toward these ideas, and the Federal Government cannot be a drag on it, on the improvement that is already well under way in the States and localities.

Mr. BENDER, Mrs. Meyer, I appreciate your point of view, I know you are sincere, and you have a wholesome point of view. However, I say this, that we have got to call a halt to this business of spending money in Government that the taxpayers are not contributing.

Mrs. MEYER. I agree entirely. That is why I want to make the Government more efficient.

Mr. BENDER. That is why you want plan No. 2 and spend possibly a hundred million more?

Mrs. MEYER. A hundred million is out of the question for this reorganization.

Mr. BENDER. It will cost the taxpayers at least 250 million more for all these three plans.

Mrs. MEYER. Plan No. 2 cannot possibly cost very much. The cost will be to you a Cabinet set-up that amounts to nothing in our national expenditures, and would achieve a saving in what you are spending now. Supposing we have some figures and compare them.

Mr. RICH. Supposing you bring your figures in here on a statement. Mrs. MEYER. It is a thing that would take an enormous amount of work. I am willing to do it if he is.

Mr. GIBSON. Thank you, Mrs. Meyer.

(The following was submitted for the record):

MRS. MEYER'S STATEMENT-EXTENSION OF HER REMARKS BEFORE THE MANASCO COMMITTEE, JUNE 12, 1946

During my appearance before the committee today to discuss the President's Reorganization Plan No. 2, Congressman Bender requested me to review the data he had presented to the committee at its hearings of June 11, to the effect that his reorganization plan would substantially increase the Budget. I said at the time that I could not see how this could be. Now, having reviewed the minutes of that hearing, I repeat that there is absolutely no justification for the statement.

* *

Permit me to review Mr. Bender's statement. He asked the witness before the committee: “Are you aware of that according to this plan No. 2, the Public Health Service will have * * * a net increase in cost of $7,635,842 For the Social Security Board the net increase would be $862,000 Under the Food and Drug Administration this plan would provide an increase of $559,000."

* *

Mr. Bender's statement is completely erroneous. The figures he quoted are. completely unrelated to the plan, as Chairman Manasco quite clearly pointed out. For example, the plan in no way affects the status of the Food and Drug Administration. His figures, and I am not vouching for their accuracy, were apparently taken from the Executive Budget submitted to the Congress by the President on January 14, 1946. Your committee is, of course, aware that such budgets are submitted in accordance with the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, which requires the executive agencies to submit their estimates of needed expenses to the Bureau of the Budget by September 15 of the previous year. May I also call your attention to the fact that the figures cited by Mr. Bender were only estimates, and that the Appropriations Committee of the House of Representatives issued its report substantially cutting some of these estimates on the very day Mr. Bender submitted his figures to your committee.

Consequently, it is perfectly clear that Mr. Bender's figures are completely irrelevant to the reorganization plan. They were submitted to the Congress on January 14, 1946, on the basis of estimates made on September 15, 1945, and have no connection whatever with the administrative adjustments contemplated in the President's Reorganization Plan No. 2 submitted on May 16, 1946.

I agree thoroughly with Chairman Manasco's observation when Mr. Bender made his original remarks. Said Mr. Manasco:

"I cannot see where the transfer of these agencies under one head would in any way-unless the Congress wanted to increase the services to the people, and that would have to be done by appropriation-affect the matter."

I would go further, and say that plan No. 2 should save money by making possible a more economical and efficient administration of the authorities now vested by law in the agencies involved in the plan.

Mr. GIBSON. Mr. Chapman, we will be glad to hear you now.

STATEMENT OF ROSS CHAPMAN, M. D.

Dr. CHAPMAN. May I have the privilege of reading a statement, which will not take more than 6 or 7 minutes?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, sir. I will ask that nobody interrupts you until you get through.

Dr. CHAPMAN. This is dealing with the affairs of St. Elizabeths Hospital insofar as Reorganization Plan Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned. The CHAIRMAN. Are you connected with St. Elizabeths directly or indirectly?

Dr. CHAPMAN. No; I was some 25 years ago, but not since that time. Gentlemen, the American Psychiatric Association, with its 3,000 members, represents the largest body of organized medical opinion in the field of mental diseases in the United States.

On the occasion of its last annual meeting, held in Chicago May 25-30, 1946, 2 weeks ago, the council of the association was startled and deeply disturbed to learn of plans under way, in the course of governmental reorganization, which might impair the usefulness and efficiency of St. Elizabeths Hospital, in the District of Columbia, as a teaching center for mental diseases, at a time when the medical schools. and accredited teaching hospitals of the country are struggling to meet the demands of hundreds of physicians for postgraduate training in this medical field. These applicants are in the main recent medical officers of our armed forces of the past war years. In addition, there is a constantly increasing number of young medical graduates seeking training.

St. Elizabeths was founded for the care and treatment of enlisted men and officers of Army, Navy, and Marine Corps. In the course of time mentally sick members of the Coast Guard, of the civilian population of the District of Columbia, and the criminally insane of these groups of our population, and others, were admitted by law. It became a unique teaching hospital. There is no other like it.

During the past 50 years, as you know, the importance of psychiatry in the field of medicine has increased greatly, and its place in more recent years as the greatest problem in the fields of preventive medicine and the public health has been acknowledged. That problem is constantly under attack.

The various groupings of its patients, coming from all parts of the country to the one hospital, has made of St. Elizabeths a place where unrivaled opportunities are to be found for the study of psychiatric care and treatment and for clinical research. During the past 40 years, particularly, from its wards and laboratories has come a constant stream of contributions to the body of our medical knowledge which has been of the greatest value.

Scores of medical officers of the Regular military forces have received their psychiatric training at St. Elizabeths during the years of peace. This number during World War I was greatly augmented by

medical officers of the Reserve who were ordered there for this purpose. During World War II from the Navy alone 125 medical officers and some 800 hospital corpsmen received psychiatric instruction at St. Elizabeths.

I would like to add that 2,500 Red Cross trainees received training during the war years at St. Elizabeths.

The influence of its teachings on psychiatric thought and effort, particularly since 1903, when William Alanson White was appointed medical superintendent, as transmitted through its medical alumni to all parts of this country, cannot be overestimated. The same may be said as to the years of constructive and scientific interests and effort on behalf of psychiatric nursing. Dr. White's administrative policies and scientific interests, so deeply impressed on the institution, have, since his death, been admirably carried on and extended by his successor, Dr. Winfred Overholser, the present medical superintendent. I would like to interpolate that Dr. White introduced conceptions of military psychiatry in this country.

The council of the American Psychiatric Association is deeply concerned over the almost certain impairment of the teaching function of St. Elizabeths Hospital under a proposed reorganization which it feels cannot have had the attention and study of qualified physicians. We have no evidence of medical participation in the preparation of either Reorganization Plan No. 2 or 3. Such participation would have to consider teaching function and patient welfare.

It seems apparent that the proposed reorganization of this fine teaching hospital would necessarily bring with it a certain demoralization and reduction of its effectiveness at a time when its services are desperately needed. St. Elizabeths, its efforts and accomplishments through the years in clinical medicine and research and its present splendid qualifications, is an institution of national signifi

cance.

The membership of this committee are, I am sure, fully aware of the strenuous efforts being made by the Veterans' Administration to secure physicians for its hospitals. St. Elizabeths is deeply interested and involved in the plans being made for the resident training of young doctors for this service.

Reorganization Plan No. 2 provides for the abolishment of the Board of Visitors.

The Board of Visitors, an unpaid body, has for many years included the Surgeons General of the Army, Navy, and Public Health Service, and interested and alert citizens, both men and women, of the District of Columbia. The value of such a Board, as is the case with all other such hospitals, is very great indeed from the point of view of the expression of critical opinion and advice, as well as from the point of view of two-way interpretation between the hospital and the community, including, in the case of St. Elizabeths, the armed services.

The council of the American Psychiatric Association, without opportunity for studying the subject, cannot express an opinion as to the financial savings involved in the dispersal, to other hospitals throughout the country, of service patients, now being adequately treated in one hospital established for the purpose. It seems doubtful that the cause of economy would be served. In any event, the possible economic advantage would seem to be far outweighed by

consideration of the welfare of the patients concerned and the educational factors involved.

In view of the facts above written it is respectfully requested, on behalf of the council of the American Psychiatric Association, that that portion of both Reorganization Plan No. 2 and Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1946 dealing with St. Elizabeths Hospital be disapproved by your committee. At a later time, if so desired, it should be determined, by qualified medical opinion, what the effect of the proposed reorganization will be on the greatly needed educational functions of this hospital duly accredited for postgraduate teaching by the American Medical Association, the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology, and the American College of Surgeons.

Mr. GIBSON. Any questions?

Mr. JUDD. I would like to ask Dr. Chapman for a little further testimony. You will agree that St. Elizabeths has no superior, if, in fact, any person, in the United States not only for the care of the psychiatrically afflicted, but for the teaching.

Dr. CHAPMAN. That is undoubtedly true.

Mr. JUDD. The very fact that the Veterans' Administration needs some trained psychiatrists to deal with those for whatever reason you are able to adjust or readjust adequately is a double reason why St. Elizabeths should be able to continue its teaching work because it cannot be replaced by any other institution; isn't that true? Dr. CHAPMAN. That is true. pitals, you see.

There are too few such teaching hos

Mr. JUDD. I am a physician. As soon as I read that plan I was disturbed by this proposal. Right now is when I think we ought to hold steady for the next 2 or 3 years. There we start out by crippling the key institution in giving postgraduate work, fellowships, and so forth, to psychiatrists. I agree with you that it is unfortunate that this should be included in this plan. Mrs. Meyer would probably call it relatively unimportant, and we should not block something good in order to block this which is bad. At the same time, as a physician, I am disposed to agree with your position that there would be nothing to gain comparable with the resulting loss.

Dr. CHAPMAN. It is an institution of very great significance the country over. We should not rise to destroying or impairing it.

Mr. JUDD. My colleagues asked me how it would be impaired. It splits up the patients, it just parcels them all over the United States in institutions which do not exist when they are being taken care of very, very well. Maybe eventually some such change should be made. I feel it should not be made at this time. I am glad for your testimony from the American Psychiatric Association because it is right along my own reactions of the proposal.

Mr. GIBSON. Any further questions? If not, thank you, Doctor. Mr. Haddock.

STATEMENT OF HOYT S. HADDOCK, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, CIO MARITIME COMMITTEE

Mr. HADDOCK. I appear today in favor of House Concurrent Resolution 154, insofar as it refers to part I, section 101, of Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1946. The CIO Maritime Committee is composed of

seven CIO marine unions-National Maritime Union, Marine Engineers Beneficial Association, National Union Marine Cooks and Stewards, International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, International Fishermen and Allied Workers of America, American Communication Association, and Inlandboatmen's Union of the Pacific.

While our committee represents only CIO maritime unions, we should like to emphasize at this point that all maritime unions, AFL, CIO, and independent alike, are opposed to having these functions contínued under the Coast Guard. On March 21, 1946, 11 representatives of AFL, CIO, and independent maritime unions called upon Secretary of Commerce Henry Wallace, urging that he do whatever necessary with a view to having the functions of the Bureau of Marine Inspection and Navigation returned to the Commerce Department. Present at this same meeting was retired inspector Milne, of the Bureau of Marine Inspection and Navigation. We appear today, for the specific purpose of opposing part I, section 101, of the Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1946, for the following reasons:

1. The 1936 Merchant Marine Act, specifically designated that the merchant marine be operated as a civilian service. The continuation of the maritime functions under the Coast Guard, completely invalidates Congress' desire with respect to having a civilian merchant marine.

2. The Coast Guard demonstrated that is does not have the ability to enforce laws relating to discipline of merchant seamen in a fair and impartial manner.

3. Civilian personnel of the inspection service has been grossly discriminated against by Coast Guard officers and personnel.

Let us examine into the reasons why we oppose this part of the reorganization plan as stated above.

Our organizations have over a long period of time been receiving personnel complaints from civilian inspectors who were transferred to the Coast Guard, concerning the treatment they were receiving. To date we have not been able to get any of these people who were on the pay roll to make a statement which could be made public. The reasons for their not wanting to do so are, we are sure, obvious to this committee.

In the meeting with Secretary Wallace, however, retired Inspector Milne, summed up all of the complaints we have heard from inspectors on duty. Mr. Milne, stated in effect, that there was no freedom whatsoever in the Coast Guard, that all the activities of the Coast Guard with respect to the civilian personnel was such as to discourage their continued employment. It was Milne's feeling, that the primary reason why the "heat" was being applied to them was because they were not Coast Guard officers.

In any event, when the administration of the Bureau of Inspection and Navigation, under the Department of Commerce, inspector personnel was chosen from shipboard personnel. This was the primary cutlet of seagoing personnel to shoreside jobs; and, incidentally, was considered by shipboard personnel as a promotion. Under the Coast Guard, this practice was discontinued and Coast Guard officers were given jobs formerly held by civilian inspectors who came up from the ranks aboard ship.