« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
Representative Barden. Have you any real criticism of that situation?
Mr. Tulloss. I would say, without reading all of this, that this is largely informative, and raises a question as to whether or not this was a necessary activity of the Tennessee Valley Authority. I don't believe any specific exceptions were taken in the accounts for this reason.
Representative BARDEN. You were kind of chasing a gnat there.
Mr. Tulloss. Not exactly a gnat. The question is a very serious question right now as I understand. In fact, it is being the subject of a grand-jury investigation.
Representative BARDEN. Where?
Mr. Tulloss. Here in Washington, the matter of socialized medicine.
Representative BARDEN. You mean
Mr. Tulloss. The interference of the American Medical Association with the conduct of associations for general hospitalization.
Representative BARDEN. Oh, well, that doesn't involve the situation we are interested in?
Mr. Tulloss. Oh, no; I am just speaking of it as being on the principle that is involved.
Representative BARDEN. You mean if it was terrible it would be bad:
Senator SCHWARTZ. Let's get this American Medical Society situation. I want to ask him one question.
The American Medical Association has no objection, and it is on record, that it does not object to socialized medicine in such situations as these isolated dams out in the country.
I don't know that they do object, and I am sure we had no thought about any objection ourselves when this exception was stated in the report.
Representative WOLVERTON. Our discussion has gotten onto a little gnat up in the Hiwassee district, which is a wild, unpopulated district, and it is spoken of as if that was the thing that you were criticizing, or at least bringing to the attention of the proper authorities,
. If the full story is read, as set forth in this report of 1934, I don't take it that you are raising a question as to the situation at Hiwassee or some unpopulated district where there is only one doctor, and he is in the employ of the T. V. A., but this applies to all employees, doesn't it, and their families, regardless of where they are situated or where they are located?
Mr. Tulloss. I understand it is confined mostly to the construction projects at the large dams.
Representative WOLVERTON. Well, your statement on page 361 does not tend to limit it to that. Now, maybe I am mistaken. If it does, why, it is not as serious as it might have seemed, on my first reading of it.
Representative BARDEN. You don't mean you are coming around to the point that you might think it is a gnat?
Representative WOLVERTON. Oh, well, once in a while I will let you characterize my thoughts in whatever way you wish, but ordinarily I prefer to do it myself.
Mr. Tulloss. In the paragraph that you read it is stated "In the areas adjacent to T. V. A. projects where permanent towns and villages are located.”
Representative WOLVERTON. So that your criticism is based on the expansion of this system to points where there are facilities?
Mr. Tulloss. Well, take the town of Norris. Of course the town was being established there, but there was nothing there prior to the construction as I understand it.
Representative WOLVERTON. How about Knoxville?
Mr. Biddle. Just a moment. You interrupted the witness. He was about to answer the question.
Representative WOLVERTON. In other words, suppose a man is a guest of an employee in Knoxville, and he is taken ill. Was this expansion that you called attention to of medical service to extend to the benefit of such an individual? That is what I am trying to get at.
Mr. Tulloss. Not in Knoxville; no, sir.
Representative WOLVERTON. Well, you didn't limit it here. That is the difficulty. You made the plain statement.
Representative JENKINS. Do you know what the facts are at the present time? Suppose an employee of the T. V. A. living in Knoxville, secretary to the general manager, we will say, gets sick, or his wife gets sick
Does the T. V. A. furnish them with medical service now? Mr. MATCHETT. T. V. A. maintains a medical department at Knoxville at all times, and if someone is taken ill in the office he can receive emergency treatment. But so far as going beyond that point, there is none that I know of. It is merely emergency treatment at the office.
Representative JENKINS. There would be nothing wrong about that, but the point that he is developing, to my mind is, is there a tendency, or have they laid the foundation, or do they actually carry medical treatment to all their employees wherever they are?
Mr. MATCHETT. No; at this time it was extended to those living at Norris and Wheeler, Norris being 3 miles from Coal Creek, and Wheeler 8 miles from Town Creek.
Representative JENKINS. I think we all agree that in these isolated cases there ought to be first aid, and, in fact, good medical treatment, but we ought not to apply that to people who are guests, even there, and it ought not to apply even to the people in Knoxville.
Mr. Tulloss. Without paying.
Representative WOLVERTON. Then this criticism in the report of 1934, or not a criticism, but this direction of attention to a possible expansion has not developed.
Mr. MATCHETT. It has, because at the time covered here only those who wished medical service went after it. Now, it is made available to everybody, and there is a charge made against the salaries of the employees.
Representative WOLVERTON. I took it from the way that you had it set forth in this report of 1934 that it went away beyond that, the intention at least, and what I am trying to develop is to what extent it has expanded. Now, if we are fixed with the idea that it has not. expanded, why, we will just drop it there and let it go, but if it has been expanded so that guests and relatives-get those words-get those words, relatives and guests, that is what I am talking about it, have the benefit of this service by an employee paying a certain amount per year, I think we are getting then on rather questionable ground.
Mr. MATCHETT. At the time this was written, there was no occasion for treatment of relatives and guests. There were not accommodations for that.
Representative WOLVERTON. But you say it was going to be expanded, or there was an intention to expand.
Mr. MATCHETT. That is what we were told.
Mr. MATCHETT. Yes; it has been done, because since this was written those towns have grown.
Representative WOLVERTON. You said, yes; in certain districts. Senator SCHWARTZ. Referring to those thinly populated districts where, as you said awhile ago, they have a herd of Jerseys on every hill.
Representative WOLVERTON. We are not talking about cows now, we are talking about human beings. Let's hold it to that for the time being. I want to know whether this expansion that you refer to, which you considered of sufficient importance to be made a part of your report, has actually taken place?
Mr. MATCHETT. It has to a certain extent.
Representative WOLVERTON. That is what I thought you said. Now, to what extent?
Senator SCHWARTZ. Mr. Chairman, I submit he has described that extent two or three times.
Representative WOLVERTON. Well, now, I will let the Senator give the answer if he wishes to.
Senator SCHWARTZ. No; I have already heard the answer two or three times, and I have some hope that we will finally get beyond the gnat question and get into the important things.
Representative WOLVERTON. I still insist we are talking about humans and not about gnats or cows.
Mr. MATCHETT. In 1934 there were no ladies at the projects. They were rough camps; there were no wives of the employees, and their families were not there. The service was extended only to the men, naturally. Later towns were built at both of them, at Norris some two or three hundred houses, and a number of apartments. The men brought their families there, and the service was extended to the immediate families and their guests.
Representative WOLVERTON. And their relatives?
Representative WOLVERTON. Would there be any charge made to relatives of guests?
Mr. MATCHETT. Well, that I am not prepared to answer. Representative WOLVERTON. Does that same practice prevail now? Mr. Matchett. I think so; I am not sure, but I think so.
Representative WOLVERTON. To what portion of the work of the T. V. A. is it limited, if any?
Mr. MATCHETT. To the active projects and towns, such as Norris, possibly Wheeler, Hiwassee, Pickwick, where there are towns. But our objection to this was not to expanding the medical service, but the class of service, such as obstetrical service, when there is a town about 3 miles away.
Representative WOLVERTON. Just elaborate on that a little bit. You say the character of the service. How broad was the character of the service to be?
Mr. MATCHETT. Anything that they were equipped to do, minor operations, obstetrical service.
Representative WOLVERTON. That is what I am getting at. It is. not just these cases of emergency.
Mr. MATCHETT. General service. I was present when this remark was made by the T. V. A. official in charge of the medical program, and he went into a long oration of how they intended to expand this. They didn't do quite what he said they would. Representative JENKINS. What did he say?
Mr. MATCHETT. It would be rather difficult to recall his exact Fords now, but he was very jubilant over how much he intended to do. This is a summary of what he said.
Representative WOLVERTON. It is as extensive a hospital service as you could get in the city of New York.
Mr. MATCHETT. No.
Representative WOLVERTON. From what you have set forth here I cannot conceive of any medical service that is not included in what you have set forth on page 361—"To include medical, surgical, dental, obstetrical service, laboratory work, X-ray, diagnostics, operating rooms, and so forth, home service by physicians and nurses," in fact, using your words, "general hospital, medical, surgical, and dental treatments."
Mr. MATCHETT. This the plan as outlined to us by the T. V. A. official in charge of that program.
Representative WOLVERTON. That is right.
Mr. MATCHETT. And it has not been enlarged to the extent noted here. This was proposed, they never carried out the proposition to that extent.
Representative WOLVERTON. How many of those activities that. you refer to in that statement have been put in operation?
Mr. MATCHETT. I am unable to say that as I did not have contact with
any of this work in the last year, of this nature. Representative JENKINS. Do you know why this work was not carried on in this large way that this official said it was going to be
carried on? Did your intervention, by the making of this report, prevent it, or what did prevent it, or do you know?
Mr. MATCHETT. Are you asking my personal opinion or my knowledge of facts?
Representative JENKINS. Facts.
Mr. MATCHETT. Yes; I think our inquiry about this stopped a good bit of it. In fact I know not only that, but of many other
Representative JENKINS. Thank you very much.
RENTALS OF HOUSES OWNED BY AUTHORITY
Representative WOLVERTON. Well, now, let's turn to page 365, which has to do with the rentals of houses.
Now, on page 365 you set forth that house No. 1 had cost the T. V. A. to June 30, 1934—and therefore I assume that it was a new house---$7,433.49, and you say the rent is $20, water $1, heat $5, or a total of $26.
House No. 2, with a value of $7,111.10 had a rental of $16, and with water and heat made it $21.
House No. 3, with a cost of $7,579.95 had a rental of $20, and with water and heat $26.
And that house No. 4 at a cost of $15,589.13 had a rental of $30, water and heat included made it $38, and
That property No. 5 with a cost of value of $12,623.37 had a rental value of $30, and with water and heat $38.
Now, I assume that those cases were taken as illustiative of the situation that existed with reference to rent charges for T. V. A. properties, is that right?
Mr. MATCHETT. That is true.
Mr. MATCHETT. No. This is merely illustrative of all of them, and this was not meant merely to pick out any one or two cases, but to be representative of all of them.
Representative WOLVERTON. And you have stated that those costs that I have just read from your report do not include incomplete grading, landscaping, and so forth, not proportion of the general administrative overhead. Now, in the first place you point out the low rental, and then in the second place the lack of apparent proper proportion, even on the basis that had been adopted by the T. V. A., for instance, a $7,500 house had a rental of $20, and a $15,589 house had a rental of only $30. Is that the basis of your criticism?
Mr. MATCHETT. The criticism here is that the incomplete cost of the house presented here does not bring a rental high enough to cover the cost of operations. The costs here are incomplete, and would have been considerably more when the final cost was presented.
Representative WOLVERTON. Back in my country, and I think the same applies pretty generally throughout the United States, a thumbnail way of judging quickly the value of a property is on the basis of a hundred dollars for each dollar of rent, in other words a $20 house