« 이전계속 »
petitive examination. The effect of the O'Mahoney-Ramspeck Act was to enact into statute this requirement for examination prior to the nomination of a postmaster by the President and to eliminate the then statutory provisions for 4-year terms.
The annual reports to the Congress of the Postmaster General and the Civil Service Commission have recommended legislation to vest postmaster appointments in the Postmaster General under the classified civil service. Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1952 will complete the efforts to accomplish this objective.
REORGANIZATION Plan No. 3 OF 1952
TREASURY DEPARTMENT (BUREAU OF CUSTOMS) Reorganization Plan No. 3 provides for the gradual abolition of all offices of collector of customs, comptroller of customs, surveyor of customs, and appraiser of merchandise, to which appointments are required to be made by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. The 52 existing offices abolished by the plan involve 44 collectors, 6 comptrollers, one surveyor, and one appraiser.
All of these 52 offices are now filled for terms of four years except that of the appraiser of merchandise for which there is no specified statutory term of office. All offices in which there are incumbents at the end of the regular 60-day period of congressional consideration of this plan, except the appraiser's office and those in which there are hold-overs, will be abolished at such time as they next become vacant. The other offices—those vacant or filled by hold-overs at the end of the 60-day period, plus the appraiser's office-will be abolished at such time as the Secretary of the Treasury determines, but in no event later than January 1, 1953.
As to the functions of the abolished offices, the Secretary will provide for their continuation by employees in the classified civil service insofar as the functions are not abolished by the plan.
The plan permits compensation in excess of that provided for grade GS-15 for 20 officers in the Customs Bureau, without regard to the numerical limitations on positions set forth in section 505 of the Classification Act of 1949, as amended. This provision will permit more adequate compensation in the headquarters and field positions in the Bureau.
The reorganization plan also provides for the abolition of certain obsolete and unnecessary functions relating to the fiscal procedures of the Customs Bureau. These outmoded procedures have been reviewed in the Government's joint accounting program, conducted by the Bureau of the Budget, the General Accounting Office, and the Treasury Department. The abolitions contained in the reorganization plan are based, in part, on that study.
Under the Budget and Accounting Procedures Act of 1950—which your committee studied and sponsored—the Secretary of the Treasury is given certain authorities to devise and install modernized accounting procedures in his department. The abolition of restrictive requirements by the reorganization plan will permit him to utilize fully his authorities under that act and institute an internal accounting and audit system appropriate for the needs of the Bureau today.
REORGANIZATION PLAN No. 4 OF 1952
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (MARSHALS) Reorganization Plan No. 4 provides for the gradual abolition of 94 offices of United States marshal and marshal. These include the 87 offices of United States marshal for the 87 judicial districts, the four offices of United States marshal for the District of Alaska, the office of United States marshal for Guam, the office of marshal for the district of the Canal Zone, and the office of marshal for the Virgin Islands. Under present law all of these offices are filled by appointment by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, except the office of marshal for the Virgin Islands which is filled by appointment by the Attorney General.
All of the affected offices are now filled for terms of 4 years, except in the case of Hawaii, which has a 6-year term, the Canal Zone, which has a term of 8 years, and the Virgin Islands, which has no specified statutory term of office. All offices in which there are incumbents, other than holdover incumbents, at the end of the regular 60-day period of congressional consideration of this plan, other than that in the Virgin Islands, will be abolished at such time as they next become vacant. All other offices—those which are vacant or are filled by holdovers, at the end of the 60-day period, plus the one for the Virgin Islands—will be abolished at such time as the Attorney General determines, but in no event later than January 1, 1953.
As each office is abolished, there will be established in the same judicial district or jurisdiction a new office with the title “United States Marshal.” Appointment to each new office will be made by the Attorney General under the classified civil service.
Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1952 will result in improving the accountability of the Attorney General over the performance of the United States marshals and will extend the civil service merit principle to these field officers of the Department of Justice.
The taking effect of Reorganiaztion Plan No. 3, relating to the Bureau of Customs, is expected to produce economies. These savings will commence immediately. By fiscal year 1954 gross savings should approximate $100,000. This sum will grow each year until fiscal year 1957 which will be the first year of full savings from the plan. From then on, the savings are expected to aggregate $300,000 per year. This increase in savings will reflect the gradual abolition of offices as they become vacant, and the steps needed for complete installation of the fiscal reforms. About half of the full annual say. ings from 1957 onward will be attributable to abolished offices. This estimate takes into account the cost of additional compensation, and replacement positions where needed. The remaining estimated savings are expected to come from accounting reforms. All of this assumes present enforcement levels and business volume will remain substantially unchanged. .
The taking effect of Reorganization Plans Nos. 2 and 4, relating to the Post Office and Justice Departments, is not expected to result in any substantial savings, but is expected to produce a better structure of accountability in those two Departments.
I urge the Congress to permit these reorganization plans to become effective.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Lawton, were these plans prepared under your direction and supervision ?
Mr. Lawton. Yes, sir, with assistance from the Departments involved, of course.
The CHAIRMAN. But primarily they were under your direction and supervision ? Mr. LAWTON. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. There is a question raised, in view of past opinions supplied to us, with reference to the validity or legality of effectuating the changes here that are incorporated in plans 2 and 4 particularly, by reorganization process under the authority of the Reorganization Act of 1949.
Can you recall a time, I believe, in August or September, 1949, when I called upon you to submit to us an analysis of the methods by which the various Hoover Commission recommendations might be effected ? Mr. LAWTON. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. You submitted us an analysis at that time.
With respect to the recommendations relating to postmasters, do you recall advising the committee at that time that it would take substantive legislation to make that change?
Mr. LAWTON. We so listed it, and said that the items so classified could not be accomplished except with statutory authority; yes.
The CHAIRMAN. That was also true with respect to the Treasury; was it not? You said that with respect to the Treasury, those officials below the rank of Assistant Secretary, and so forth, should be appointed from the career service, and you indicated that would take substantive legislation. Mr. LAWTON. That is right.
The CHAIRMAN. Now, with respect to the marshals, that is, in the Justice Department. Did you indicate with respect to them that it would take substantive legislation ?
Mr. LAWTON. That was not covered in the Hoover Commission recommendations.
The CHAIRMAN. It was not recommended in the Hoover Commission report, but I assumed it would apply to the Department of Justice with respect to marshals the same as it would with respect to postmasters and to customs officials, would it not? Mr. LAWTON. That is right.
The CHAIRMAN. If you were correct, then, it would apply to all three of these plans?
Mr. LAWTON. I would like to call your attention to the following sentence after that, however, in our statement.
It says that: More detailed analysis will undoubtedly indicate the necessity of revising many of these classifications.
The CHAIRMAN. All right. Now, I want to get a little about this more detailed analysis. What has caused you now, after making such an analysis, to conclude that these are proper reorganizations?
Mr. LAWTON. The conclusion is based on the fact that the abolition of an agency in whole or in part which, on the taking effect of the reorganization plan, will not have any functions, is one of the things that are authorized by reorganization act, by the act itself. That is section 3, No. 6. The definition of an agency, in section 7 of the act, includes “officer or office.”
The functions involved in these three plans have been transferred from all of the officers in those departments to the Cabinet officers involved.
The CHAIRMAN. They have already been transferred by previous plans? · Mr. LAWTON. By previous plans or by this plan. These offices, the functions having been transferred, are subject to abolition under the terms of section 3, No. 6, of the Reorganization Act.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, the fact is that you did not include these abolitions and establishments of new offices to take their place in the original plans reorganizing the Treasury Department and the Post Office Department, did you?
Mr. LAWTON. No, we did not. The President had recommended legislation. At the time he recommended several pieces of legislation in connection with the Post Office reorganization, and this was one of them.
The CHAIRMAN. Primarily, it was for the reason I assume that at that time you held the view that this particular plan was not a proper reorganization under the statute, but would require legislation to effectuate?
Mr. LAWTON. We took the view at that time that it should take substantive legislation.
The CHAIRMAN. May I ask whether you have consulted with or have any opinion on this question from the Justice Department, from the Attorney General's Office ?
Mr. LAWTON. We have, of course, the usual approval letter of the Attorney General. These plans, of course, were developed in consultation, constant consultation, with some of the officials of the Department of Justice, and we have the letter of the Attorney General which approved these plans in transmitting them to the President, stating that they were in accord wih the reorganization act authorities.
The CHAIRMAN. I should like for you to obtain from the Attorney General, or rather the Acting Attorney General for the record, an official opinion with respect to whether or not the purposes sought to be accomplished by these plans are proper subjects for a reorganization plan under the provisions of the Reorganization Act of 1949. And I would also like to know whether postmasters particularly, and also marshals-I am not interested in Customs officials so muchunder the law, would still be required to be residents of the district or the community which they serve; as to postmasters whether they will be required to be residents of the city or community served and as to whether marshals will have to be residents of the district to which he will be appointed? I think we would very much want that cleared up.
What is your comment about it?
Mr. LAWTON. The postmasters have a 1-year residence requirement prior to appointment, which is specifically preserved by section 2 of the plan.
The CHAIRMAN. Section 2 of the plan, and the postmaster appointments preserve the same residence requirements as now apply under statute to the existing postmasters. Is that correct?
Mr. LAWTON. That is correct.
The CHAIRMAN. Now, with respect to plan No. 4, relating to marshals, what is there in the plan to require that marshals who are appointed under civil service examination must be residents of the district that they are to serve ?
Mr. LAWTON. There is no provision in the plan. At present, there is no requirement for marshals to be residents of the district, as I understand it, prior to appointment. There is a residence requirement after appointment.
Except in one case, that is, Hawaii, where he must be a resident for 3 years. And that was not continued in the plan.
The CHAIRMAN. It is my understanding that the law now specifically provides that "each marshal shall reside within the District for which he is appointed.” That was not continued in the plan. I am not so much interested in Hawaii as I am in Arkansas. I want to get Arkansas settled first.
What reliance will we have that these appointments will go to citizens of the respective States and districts, which they serve?
What statutory assurance or guaranty have we?
Mr. LAWTON. You have the same statutory assurance that you have now, unless you refuse to
The CHAIRMAN. We have the power of confirmation, but you are taking that away from us.
Mr. LAWTON. That is the one place; yes. But otherwise, if the Senate consented, you could still appoint someone from outside of Arkansas now.
I doubt whether that would happen.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, I doubt that it would happen now. Very seriously, I am not sure, and I want to get the legal aspects of this in the record. I want to know what will happen if this plan goes into effect, with respect to their appointment, as to residence requirements, and so forth.
In other words, I want to get the record to show what the law is, and what the law will be, when this plan goes into effect. I am not interested at the moment in what someone in the Attorney General's office says about it.
Mr. LAWTON. There is no residence requirement under the law now. There is none provided in this plan. There is a residence requirement after appointment.
The CHAIRMAN. Of course, if the Attorney General appoints somebody from another State, and he moves down there, he complies. That would be a compliance, as I get your interpretation.
All right. I want to go just a little further now. After this plan goes into effect, and the marshal's position becomes vacant say in Arkansas-and I use my own State for purposes of illustrationwould a marshal from Louisiana, Mississippi, or some other State, who desired to transfer under civil service, be eligible to transfer to the Little Rock office ?
Mr. LAWTON. If he is an existing marshal, you mean, now? You are not talking about promotion, or anything of that sort?
The CHAIRMAN. Well, I do not know whether it involves promotion or not. It might involve promotion in the sense that he would get a higher salary. He might come from an office of a lower classification. He might go into an office of a higher classification. And