I wish to call attention to the fact that the resolution adopted at the meeting on January 24-25, mentioned in the first part of this letter, was reported to the committee in my testimony on March 18, 1947. The information resulting from the mail ballots was, however, not available at that time. I hope that this additional information will be useful to your committee.

I wish also to call attention to the fact that the action on January 24-25 and the subsequent mail ballot was necessarily directed to the only bill then before Congress. In other words, S. 712 had not been introduced at that time. I believe it would be fair to say, therefore, that the reactions of the delegates to the council both at the meeting and by mail ballot were largely on the general principle of the establishment of the proposed Department and less on the details of the bill.

I realize that the hearings on this matter have closed, but it occurred to me that you might like to have this additional information as to the reactions of representative leaders of education in the United States.

For the information of your committee I am enclosing a list of the members of the American Council on Education and a pamphlet describing the activities of the council. The associate members of the council were not sent the mail ballot, as they do not have the right to vote.

Yours very sincerely,

GEORGE F. Zook, President.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee thanks you, Dr. Zook; and I am sure that as we take action upon this bill, we will find your testimony of considerable value to us.

Before calling the next witness, the Chair would like to say that the order of holding these committee hearings has been somewhat disturbed by the fact that at the time the hearings were scheduled is was not anticipated that there would be daily sessions of the Senate during this week. However, pressure of business has necessitated holding daily sessions, and, therefore, a good many of our committee members have found themselves with other committee hearings on their hands at the same time and unable to be present.

We had six or seven witnesses scheduled for today. However, one is unable to be present and sent a statement. That is the Consumers Union. Their statement has been incorporated in the record. One or two others are unable to attend because of illness. So that leaves two more witnesses to be heard this morning.

We had originally planned to continue the hearings into the afternoon, if necessary, but that is not possible because of the session of the Senate. We have just about an hour for the next two witnesses, and we hope that we may get to their testimony within that period of time.

The next witness is Dr. Ernest L. Stebbins. Dr. Stebbins, will you take the stand?

STATEMENT OF DR. ERNEST L. STEBBINS, COCHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON A FEDERAL DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND SECURITY

Dr. STUBBINS. Mr. Chairman and members of the committeeThe CHAIRMAN. Tell us whom you are representing this morning You also are a man of several title, I believe-at this time, anyway. Dr. STEBBINS. I am here as a cochairman of the committee that Dr. Zook spoke of, which was established or sponsored by the American Council on Education and the National Social Welfare Assembly.

As he told you, that committee is composed of seven members appointed or drawn from the field of health; seven from the field of social

welfare or security; and seven from the field of education, with several committee members representing the public interests in this field.

As a cochairman of that committee, I am reporting for the committee, although Dr. Zook and Mr. Hugh Jackson, the secretary of the committee, are here and would be glad to answer questions that might be asked by the members of the committee.

Mr. C. M. Bookman, who is chairman of the executive committee of the Community Chest of Cincinnati, the third cochairman, had planned to be here but because of illness was prevented from coming. The purpose of this committee on a Federal Department of Health, Education, and Security was to study the question as to whether the creation of such an executive department with a Cabinet officer at its head was in the public interest, and to seek to determine what basic principles would be incorporated in legislation if it was concluded that the establishment of a department was desirable.

The committee attempted to approach its task and its considerations with an open mind and without any preconceived ideas or conclusions as to the desirability of such a department. It deliberated for a considerable period of time and considered the arguments for and against the establishment of such a department.

It finally reached certain conclusions, with some dissent on the part of members of the committee but a unanimous decision on many points; and I will bring out in the discussion the points of difference within the committee.

The committee also invited comment and points of view from over a hundred educational, medical, and social organizations before it finally reached its conclusions.

I think that you might be interested in the membership of the committee, because it has some significance in terms of individuals. Although the individuals that I will name to you have certain professional associations and commitments to organizations, they served on the committee as individuals, and their opinions and the opinions expressed by the committee in no way commit the organizations with which the members were associated.

To list the members: Dr. Zook, who has just testified, was a member. John H. Bosshart, commissioner of education of the State of New Jersey; Miss Florence Fallgatter, a member of the faculty of Iowa State College and president of the American Vocational Association; Willard E. Givens, executive secretary, National Education Association; Ralph D. Hetzel, president of the Pennsylvania State College; W. H. Lemmel, superintendent of schools, Baltimore, Md.; the Reverend Edward B. Stanford, rector of Augustinian College of the Catholic University of America.

Members from the field of health and medicine included Dr. Robin C. Buerki, medical director of the Graduate Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania; Dr. Vlado A. Getting, commissioner of health of Massachusetts and secretary of the State and Territorial Health Officers Association; Dr. Ira V. Hiscock, chairman of the department of public health of the Yale University School of Medicine and chairman of the executive committee of the National Health Council; Dr. George F. Lull, secretary and general manager of the American Medical Association; Dr. James R. Miller, a practicing physician from Hartford, Connecticut; and myself.

98634-47-pt. 2— -3

From the Welfare field the committee has included Mr. Bookman, who is executive secretary of the community chest in Cincinnati; Joseph P. Anderson, executive secretary of the American Association of Social Workers; Ralph H. Blanchard, executive director of the Community Chests and Councils, Inc.; Robert E. Bondy, director of the National Social Welfare Assembly; Miss Loula Dunn, Alabama State commissioner of public welfare; Frank J. Hertel, general director, Family Service Association of America; Fred K. Hoehler, executive director, Community Fund of Chicago; Mrs. Inabel Burns Lindsay, director, School of Social Work of Howard University; Msgr. John J. McClafferty, director, division of social research, Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of New York.

Representatives of the general public included: John J. Corson, of the Washington Post; Nelson H. Cruikshank, director, social insurance activities, American Federation of Labor; Kermit Eby, director, education and research department, Congress of Industrial Organizations; and Luther Gulick, president, Institute of Public Adminis

tration.

I have taken the time to enumerate the members of the committee and their connections because I know that you will recognize that they' constitute an unusually well-informed representation of the major leadership in this country in the three fields which are being considered for inclusion in a Federal department.

I want to make it clear again, however, that the members of the committee served in their individual capacities, and that their views and the views of the committee do not necessarily commit any organizations with which they are associated.

I am sure that you will appreciate the significant contribution which the assembly and the council have made in bringing representatives of the three fields together around a common table to discuss this question, and that you will be even more impressed by the fact that the committee was able to reach agreement on its finding with only three members expressing dissent. By coincidence or otherwise, one person from each of the three professional fields represented was included in the minority which felt it could not support the majority's conclusion.

Too often in the past, proposals for an executive department dealing with these questions have been defeated because of the lukewarm attitude or the active opposition of representatives of one or more of the three fields, to the idea of close administrative association with the others in such a Federal department. While the members of the committee represented only themselves, I venture to suggest that it is the most representative group which one might hope to bring together to consider this problem, representing all three fields the national and the State and the local interests, both public and voluntary.

Now for the conclusions which the committee reached. First and foremost, the committee concluded, after careful study, that an exexutive department headed by an officer of Cabinet rank and including the functions of health, education, and security should be established by Congress at this time.

I do not believe that I need to go into great detail as to the reason for this basic and primary recommendation. From 1920, on, virtually every official recommendation dealing with general governmental re

organization and emanating either from the White House or congressional committees has recommended the creation of such an executive department.

Certainly no one will deny that a concern for the conservation and development of the human resources of this country is one of the primary and basic responsibilities of the Federal Government.

The importance of these activities clearly indicates the desirability of their being included in the highest administrative councils of the Government, not only because they themselves need to be considered at the Cabinet level but also in order that the representation to these areas of Government's responsibility may play their full and appropriate part in influencing the over-all policy of the executive branch of the Government.

In considering the creation of such a department, the committee was mindful of the fact that from time to time various units of other Federal agencies have been suggested for inclusion in such a department in addition to those primary units and divisions now included in the Federal Security Agency.

The committee concluded, however, that it was neither feasible nor desirable to pose this question at the present time. It was our opinion that the Congress would be well advised to limit the specific administrative units assigned to the new Department to those now included in the Federal Security Agency. The question of transfer of any other agencies could, in our judgment, be better left to subsequent legislation or to Executive action by the President under his reorganization powers.

I should like now to address myself to some of the basic and specific principles which the committee thinks should be included in legislation creating a department, and also mention some points which we think should be excluded.

At the time of the committee's deliberations, it had before it only S. 140. S. 712 had not yet been introduced. However, as I will point out, the committee's views are considerably closer to those expressed in S. 712 than they are to S. 140, although we believe that certain amendments and additions should be made to S. 712 incorporating the sense of certain points included as S. 140.

In other words, the committee considered eventually both bills before the final conclusions were drawn, and it is in a sense a modification or an amendment of the two, incorporating certain aspects of both bills that the committee recommends.

The committee considered carefully the proposals included in S. 140 to create certain specific divisions in the new Department and to assign to those divisions particular bureaus or offices now in the Federal Security Agency. In our view, such a plan is not sound public policy. We believe that the Secretary of the Department should be given wide authority and discretion in organizing the internal administration of the Department. We do not believe that the existing functions of the Federal Security Agency-not to mention additional functions which might subsequently be added-can properly be fitted into any three arbitrarily defined compartments. There are too many activities, such as vocational rehabilitation, school health service, and the like, which cut across the lines of more than one of the three main fields.

We therefore favor a more general legislative provision which will permit considerably greater flexibility of organization than is provided in S. 140. At the same time, we are all agreed that the major functions of the Department should continue to be grouped in accordance with the three major functional fields insofar as it is practicable from the standpoint of efficient administration.

We therefore propose that the Secretary should be given specific authority by law to establish such offices, bureaus, and divisions as he deems necessary or desirable to carry out the duties of the Department, including a Division of Health, a Division of Education, and a Division of Security.

This will assure the creation of such divisions but will not preclude the possibility of the Secretary establishing other divisions to carry out additional functions or activities which cut across the lines of two or more of the particular fields to an extent where their administration can more practicably be handed outside of any one of the major functional units.

The three specified divisions would presumably be the present Public Health Service, the Office of Education, and the Office of Social Security Administration. In any event, the committee wishes to make clear that its recommendation does not suggest or imply the creation of additional administrative layers between these operating units and the head of the Department.

The committee also gave particular study to the plan set forth in S. 140 of having three Under Secretaries, each of whom would be required by law to have professional qualifications in one of the three major fields included in the Department. The committee is opposed to this proposal. It believes that such a plan would almost inevitably result in a loose confederation of subdepartments rather than a strong, unified department, and would minimize the opportunities for integrated and coordinated policy and over-all direction-considerations which the majority of the committee believe to be of paramount importance.

Moreover, this idea of mandatory professional Under Secretaries seems unsound for other reasons. We believe that the Under Secretary and Assistant Secretaries should, if possible, be broad-gage statesmen, representing the interests of the general public for whom the services are maintained, rather than necessarily being representatives of the professions rendering the services.

In addition, the plan seems to us to invite duplication and confusion between the proposed professional Under Secretary and the professional career officers holding office as Commissioner of Education, Surgeon General of the Public Health Service, and the Commissioner of Social Security Administration.

The committee therefore recommends that the usual form of Federal departmental organization be followed in the case of this new Department, with provision being made by law for one Under Secretary and at least two Assistant Secretaries who can aid the Secretary in the over-all management and direction of the affairs of the Department.

The committee believes that functional operating divisions or other units of the Department should be headed by career officers with high professional and administrative competence in their particular fields. These latter positions should be nonpolitical in character.