24 Lappen Sem v pamita eremony that has ever happened before Gent and in the Lat you would think there pality which 21st whic ustify expansion beyond policles we will be approved by the Conce! Dr. LENGES. I have enormous nudience in the President of the United States, as far as that masered and I have enormous confierce in our Government all the way throng. I believe it is very difmit for anyone to plane those rarmints. I do not think we have WEL 100 many examples of restra estraints being applied and of the information coming out of those organizations slowed down at all. Senator Dw -HAK. Y administration has been in office! ng the 2 months that the new Dr. DOENGES. I mean in the wide time I Lave watched Government. I grant you-be it understood I said I was a Republican—I do not care what party it is: I like principles: and I disapprove enormously of many of the programs and activities of the previous administration. I have the highest hopes that under this present administration we will see a little step toward sounder government; I think we will. Senator DWORSHAK. I disagree with you: I do not want little steps, I want larger steps: I want a vigorous force toward a changing of the polleles which we have had in effect for several years. Dr. DOENGES. Serator. I was very careful not to say what I wanted to spp. I said what I thought we were going to see. I am a little bit skeptical about the possibility of enormous changes in the order of organizations in as big as the Government of the United States Senator DwORSHAK. I share your apprehension. Dr. DOENGES. I want changes, too. Senator DWORSHAK. I want to ask you just one more question. Do you not think there is the possibility if this plan is approved that the elevation to Cabinet rank of this particular department will enable the President, through his Cabinet, to exercise greater control and restraint over any policies which might be in conflict with what is being advocated by this administration? Dr. DOENGES. I may show an appalling lack of information about government at this point, but I do not believe that the President's Opinion and desires could be ignored by anyone occupying even the position of an administrator. I think that his opinion would require the same respect from the Federal Security Administrator or the Commissioner of the Social Security Agency as if they were Cabinet members. Senator DWORSHAK. Certainly you do not think that President Eisenhower is committed to an expansion of any socialistic program involving health, education, and welfare? Dr. DOENGES. I do not. I think, however, in the mind of many people who are really truly and sincerely bitterly opposed to what we refer to as socialism there is a failure to penetrate some of the mirage and see the collectivist idea coming in sort of in the background in many of these things. Senator DwORSHAK. Do you not believe that by the election verdict of last November and the change in national administration and the election of a Republican Congress, even though the majority in both Senate and House be very slim, that there will be a tendency toward the suppression of socialistic tendencies in government within these specific agencies rather than to be more tolerant of that kind of political philosophy? Dr. DOENGES. I think there will be, and I would say definitely, would not even qualify it with the word "think" if the actual socialistic tendency is recognized and is not hidden from view by-I do not like the word-but by the do-good idea of helping somebody or trying to do a favor for this group or that group because they are in sincere need of certain assistance. Senator DWORSHAK. You feel that that policy has been in vogue too much during the past few years? Dr. DOENGES. I do. Senator DwORSHAK. And you are fearful there will be no change now? Dr. DOENGES. That is my opinion. Senator DWORSHAK. Then you lack confidence in the new Congress and the new administration. I think you are justified in withholding comment or any conclusion until we can see what has actually been accomplished. The new administration has been in office only 2 months, and certainly we cannot expect the basic philosophy of 20 years of Democratic rule to be radically changed in 2 months. Dr. DOENGES. That is correct, and I certainly would be the last to expect that, and that is why I did qualify my previous statement with the idea that I did not think we would see enormous changes, because my honest opinion is that it will take an extended period of time to collect the material, the information, which is necessary to properly evaluate these programs. Senator DWORSHAK. You do believe that a majority of the American people, considering their verdict in last November, are opposed to these socialistic tendencies and policies? Dr. DOENGES. I think a good 95 percent of the American people want nothing of collectivism, socialism, by any name. Senator DwORSHAK. Do you not think that Congress is astute enough to recognize this public sentiment and to operate in conformity with it? Dr. DOENGES. I am not questioning the astuteness of Congress. My only contention is that we have these programs, every one like the Federal Security Administration; everyone seems willing to admit its innumerable defects, difficulties encountered in it, the insolvency of certain portions of it, the defect of the social-security agency; I do not think that has passed the observation of a single Congressman. Senator DWORSHAK. If you are opposed to this reorganization plan because you want greater restraint placed upon these tendencies, what would you propose that should be done instead of approving this plan? Dr. DOENGES. That is a hard question because I do not think in those terms. However, you have asked me, and I would say that I would like very much to see the program placed on an actuarially sound basis. I think the American people should pay their bills as they go for such things as this which are, in my opinion, not essential functions of the Federal Government. I believe that one of the greatest and most constructive things which could be done would be to remove from Federal control and return to the respective States the control and operation of many of these things. Senator DWORSHAK. Would these innovations be possible under this reorganization plan just as they may be now? Dr. DOENGES. They certainly would be. Congress can act on that, no matter where the Federal Security Agency is. Senator DWORSHAK. Congress will not be restricted or restrained in any way in its legislative functioning regardless of whether this plan is approved or disapproved. Dr. DOENGES. That I believe to be correct. Senator HOEY. No questions. Senator SMITH. Senator Kennedy? Senator KENNEDY. The only question I had was on the American Medical Association report. They said that much more important were the actions of the Congress toward Government control of medicine rather than the way a program might be administered; that the legislative decisions of Congress were the important things rather than the administrative decisions of the agency involved. Do you not agree with that? Dr. DOENGES. I think that is worse; yes, sir. Senator KENNEDY. That is why they feel there was no longer any need to oppose this program. Dr. DOENGES. I would take minor exception to that conclusion. The reason given in direct quote by the president of the American Medical Association for accepting this, and I am quoting directly, "But, gentlemen, this is going to be adopted regardless of what we do." That was quoted by the president of the American Medical Association and, I believe, that attitude, plus the fact that the house the delegates was presented a plan which had been approved by the trustees, plus the fact that the president of the association made the point-blank statement that it was going to be-implying, "Well, it is going to be accepted anyway, so why should we oppose it"—I think had considerably more to do with the acceptance-I happen to know for a fact there were delegates in that meeting that had written instructions to oppose the reorganization plan. Their votes apparently were not cast. I have not seen the minutes of the session. Senator KENNEDY. That is all. Senator SMITH. Thank you very much, Dr. Doenges. We appreciate your coming here this morning and giving us the benefit of your views. There have been several references to the additional cost if this plan goes into effect, and the clerk has just called my attention to Hon. Joseph Dodge's testimony before the Joint Committees of the House and Senate Committee on Government Operations, to the effect that the additional cost of this plan-$32,500-will be absorbed in the new budget for the Federal Security Agency. I ask unanimous consent that sections 3 and 5 of the Reorganization Act of 1949 (Public Law No. 109, 81st Cong.) be inserted at this point in the hearings to clarify what may be done in connection with the transfer of, or abolition of functions under a reorganization plan. (The information referred to above is as follows:) REORGANIZATION PLANS SEC. 3. Whenever the President, after investigation, finds that (1) the transfer of the whole or any part of any agency, or of the whole or any part of the functions thereof, to the jurisdiction and control of any other agency; or (2) the abolition of all or any part of the functions of any agency; or (3) the consolidation or coordination of the whole or any part of any agency, or of the whole or any part of the functions thereof, with the whole or any part of any other agency or the functions thereof; or (4) the consolidation or coordination of any part of any agency or the functions thereof with any other part of the same agency or the functions thereof; or (5) the authorization of any officer to delegate any of his functions; or (6) the abolition of the whole or any part of any agency which agency or part does not have, or upon the taking effect of the reorganization plan will not have any functions. is necessary to accomplish one or more of the purposes of section 2 (a), he shall prepare a reorganization plan for the making of the reorganizations as to which he has made findings and which he includes in the plan, and transmit such plan (bearing an identifying number) to the Congress, together with a declaration that, with respect to each reorganization included in the plan, he has found that such reorganization is necessary to accomplish one or more of the purposes of section 2 (a). The delivery to both Houses shall be on the same day and shall be made to each House while it is in session. The President, in his message transmitting a reorganization plan, shall specify with respect to each abolition of a function included in the plan the statutory authority for the exercise of such function, and shall specify the reduction of expenditures (itemized so far as practicable) which it is probable will be brought about by the taking effect of the reorganizations included in the plan. LIMITATIONS ON POWERS WITH RESPECT TO REORGANIZATIONS SEC. 5. (a) No reorganization plan shall provide for, and no reorganization under this Act shall have the effect of (1) abolishing or transferring an executive department or all the functions thereof or consolidating any two or more executive departments or all the functions thereof; or (2) continuing any agency beyond the period authorized by law for its existence or beyond the time when it would have terminated if the reorganization had not been made; or (3) continuing any function beyond the period authorized by law for its exercise, or beyond the time when it would have terminated if the reorganization had not been made; or (4) authorizing any agency to exercise any function which is not expressly authorized by law at the time the plan is transmitted to the Congress; or (5) increasing the term of any office beyond that provided by law for such office; or (6) transferring to or consolidating with any other agency the municipal government of the District of Columbia or all those functions thereof which are subject to this Act, or abolishing said government or all said functions. (b) No provision contained in a reorganization plan shall take effect unless the plan is transmitted to the Congress before April 1, 1953. Senator SMITH. Also that a letter written by the chairman of the subcommittee to each Member of the Senate calling attention to the hearings, and asking them to come in if they wished to testify or to advise the committee of people that they wanted to be heard be placed in the record. (The letter above referred to is as follows:) Hon. JOSEPH R. MCCARTHY, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. MARCH 18, 1953. DEAR SENATOR MCCARTHY: Attached hereto is a copy of a House report on House Joint Resolution 223, which would provide that Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1953 shall take effect 10 days after the date of its enactment, for your information. Although members of the Senate Committee on Government Operations participated in the House hearings, in order to avoid repetition on the part of testimony submitted by officials of the Government, indications are that additional hearings will be found to be necessary as soon as House Joint Resolution 223, passed by the House on March 18, is referred to the committee. Should you desire to testify, or to suggest witnesses who should be heard, I will appreciate it if you will have your secretary notify the clerk of the committee immediately in order that the Subcommittee on Reorganization may reach an early decision as to whether further hearings should be held, and arrangements may be made for your appearance. With kind regards, I am Sincerely yours, MARGARET CHASE SMITH, Chairman, Subcommittee on Reorganization. (Identical letter sent to each Member of the Senate.) Senator SMITH. The subcommittee has received a number of telegrams and letters from doctors and individuals from Fort Worth, Tex., in opposition to the plan and I would like the names to be included in the record. (The names referred to above are as follows:) Telegrams-Ernest Anthony; Ernest D. Anthony, Jr., M. D.; Frank J. Blaha, M. D.; M. T. Bronstad, Jr.; James W. Brooks, M. D.; Tommy L. Evans; Carlos E. Fuste, Jr.; Mrs. J. A. Hallmark; Melvin Johnson, M D.; W. G. Phillips, M. D.; Earl P. Price, Jr., M. D.; E. P. Hall, Jr.; William Plankey; Charles H. Riddle, M. D.; Dr. John H. Richards; Vern Rohrer, M. D.; Mal Rumph, M. D.; Hugh W. Savage, M. D.; Dr. E. D. Taylor; Blanch Osborne Terrell, M. D.; E. E. Weaver; and Kenneth L. Wickett. Letters-M. C. Isbell, M. D.; Owen A. O'Neil; Mal Rumph, M. D., enclosing resolution of Tarrant County Medical Society; and Karl John Karmaky, M. D., Houston, Tex. Senator SMITH. Seventeen of these-there were 19 of them, and I do not recall that any one of them asked to be heard those were directed to me. Seventeen of these telegrams were duplicated to the Honorable Joseph R. McCarthy, chairman of the full Committee on Government Operations. Senator McCarthy received and referred to the subcommittee additional telegrams from Fort Worth, Tex., and I would like those names listed. (The names referred to are as follows:) Forrest C. Barber; Jane S. Black; Mr. and Mrs. C. D. Dickerson; Dr. Charles H. Harris; Mike Kelly; M. C. Isbell, M. D.; T. L. Lauderdale; Dr. Leo N. Roan; Mrs. Charles Schotta; Douglas H Stone, M. D.; and John L. Wallace. Senator SMITH. In addition, telegrams and letters in opposition to the plan were received from Dr. Hugh S. Ramsey, president of the second district, Society of Indiana State Medical Association, Bloomington, Ind., and others, and I would like to have the names listed. |