Senator MONRONEY. And takes it away from not 96 Senators, because they have very little to do with originating these appointments, but it takes it away from probably the 250 or 255 Democratic Congressmen, and then the balance usually named by political organizations, or at least the nominations are made by political organizations. Mr. WALTERS. Well, under Reorganization Plan No. 2, would not that procedure, or some similar procedure, most likely be continued? Senator MONRONEY. I certainly do not think so. As I understand the plan and the program, the Civil Service Commission will come up with a list of three, rated according to their best information on who would be the best out of the candidates who have passed the examination and received the ratings, that could best serve that community.

Now, one of the heavy weightings in that civil-service report on the list of three is the interviews handled by the civil-service investigators as to whom the people of the community feel, of the list of candidates, in the eligibility range, would best serve them.

So you do not take away the chance for the local community to recommend the best man. You merely take it out of the political arena, where the best man usually is considered the best member of the majority party in that community.

Mr. WALTERS. Well, Senator, can you find anything in the proposed reorganization plan that would say they are going to do that?

Senator MONRONEY. Well, I think it is ridiculous to assume that the appointing officer, if he be the Postmaster General, is going to reach down into that community and find out who is the local manager for the majority party in that area, or give a 100 to 1 weighting in his recommendations over maybe the average guy in the street who uses the postal service.

Mr. WALTERS. I think I come from an average community in perhaps an average section of the country down in the hills of north Georgia, and I can't for the life of me ever believe that the people of that section of the country or most any other section of the country are going to let get away from them some control as to whom they are going to recommend to be in charge of the affairs in their community. Senator MONRONEY. Well, I think they certainly allow that in their county agents. We do not have anything to say about the appointment of county agents or soil conservationists or the PMA.

Mr. WALTERS. Your county commissioners back home do, though. Your county commissioners, or whoever has charge of your local county.

Senator MONRONEY. It probably is true to a certain extent on county agents, but not on the other governmental operations. Because we do not know where a soil conservationist is going, a head man for the Farmers Home Administration. He is shifted from county to county.

We do not know where the soil conservationist group is going to be sent. And yet they are doing good work, and they are able to render the service.

And I think it is just as important to have a merit system at work in the post office as it is among these agricultural workers.

Mr. WALTERS. We are for the merit system, if you will find a plan whereby it will improve what we have.

But we just cannot see, for the life of us, where a reorganization plan will improve anything. There is nothing in the reorganization plan as we see it that would take away any of the political implications that now exist or might exist in the future.

Senator MONRONEY. You assume, of course, that it would be mishandled by the top officer of the post office?

Mr. WALTERS. No; we are not assuming that it is mishandled now. But it will not change it in the future, as we see it.

Senator DwORSHAK. I just wanted to say, Mr. Walters, that apparently the Democrats in Oklahoma are a little different from the Demo crats in Georgia.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

The committee will stand in recess until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning, when we will resume hearings on Reorganization Plan No. 5. (Whereupon, at 12: 14 p. m., Monday, May 19, 1952, the hearing was recessed.)

REORGANIZATION PLANS NOS. 2, 3, AND 4 OF 1952

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 4, 1952

UNITED STATES SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS,

Washington, D. C.

The committee met at 10 a. m., pursuant to call, in room 357, Senate Office Building, Senator John L. McClellan (chairman) presiding. Present: Senators McClellan and Dworshak.

Also present: Walter L. Reynolds, chief clerk; Ann M. Grickis, assistant chief clerk; Eli E. Nobleman, Miles Scull, Jr., and Herman C. Loeffler, professional staff members.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order.

The Chair wishes to place in the record information obtained by the staff with reference to certain legal aspects of Reorganization Plans Nos. 2, 3, and 4.

In response to a request of this committee the American Law Section of the Legislative Reference Service of the Library of Congress has submitted an opinion as to (1) whether Reorganization Plans Nos. 2, 3 and 4 of 1952 are authorized under the Reorganization Act of 1949, and (2) if they are, whether the provisions of these plans conform to the requirements of that act.

the Reorgan

I wish to insert in the record at this point that opinion, prepared by Mr. Frank B. Horne, which fully substantiates the views of the legal professional staff member of this committee as set forth in Staff Memorandum No. 82-2-28, dated May 13, 1952, entitled "Legality of Reorganization Plans Nos. 2, 3, and 4 of 1952." The American Law Section concluded that "* ization Act of 1949 does not authorize plans comprised exclusively of a change in the method of appointment. However, as the act merely established a special procedure for legislatively accomplishing the contemplated and desired reorganizations, plans not clearly within the authorization of the act may achieve standing nevertheless by reason of the failure of the Congress to disapprove. The only appropriate safeguard whereby Congress can insist on compliance with the act is the passage of the disapproval resolutions in the form provided by title II of that act."

With respect to whether the provisions of the plans conform to the requirements of the Reorganization Act of 1949, the opinion cited section 5 (5) which prohibits any reorganization plan from providing for increasing any term of office beyond that provided by law for such office and concluded that "* * it is clearly arguable from this provision alone that the changing of a definite term of an office to an indefinite term is not consonant with this provision." This would apply to plans 3 and 4 which would change the terms of office of

*

157

certain customs officials and of United States marshals, who serve for terms of 4 years under existing law, to permanent indefinite terms under civil service.

The opinion of the Legislative Reference Service raises a serious question relative to the powers of the Congress under the Reorganization Act of 1949. It appears that regardless of whether or not a plan submittted by the President is authorized by that act, unless a constitutional majority of either House passes a resolution of disapproval within the time prescribed, the plan will become law and it will require a statute to amend the law so as to erase the illegal action resulting from the plan. It thus appears that unless 49 Senators will vote in favor of a resolution of disapproval, the Congress is impotent and is unable to prevent an unlawful action from occurring.

From the foregoing, it appears quite clear that if the Senate permits Reorganization Plans Nos. 2 and 4 of 1952 to become law, even though they are beyond the intent and purpose of the act, it will set a dangerous precedent for the submission of further illegal reorganizations. The President will then be able to submit all kinds of broad reorganization plans, reaching out into other fields which were never intended to be the subject of reorganization plans, and the Congress will be unable to exercise its legislative prerogatives, unless a resolution of disapproval is approved by either 218 Members of the House or 49 Members of the Senate.

(The material referred to above is as follows:)

THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS,
LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE SERVICE,

AMERICAN LAW SECTION,
Washington, D. C., May 16, 1952.

To: Senate Committee on Government Operations.
Subject: The Reorganization Act of 1949.

By telephone message of May 15, 1952, you have asked: "Does the Reorganization Act of 1949 (63 Stat. 203; U. S. C. (1946 ed., Supp. IV) 5:133z et seq.) authorize the submission of plans comprised exclusively of a change in the method of appointment?"

We answer this question in the negative. However, it has not been formulated with reference to a specific plan.

The Reorganization Act of 1949 is a procedural device for the accomplishment of organizational changes other than by legislation enacted in the accustomed legislative manner. This is clear from the general import of the act and the specific context of section 2 (b). In fact, title II establishes special rules for the Senate and the House, pursuant to their constitutional powers (article I, section 5, clause 2) and subject to the power of either body to make changes, for the legislative purpose of considering and disposing of the plans submitted by the President.

Section 2 states, as the general objective and purpose of the act, the requirement that the President shall examine and reexamine the organization of all agencies of the Government and determine what changes are necessary (1) to promote the better execution of the laws, the effective management of the executive branch, and the expeditious administration of public business; (2) to reduce expenditures and promote economy; (3) to increase efficiency of operations of the Government; (4) to coordinate and consolidate agencies and functions; (5) to reduce the number of agencies; and (6) to eliminate overlapping and duplication.

Section 3 states the requirements as to the findings to be made by the President and the declaration of such findings. With respect to the contents of the plans, section 4 states certain mandatory and certain discretionary provisions. However, these contents are subject to specific limitations contained in section 5. Of particular interest to this problem is section 5 (a) (5) which reads: