentioned personalities at the beginning.

Dr. SHEARON. I did it because it is said that these statements involve personalities. I don't know Mr. Ewing, as a matter of fact, and have had nothing to do with him. I have no feeling one way or the other. I did bring this information together and thought it would save the time of the committee instead of my trying to read it in here.

Mr. Ewing has come in for considerable criticism for the manner in which he is lobbying for the Wagner-Murray-Dingell bill to nationalize medicine. I refer especially to his having set up the National Health Assembly as a nonprofit corporation for fund-raising purposes. By misrepresenting the objectives of the assembly and the manner in which it was to be conducted, he obtained a ruling from the Bureau of Internal Revenue that contributions to that assembly would be tax-exempt. I refer there to hearings on appropriation bills in which his letter to the Bureau of Internal Revnue is given and the letter in reply from Mr. Shoeneman. Such misrepresentation is indicative of a lack of recognition of the high responsibilities that go with high office. Is the man who would so misrepresent the facts qualified for a Cabinet post?

There are two other important matters with regard to Ewing's administration. He appointed J. Donald Kingsley as his Assistant Administrator. Kingsley held that post until July 8 when he was appointed Director General of the International Refugee Organization. Kingsley has been a Communist collaborator. He was denounced on the floor of the House on June 2 by Representative Keefe, of Wisconsin. I wish to incorporate Mr. Keefe's speech as part of my statement at this point and also to include excerpts from two of my issues of American Medicine and the Political Scene, which deal with Kingsley's Communist collaboration.

The CHAIRMAN. You may include the excerpts from the magazine article, if they are not too long.

Dr. SHEARON. They are not.

(NOTE. The committee decided Dr. Shearon's testimony amply covered the subject so the excerpts from the magazine article were filed with the committee.) The CHAIRMAN. As to the speech of Mr. Keefe, if that is part of the Congressional Record, that you have cited, any member can refer to that and read it. It need not be printed in the record.

Dr. SHEARON. This whole question of the type of public officials in certain bureaus in the FSA was investigated by the Harness subcommittee of the House Committee on Expenditures in Executive Departments in 1947. Some 47 officials were named as having been engaged

in lobbying for certain legislation before the Congress. The FBI spent 4 months investigating those officials and turned in a report to the Attorney General at the end of 1947. The report still slumbers in the Department of Justice. The public has a right to know the results of the FBI investigation.

My recommendations: In the light of these facts I recommend: (1) That the committee reject plan No. 1; (2) that creation of a Welfare Department should be preceded by establishment of a United Medical Administration; and, (3) that a congressional commission be appointed to make a thorough investigation of the Federal Security Agency and especially the Social Security Administration. Charges made by the House Expenditures Committee in 1947 against certain of the FSA officials should be revived. The designated officials and others guilty of similar offenses should be brought to trial for breaking the lobbying law and for violations of other Federal laws. This commission should also consider the long-range effects of the Social Security Act, the misuse of trust funds, and the impact of the socialsecurity taxing program on our entire economy, with a view to repeal of the Social Security Act. The Commission should also investigate the commitments of the United States to the Socialist-dominated International Labor Organization and should consider our withdrawal from that agency.

I should like to submit, not to make a part of the record but for the use of the committee, my testimony before the House on the WagnerMurray-Dingell bill, and a chart which shows the lobbying groups. I should particularly like the members please to look at the chart. It need not be incorporated in the record.

The CHAIRMAN. It may be filed for reference.

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

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Doctor. Senator Schoeppel, have you any questions?

Senator SCHOEPPEL. Dr. Shearon, what you are primarily alarmed and concerned about is making some of these departments a political football and being used for propagandizing maybe some of their ideas about socialization of some of the important segments of this great. country, isn't it?

Dr. SHEARON. That is true.

Senator SCHOEPPEL. I want to say to you quite frankly I think it is reprehensible that any agency would use a public trust and a public responsibility for propagandizing a lot of their ideas and theories. I do not object to their instilling into their departments good departmental methods and practices, but I think there is a responsibility resting upon Members of Congress and this committee and other related agencies that are interested in this great country to see that we. have less of this political football kicking around and more concentration on legislative matters that will give this country and the people in it renewed confidence in public officials on a fair and impartial basis. That just happens to be my opinion.

The CHAIRMAN. Supplementing your statement, Senator, if I may suggest that the folks who condemn what they term lobbying by the American Medical Association, by farmers' organizations, and by business interests, are usually the ones we find lobbying in the Federal Government. When they object to what they term a slush fund provided by individual citizens who contribute out of their own.