« 이전계속 »
and then from there branch out, instead of trying to take this thing in a lump sum? Mrs. MEYER. In some of the articles that I wrote that represent the worst indictment of housing conditions I did on the slums and alleys of the District of Columbia, and I fought and fought to have those slums cleared up, but our Government is in such an absolute fog, it is so inevitable. It is so completely disorganized that you can fight and fight in this District of Columbia and never get anywhere. Mr. JUDD. What Government? Mrs. MEYER. District of Columbia. I have been up here before the Congress. I have given testimony on the impossible slum conditions in Washington; I have written from the country saying these slums are terrible but they are not as bad as the slums in our own capital and the capital should be a model for the country. Mr. RICH. The point I want to make is this: I have not heard an indictment of the country at large more than I have in listening up to you at this point. I am anxious to continue to get the rest of it. Mrs. MEYER. It all hangs together, so why do I not finish and go on ? Mr. RICH. I think probably that would be a good thing. What this administration has been trying to do for the country, # we are that bad off, I wonder why we should be out trying to do everything for everybody all over the world if we have the conditions that we have in America? I think it is about time to stay at home and attend to our own knitting. Mrs. MEYER. The problems all hang together. We are getting off the point. With your permission, I will finish. I even go into the world situation from this situation in my last sentence. Mr. GIBSON. I want to ask one question. The individual citizen has a little responsibility for his own position instead of the Government having to accept it all, do you not think that? Mrs. MEYER. Certainly, I think it all rests upon the local community. Mr. GIBSON. I am asking you about the individual citizen. Mrs. MEYER. The community is nothing but a big group of individual citizens. Mr. GIBSON. That is not my question at all. Mrs. MEYER. I would not be sitting here this minute if I did not think the individual was responsible. I am merely here as an individual who for 5 years all through the war tried to execute a personal responsibility to the Nation and even to the District. Mr. go. I am talking about the individual’s responsibility to himself. Mrs. MEYER. Now we are getting philosophical. I am afraid you will not see how this hangs together unless I am allowed to finish it. May I go on ? oil. CHAIRMAN. Yes. Mrs. MEYER. To meet the serious problems of a postwar world, the State and local agencies are the first line of defense. To aid them in making democracy a reality for all of our people, what does the Federal Government offer? It offers a multiplicity of agencies, without coordinated direction. The result is waste, overlapping, and duplication, which could readily be eliminated through the acceptance of the President's reorganization plan.
Indeed, the social services of the Federal Government have grown up like Topsy. To paraphrase a sentence in the Report of the President's Committee on Administrative Management in 1939, the social services of the Government of the United States have grown up without plan or design like the barns, shacks, silos, tool sheds, and garages of an old-fashioned farm. Having seen day after day during the war and after the war, a picture of democracy's administrative weaknesses, with their disastrous effects on family and community life, I accepted the challenge of the Women's Foundation to suggest a remedy. This foundation empowered Dr. Leonard W. Mayo, of Western Reserve University, and me to call together a committee of 27 experts in the field of education, health, and welfare to work out a report which has been published under the title “The Road to Community Reorganization.” This report begins as it should with a consideration of the problems of the local community. That is where we live and have our being. That is where our problems must be solved. Concerning local reorganization this report suggests: The establishment for every community of community Service centers, such as are now being organized in many cities to aid in the coordination of services for veterans, their families, and all individuals, to provide a clearing house of social endeavor where information, advice, and service will be readily accessible. 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, the New York State Legislature, 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, the State department of social welfare was reorganized to provide integrated State supervision of these programs. This report points out that 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, especially those concerned with children, have not given them the leadership which they have a right to expect.
If we have made any progress in the improvement of our children's programs— said one State commissioner of welfare last week—
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. Reorganization 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 health and welfare agencies, many of the State governments endorse the President’s demands for a reorganization on the Federal level of all agencies concerned with health, education, and welfare. They look forward to the establishment of a National Department of Welfare which will take over the authority now vested by the President in the Federal Security Administrator. What do the States want? Since the State governments have the actual contact with the localities and the direct responsibility for human well-being, I should like to present now the opinions of these officials. The American Public Welfare Association requests:
That all welfare programs in which Federal Government participation is had financially be administered by a single agency at the local, State, and Federal level, the Federal Government's responsibility to be centered in a single combined public-welfare administration unit.
The State health officials are just as positive in their opposition to multilateral administration of health in the Federal Government.
The Association of State and Territorial Health Officers on October 11, 1945, officially went on record as favoring:
* * * the coordination of all civilian public-health activities in a single department, thereby rendering liaison and cooperation with the several States and Territories the more efficient and effective. This, in turn, would bring about an improvement in general public-health work throughout the entire country and enable this department to administer any future legislation pertaining to public health with much greater efficacy. * * *
Both groups of officials point out the waste of time, energy, and money involved in making out more than one budget for Federal departments, and the confusion that results when they are obliged to conform with conflicting regulations of various Federal agencies. Since these State governments are the responsible administrators of health and welfare, it seems essential that their wishes be respected.
I went into that in greater detail before the Labor Committee. I should like to put in the record the testimony I gave last week.
(The testimony referred to is as follows:)
CHILD WELFARE Is Bogg|Ed Dow N IN PETTY DETAILs—A RETAIL APPROACH To A WHOLESAL PROBLEM
(Mrs. Eugene Meyer was an opposition witness Thursday at a hearing before a House Labor Subcommittee on the proposed Maternal and Child Welfare Act. The measure would establish an annual $50,000,000 appropriation for increased grants-in-aid for maternal and child health, crippled children and child welfare, under the administration of the United States Children's Bureau. Mrs. Meyer contended that this was the wrong approach to the problem. Following is the text of her testimony:) Everyone who knows how dilatory we have been throughout a total war in the protection of childhood, is agreed that maternal health and child-welfare facilities must be expanded as soon as possible through Federal aid to the States. The objectives of this bill, H. R. 3922, the Maternal and Child Welfare Act, are desirable, and the amounts asked are modest in relation to the actual needs of the country's neglected mothers and children. This is the first major expansion of the over-all national health and welfare program. Therefore it is all the more necessary to view it in connection with the provisions contemplated by the President's reorganization plan and other pending welfare legislation. The bill under consideration before your committee—H. R. 3922, the Maternal and Child Welfare Act—recommends that the grants-in-aid for maternal and child health, crippled children, and child welfare, now administered by the Children’s Bureau, should be increased, and the activities and services expanded. But the President has recently issued an Executive order recommending the reorganization of all health and welfare activities, a step of the most far-reaching importance, which all Federal agencies, including the Children's Bureau, have approved. Under this reorganization plan the three health and welfare programs now administered by the Children's Bureau—maternal and child health, crippled children, and child welfare—“are transferred to the Federal Security Administrator and shall be performed by him or under his direction and control by such officers and employees of the Federal Security Agency as he may designate.” Therefore a bill such as H. R. 3922, expanding these functions under the Children's Bureau, contradicts what the President has recommended. , After July 15 it is by no means certain to which Government agency, when the réorgan. ization plan becomes effective, the health and welfare programs of the Children's Bureau will be assigned. Therefore it is an inopportune moment even to consider a bill that cuts across the president’s Executive order. It is clearly impossible, gentlemen, to increase an authority of the Children's Bureau when that authority may terminate within a month.
And why consider a bill whose details are debatable when the important objectives it has in View can be accomplished by much simpler means? The Federal Security Administrator is now empowered to administer child health and welfare. All that is needed to increase the three existing programs is a resolution of the House of Representatives that more money be appropriated at Once for each of the three programs to be administered for the interim period by the Federal Security Administrator under the reorganization plan as part of his approach to the new and integrated health and welfare program.
The Federal Security Administrator has so many aspects of this problem to consider that his hands must not be tied in advance. The Congress, for example, has under consideration a national health program. As Senator Pepper said last week concerning his own bill: “Congress, in its consideration of legislation for maternal and child health and welfare must keep in mind that such legislation must fit into the plan for health and medical care of the entire population.” Therefore, he recommended the insertion of a new section in H. R. 3922 to make this relationship clear:
“It is further declared to be the policy of the Congress that the special services for the health of children and their mothers during maternity herein provided for Should form a part of any national health program to be authorized by the Congress and should be coordinated with and fitted into any such program.”
The Federal Security Administrator likewise must be left free to abolish or reorganize the present child-health and welfare programs of the Children's Bureau so that they, too, will be in accord with any new national health measure which the Congress may pass. After all, the Congress may well consider national insurance for maternity care. Moreover, the child is a part of the family. If the Congress passes a bill for medical insurance, child health would be included in such a measure. These and many other major possibilities, all of which are in a state of flux, make it utterly impractical to do more at this time than to increase the existing grants to the States for child health and welfare by a House resolution and allow the Federal Security Administrator all freedom to administer the funds as he thinks best. .
In addition, gentlemen, the Ways and Means Committee of the House of Representatives is completing its study of the whole Social Security Act, including the Federal welfare program. Surely it would only be courteous to postpone final legislation such as H. R. 3922 until the Congress had heard the suggestions of its own committee.
As far as the future of the administration of child health and welfare is concerned, I should like to present to this committee the opinions of State health and welfare officials. They have the actual contacts with the Nation’s children. Hence Federal legislation should seek primarily to facilitate their work and make it more effective.
If we keep our minds firmly fixed on the needs of the child, the family, and the
local community, then the rival aspirations of Federal agencies become as unimportant and trivial as they should be.
The Federal Government deals with State health departments largely through the Public Health Service and with State welfare departments largely through the Social Security Board. However, State departments of health and welfare must now also deal with the Children's Bureau because it administers grants-inaid for their three programs of (a) maternal and child health, (b) crippled children, and (c) child-welfare services.
This means duplicate State plans, duplicate reports, duplicate budgets, and duplicate supervision and audits.
The maternal and child welfare bill—if enacted—could potentially result in the creation in the Children's Bureau of a health division larger than the Public Health Service and a welfare division larger than that of the Social Security Board. Two national health systems and two national welfare Systems would represent an enormous waste of money for overhead as well as intolerable administrative confusion. THE STATE VIEW
State and local public welfare officials—through the American Public Welfare Association—have officially gone on record: “That all welfare programs in which Federal Government participates financially be administered by a single agency at the local, State, and Federal level, the Federal Government's responsibility to be centered in a single combined public welfare administration unit.” The Public Welfare officials are supporting the Forand bill now under consideration by the House Ways and Means Committee. In this bill the State welfare officials—who are actually administering public child-welfare services— support a program of expansion of child-welfare services with Federal grantsin-aid to be administered by the Federal Security Administrator through a single welfare administration unit which the President's reorganization plan authorizes him to create. This proposed expansion of child-welfare services is part of a unified and comprehensive approach to the welfare needs of the States. The Public Welfare officia is take the position that in the welfare field you cannot separate the social needs of the child from that of the family. You must consider the family as a unit. The State health officials are just as positive in their opposition to multilateral administration of health in the Federal Government. The Association of State and Territorial Health Officers on October 11, 1945, officially went on record as favoring “* * * the coordination of all civilian public health activities in a single department, thereby rendering liaison and cooperation with the several States and Territories the more efficient and effective. This, in turn, would bring about an improvement in general public health work throughout the entire country and enable this department to administer any future legislation pertaining to public health with much greater efficacy. * * * * In this same statement of policy the association pointed out that at the present time the States are required to make reports to both the Public Health Service and the Children's Bureau, present their budgets, and conform with a variety of regulations issued by these two agencies.
THE TRUE EXECUTORS
Gentlemen, these State officials have for some time taken the lead toward a coordinated health and welfare program. They are the responsible administrators of these grants-in-aid. Their wishes, it seems to me, should be decisive. But let me add to their views that of the Children's Bureau's own Advisory Committee on Maternal and Child Health, and on services for crippled children— experts of the Bureau's own choosing. In November 1945 the Children's Bureau called the annual meeting of these committees particularly to obtain their advice on this bill. They adopted a report dealing with the basic philosophy and principles pertaining to this bill in which they declared : “However, in such a program as envisaged in this major step in the development of a Federal health program, problems of State's responsibilities and relationships with Federal agencies are involved which demand consideration of the qualifications of the proposed agency (the Children's Bureau) for their con duct and consideration of ability to integrate the proposed program with those for the provisions of health and medical services for the remainder of the population. “The committee (their own committee) recommends that Congress give careful study to the problem of the proper agency to conduct this program and the op between governmental agencies concerned with medical and health Services.” In other words, the Children's Bureau's own Advisory Committee members told this agency in polite but firm language that it was not the agency most capable