페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

rejection; our purpose in presenting this resolution is to urge a complete and detailed study to determine the merits of the proposed plan No. 3 and the degree to which it might actually increase efficiencies and economies without jeopardizing the operation of the customs service.

We feel that this matter should be widely publicized to all interested persons, particularly importers, and that those most directly affected be invited to appear before appropriate congressional committees. When both opponents and proponents have argued their respective positions, the Congress can in its wisdom act in the best interests of all the people.

To that end we respectfully invite your attention to the attached resolution and urge you to give it all appropriate consideration as an expression of our continuing and increasing interest in sound governmental economies. Sincerely,

SYDNOR ODEN, President. P. S.-The World Trade Committee of the Houston Chamber of Commerce has expressed a direct interest in studying the provisions of this proposed plan as outlined in Senate Committee on Government Operations Staff Memo 82–2–30, Subject: Reorganization Plan No. 3 for 1952 affecting Bureau of Customs in the Department of Treasury. We would very much appreciate as many copies of this study as can be made available to us, up to a miximum of 45. Since time is running out for the 60-day consideration afforded this plan No. 3, we are hopeful that you will be able to have the Senate committee send these to us as soon as conveniently possible.

RESOLUTION REGARDING REORGANIZATION PLAN NO. 3 OF 1952 AS AFFECTING THE

CUSTOMS SERVICE

"Whereas Reorganization Plan No.3 for 1952 affecting the customs service was, on April 10, 1952, submitted to the Congress and referred to Committees on Expenditures in the Executive Departments without sufficient publicity to alert the public interest; and

"Whereas the plan proposes sweepingly drastic changes in the self-liquidating customs service-one of the few governmental agencies producing an income exceeding its cost-without detailing the specific changes which it generally authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to make; and

“Whereas time has not permitted a detailed study of the probable effects of this proposed plan as it applies to the Gulf coast or of the economies and efficiencies now being claimed for the plan without specific supporting details; and

"Whereas the plan will become effective unless rejected within 60 days in the House of Representatives by 218 votes or in the Senate by 49 votes; and

"Whereas the Senate committee began hearing the proponents of the bill on May 14 without provision to hear the opponents of the bill : Be it therefore

"Resolved, That the Houston Chamber of Commerce, having repeatedly recorded its interest in increased economy and efficiency in the customs service by supporting the Customs Simplification Act, urges that ample time be provided for thorough study of this proposed Reorganization Plan No. 3 and that both sides of the issue by given congressional hearing before final action is taken.”

Drafted according to minutes of World Trade Committee meeting Houston Chamber of Commerce, May 14, 1952.

Approved by the executive committee of the Houston Chamber of Commerce, May 20, 1952.

[Telegram]

TAMPA, FLA., May 28, 1952. Hon. John L. McCLELLAN,

Senate Office Building: Our association feels that acceptance of Reorganization Plan No. 3 would result in a lowering of the present high standards of efficiency, service and morale attained by customs through 170 years of experience. The practice of modern business and industry, specialization and division of labor have been adopted by our service as an instrument of efficiency and as a safeguard against fraud and collusion. We feel justly proud of the efficient and courteous service rendered the public at all times. We know that you are agreeable to the maintaining of these high standards and urge you to vote for the rejection of the proposed plan.

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, TAMPA BRANCH,

NATIONAL CUSTOMS SERVICE ASSOCIATION.

99820-52-15

UNITED STATES SENATE,
COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE

May 31, 1952.
Hon. John L. MCCLELLAN,
Chairman, Senate Committee on Government Operations,

Washington 25, D. C. DEAR MR, CHAIRMAN: Please let me enclose for the information and consideration of your committee a letter addressed to me by Mr. Lorenz F. Broecker, president of the Pittsburgh Branch of the National Customs Service Association. With the best of wishes and the kindest of regards, I am, always, Faithfully yours,

M. M. NEELY.

NATIONAL Customs SERVICE ASSOCIATION,

PITTSBURGH BRANCH,

Pittsburgh 19, Pa., May 23, 1952. Hon. MATTHEW M. NEELY,

Senate Office Building, Washington 25, D. C. DEAR SENATOR NEELY: Reference is made to the President's Reorganization Plan No. 3, which is now before the Senate Committee on Government Operations, and the effects it will have on the United States Customs Service.

Being employees of the Customs Service at the port of Pittsburgh, which serves western Pennsylvania and the State of West Virginia, we are very interested and have studied this plan thoroughly.

The proponents of this plan speak much of the economy to Government to be derived, but upon close scrutiny by those who know the workings of customs, such claims seem unfounded.

The abolishing of the positions of collector, comptroller, and surveyor, and in their stead creating 20 positions of district supervisor, at higher rates of compensation makes for very little saving. A big factor in filling these positions of district supervisor, is how they are to be selected. Will they be people who have a real working knowledge of customs or some favorites of the incumbent administration?

In abolishing the office of comptroller and turning their functions over to some other Government agency lies a great danger. The employees of the comptroller's office are highly trained in customs laws, tariff rates, and merchandise classification, and it would take years before any other Government agency could audit customs entries with the same degree of efficiency. This could lead to a great loss of revenue to the Government by fraud, collusion of some employees with importers or in court cases brought by importers.

The plan also proposes only spot checking of baggage at ports of entry. This would lead to an increase in smuggling of articles of value and contraband as the law of averages would be on the side of those who seek to defraud the Government.

It does not seem consistent with good supervision that plan No. 3 seeks to remove checks and balances whereas plan No. 1 for the Internal Revenue Bureau puts on these precautions.

This plan also proposes taking the entire control of customs out of the hands of Congress and turning it over to the Secretary of the Treasury. In our opinion this control should not leave the Congress.

We solicit your influence with the members of the Committee on Government Operations and the Members of the Senate to defeat Reorganization Plan No. 3. Very truly yours,

LORENZ F. BROECKER, President. Attest:

NICHOLAS A. FORSTER, Secretary.

[Telegram]

Los ANGELES, CALIF., June 3, 1952. Hon. John L. MCCLELLAN, Chairman, Senate Committee on Government Operations,

United States Senate, Washington, D. C.: Strongly urge rejection of reorganization plan No. 3 with respect to placing collectors of customs under civil service. This association representing leading southern California foreign traders and business allied thereto is in complete accord with views expressed by Mr. Philip Stein, chairman of our legislative committee in his letter of May 6, 1952, addressed to Hon. Richard M. Nixon.

FOREIGN TRADE ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA,

WENDELL SHORE, President. Mr. Sanders, will you come forward, please.

I trust you will have your prepared statement printed in the record and then comment upon it.

I note that you have a very brief statement. You may proceed.

STATEMENT OF J. T. SANDERS, LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL, THE

NATIONAL GRANGE

REORGANIZATION PLANS Nos. 2 AND 4 OF 1952

Mr. SANDERS. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I have two pages here.
The CHAIRMAN. You may read your statement.

Mr. SANDERS. At each of the last three annual sessions of the National Grange, we have approved in general the recommendations of the Hoover Commission providing for reorganization of the executive branch of the Federal Government. In general, and specifically in nearly all cases, we believe these recommendations are sound and will lead both to increased efficiency and economy in the Federal Government.

We believe that if the selection of postmasters can be completely removed from political influence

The CHAIRMAN. Do you believe that? Mr. SANDERS. Do you mean that we believe that they can be completely removed?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. SANDERS. I doubt it.
The CHAIRMAN. I do, too.

Mr. SANDERS. At least, maybe they can be removed to an extent more than they have been at present..

The CHAIRMAN. Well, this will not do it. It puts them deeper in. It hides what would really be going on.

Mr. SANDERS. I have not studied the plan as well or as much as you have. My impression is that it will.

The CHAIRMAN. All right, go ahead.

Mr. SANDERS. We believe that, if the selection of postmasters can be completely removed from political influence, in time this will work not only to the relief of an already overburdened membership of Congress, but also will in time insure a more competent and better satisfied personnel in the postal service.

As long as Senators and Congressmen are called on to pass political judgment on the qualification of postmasters, no Member of the Senate or the House can afford to overlook the appointment of a postmaster who serves in his home district or State. To do so would mean criticism and loss of influence. But if Members can once and for all be relieved under law of this responsibility, in a short time most of them will be pleased, we believe, with this change. Their reputation and local strength can then be established more on their record for constructive legislative work and not on their record of rewarding their friends with patronage.

From the standpoint of post-office employees, we are certain that they in turn will in a short time benefit from such a change. Their present civil-service standing will not be done away with. They are now subject to removal under the Ramspeck Act only because of incompetence or malfeasance, and so forth. As we understand the new proposal under plan 2, the Senators and Congressmen would no longer be called on to review or pass judgment on postmaster appointments. Selections would be made by the Post Office Department from the top three qualified applicants without delay.

At present such appointments, based on classified superiority, can be and are frequently prevented from going into effect by Members of Congress merely asking that the permanent appointment be postponed, and by asking for the retention of the temporary appointee in service indefinitely. Thus civil-service performance is effectively defeated. Plan No. 2 will avoid this by simply giving the Post Office Department complete authority to select postmasters within the limitation set by civil-service classification.

The plan calls for a gradual transition to the new appointments of postmasters as the offices are, or may hereafter become, vacant. Its effect will be, therefore, to stop all political apppointments and to fill all present and future appointments with those who qualify with highest grades under the civil service, as, in due course, postmasterships may become vacant. In other words, there will be no sudden, but only a gradual, shift over to the new appointive system.

Under such security and under such a merit system, the postal service can be made a worth-while career. It can be made to offer pay based solely on qualifications of training and experience for the job. The postal system could then offer to its employees fair and equitable promotion opportunities, security, and ultimate retirement based on honest and meritorious service.

All these assurances doubtless will bring about a system of selection and promotion based on merit much more than has been the case in the past. We believe that this will soon mean a more efficient postal service at significantly reduced cost per unit of service rendered.

Mr. Chairman, I did have here a statement approving plan 3, but in view of what has been said by the preceding witnesses which I had not previously known about, I would like to strike out our approval of plan 3.

The CHAIRMAN. All right. You may strike it out. It will be stricken in the record and not go in the record.

Mr. SANDERS. Finally, plan No. 4, before your committee, effects the same results for United States marshals as plan No. 2 does for postal employees.

We therefore favor the adoption and putting into effect at the earliest practical date of plan 2 and plan 4, which in essentials follow the recommendations of the Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. I want to ask you one question.

Under this proposed change and new system of appointments, if you get a bad appointee in your community, what are you going to do. about it?

Mr. SANDERS. If we get a bad one?

а

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. If you get a bad one in your community, what are you going to do?

Mr. SANDERS. Well, the only thing I would say that you could do about that, Mr. Chairman, is what you do in the Federal Government at the present time.

The CHAIRMAN. You mean to write your Congressman and Senator to do something about it? That is what you would do, is it not?

Mr. SANDERS. Well, to a certain extent, that is true.

The CHAIRMAN.. The Congressman or Senator is not competent to help you select a postmaster, but when you get into trouble under this system you are going to go to him and ask him to help you !

Mr. SANDERS. I did not say that you would write your Congressman or Senator. I do not think that is what is done in the Department of Commerce, we shall say, for example, or in the Department of Agriculture. If you get a poor person under you, you do your best to get rid of him.

The CHAIRMAN. I do not know of civil-service employees in any department who do not write letters to us themselves, and who expect their Congressman or Senator to help them do something about such a situation.

Mr. SANDERS. You would be relieved of that responsibility.

The CHAIRMAN. We never will be. We are not now. You would take the responsibility away from us, but you would still put the blame

Now we have the responsibility and you have the right to blame your Congressman or Senator if he gives you a bad postmaster.

Mr. SANDERS. It seems to me, Mr. Senator, that we have this system exactly in the Department of Agriculture and it works very well. The appointments under the Secretary of Agriculture are not made politically. I have known of many of them where the Department did not have the least notion of what their politics were.

The CHAIRMAN. I know of many of them who were appointed strictly on the basis of politics.

Mr. SANDERS. Well, possibly so.
The CHAIRMAN. And you probably do, too.
Mr. SANDERS. Not so very many.
The CHAIRMAN. There may be a degree of difference here and there.
"Thank you very much.

Mr. ŠANDERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAX. Mr. Watson. Come forward, please, sir.
I understand Mr. Kelley is not here?

on us.

a

STATEMENT OF JAMES R. WATSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

NATIONAL CIVIL SERVICE LEAGUE

REORGANIZATION PLANS Nos. 2, 3, AND 4 OF 1952 Mr. WATSON. Mr. Chairman, I have here Mr. Kelley's statement which I will present for the record.

The CHAIRMAN. It will be printed in the record.

I note that Mr. Kelley is president of the National Civil Service League. His statement may be printed in the record at the conclusion of your remarks.

« 이전계속 »