페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

perform a quasi-judicial function of determining whether or not a person is an employee of the Federal Government, whether or not the person was injured in the performance of duties, and whether or not he comes under the Compensation Act which I think was passed in 1916. When they determine that, then they have administrative officials who have investigated the case and who go ahead and pay injured persons compensation under the act.

Plan No. 2 abolishes that act and transfers its function to this set-up here, to Federal Security by a new name. They also abolish the Social Security Board, and right away then they appoint three members of an Appeal Board. In the first place, that Board is a bipartisan board. It is put there so that the employees will feel that they have a bipartisan and not a politically governed tribunal to which they can go to have the determinations made as to whether or not the employees were injured in the performance of their duty for which compensation is to be paid. The plan does not carry out the spirit of the act of Congress, it does not save any money, it creates three new jobs on an Appeal Board.

The employees of this Commission, I think for the most part have been with them since 1916, or at least the framework. They either are going off the pay rolls and new employees put in some new agency here or branch, and train them to do this work. If you are going to keep them, why not leave the agency as it is? To me, the United States Compensation Commission is in much the position of the Federal Trade Commission or some of these other agencies that have a definite duty to perform and whose duties do not overlap or interfere in any way with the duties of some other Government agencies. We must have a certain number of Government agencies. What the reorganization plan contemplates, for a historic example, taking 10 agencies of the Government, abolishing 9 of them and letting the tenth one do the work.

To shorten this up as much as I can, I have some protests from a great many people opposed to the abolishment of the Social Security Board. I know I hold no brief for the Social Security Board. Í have fought with them time after time. Here is what the fellows say, “This is a bipartisan Board." They do not want the Social Security Board abolished, and leave the administration of the unemployment compensation and the old-age assistance and the other duties relating to social security to the whim or the caprice of some one man. They do not want that law changed until Congress makes the change.

Certainly, I have protests here from a number of organizations and groups and they can appear, and I have advised them they should, who are very much opposed to plan No. 2.

Now I had a telephone call from one of the members of the District government downtown 10 minutes before I came here. I do not know whether one or two of these Government hospitals, Gallinger or St. Elizabeths or some other one, come in plan No. 2 or plan No. 3, but they come in one of these, and they told me that this plan abolished the board of governors and did about 3 or 4 other things that just makes the present confused conditions much worse than they are, as far as the orderly exercise of the functions of our District government are concerned.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you mean to say they opposed the abolition of the board at St. Elizabeths? I though they would approve of that.

Mr. PITTENGER. I am only telling the committee what was told to me over the telephone and I suggested that the group interested contact Mr. Manasco and arrange with him for an appearance before the committee where they can explain how far-reaching it is.

The CHAIRMAN. That is the only section in either one of the plans I have had no one protest about.

Mr. PITTENGER. Let me give you another, and I think this other one is in section 3. I am not at liberty to give the name of the man who made the protest, but it is a man whom everyone here knows. You say you have had no protests made about the General Land Office that is affected here. I have had one.

The CHAIRMAN. I have had one on about everything but St. Elizabeths.

Mr. PITTENGER. Now, Mr. Chairman, I would like to go into some detail about the Childrens' Bureau there, and later on I may ask the committee's permission, but I want to pass to plan No. 3 so I can finish my statement and not 'impose on the good nature of the committee. As I say, these various objections that I have made and I am going to elaborate a little bit at the conclusion of my presentation they applied to all three of the plans. I have a lot of protests. I have protests from people who do not want the Bureau of Marine Inspection taken away from the Department of Commerce and permanently put under he Coast Guard. The war came on, and then it was put under the Coast Guard where it is now. Plan No. 3 puts it permanently under the Coast Guard. I can say to you men that if you called these marine inspectors I do not believe you will find a one of them that wants to stay under the Coast Guard where they are subject to inspection by somebody with a revolver on his hip, and military necessity, and military rigidity, and so forth. They feel much more at home if they can roam about under the Department of Commerce.

There was never any criticism of their efficiency and effectiveness under that Department. I think, by the way, that they probably are subject to some sort of a regulation issued by one of the rear admirals that if they admit their own name before this committee they will lose their jobs the next day. I think that permeates, probably, all of these agencies, and all of these plans.

The CHAIRMAN. Is that a trend back toward Henry Wallace? I know last year we refused to permit the Reconstruction Finance Corporation to go under him.

Mr. PITTENGER. This does not concern the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, this is the Bureau of Marine Inspection.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, last year, we opposed the Reconstruction Finance Corporation going under the Department of Commerce.

Mr. PETTINGER. I would be glad to have the chairman make a speech on that subject; I know I could make one. Congress does show rare judgment on a lot of matters. I predict that if the committee will report this bill out, Congress will show rare judgment in connection with this fumbled up, jumbled up mess of plans 1, 2, and 3, which do not accomplish the objectives of Congress, but which mess up matters worse than they are, and which have the dangerous possibilities that I pointed out of committing this Government to a paternalistic,

perform a quasi-judicial function of determining whether or not a person is an employee of the Federal Government, whether or not the person was injured in the performance of duties, and whether or not he comes under the Compensation Act which I think was passed in 1916. When they determine that, then they have administrative officials who have investigated the case and who go ahead and pay injured persons compensation under the act.

Plan No. 2 abolishes that act and transfers its function to this set-up here, to Federal Security by a new name. They also abolish the Social Security Board, and right away then they appoint three members of an Appeal Board. In the first place, that Board is a bipartisan board. It is put there so that the employees will feel that they have a bipartisan and not a politically governed tribunal to which they can go to have the determinations made as to whether or not the employees were injured in the performance of their duty for which compensation is to be paid. The plan does not carry out the spirit of the act of Congress, it does not save any money, it creates three new jobs on an Appeal Board.

The employees of this Commission, I think for the most part have been with them since 1916, or at least the framework. They either are going off the pay rolls and new employees put in some new agency here or branch, and train them to do this work. If you are going to keep them, why not leave the agency as it is? To me, the United States Compensation Commission is in much the position of the Federal Trade Commission or some of these other agencies that have a definite duty to perform and whose duties do not overlap or interfere in any way with the duties of some other Government agencies. We must have a certain number of Government agencies. What the reorganization plan contemplates, for a historic example, taking 10 agencies of the Government, abolishing 9 of them and letting the tenth one do the work.

To shorten this up as much as I can, I have some protests from a great many people opposed to the abolishment of the Social Security Board. I know I hold no brief for the Social Security Board. I have fought with them time after time. Here is what the fellows say, “This is a bipartisan Board.” They do not want the Social Security Board abolished, and leave the administration of the unemployment compensation and the old-age assistance and the other duties relating to social security to the whim or the caprice of some one man. They do not want that law changed until Congress makes the change.

Certainly, I have protests here from a number of organizations and groups and they can appear, and I have advised them they should, who are very much opposed to plan No. 2.

Now I had a telephone call from one of the members of the District government downtown 10 minutes before I came here. I do not know whether one or two of these Government hospitals, Gallinger or St. Elizabeths or some other one, come in plan No. 2 or plan No. 3, but they come in one of these, and they told me that this plan abolished the board of governors and did about 3 or 4 other things that just makes the present confused conditions much worse than they are, as far as the orderly exercise of the functions of our District government are concerned.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you mean to say they opposed the abolition of the board at St. Elizabeths! I though they would approve of that.

Mr. PITTENGER. I am only telling the committee what was told to me over the telephone and I suggested that the group interested contact Mr. Manasco and arrange with him for an appearance before the committee where they can explain how far-reaching it is.

The CHAIRMAN. That is the only section in either one of the plans I have had no one protest about.

Mr. PITTENGER. Let me give you another, and I think this other one is in section 3. I am not at liberty to give the name of the man who made the protest, but it is a man whom everyone here knows. You say you have had no protests made about the General Land Office that is affected here. I have had one.

The CHAIRMAN. I have had one on about everything but St. Elizabeths.

Mr. PITTENGER. Now, Mr. Chairman, I would like to go into some detail about the Childrens' Bureau there, and later on I may ask the committee's permission, but I want to pass to plan No. 3 so I can finish my statement and not impose on the good nature of the committee. As I say, these various objections that I have made—and I am going to elaborate a little bit at the conclusion of my presentation they applied to all three of the plans. I have a lot of protests. I have protests from people who do not want the Bureau of Marine Inspection taken away from the Department of Commerce and permanently put under the Coast Guard. The war came on, and then it was put under the Coast Guard where it is now. Plan No. 3 puts it permanently under the Coast Guard. I can say to you men that if you called these marine inspectors I do not believe you will find a one of them that wants to stay under the Coast Guard where they are subject to inspection by somebody with a revolver on his hip, and military necessity, and military rigidity, and so forth. They feel much more at home if they can roam about under the Department of Commerce.

There was never any criticism of their efficiency and effectiveness under that Department. I think, by the way, that they probably are subject to some sort of a regulation issued by one of the rear admirals that if they admit their own name before this committee they will lose their jobs the next day. I think that permeates, probably, all of these agencies, and all of these plans.

The CHAIRMAN. Is that a trend back toward Henry Wallace! I know last year we refused to permit the Reconstruction Finance Corporation to go under him.

Mr. PITTENGER. This does not concern the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, this is the Bureau of Marine Inspection.

The CHAIRMAN: Well, last year, we opposed the Reconstruction Finance Corporation going under the Department of Commerce. Mr. PETTINGER. I would

be glad to have the chairman make a speech on that subject; I know I could make one. Congress does show rare judgment on a lot of matters. I predict that if the committee will report this bill out, Congress will show rare judgment in connection with this fumbled up, jumbled up mess of plans 1, 2, and 3, which do not accomplish the objectives of Congress, but which mess up matters worse than they are, and which have the dangerous possibilities that I pointed out of committing this Government to a paternalistic,

socialistic, communistic pattern of life, certainly in the housing business and certainly in plan No. 2, from the womb to the tomb, because that is only a prelude to the establishment of a Cabinet position known as the Department of Social Welfare, with a certain gentlemen who I think is temporarily out of the United States, as Cabinet head. They are just getting ready to create another Cabinet position.

If I had my way about it, I have my own plan and you are not interested particularly, but I do not think the Coast Guard belongs anywhere else except under the Navy. I never could, as a beginner in Congress see why the Treasury Department has the Coast Guard and I could never see any sense in taking these marine inspectors away from Commerce and putting them under the Coast Guard. I do not want to see an order made permanent that keeps them under the Coast Guard because I want to make the boys happy and I know they will work twice as hard if you put them back under the Department of Commerce. They got along all right with Henry Wallace,

and they get along with everybody,

these marine inspectors, and they are only one of a dozen groups. Some are inarticulate, maybe there are 24 groups that do not dare come in here, even through their attorneys and express an opinion on this matter. Certainly, gentlemen, this plan No. 1 here of permitting the Government to embark upon a permanent housing policy ought to be threshed out on the floor of the House with a bill that reads so that everyone can understand it, subject to amendment, subject to the rules that we adopted on January 3, 1945.

SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, supplementing my foregoing discussion of Reorganization Plans 1, 2, and 3 with you, I want to repeat that I am supporting House Concurrent Resolutions 151, 154, and 155. As I have pointed out, the best that the friends of the plans can claim is that they were apparently hurriedly prepared and wholly inadequate to accomplish any real reorganization as intended by Congress. These plans ought to be disapproved so that further study can be made looking forward to an overhauling of all Government agencies and bringing about a real reorganization.

No economies are affected by these reorganization plans and everyone of them are met with serious and well-founded objections. In connection with plan No. 1, I call your attention to facts which are carefully worked out for your consideration as follows:

The President's Reorganization Plan No. 1, which was submitted to the House on May 16 and referred to the Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments, is in no real sense a reorganization plan. It does not simplify the Government's organization by eliminating duplication of activities and overlapping of functions, thereby reducing expenditures and making it possible to administer the Government's affairs more efficiently. To call this a reorganization is a misnomer. What this so-called reorganization plan actually does is to set up a new agency of the Government, an agency which has not been authorized by Congress and an agency which by its very nature is bound to lead to greater and greater expenditures and to more and more Government controls.

This new agency is called the National Housing Agency. It is set up in part 5 of Reorganization Plan No. 1 and this is the most impor

« 이전계속 »