Department of Health, Education, and Security. Hearing ... on S.140 ... and S.712 ... February 28-

has as its logical objective the proposal now before the Congress. The deve ments of the war and the reconversion periods make this an appropriate I believe, to consider the question afresh.

The Agency's experience-nearly all of it under wartime pressures—has d onstrated the validity of grouping together Government programs for hea education, and security. It has proved, too, the practical need for strengthen their structure through the departmental organization now contemplated. B ing on this experience, the proposed Department would provide a firm base the continuing improvement of these fundamental services:

1. The creation of such a Department would affirm the public interes health, education, and security as components of the general welfare.

National authority to act in this field has been confirmed by the Supreme Co as resting squarely upon the Constitution. The laws which the new Depart would administer were enacted by the Congress for no other purpose than promote the general welfare" in its broad constitutional sense. The scope these measures calls for the establishment of an executive department to ca this responsibility-which cannot be fully met through any less comprehens

means.

2. The Department would give the public services for health, education, & security a hearing in the Cabinet and place upon the Secretary responsibil for representing the people in their essential character as individuals and fa lies.

Whenever the public interest has required it, Government services have be authorized to meet the multiplying problems of our increasingly complex nation life. Thus, the Department of the Treasury deals with the citizen in his capac as a taxpayer; the Department of Agriculture with that segment of the pop lation engaged in farming; the Department of Commerce with industry a management; the Department of Labor with wage earners. But because su departments serve their designated spheres of interest, no one of them is prepar to serve the citizen in what is, after all, his fundamental capacity as an in vidual human being. From the earliest days of our history, Government servic which look to the preservation of these human values have, to be sure, follow this same evolutionary process. But the pattern is not yet complete. The G ernment is still without a departmental mandate to promote the welfare of th people simply as people, to help them build a foundation on which each a achieve his own assurances and pursue his own best interests.

3. The new Department would also strengthen and simplify interrelationshi between this and other arms of Government-the Congress, the President, Fe eral agencies, and the States.

Because every individual and every family has a multiple stake in healt education, and security, no needless barriers should stand in the way of joi action that would make services readily accessible in the local communiti where the people live. By strengthening the administration of existing program such a Department should forestall overemphasis and make for constructiv balance among related services, and should enable the people to realize an eve larger return on their investment in these services.

4. Finally, the new Department should follow and facilitate the insisten of the professions concerned that in dealing with basic human needs, the who is greater than the sum of its parts.

This principle is demonstrated by the several sciences to which the new D partment must look for professional competence. Medicine, for example, con pensates intensive specialization by insistence on viewing man as a whole, as person rather than a series of unrelated symptoms. So, also, education place its emphasis on the whole child and on teaching as a means of enhancing huma values. Again in social security, putting a floor under income is only a partia answer; security remains, in the last analysis, a function of the whole man This integration is even more apparent in the interrelationships among thes fields the doctor is the first to point out that ignorance and poverty are as muc foes of health as infection and physical degeneration; the teacher, that educa tion cannot make headway against illness and hunger and fear; the specialist in social welfare, that without health and training the combined efforts of the individual and society can achieve only a meager or precarious security. What ever the future of services to meet these needs, it should be one in Government administration, as it is in the view of science and in the experience of human living.

These, then, are some of the purposes which the establishment of the proposed epartment would further: To provide for health, education, and security a arter commensurate with their status as essentials of the general welfare; to ve a voice in the highest councils of the Nation to the people simply as people; to rengthen the administrative structure of the measures they have set up for eir own service; and to follow professional guidance in focusing these services the whole individual.

The heart of the bill is contained in sections 3 and 4, declaring the purposes ad defining the functions of the new Department. These sections are written the broadest terms, and in my judgment this is proper. The present statutory inctions of this Agency cannot adequately be stated in a particularistic manAn agency designed to meet the needs of the people of the Nation in matrs pertaining to "individual, family, and community well-being," moreover, hould be given sufficient scope to enable it to meet changing requirements and hanging conditions from time to time.

er.

The name of the new Department proposed in the bill, I believe, is as descripve of its functions as any that could be devised. I say this in the conviction hat the word "security" would be generally accepted, in this context, as denoting hat we have come to describe as social security, and thus as embracing social isurances, public assistance, and social-welfare services.

There are several provisions of the bill to which I wish to call more particular ttention:

1. The bill (section 2 (a)) would provide for three Under Secretaries, one a octor of medicine to supervise health activities in the Department, one an ducator to supervise educational activities, and one experienced in social secuity and welfare to supervise activities in that field. It would provide for no over-all deputy, no under secretary in the sense in which that term is most ommonly used.

These provisions, I believe, would unduly emphasize the professional work of he new Department at the expense of its broadly public services, would impede election by the President of the best qualified administrators, and would make istinctly more difficult the processes of coordination among the different but Pelated functions of the Department. The provisions would constitute a departire from the uniform practice by which the heads of executive departments and heir immediate assistants are selected without the imposition of any statutory qualifications whatsoever; the only exceptions being that the Solicitor General and the Assistant Attorneys General, presumably in deference to the courts before which they must practice, must be learned in the law; and that the Under Secretary of War, the Under Secretary of the Navy, and an Assistant Secretary of the Navy are affirmatively required to be selected from civil life.

There are already in the Federal Security Agency professional persons in immediate charge of most of its principal units, such as the Public Health Service, the Office of Education, and the Social Security Administration. No strength would be added to the present administrative structure by superimposing another physician to oversee the Surgeon General, another educator to supervise the Commissioner of Education, or another social-security expert to review the operations of the Commissioner for Social Security.

Officials appointed to represent their respective professions are not likely to be the most helpful to the Secretary in the all-important task of giving a common direction to the several professional groups and professional points - of view within the new department. The reasons for creating one department instead of three rest largely in the fact that we are concerned with the health and the education and the security of the same men and women, and that the needs of these people do not always divide themselves neatly among the professions. S. 140 in its present form seems to impose on the Secretary, without much aid from his statutory assistants, the vital task of directing the several professional services toward a more rounded whole. This, I believe, is too large a task for one man to perform.

2. The bill (section 5 (a)) would create three divisions within the Department, which "shall have charge," respectively, of its health functions and activities, its educational functions and activities, and its social security and welware functions and activities.

These provisions are apparently modified by specfic assignment (section 6 (b)) of certain named agencies and their functions to stated divisions. Thus, the assignment of the Children's Bureau and its functions to the Division of

has as its logical objective the proposal now before the Congress. The developments of the war and the reconversion periods make this an appropriate time, I believe, to consider the question afresh.

The Agency's experience-nearly all of it under wartime pressures-has demonstrated the validity of grouping together Government programs for health, education, and security. It has proved, too, the practical need for strengthening their structure through the departmental organization now contemplated. Building on this experience, the proposed Department would provide a firm base for the continuing improvement of these fundamental services:

1. The creation of such a Department would affirm the public interest in health, education, and security as components of the general welfare.

National authority to act in this field has been confirmed by the Supreme Court as resting squarely upon the Constitution. The laws which the new Department would administer were enacted by the Congress for no other purpose than "to promote the general welfare" in its broad constitutional sense. The scope of these measures calls for the establishment of an executive department to carry this responsibility—which cannot be fully met through any less comprehensive

means.

2. The Department would give the public services for health, education, and security a hearing in the Cabinet and place upon the Secretary responsibility for representing the people in their essential character as individuals and families..

Whenever the public interest has required it, Government services have been authorized to meet the multiplying problems of our increasingly complex national life. Thus, the Department of the Treasury deals with the citizen in his capacity as a taxpayer; the Department of Agriculture with that segment of the population engaged in farming; the Department of Commerce with industry and management; the Department of Labor with wage earners. But because such departments serve their designated spheres of interest, no one of them is prepared to serve the citizen in what is, after all, his fundamental capacity as an individual human being. From the earliest days of our history, Government services which look to the preservation of these human values have, to be sure, followed this same evolutionary process. But the pattern is not yet complete. The Government is still without a departmental mandate to promote the welfare of the people' simply as people, to help them build a foundation on which each can achieve his own assurances and pursue his own best interests.

3. The new Department would also strengthen and simplify interrelationships between this and other arms of Government-the Congress, the President, Federal agencies, and the States.

Because every individual and every family has a multiple stake in health, education, and security, no needless barriers should stand in the way of joint action that would make services readily accessible in the local communities where the people live. By strengthening the administration of existing programs, such a Department should forestall overemphasis and make for constructive balance among related services, and should enable the people to realize an even larger return on their investment in these services.

4. Finally, the new Department should follow and facilitate the insistence of the professions concerned that in dealing with basic human needs, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

This principle is demonstrated by the several sciences to which the new Department must look for professional competence. Medicine, for example, compensates intensive specialization by insistence on viewing man as a whole, as a person rather than a series of unrelated symptoms. So, also, education places its emphasis on the whole child and on teaching as a means of enhancing human values. Again in social security, putting a floor under income is only a partial answer; security remains, in the last analysis, a function of the whole man. This integration is even more apparent in the interrelationships among these fields-the doctor is the first to point out that ignorance and poverty are as much foes of health as infection and physical degeneration; the teacher, that education cannot make headway against illness and hunger and fear; the specialist in social welfare, that without health and training the combined efforts of the individual and society can achieve only a meager or precarious security. Whatever the future of services to meet these needs, it should be one in Government administration, as it is in the view of science and in the experience of human living.

These, then, are some of the purposes which the establishment of the proposed Department would further: To provide for health, education, and security a charter commensurate with their status as essentials of the general welfare; to give a voice in the highest councils of the Nation to the people simply as people; to strengthen the administrative structure of the measures they have set up for their own service; and to follow professional guidance in focusing these services on the whole individual.

The heart of the bill is contained in sections 3 and 4, declaring the purposes and defining the functions of the new Department. These sections are written in the broadest terms, and in my judgment this is proper. The present statutory functions of this Agency cannot adequately be stated in a particularistic manner. An agency designed to meet the needs of the people of the Nation in matters pertaining to "individual, family, and community well-being," moreover, should be given sufficient scope to enable it to meet changing requirements and changing conditions from time to time.

The name of the new Department proposed in the bill, I believe, is as descriptive of its functions as any that could be devised. I say this in the conviction that the word "security" would be generally accepted, in this context, as denoting - what we have come to describe as social security, and thus as embracing social insurances, public assistance, and social-welfare services.

There are several provisions of the bill to which I wish to call more particular attention:

1. The bill (section 2 (a)) would provide for three Under Secretaries, one a doctor of medicine to supervise health activities in the Department, one an educator to supervise educational activities, and one experienced in social security and welfare to supervise activities in that field. It would provide for no over-all deputy, no under secretary in the sense in which that term is most commonly used.

These provisions, I believe, would unduly emphasize the professional work of the new Department at the expense of its broadly public services, would impede selection by the President of the best qualified administrators, and would make distinctly more difficult the processes of coordination among the different but related functions of the Department. The provisions would constitute a departure from the uniform practice by which the heads of executive departments and their immediate assistants are selected without the imposition of any statutory qualifications whatsoever; the only exceptions being that the Solicitor General and the Assistant Attorneys General, presumably in deference to the courts before which they must practice, must be learned in the law; and that the Under Secretary of War, the Under Secretary of the Navy, and an Assistant Secretary of the Navy are affirmatively required to be selected from civil life.

Officials appointed to represent their respective professions are not likely to be the most helpful to the Secretary in the all-important task of giving a common direction to the several professional groups and professional points of view within the new department. The reasons for creating one department instead of three rest largely in the fact that we are concerned with the health and the education and the security of the same men and women, and that the needs of these people do not always divide themselves neatly among the professions. S. 140 in its present form seems to impose on the Secretary, without much aid from his statutory assistants, the vital task of directing the several professional services toward a more rounded whole. This, I believe, is too large a task for one man to perform.

Security would seem to override the general distribution of functions, and place in that division both the health and the educational as well as the welfar activities of the Children's Bureau. Possibly, however, the bill is intended require splitting up among the three divisions those functions of the Childrez Bureau for which, by Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1946, statutory responsibil was vested directly in the Federal Security Administrator. If so, the questi remains what disposition is intended in the case of the crippled childreL program which, under a single statutory authorization, assists the State finance services that fall partly in the fiold of health, partly in the field education, and partly in the field of security and welfare.

The vocational rehabilitation program is not specifically assigned by th. bill to any of the three named divisions, and the location intended for it is lef in doubt. Here again, a single grant-in-aid program deals at one and the sam time with matters of health, matters of education, and matters of security and welfare. This program well illustrates the necessity of cutting across profes, sional lines when the needs of the persons to be served are as varied as thei are in the case of the disabled.

The Food and Drug Administration, which would be assigned by the bill to the Division of Health, is engaged in protecting people's pocketbooks as wel as their health. It is largely a law enforcement agency. Its activities are of direct concern not only to the public, but also to the manufacturers and dis.. tributors of foods, drugs, and cosmetics-to those manufacturers and distributors, who seek protection against their competitors' illegal practices, as well as to those who violate the law. Such regulatory and enforcement activities are for the most part quite unlike the activities of the Public Health Service. Whether or not the Food and Drug Administration should be placed in a division of health-and there are arguments on both sides of the question-I believe that this ought not to be done by statute. Particularly if a health division were required to be headed by a doctor of medicine, such rigid requirements could easily lead, under some circumstances, to an overemphasis on the health aspects in the regulation of the food and drug industries, and to a failure to take adequate account of the many other factors which enter into so complex an administrative task.

The Bureau of Employees' Compensation and the Employees' Compensation Appeals Board are not specifically assigned by S. 140 to any of the three divisions, and it is difficult to know what assignment is intended. In administering workmen's compensation for Federal employees they deal with matters both of security and of health, while the functions of the Bureau under the Longshoremen and Harbor Workers Act consist principally in the adjudication of claims against private insurance carriers.

Even in the case of the Public Health Service, the Office of Education, and the Social Security Administration, many problems, such as medical education, school health services, and aid to the blind, tend to blur the dividing lines between the professions.

I have cited the difficulty of arriving at a wholly satisfactory grouping of units within the new department, not so much because I think some other grouping preferable to that proposed in S. 140 (through literal compliance with section 5(a) would be impracticable), as because I believe that any rigid statutory ¦ grouping would make seriously more difficult the efficient administration of the department. The programs with which it will be concerned have in large part either originated or been greatly expanded within the last generation, and if one is to judge by bills introduced in the Congress and committee hearings held, they are by no means static as yet. The adoption of a disability insurance program, to give a single illustration, would demand a wholly new set of relationships between the security and health functions of the Department. Even without new legislation, changing needs or demands of the people, or indeed the mere accumulation of experience, may dictate a change of alinement.

I would therefore urge that the Secretary have the discretion exercised by agency heads generally, to arrange and rearrange the assignments and responsibilities of his immediate assistants.

3. In one related respect it seems to me that S. 140 goes too far in the opposite direction, and gives the Secretary too much authority. I refer to the concluding clause of section 6 (a), authorizing the Secretary to abolish constituent units of the Department, and presumably to transfer their statutory functions to himself.

« Previous Continue »

Books

Department of Health, Education, and Security ..., Volumes 7-14; Volume 34