« 이전계속 »
The CHAIRMAN. Does that have the other plan in it, or a chart of it?
General ROBINSON. It has a description of it. It does not have the Budget Bureau's chart with it.
The CHAIRMAN. File it with the clerk. We will consider placing it in the record. I will not order it done at this time. I am trying to avoid unduly encumbering the record. We do not like to incur extravagant expenses in printing.
General ROBINSON. This is, however, important to get the full legislative history, and I feel that in this memorandum is the complete answer to most and possibly all of the questions raised in the staff memorandum.
The CHAIRMAN. We will consider placing it in the record.
I do not have any particular objection, but I dislike to encumber the record.
(See summary of memorandum subsequently presented by Gen. Robinson, p. 68, May 20 hearing.) General ROBINSON. That concludes my testimony, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Dworshak, any questions? .. Senator DWORSHAK. No questions. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Case, would you like to ask any questions?
Senator Case. No, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have interrupted sufficiently.
The CHAIRMAN. I will say this. We have, and I hope it has not detracted any from your presentation, General Robinson, asked a number of questions. I am not personally familiar with many of these things, and if I wait until you conclude, I overlook clarifying some things I would like to have clarified.
I have no further questions. It may be, however, General, that at some time during the hearing we would like to have you return and comment on some testimony that has been developed on some other issues or problems that arise in our own minds.
General ROBINSON. I shall be very happy to, sir. In fact, I should like to attend all the hearings on this, if I may.
The CHAIRMAN. We will be glad to have you attend the hearings. And I may say this to you; if you attend the hearings, and any testimony is developed that you think you would like to answer, we will try to accommodate you. It is the purpose of this committee to hold impartial hearings and develop as fully as we can all aspects that are involved, so that we might make a wise and just decision.
We appreciate your help. We appreciate very much the fact that you and Commissioner Donohue have presented this matter as fully as you have.
The Chair announced yesterday that following hearings today—and I believe this concludes all witnesses we were to hear today—we would continue hearings next Tuesday. Now, there have been some 15 other witnesses who have expressed a desire to be heard. I do not know that we are going to have time to hear everyone who wants to be heard, but we certainly want to hear the representatives of organizations that are a vital part of the community. I do not know whether these witnesses who have submitted their requests are pro or opposed to the plan, but we are going to try to hear them. And in the interest of
testimoning wet may be, ha
expediting it, we are going to ask whether the witnesses will make their presentations just as brief as possible to cover the pertinent points that they wish to have considered.
I should like, under the rules—we do not always enforce them—to have the witnesses who intend to deliver written statements—to conform to the rules and submit them in advance of their appearance. If they submit them by Monday, that will be in sufficient time, and the committee will be grateful.
General ROBINSON. Mr. Chairman, on the record, may I make request for permission to amend my remarks from the draft?
The CHAIRMAN. Oh, yes. You may edit your remarks.
(Whereupon, at 12:20 p. m., Thursday, May 15, 1952, the hearing was recessed until Tuesday, May 20, 1952.)
REORGANIZATION PLAN NO. 5 OF 1952
TUESDAY, MAY 20, 1952
UNITED STATES SENATE,
Washington, D.C. The committee met at 10 a. m., pursuant to recess, in room 357, Senate Office Building, Senator John L. McClellan · (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators McClellan, Hoey, Schoeppel, and Dworshak.
Also present: Senator Case; Walter L. Reynolds, chief clerk; Ann M. Grickis, assistant chief clerk; and Miles Scull, Jr., professional staff member.
The. CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order.
We are continuing the hearing this morning on Reorganization Plan No. 5 of 1952.
Senator Case, you are the first witness this morning. Do you have a prepared statement ? STATEMENT OF HON. FRANCIS CASE, A UNITED STATES SENATOR
FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA Senator CASE. I do, Mr. Chairman, but only part of it is mimeographed. I have the introductory part here.
Mr. Chairman, I appear here this morning in an individual capacity as a Member of the Senate.
It is true that I am the ranking minority member of the Senate Committee on the District of Columbia and a member of its Subcommittee on Home Rule and Reorganization. In that capacity I had the opportunity of sitting in on the hearings which the committee conducted last year on various local governmental proposals and had charge of the floor presentation of the committee-reported bill on home rule at the opening of this session of Congress. I mention that merely to show my interest in the subject, but not in any sense to make it appear that I am presenting any views this morning other than my own. .
Mr. Chairman, choice of government is second only to exercise of the right of self-government. Reorganization of government should be as close as possible to the people governed. Change in government is of the essence of government. If any principle seems basic in our : American system it is that the people governed should have a voice in their government, and by that token, a voice in the form of their government, its reorganization, and any major changes therein.
As is well known, I have been trying to give the people of Washington an effective voice in their local government. I have tried to pre
serve for them the right to reorganize their local government. We dropped the prefabricated reorganization of the original TaftKefauver home rule bill from the Case-Neely-Kefauver bill which passed the Senate early at this session of Congress, but that bill has not become law. We dropped the reorganization feature from that bill, Mr. Chairman, because we felt that if the people of the city of Washington were given a chance to express themselves in their government, reorganization was so much of the essence of government that they • themselves should have a voice in whatever reorganization took place.
The need for reorganization of the government of the District of Columbia is clear to anyone who has given any attention whatsoever to the sprawling, Topsy-grown machinery the city now has. The proposal before us, Reorganization Plan No. 5, offers a real opportunity to effect a reorganization of this city's government in the interests of efficiency and economy and, by the promise of consultation with a local advisory council, opens the door to some expression of the needs and wishes of the people governed.
Therefore I favor Reorganization Plan No. 5, to authorize the reorganization of the government of the District of Columbia under the charter therein provided.
And it might be said, Mr. Chairman, that essentially the plan is merely a charter for reorganization, rather than a specific reorganization.
The CHAIRMAN. It has been my observation that it is actually no plan for reorganization at all. It is a delegation of authority to the Commissioners to reorganize the government. That is all the plan amounts to, as I see it.
Senator CASE. I think the chairman is essentially correct.
My interest in better government, in more self-government for the Nation's Capital City, runs back many years. I recall the days when I was a member of the Appropriations Subcommittee for the District of Columbia in the House of Representatives, 14 years ago. I recall that in those days, it was popularly said one man was the government of the District, a popular, benevolent, energetic gentleman known as Major Donovan. I recall the so-called Griffenhagen report, one of the many proposals for a streamlined reorganization by experts. I recall the more recent proposals of the study by Dr. Galloway. I recall the plan put forward by District Budget Officer Walter Fowler. And there have been many others. I do not propose to discuss their merits or demerits—but I do suggest that all of these efforts point up one thing—a general recognition of the need for reorganization.
My interest in meeting this need has been expressed in many ways, especially after I was assigned to the position on the Senate Committee on the District of Columbia last year.
When the Engineer Commissioner, General Young, was about to resign, he made a very definite statement in favor of reorganization. He said he thought that the District government was as clean as you could find anywhere, but it was a hodgepodge of disorganization. He was reported in the Washington Star of May 27, 1951, as saying that efficiency might be increased 25 percent by consolidating the 70 departments, agencies, and boards into a dozen or so major departments. And he repeatedly called for reorganization of departments within the existing framework.
On the 18th of June 1951 I addressed a memorandum to my fellow members of the Senate District Committee, in which I said, “When
former Engineer Commissioner Gordon Young recently retired he made the statement that reorganization of the District government would improve its efficiency as much as 25 percent."
I called attention to the fact that at the time the Appropriations Committees of the House and Senate were having all they could do to write a balanced District budget for the coming year.
The memorandum further said that on August 2, 1949, the District Commissioners had asked for a program to improve the efficiency of the District government, and on March 26, 1951, Budget Officer Walter Fowler submitted a plan, a copy of which is attached, but as of June 18, 1951, no action had been taken on it. This resolution, which I presented with the memorandum, asked the Commissioners to consider the Fowler plan in relation to reorganization provisions of the Taft-Kefauver bill. Many provisions were similar. My suggestion was that we start the job by going ahead with those items on which there was agreement, leaving the controversial issues aside, and seeking to get the 25-percent increase in efficiency and the resulting economies.
So I presented to the committee at that time a resolution, and with the permission of the chairman, I would like to incorporate that resolution in the record.
The CHAIRMAN. It may be printed in the record. (The resolution referred to follows:)
A RESOLUTION OFFERED BY SENATOO CASE Whereas Mr. Walter Fowler, Budget Officer of the District of Columbia, on March 26, 1951, pursuant to a request by the Commissioners of the District of Columbia of August 2, 1949, submitted to the Commissioners a Report on Reorganization and Management Improvement for the District Government; and
Whereas this committee has had under consideration S. 656 which, in part, proposes a reorganization similar in certain respects and aims to the Fowler proposals; and
Whereas from time to time various District officials, including former Engi. neer Commissioner Gen. Gordon Young, and civil groups have recognized the need for reorganization in the interest of efficiency and economy; and
Whereas the President of the United States by Executive order nearly 2 years ago directed all Federal agencies to organize their activities in the interest of efficiency and economy; and.
Whereas the District Commissioners have not yet acted upon the Budget Officer's recommendations; and
Whereas this committee is desirous of promoting and encouraging economy and efficiency in the District government; it is therefore
Requested by the Senate Committee on the District of Columbia, That the Commissioners do forthwith consider the Budget Officer's report and the reorganization provisions of S. 656 and report their recommendations to this committee, together with a statement as to which of their recommendations may be implemented by their own order; and
Whereupon, it is the intention of this committee to review such report and, upon concurrence with the Commissioners, to urge that those steps which may be taken by the Commissioners in the interest of greater efficiency and economy in the District government, be taken, with all the dispatch consistent with reasonable continuity of service and administration; and it is further
Requested by this committee, That the Commissioners do prepare and submit proposed legislation to implement any further reorganization of the District government, clearly beyond the powers of the Commissioners, which the Commissioners, as a result of their study, may deem advisable in the interest of economy and efficiency.