working very satisfactorily. It is operated now on a definitely bipartisan, or impartial, basis.

Senator FERGUSON. Did you have a memorandum you wanted to file with the Commission?

Mr. PHELAN. No. I just dictated a few notes. I think I have covered all of them.

Senator FERGUSON. We appreciate, Mr. Phelan, your coming here and giving us your opinion on these legal problems.

I am sure the whole committee will appreciate what you had to say here.

Mr. PHELAN. Thank you, sir.

Senator FERGUSON. Mrs. Stone?

STATEMENT OF MRS. HAROLD A. STONE, LEAGUE OF WOMEN

VOTERS

Mrs. STONE. I am Mrs. Harold A. Stone. I am first vice president of the National League of Women Voters.

I am here to make a statement quite different in scope from that of the gentleman who just preceded me. He spoke on some details of these plans, and our organization is not here to make a detailed statement on these specific provisions of the plans, but rather on the significance of the idea of executive reorganization in the democratic representative government that we have today with our executive congressional system.

Now, the League of Women Voters has a long record of interest and study in the field of government administration.

Senator FERGUSON. Might I ask, is this a personal opinion you are going to give, or has it been passed on by a board?

Mrs. STONE. It is an institutional opinion that goes back to the early 1920's as I will show in a moment.

Senator FERGUSON. That is what I want to get at first. Has this been passed on by the board?

Mrs. STONE. It has indeed.

Senator FERGUSON. And they sanctioned the wording of it?

Mrs. STONE. Yes; and we supported the Executive Reorganization Act of 1945.

Senator FERGUSON. Would you tell us who is on the board that sends this, so that the record may show that?

Mrs. STONE. Our board has, I think, 14 members, and I will be very glad to submit their names and residences.

Senator FERGUSON. I think it would help on the record if we knew whose opinion this was.

Mrs. STONE. Would you like me to take your time now to enumerate those from memory?

Senator FERGUSON. No; I would rather you just filed them.

Mrs. STONE. I will be very happy to. I can do it either way. (The information is as follows:)

NATIONAL BOARD OF DIRECTORS, LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS

Miss Anna Lord Strauss, president, New York City, Washington, D. C.
Mrs. Harold Stone, first vice president, Arlington, Va.

Mrs. James Scarborough, secretary, Los Angeles, Calif.

Mrs. Marc Law, second vice president, Northbrook, Ill.
Mrs. Leonard Haas, treasurer, Atlanta, Ga.

Directors:

Mrs. Allan Mitchell, Bloomington, Ind.
Mrs. Charles Heming, New York City.
Mrs. Harold Dyke, Syracuse, N. Y.
Mrs. John G. Lee, Hartford, Conn.
Mrs. Delia Mares, Webster Groves, Mo.
Mrs. Henry Taylor, Henderson, Ky.
Mrs. George Engels, Mill Valley, Calif.
Mrs. L. V. Holler, Ames, Iowa.

Dr. Mabel Newcomer, Vassar College, Poughkeepsie, N. Y.
Senator FERGUSON. Was that opinion unanimous?

Mrs. STONE. It is unanimous, and it goes back in our League of Women Voters through a great many years, this kind of thing, so that our support of this is not just a fresh and new thing, but goes back to an antecedent in support of efficient and responsible government.

We are, perhaps, the only national women's organization which has given this subject sustained attention. In the early twenties, as a statement of the purpose of our department of efficiency in government we first used a sentence which has been repeated since hundreds of times in our work on all levels of government.

The League of Women Voters understands efficient government to be a representative, responsible, and responsive government; stronger than any political or economic group; capable of rendering, with the least waste and at equitable cost, services adapted to the needs of life of all the people.

We are here today because we believe the proposed Executive Reorganization Plans 1, 2, and 3 will contribute significantly to responsible and responsive government.

Congress has recognized the pressing need for a more orderly executive structure by passing legislation last December to authorize the President to make plans to accomplish this purpose.

At that time it became apparent that if Congress was truly to exercise the democratic control over the operation of the Federal Government which is so important to the public welfare, it was necessary to have clear lines of authority through which it could oversee the executive establishments. Orderly patterns of administration are necessary not only for efficiency, which in itself is a most desirable goal, but also for control.

If we are to hold the President responsible for the execution of the laws which Congress passes, he must be given the tools of modern management to enable him to do a good job.

These tools should include adquate staff assistance, a strong and modern personnel system, a sound fiscal system, and the authoritysubject to congressional veto-to organize the executive establishment, and I might say that the League has supported provisions that fall into all of those categories.

I think that you are perhaps familiar with our position on the merit system in particular where we have waged a very long and successful campaign.

Senator FERGUSON. Did the league consider this legal question of the right to transfer powers and duties of this board?

Mrs. STONE. We did. This particular detail?

Senator FERGUSON. Yes.

Mrs. STONE. No, we did not consider that particular detail. Senator FERGUSON. You are not purporting to pass on the legality of these laws; just the advisability of the law?

Mrs. STONE. I would say that we do feel that the basic laws are still in existence, and that the reorganization plans do not change those basic laws.

It allows the Executive, who is responsible for coordinating and administering them, to coordinate them into a more orderly pattern, but it is a transfer of functions. It is no change in basic statutes. Senator FERGUSON. Do you think it is a transfer of functions when you take it away from a bipartisan board and give it to one commission?

Mrs. STONE. Yes, I do.

Senator FERGUSON. You really think that that is all right?

Mrs. STONE. Yes, sir.

Senator FERGUSON. I take it you think there would be nothing wrong to take it away from a court of three men and put it in a court of one man?

Mrs. STONE. NO; within the outlines already set by legislation, within the prescription of the Executive Act of 1945, it seems to me that that is basic law.

Senator FERGUSON. Yes, but the basic law says three Commissioners, bipartisan, not more than two from one party, and then to take it from that and put it in one man. You do not think there is any violence done to the act of Congress, where you take it from three who are bipartisan and give it to one, and then reverse the order of appeal and say that after that you can appeal to a review board appointed by the Commissioner himself who made the first decision? You do not think there has been any change?

Mrs. STONE. I think there is no change that was not contemplated and authorized by the Executive Reorganization Act of 1945.

Senator FERGUSON. Are you familiar with the wording, though, of the reorganization plan about the transfer of these duties?

Mrs. STONE. I think I am. I must admit that I did not know I was coming up until this morning, to review all of this at the last minute.

But I think that section 9 (a), under the Reorganization Act, is one of the saving provisions to which I refer.

Throughout the years as new functions of government have become necessary, the bureaus and agencies which were created to do these jobs have been set up more often than not in a haphazard fashion. As a result neither Congress nor the President has been able to make sure that their functions were coordinated with those of like agencies.

The many independent establishments which were required to report directly to the Chief Executive were far more than he could personally supervise, although he was to be held responsible for their actions.

We do not intend to discuss the details of the plans which are before you. We do believe, however, that it is essential that a more orderly and clear-cut pattern be established in the executive departments.

These plans are the result of many months of careful study and are for the most part noncontroversial. It is to be expected, of course, that there will be criticism of any changes, particularly from those who are affected.

Congress is in a position, however, to look at the picture as a whole and see the general interest in more efficient administration.

We do wish to point out the particular need for a unified agency in the field of housing. By consolidating the functions of the 16 agencies which dealt with the housing problem before the war, the National Housing Agency has been enabled to carry out effectively the housing functions of the Government.

It is seldom that we have such an opportunity to try out a method of organization before adopting it permanently, and it should be a satisfaction to see that the Housing Agency is already operating smoothly on a temporary basis on the same pattern as would be authorized permanently by the reorganization plan.

There are few citizens throughout this country at the present time who would not be completely confused by a chart of the organization of the executive branch of our Government.

It is in an attempt to remedy this situation that the plans before you have been proposed. The League of Women Voters believes that it is important in a democracy to have a government which is understandable to the people-one which they can follow, holding the proper authorities responsible for honest, efficient, and effective administration.

We strongly urge that you support these plans.

Senator FERGUSON. We appreciate your coming in and giving us your opinion.

Mrs. STONE. Thank you.

Senator FERGUSON. Mr. Lawton?

STATEMENT OF F. J. LAWTON, ACCOMPANIED BY FRED E. LEVI, OF THE BUDGET

Mr. SOURWINE. Mr. Lawton, we were discussing plan 2. Can you tell us for the record how the Federal Security Agency was created, and what is its statutory authority?

Mr. LAWTON. The Federal Security Agency was created by Reorganization Plan No. I, under the Reorganization Act of 1939. It has supervisory authority over the Office of Education, Social Security Board, Public Health Service, St. Elizabeths Hospital, Columbia Institute for the Deaf, Vocational Education

Mr. SOURWINE. Is it a permanent agency?

Mr. LAWTON. It is a permanent agency of the Government.

Mr. SOURWINE. What is your reason for saying that it is a permanent agency? What is the distinction between a temporary agency and a permanent one, so that the record may show your reasoning on that? Mr. LAWTON. A temporary agency would have a life limited to a specific period of time by statute.

Senator FERGUSON. So that if any agency does not have a limitation of time in the act creating it, you define that as a permanent agency? Mr. LAWTON. If it had no limitation of time on its existence, or on all of its functions.

Senator FERGUSON. Suppose the act provided during an emergency. You know there were quite a number of acts passed in 1934 and 1935 and 1933, creating or doing certain things during an emergency.

What about those? They are still in existence, some of them. Mr. LAWTON. I would say they would terminate at the positive action which declared the emergency at the end, whether that be in the case, as during the war situation.

Senator FERGUSON. I am not speaking of during the war.

Mr. LAWTON. I am taking that as an analogy that in a great many cases, the Congress by concurrent resolution, or the President by his own action, would declare that emergency at an end.

Senator FERGUSON. Would you classify that as a permanent agency during an emergency?

Mr. LAWTON. No; I would say it was during the term of the emergency. That would have a time limit. The time limit would be the expiration of the emergency.

Mr. SOURWINE. Mr. Lawton, my next question is somewhat technical.

Would you look at the last paragraph of page 4 of the President's printed message with respect to the reorganization program No. 2 and then consider also subparagraph 2 (f), section 4, of the Reorganization Act of 1945.

I simply want to ask, so that the record will show it, whether, in your judgment, the statement in the President's printed message which I refer to is intended to comply with the requirements of section 4, subparagraph 2, of the Reorganization Act of 1945?

Mr. LAWTON. You are referring to this consolidation of work for the blind?

Mr. SOURWINE. No; the next to the last paragraph, on page 4. Senator FERGUSON. It is an order to obtain more expeditious and effective directives.

Mr. SOURWINE. Referring to the second sentence:

Because of the additional functions transferred to the Administrator by this plan, I have found that these officers

and, parenthetically, "these officers" refers to the two new assistant heads

will be needed to assist him in the general management of the Agency and to head the constituent unit or units which the Administrator will have to establish for the conduct of social-security activities.

Mr. LAWTON. The statement in the message is designed to comply with the requirement to which you have referred.

Senator FERGUSON. Who actually prepared this message? Did the people who drew the plan prepare the message?

Mr. LAWTON. The draft of the message was prepared in the Bureau of the Budget. Whether it was done by exactly the same people who worked on the plan, or not, I am not certain.

Senator FERGUSON. We have had some difficulty in interpretation here, and it does help if we know whether the person who is responsible for the wording of the plan also wrote the message.

Mr. LAWTON. There was a combination of effort on these plans. It is not the work of any one person or any two people.

Senator FERGUSON. How long had you been working on this plan? Mr. LAWTON. This specific plan I would not attempt to say. What happened, Senator, was this: Since the passage of the Reorganization Act, and long before that, we had been studying the general subject of Executive reorganization under the direction of the President.

We had prepared a large number of proposals of various sorts. They were not in the form of plans. They were individual proposals. Certain of those proposals were taken out and fitted into plans.