effort today who said "I wish we could have this translated into Spanish and send it to the South American countries," and another gentleman said, who is very close to the situation over there, "I wish I could have 200,000 copies of this to use in England, because it would help those people to know what the intelligent and responsible people in the United States are thinking about for the future."

CHANGES IN LANGUAGE

USE OF VOLUNTARY AND UNCOMPENSATED SERVICES

(See p. 61)

Mr. DIRKSEN. While Mr. Wigglesworth is looking through his notes, let me ask you, Mr. Eliot, a few questions about the language. I think I appreciate that, in the hands of a very circumspect administrator, compensation for State, county, or municipal officers and employees would not be abused, but you can understand there would be situations to arise, notably in the Work Projects Administration, where, if funds were available, it could be abused and would set a precedent for inclusion in other appropriation language at some future time. That is the reason I am concerned about it. Consequently it occurs to me, as the larger element of benefit would accrue to the State we are dealing with; namely, Louisiana, but manifestly the same benefits would go to other States, no doubt, that it is a little selfish on the part of a little rural subdivision to be charging the amount of paying the compensation for 4 weeks' work of one of the employees who is being compensated out of the State_treasury. I doubt very much the advisability of that language. I understand you are asking only for a clarification there, and that the General Accounting Office has ruled you could compensate the individual.

Mr. ELIOT. They ruled that we could compensate the individual in that case, but perhaps we ought to have a clarification. I do not wish to press that at all, Mr. Dirksen, if you think it is open to abuse. But I am told that the Bureau of the Budget does have such a provision in its appropriations.

EMPLOYMENT OF PERSONS OR ORGANIZATIONS BY CONTRACT OR

OTHERWISE

Mr. DIRKSEN. I am only reflecting my own view.

Now, dropping down to the employment of persons or organizations by contract or otherwise, there is an item of $50,000. That would include what nature of service and what organizations?

Mr. ELIOT. Consulting service. Our compensation to consultants is limited by the fact that the whole organization is under the terms of the Classification Act; therefore, we cannot compensate any per diem employee more than $22 a day, or $25 if he was previously on the rolls.

Mr. DIRKSEN. What do you pay for consultants as a maximum? Mr. ELIOT. We pay a maximum of $22 and $25; but, under this procedure, in exceptional cases, we are in a position to compensate at a higher rate. We have done so in a few special cases where there was a particular person who was the only person available, or where there was a special problem. One of them was sending a man out of

the country. It was obviously appropriate that he should receive more than $22, when he would probably be out of pocket that amount and would get no compensation unless he got a higher per diem.

Mr. DIRKSEN. Let me ask you about the language at the top of page 21: Was that deleted at the instance of the Budget Bureau? Mr. ELIOT. That is the Clark proviso?

Mr. DIRKSEN. Yes.

Mr. ELIOT. We suggested this year, as we did last, that that proviso was unnecessary, and that the usual references to legislation covered exactly the same point; because, obviously, we cannot do something which we are not authorized to do.

I have always felt, personally, that the proviso was a slap at us, suggesting we are trying to get away with something and to do something we are not authorized to do.

Mr. DIRKSEN. You think it merely reaffirms existing law?
Mr. ELIOT. I think it is completely unnecessary.

DUTIES OF PRINCIPAL POLITICAL SCIENTIST

Mr. DIRKSEN. Now, recurring for a moment to the profound observation of my friend from New York Mr. Fitzpatrick, I see you carry a principal political scientist at $5,800 a year, which you are asking in 1944. What does he do?

Mr. ELIOT. He is the head of what we call the Field Section. He just happens to have, as his professional background, some expert knowledge of the field of political science, and he is carried in that position as a political scientist because he is dealing with States and localities, and we want to be sure we have somebody who knows what is what and what ought to be what in the relations of the Federal Government and the localities.

Mr. DIRKSEN. He is on the rolls now, is he not, Mr. Eliot?
Mr. ELIOT. Yes, sir.

Mr. FITZPATRICK. It does not mean that he is going to be a political scientist at all?

Mr. ELIOT. It means that he is by training a political scientist, and that his regular duties are to act as an administrative officer.

Mr. DIRKSEN. You say he is on the rolls now?

Mr. ELIOT. Yes, sir.

Mr. DIRKSEN. Who is he?

Mr. ELIOT. John Miller, from your State and neighborhood. Mr. DIRKSEN. Is he a good practical politician along with everything else?

Mr. ELIOT. I do not think he is in politics at all.

REIMBURSEMENT TO OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES FOR SERVICES PERFORMED

Mr. DIRKSEN. I notice there is a provision for reimbursement of $125,000, evidently for services performed to other governmental agencies.

Mr. ELIOT. Primarily to the W. P. B. that is the biggest one and it is done under this proviso which one of your committees put into the bill last year that all reimbursements by war agencies shall be cleared by the Bureau of the Budget. They are all handled that way.

GOVERNMENT AGENCIES DEALING WITH PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE

Mr. DIRKSEN. Now, I would like to have the attention of the subcommittee for a moment on this matter. I am rather interested in this whole business of planning. It occurs to me the Congress has not given enough attention to it. I proposed that we set up a legislative planning and reconstruction service made up of experts, and to whom we might delegate those powers. The difficulty in this whole business in which you are engaged is the danger of duplication.

Now, sometime in December I was invited to a dinner at the Cosmos Club and there were 40 planners present representing some 20 agencies of the Government. The particular thing we were discussing was the transportation report gotten out by your agency. I think I can say for the record, insofar as I know, I thought it was a pretty good piece of work. But here, while you serve as a general staff and not the operating agency, as you indicate here, yet we have so many operating agencies, and the question of whether or not you are getting good coordination is, in my mind, quite doubtful.

I notice over here in the Administrator's office for the National Housing Agency, and this is a result of some examination I made yesterday, that he is asking this year for a director of research, for a chief urban planner, for a director of racial relations, for a principal housing economist, for a principal urban analyst, for a racial relations adviser, for an urban analyst, for a housing economist, and for an associate housing economist, and then all of the component agencies of the National Housing Agency are also asking for planners, analysts, research men, and economists in various fields, so that they develop a great deal of their own stuff.

I am wondering if it is not advisable to finally localize this thing in the same agency of the Government, not only on the research and organizational side, but the operational side as well. It might be that those people are identified with a very practical undertaking; on the other side, we know a good deal about this. We know they are doing operational work for the Government, at least, and this whole. committee print is loaded with analysts and planners of one kind and another.

Now, within the limitation of time, the Congress cannot deal with all of those elements. The Twentieth Century Fund made a breakdown, and I counted them. Making allowances for duplications, there are 157 agencies of the Government dealing with the same kind of planning right along, and we are going to be fairly bewildered with this thing unless we get it localized and properly coordinated so that it can come within the limitations of time that Congress can devote to it. It seems to me that in a little while we are going to be so overwhelmed with this thing, and I think it a very necessary thing and that something has to be done about it

Mr. ELIOT. May I interpolate a remark there? You point out that there are planners in so many agencies. We wish there was a planner in every agency just exactly, I suppose, as the Budget would like to see a Budget officer in every agency and as the Civil Service Commission would like to see a personnel officer in every agency. Mr. DIRKSEN. But now, if I remember correctly, the National Labor Relations Board has a man there as a planner, and I am wondering what kind of planning they are going to do. Obviously

you are just going to serve as the high command or general staff and take what they dish out, and maybe it comes to your attention and maybe it does not. It may be they can articulate a good deal of their stuff; but, on the average, if you do not limit the stuff they get, finally it gets out of hand.

Finally, I think that is going to have to be met. We have already had a number of bills introduced-the Voorhis bill for a committee of 24, and the Beiter bill, which I opposed on the floor of the House, which called for $25,000,000 for a committee on planning, and a blank check on the fund of the President for $75,000,000, and to move right ahead. I was sorry I could not go along with it, but I could not. But here we are barging in from all sides now, and I see a great labyrinthine maze if we cannot cope with it.

I would like to know from you whether or not this thing cannot be localized in some one agency of the Government making both the operational and directional set-up, which is the only hope that I see if we are going to catch up with it. For instance, here are Mr. Emerick and Mr. Blandford; they have a great aggregation of people doing work in the housing field. And you have gotten out bulletins on it. Why could we not put this housing in a single agency and say "All right; let us see what you have to say," and see if they are practical housers.

The other thing is this: You get every kind of social viewpoint, some of them extremely valid, unfortunately. I think you have to have some tendency in this field. On the other hand, are we going so far as to move away over to the left and give a social slant to a degree that the country will not accept?

In that connection, let me ask you: Have you done work on that front in Puerto Rico?

Mr. ELIOT. Yes, sir; we have an office in Puerto Rico.

Mr. DIRKSEN. Have you supplied any information to Mr. Tugwell? Mr. ELIOT. We certainly have.

Mr. DIRKSEN. There is an instance of Mr. Tugwell using Puerto Rico, in my estimation, as a guinea pig. I am distressed about that whole thing, I am frank to say, because I am afraid the gentleman is going to be blown out of the water before he gets through.

BACKGROUND AND TRAINING OF KEY PERSONNEL OF BOARD

I think it would be interesting for the record if you would submit a list of the policy makers of your agency and give their background. Mr. ELIOT. That whole agency is policy making. Do you want

them all?

Mr. DIRKSEN. I would rather have the type of background of those who give real direction to the agency.

Mr. ELIOT. Well, they are here [indicating the members].

Mr. DIRKSEN. You have others, and I am interested in your viewpoint and, if it does not take up too much space in the record, I think it would be rather interesting to have that picture. You gave some of it to us a year or two ago.

Mr. ELIOT. I do not know that I understand what kind of a description you would like.

Mr. DIRKSEN. Their educational background, the things they have done since they have been out of college, and the agencies they have been identified with since they have been with the Government.

Mr. ELIOT. I have a complete review of the whole organization right here.

Mr. DIRKSEN. Suppose you bring it up to date.

Mr. ELIOT. Just for the key officials at the top-because there are two big volumes over here on the table.

Mr. DIRKSEN. Can you start with the person who wrote the transportation report and coordinated all that information as the top man? Mr. ELIOT. Yes, sir.

Mr. DIRKSEN. I would like to have him put in, and then the division heads. It is just bringing up to date the list we have had before.

Mr. YANTIS. Of course, Mr. Dirksen, you understand the transportation report is the work of a policy committee.

Mr. DIRKSEN. Yes.

(The information requested is as follows:)

BOARD MEMBERS

FREDERIC ADRIAN DELANO, Chairman of the Board: Born 1863; A. B. 1885, Harvard University. Regent, Smithsonian Institution; Chairman, American Planning and Civic Association; Member, Pan American Resources Commission; Chairman, National Capital Parks and Planning Commission, 1929–1942; Receiver Appointed by the United States Supreme Court in the Red River Boundary Case, Oklahoma v. Texas; Chairman, International Commission of the League of Nations Inquiry into the Production of Opium in Persia and the Possible Substitution of Other Crops or Industries; Commissioned a Major, Engineer Corps, Assigned to Staff of General Atterbury, Director General of Transportation, A. E. F., Tours, France, 1918; Promoted to Lieutenant Colonel and appointed as Deputy Director of Transportation at Paris, 1918, and to Colonel, Transportation Corps, 1919; Vice Governor, Federal Reserve Board, 1914-1918; President, Monon (C. I. & L.) Railway, 1913-1914; President, Wabash Railroad, 1905-1911; General Manager of C. B. & Q., 1901-1905; Superintendent of Motive Power, Chicago, 1899-1901; Superintendent of Freight Terminals, Chicago, 1890-1899: Assistant to the Second Vice President, C. B. & Q., 1889-1890; in charge of Bureau of Rail Inspection, Chicago, 1887-1889; Engineer of Tests at Aurora, 1887; Apprentice Machinist, C. B. & Q., Aurora, 1885-1887; Member, Engineering Party in Colorado, C. B. & Q., 1885. Awarded D. S. M. for service in France, September 9, 1921; member of Legion of Honor.

CHARLES EDWARD MERRIAM, Vice Chairman of the Board: Born 1874; A. B. 1893, Lenox College; A. B. 1895, Iowa State University; A. M. 1807 and Ph. D. 1900, Columbia University; LL. D. 1920, University of Colorado. Chairman, Department of Political Science, Professor, Associate Professor, Instructor, and Associate Instructor of Political Science, University of Chicago, 1900-1940; Commissioner of American Committee on Public Information in Italy, 1918; Commissioned Captain, Signal Reserve Corps, Aviation Section, 1917; Chairman, Commission on City Expenditures, Chicago, 1913; Republican Candidate for Mayor of Chicago, 1911. Member of Social Science Research Council (President, 1924-1927); American Political Science Planning Association (President, 19241925); Hoover Committee on Recent Social Trends; President Roosevelt's Committee on Administrative Management, Awarded the Order of Commendatore Della Corona d'Italia. Author of "The History of American Political Theories," 1903, "American Political Ideas 1865-1917," 1921; "The American Party System," 1922, "New Aspects of Politics," 1925, "Role of Politics in Social Change," 1936, "The New Democracy and the New Despotism," 1939, "What is Democracy?" 1941, "On the Agenda of Democracy," 1941, numerous other books and articles in the field of political science and government.

GEORGE FRANKLIN YANTIS, Member of the Board: Born 1885, LL. B. 1913, University of Wisconsin. Admitted to Washington Bar and in private practice, 1913 to date, Chairman, Northwest Regional Planning Commission, 1937-1939; Member, Washington House of Representatives, 1931-1937, Speaker, 1933; Prosecuting Attorney, Thurston Company, 1915-1916. Director of American Society of Planning Officials, President of Northwest Regional Council of Planning,