Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. We should first reorganize them, and then see if a department is warranted. Now, there are many plans before Congress with regard to social security, which is the major portion of this Department. There is a plan for a pay-as-you-go system of pensions. I believe it has been approved by the National Chamber of Commerce, among conservative organizations, and among many which are not so conservative. That is under study, I understand, by the Ways and Means Committee in the House. There is a plan for pay regardless of need in order to eliminate administrative with regard to the need cost. Whether that will be practical or not I do not know, but it certainly is obvious if any such plan were put into effect it would cut down the administration problem of this program tremendously. As a matter of fact, I understand that good authorities on this subject have said that even without any basic reorganization of this organization, if its objectives remain the same as they are today, approximately between a third and a fourth of the personnel of this Federal Security Administration could be eliminated, about 10,000 out of 37,500, or whatever figure is in that organization. Now, it seems to me if that is so, we ought to consider those things first before we establish a department. I understand that the Appropriations Committee, in addition to the Ways and Means Committee, is studying this organization. Now, after it has been cut down to size, and its policies have been established to be ones which are more consistent with economy in the Government, I think then you will find it to be very much smaller, considerably smaller, unless powers are added to it, than other autonomous organizations within our Government. My guess is that it is very much smaller today than the Veterans' Administration. The thing that disturbs me most is that I feel that the potentialities for socialism, statism, and a welfare state are greater under this legislation than under the combined socialistic legislation of the terms of Presidents Roosevelt and Truman combined. As we approach our problems in government we must bear in mind that despite the benefits which may individually come to people by legislation which we may pass to make life easier for them, as we care for them more and more, they may be less and less able to care for themselves, they may be less and less able to make governmental decisions, they may be less and less able to carry on the great traditions of America. The great tradition of freedom under God is today the strongest weapon that America has against the inroads of totalitarianism, and slavery throughout the world. The Bill of Rights said in article X, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Now, that is what that article of our Constitution says, and it says it clearly, concisely, and in words which we in 1953 cannot duck. If anything was clear in the November election, it was that the people throughout the United States had returned to the idea and had grasped it to their bosoms and held it tight, that they wanted a return to States rights, that they wanted to turn away from centralized power, they wanted less taxes, they wanted more economy, they wanted to govern themselves back home. They were ready for it. Now, there are, in essence, an infinite number of requests that could be made to Congress for new assistance. None of these programs do I denounce as bad. I think they are probably all good. But this proposal before you today will be an implied promise to the people throughout the United States that the Federal Government can do things financially and administratively which we know it cannot do either financially or administratively. If we create this administration of health, education, and welfare, that will set up an expensive bureaucracy, many publicity men, many planning men and women who can plan for the extension of the Federal Government, who can tell people throughout the United States what their Government can do for them, and lay tempting bait before them, and never saying anything about how they are going to be paid, and how bureaucracy can carry that burden. The public will have no way to check to see if it is being deluded. Before I conclude my remarks, I would like, if possible, to ask for the inclusion in the record of two telegrams and a letter. The letter is from Mr. S. Kendrick Guernsey, who is a high official of the Gulf Life Insurance Co. He was, last year, president of Rotary International. The first telegram is from Mr. Thomas D. Bailey, superintendent of the Department of Education of the State of Florida, who opposes this legislation. Then there is a telegram from a Dr. J. P. Manson, one of the outstanding doctors in Florida, and he has voiced his very strong opposition to the establishment of this Department. I would like, if possible, just before I conclude my remarks, to have these communications introduced. Senator SMITH. Without objection they will be included in the record at the close of Congressman Bennett's remarks. I think that it would not be quite so bad if we named it the Department of Social Security or of Federal Security, because I think if we did that we would imply we were only blowing up the organization which we now have. In any event, whether we have the simpler name or not, we are going to have a great broadening of Government functions, in my opinion. No one who will give any serious thought to this matter at all could conceivably come up with the idea that this legislation will not open the door to such things as compulsory health insurance, Federal control of schools, and things of that kind. There are many things implicit in this, and we cannot kid ourselves, Madam Chairman, that we are not opening the door. I feel this legislation puts in the shade all of the other socialistic legislation which has been passed in the last 20 years. (The letters and telegram previously referred to are as follows:) Hon. CHARLES E. BENNETT, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. GULF LIFE INSURANCE CO., Jacksonville 1, Fla., February 19, 1953. DEAR CHARLIE: Probably President Eisenhower will never see my letter of which the enclosed is a copy. But I couldn't resist making the effort because of my fear of what will follow if the Department of Welfare is established. We could have another Ewing at its head. Probably a Democratic Senator or Representative could do little other than cast a vote, but if you have any ideas in combating the insidious campaign within Government for socialized medicine and compulsory sickness insurance, I hope you will do your best to fight it. Kind personal regards. Sincerely yours, Re: H. R. 1979 Hon. DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER, S. KENDRICK GUERNSEY, GULF LIFE INSURANCE CO., Jacksonville, Fla., February 19, 1953. President of the United States, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: I sincerely hope the secretary who opens this letter may find it possible to convey to you its contents, and the fear which it expresses. Undoubtedly, from other sources-probably many-you have learned that there were within the previous administration many men and women in positions of authority whose ultimate objective was a further socialization of government, particularly as it refers to medicine, and to compulsory sickness insurance. In our opinion the urge for the establishment of a Department of Welfare or a Department of Human Resources was based upon the hope of these persons that such a Department would encourage and increase the likelihood of the adoption of these socialistic programs which have been so hurtful to those nations which have tried them. It is for this reason that we of the insurance industry are frankly frightened at reports that you will shortly recommend the establishment of a welfare department which could easily come under the dominance of a head inclined toward these socialistic policies. We know that you do not favor them. But I earnestly call to your attention these dangers which are inherent in such a proposal. If I am correct in my surmise that you intend making such a proposal, and bringing it into being under H. R. 1979, would I be asking too much if I begged that in your presentation of the subject you publicly state and emphasize your opposition to socialized medicine, socialization of the insurance business, and those other socialistic proposals which have so long frightened business people, and exponents of private enterprise? I am confident that in your heart you oppose these encroachments upon private enterprise, and are against ours becoming a socialistic state. Hence I am sincerely hopeful that the Nation may have your view on these matters in strong terms when and if a new department is recommended. And I am confident that the hundreds of thousands of men and women in every phase of the insurance business share my sentiments. Sincerely yours, Hon. CHARLES E. BENNETT, S. KENDRICK GUERNSEY, TALLAHASSEE, FLA., March 23, 1953. Member of Congress, Washington, D. C.: I subscribe to principle that independent Office of Education under lay Board of Education is logical and desirable, either with or without Cabinet status. Combination with Public Health would be less objectionable than other joint agencies. I am unalterably opposed to submerging education in big agency primarily concerned with social security and public welfare. Since President has been informed of attitude of all chief State school officers and persists in his plan, I understand there is probably little we can do to change his recommended reorganization, and will understand your vote and position in matter. THOMAS D. BAILEY, State Superintendent of Public Instruction of Florida. Hon. CHARLES E. BENNETT, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.: MIAMI, FLA., March 21, 1953. Thanks for your resolution opposing elevation of Federal Security Administrator to Cabinet level. It would be greatly appreciated if you would appear before Senator McCarthy's committee on March 23 and testify against this elevation of Federal Security Administrator. Thanks again. Senator SMITH. Thank you, Congressman. Senator HOEY. No questions. Senator SMITH. Senator Kennedy? Dr. J. P. MANSON. Senator KENNEDY. I appreciate Mr. Bennett's giving us the benefit of his opinions. I knew him well in the House. Senator SMITH. Thank you very much, Congressman. We are very glad to have had you here and have had your views on this very important legislation. Thank you very much. Mr. BENNETT. Thank you for letting me be heard, and I am sorry I took so much time. Senator SMITH. You had all the time that you wanted, did you not? Mr. BENNETT. I did. Senator SMITH. Yes, sir. At this point Senator Smather's appearance and remarks will go into the record. (The prepared statement of Senator Smathers previously referred to is as follows together with the telegram previously referred to.) STATEMENT OF SENATOR GEORGE A. SMATHERS Madam Chairman, I wish to appear to make a very brief statement regarding the proposed creation of a new Department of Public Health, Safety, and Welfare. I am due this very minute at two other committee meetings where vital issues are being decided and where I am advised by the chairman of each that my presence is imperative. I am opposed to this proposal and I wish I could stay longer to speak at greater length. However, in my absence I want to strongly recommend that you hear my House colleague, Representative Charles Bennett, who fought this expansion unsuccessfully in the House and who, in my opinion, has made a very excellent case aganst this proposal. Madam Chairman, as I recall the campaign oratory of last fall, the new Republican administration made a very strong point against expanding bureaucracy and made at least an implied promise that Government bureaus are going to be decreased and not expanded. I am convinced that this pledge, either real or implied, had a great deal to do with the action of the voters in my State in departing from the long Democratic habit of voting for the Democratic nominees of President and Vice President. This proposal is exactly the sort of thing our present President campaigned against and whose objection the people endorsed. This is not only expanding bureaucracy, this would establish of the Federal Security Agency a superbureau, adding to the superbureaucracy, to give us more of the bigger Central Government, that I am convinced our people too do not like. This resolution proposes the elevation of the present Administrator of the Federal Security Agency to Cabinet status. I know of nothing to be gained by that other than to gain for the Administrator probably a bigger badge, a longer limousine, a taller chauffeur, a larger administrative staff and hence a greater overhead without adding one iota to the services being rendered to the people. I know of nothing that would be accomplished, under this reorganization plan, by Public Health Service, Office of Education, or Social Security Administration which cannot be accomplished under our present laws and by the present system. As a matter of fact, I think what we have now probably keeps these agencies closer to the people and that one of the effects of this bill might be to take them further away. I, for one, do not want to see that happen. I have talked to a number of people about this proposal and I have not heard anyone claim that it necessarily would increase efficiency or add to the services although it would cost more money. Personally, I take the position that if we spend any more money through the various agencies now under the Federal Security Agency, that it should go into increased payments to old age beneficiaries, to the schools, or some other worthwhile activity, which would benefit the people and which needs more support. I regret that my other duties require me to excuse myself at this moment, but I urge the committee, as I know it will, to consider this matter most earnestly. Senator GEORGE SMATHERS, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.: ORLANDO, FLA., March 22, 1953. In studying President Eisenhower's reorganization plan for a Federal Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, we find no mention of the United States Children's Bureau. Any curtailment of the Bureau's function would seriously hamper child welfare, Since our parent-teacher associations are so vitally interested in this service to children and their families, we strongly urge your influence in safeguarding the services of the Children's Bureau in a new Federal Department. Mrs. C. DURWOOD JOHNSON, President, Florida Congress of Parents and Teachers. Senator SMITH. Dr. James L. Doenges, of Anderson, Ind. Dr. Doenges, do you have copies of your statement? Dr. DOENGES. I do have. They are just typewritten. I had to write them on the plane last night. Senator SMITH. You do have copies for the committee? Dr. DOENGES. Yes; I have a few copies. Senator SMITH. If you will give your name and your residence and whom you are representing, you may then proceed. STATEMENT OF DR. JAMES L. DOENGES, ANDERSON, IND. Dr. DOENGES. I am Dr. James L. Doenges. I am a surgeon engaged in the private practice of my specialty in Anderson, Ind. I am not an official representing any group or organization. I am here to express the objection of many people I know in the medical profession and outside of it to House Joint Resolution 223, and Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1953. I feel it is not reasonable at all to register unqualified opposition to any proposal. It is not sufficient to just be against something; I believe we should be able and willing to present something a little more substantial. In view of the fact that House Joint Resolution 223 applies specifically to Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1953, and almost completely sets aside the mechanism of the Reorganization Act of 1949, by calling for elevation of an agency to Cabinet status at the end of 10 days instead of the regularly required 60 days, I have found it impossible to discuss either one of these measures separately, and my comments will be interspersed. The procedure has a most dangerous effect upon the established process that, for all practical purposes, it quite effectively eliminates opposition. In all probability, this was not the intent of the resolution but this is the actual and practical result. |