Concerning the need for such a Cabinet member, this report says: The serious lack of adequate services in many localities and States and the poor organization of these services in more favored areas, make it mandatory for the Federal Government to provide more effective leadership and coordination.

The State and Federal Governments now have a legitimate concern with every important local function. The coordination of public and private services, community, State and Federal, is essential, therefore, if the local comunity is to have the effective support of the Nation. Many local problems, moreover, are of such dimensions that they cannot be handled by local communities, States, or the Federal Government alone but only through the harmonious and cooperative efforts of all three units. Wholly adequate services in States and localities are difficult if not impossible to attain, without the leadership and cooperation of the Federal Government.

(The publication entitled "The Road to Community Reorganization" was made a part of the Committee files.)

Mrs. MEYER. In order to hasten this objective of greater local efficiency, many of our most progressive States have already made great strides in coordinating their health and welfare departments, and in bringing them closer to the family, the child and the school system.

For example, in the New York State Legislature and Mr. Ives, of course, knows much more about this than I do after 2 years of concentrated study and review by a special legislative committee, at its 1946 session passed comprehensive legislation providing for local integration in the administration of all types of public assistance, foster care of children, adult institutional care, and hospitalization.

During this same period, at Governor Dewey's request, the New York State Department of Social Welfare was reorganized to provide integrated State supervision of these programs.

These State efforts toward greater efficiency will be impeded if the contradicting policies of Federal agencies continue to cause confusion as they do now among the State agencies. The State government officials complain that the Federal bureaus have not given them the leadership which they have a right to expect.

If we have made any progress in the improvement of our welfare programssaid one State Commissioner of Welfare—

it has not been because of any Federal leadership. Despite all the resolutions passed by well-meaning committees in Washington, despite the pamphlets and press releases, we know that the present system is confusing and that we get little practical leadership from the Federal agencies.

eRorganization on the Federal level does not assure statesmanship. It does give a setting for the elimination of petty agency partisanship in favor of the care of the people.

Because of constant friction of this nature between the States and the Federal agencies, many of the State governments endorsed the President's demands for a reorganization on the Federal level of all agencies concerned with health, education, and welfare. They now look forward to the establishment of a Secretary of Health, Education, and Security as provided in S. 140, as their efforts to improve their own administratíve machinery will be enhanced by such leadership, and by the improvement of the administrative organization of the Federal Security Agency.

One principal purpose of those who have long been urging the creation of an executive department of health, education and security was accomplished, at least in part, by Reorganization Plan No. 2 passed in the last Congress. That was to bring together the scattered units functioning in those fields.

But, this is only a beginning-and even that beginning lacks the permanence which only legislation could effectively give. The economies resulting from the unification of functions within a single agency could readily be lost in the absence of legislation by again scattering the constituent units by Executive order.

This bill would insure the next necessary step and the continuation of the administrative advantages and economies which Reorganization Plan No. 2 has given on what might possibly be only a temporary basis.

But President Truman made clear in presenting Reorganization Plan No. 2 to the Congress that it should constitute a necessary but preliminary step toward the elevation of the Federal Security Agency to Cabinet rank, for in presenting this plan President Truman said:

The size and scope of the Federal Security Agency and the importance of its functions clearly call for departmental status and a permanent place in the President's Cabinet. In number of personnel and volume of expenditures the Agency exceeds several of the existing departments. Much more important the fundamental character of its functions-education, health, welfare, social insurance and their significance for the future of the country demand for it the highest level of administrative leadership and a voice in the central councils of the executive branch.

Similarly Senators Taft and Fulbright, who are the joint sponsors of S. 140, when they presented a substantially identical bill in the Seventy-ninth Congress issued a joint statement saying:

Steps have been taken in the direction of putting together some of the agencies in the Federal Government dealing with the problem of health, education, security and related subjects by adoption of Reorganization Plan No. 2. The proposed bill is the next step to follow through with what has already been done in this direction and give the necessary importance in terms of organization by Cabinet status.

S. 140 is nonpartisan. It is a proposal sponsored by members of both parties for strengthening and making more efficient the administrative organization of the executive branch of the Federal Govern

ment.

The creation of such a department has been urged many times in the past under both Republican and Democratic administrations. Perhaps it is particularly important at this time, when the executive branch is controlled by the other party, to emphasize the bipartisan nature of this proposal. Not only has the bill been introduced under the bipartisan sponsorship of Senator Taft and Senator Fulbright, but other Senators of both parties are keenly interested in the creation of the proposed department.

As for myself, I would not be supporting the bill if it were not an independent bipartisan bill aimed at improving the democratic structure.

Section 8 of article I of the Constitution gives the Congress power to provide for the general welfare of the United States and to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying out that power. This bill,

however, would not in any way increase the power of the Central Government of the United States in the fields of health, education, security or any other phase of the general welfare of the United States.

In other words, it is not so-called program legislation, giving the Federal Government substantive power to deal with national problems of health, education, security and related matters. It does not authorize any officer of the Government to pursue any activity or to spend any money for any purpose not elsewhere specifically authorized by the Congress.

It is an administrative bill combining in an orderly and efficient way the agencies which administer the substantive powers granted by Congress; it is purely an organization bill, which would place the general welfare activities of the Federal Government now or hereafter specifically authorized by Congress on a level appropriate to their vital significance.

Not only does this bill not increase the power of the Federal Government, it clarifies the Federal-State relationships and protects the independence of the States in the administration of health, education, and other phases of welfare.

Section 3 of the bill states:

The Department shall 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 well-being; and these objectives shall be carried out to the fullest possible extent through State and local agencies, public and voluntary, and in such manner as to preserve and protect to the highest possible degree the independence and autonomy of State and local agencies, public and voluntary, in education, health, security, and related fields.

My own convictions as to the need for local and State independence in these areas is so strong that my original support for this bill arose from the conviction that we must counteract a tendency to solve our social problems with overcentralized measures.

There is a trend toward overcentralization sweeping the world. We can defend ourselves against this powerful trend only by effective action to meet our social problems by strengthening our accepted democratic methods of cooperation between the Federal Government and the States.

Now, the educational, the medical, and the welfare organizations have all, at one time or another, asked for separate Cabinet posts, because all three of them think the growing importance of their functions warrant a separate Cabinet post. It is clearly impossible to add three members to the Cabinet. But even if it were possible it is doubtful whether it would be in the public interest. I am sure three fields, medicine, education, and welfare, would encounter a more powerful opposition to the separate Cabinet posts than exists toward the combined secretariat as constituted by S. 140.

But, aside from this difficulty, the grouping of these three social functions under one Secretary has positive value. The improvement of our health, education, and welfare facilities is not a series of separate problems. They are so closely related that they are one and the same problem as they impinge upon the individual and the family. That is why we need nothing less than an over-all approach to the improvement of these services on a Federal, State, and local basis.

To any economy-minded Congress it is important to emphasize that the costs involved in S. 140 are negligible. It will indeed result in economies by more effective administration, by encouraging closer cooperation of public and private endeavor, and by making recommendations as to the most effective policies and methods for the promotion of health, education, security, and related services.

The psychological effect upon the country if S. 140 is quickly passed by the Congress, would in itself be of incalculable value. Two wars and a depression have left their mark on the thinking of the American people and have given them broader concepts of social justice.

Popular conviction, even deep convictions, are slow to become articulate in our country. But, I have been in close touch with people from all walks of life and every section of our country for the past 4 years. If their desire for leadership in health, education, and welfare were realized in the passage of S. 140 and these fields given the prestige of Cabinet rank, a new wave of hope would pass through the country that something positive is being done in the areas that most closely touch their daily lives.

The real progress must, of course, take place in the community. That is where people live. But, orderly procedure on the Federal level would stimulate, without imposing, closer cooperation and greater order, in State and local governments. The relationship between the Federal Government, the States, and local communities is a two-way street of give and take.

The new Secretary of Education, Health, and Security could become a focal point or clearing house of standards, methods, and practices for the various States and communities. And even though miracles of progress could not be accomplished by the Secretary and his three Under Secretaries overnight, the least of our villages and rural areas would immediately feel the stimulus of such clearly defined, clearly visible, and accessible Federal leadership.

A new vitality, a new zest for local action would be the result. And, that vitality of community life is the heart beat of democracy. Without it, we cannot possibly carry out our ever-mounting social responsibilities at home and abroad.

But, once aroused to action through intelligent leadership, the vitality, initiative, and independence of the American people can be counted upon to meet their own problems as well as the world problems now imposed upon them by destiny.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mrs. Meyer, for this very strong

statement.

Do the members of this committee have some questions to ask Mrs. Meyer at this time?

(No response.)

Mrs. MEYER. I will leave these reports here for the members of the committee.

The CHAIRMAN. I will say that after the hearing today that the committee will take under advisement the procedure which will be adopted in regard to future hearings.

It is evident already that there is intense interest throughout the whole country in this bill, and a great many people desire to be heard. In fact, I would say, from the advance indications, that so many

people will desire to be heard that it will be necessary to shorten them if we are going to keep the hearings from running an undue length of time.

The committee will work out some plan for that. So there will be some delay of several days at least, maybe longer, before we will go ahead with the main hearings. But, in order to get this matter before the committee and before the country, the chair thought it best to have a preliminary hearing this morning for the presentation which is being made by the proponents of the measure.

The next witness is Senator Taft.

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT A. TAFT, UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

Senator TAFT. Mr. Chairman, I merely wish to support the bill which Senator Fulbright and I introduced to create a Department of Health, Welfare, and Education.

I have felt that these fields are all fields in which the Federal Government has a secondary responsibility, so to speak. They are State and local matters. While the three different matters are all really entirely separate, to my mind, and do not belong together necessarily, they do have the similarity of being fields in which the Federal Government's responsibility is really a secondary responsibility.

It is obviously impossible to have three departments, I think, one for each, and it seemed to me proper to group them in one department. I joined with Senator Smith in a bill creating a National Health Agency consolidating all the health activities of the Federal Government in one agency which was independent and directly responsible to the President. That bill differs slightly. When we introduced that there was no department, and there may be no department.

Before this bill is finally reported out there are some changes in the health branch that I would like to make to conform to the National Health Agency, but the only difference between the two bills is that in the National Health Agency bill the head of the Agency reports directly to the President, whereas under this bill he would be the Under Secretary of Health in this new department and would report to a Cabinet officer.

I think it is important that health be separate from welfare, and that they each be separate from education, but I see no reason why a man cannot be found of Cabinet rank of sufficient standing to be able to represent all three interests in the President's Cabinet.

Personally, it seems to me that you are going to get better representation in the administration for those activities if they have a Cabinet member sitting in the Cabinet all the time who can bring up constantly the interests of health, welfare, and education to the President.

As I say, I have always believed in a complete separation of health from welfare and from education at the local level and at the State level, where those matters are administered on a much more full-scale basis, where the administration actually occurs to the greatest extent.