« 이전계속 »
Do you think that it would be advisable to insert in the bill that whatever readjustment there might be under the bill would effect a saving of 5 percent or 10 percent? Mr. WARREN. I think that would be absolutely useless. That was written into one of the bills, a saving of 25 percent. I think it is absolutely impossible for anyone to estimate anywhere nearly correctly what the savings might be. I think the only way you can do that is to abolish something you had an annual appropriation for. Then you will know what is saved. I think that you would be putting an undue hardship upon the President. Of course, he would not know and is not expected to know that he would save blank dollars. Mr. Holi FIELD. Is it not true that it is an impossibility to predict a saving in view of the fact that Congress is continuously increasing the functions and duties of the different departments, and therefore there would be a variable factor that you could not control? Mr. WARREN. That is true. Gentlemen, we can take our hair down, you know, and talk around the table here. We talk about bureaucracy and all of that. I do not know what a bureaucrat is. I am not one. I do not know what they are. Mr. HoFFMAN. You are the congressional representative. You represent the Congress. Mr. WARREN. I say that I am not a bureaucrat. I do not know what they are. Just remember this, this Government became vast because Congress created the functions and appropriated the money to do it. That is the reason we are so big today. After all, Congress did all of this. Now, if you want to keep it this size, that is something solely within the prerogative of the Congress. I think the Government is too big. I think we have too many people. The CHAIRMAN. And the Congress should do something about it. Mr. WARREN. I think so, and I think this is the last gasp. Mr. TAURIELLO. Mr. Warren, how many terms did you serve in the Congress of the United States? Mr. WARREN. I served eight terms; 16 years. Mr. TAURIELLO. How many years as Comptroller General? Mr. WARREN. I have now served 8 years and 3 months of a 15-year term. Mr. TAURIELLO. And you have given this matter of reorganization deep study? Mr. WARREN. Yes, Congressman; I have lived with it about 4 years at one time. Mr. BoITON. I would just like to clear up one thing. Under the Hoover plan I understood you to say there was a provision there that either House could defeat the suggestion of the President, and the Attorney General ruled that was unconstitutional; is that correct? Mr. WARREN. Yes. Mr. Bolton. If we were to amend this bill so that either House could defeat the purpose of the plan of the President, that would be unconstitutional? Mr. WARREN. That was the opinion of Attorney General Mitchell. I came to the same opinion, and so did the Congress itself. That opinion is cited in all the debates on the subject over the years and
Congress came to the conclusion that the Attorney General at that time was correct.
Mr. HOFFMAN. I have one more question in view of the statement that Mr. Warren vounteered. This came up yesterday from another witness, this question of limiting the life of the Reorganization Act to one administration, or to a term of 4 years. You suggested something about that, if I understood you correctly, did you not?
Mr. WARREN. No; I said in my past testimony on this, and in my position while a Member of the House, I took the position that it should only be for the life of a President in office. I remember Mr. Cole of New York, while serving his first term, raised the questionwhy not have it permanent legislation. That is a matter of policy for you gentlemen to decide. I have nothing to do with that; no opinion My prior position was that there should be a 4-year term.
Mr. HOFFMAN. For the President in power?
Mr. HOFFMAN. It occurs to me that is still a sound position because if the unexpected should happen, if we should elect a Henry Wallace and he should carry in with him the Members of the House and Senate, we might find ourselves unable to repeal this legislative power granted to the President. You would view that with alarm, I think.
Mr. WARREN. My argument is that reorganization is a continuing thing. The reorganizations that have already been accomplished have been amended several times, beginning back with President Roosevelt. I merely stated that my personal position before was 4 years, or limited to the present President.
Mr. BURNSIDE. Is that your position now?
Mr. WARREN. It is immaterial to me. That is a matter for you gentlemen to decide.
Mr. BOLTON. Have you a reference to that decision or opinion of the Attorney General ?
Mr. WARREN. Suppose that we send it to you, Congressman.
The CHAIRMAN. I see that we have with us two former members of this committee. We have our former chairman, Mr. Manasco, who is with us, and who is deeply interested in this matter.
Would you care to give us the benefit of your ideas, or bring out some questions from this witness?
STATEMENT OF HON. CARTER MANASCO, A FORMER REPRESENTA
TIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA
Mr. Manasco. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to testify before the committee. I am deeply interested in the reorganization plan and I think the Comptroller General, Mr. Warren, has covered the subject thoroughly and ably.
Some of the provisions of the bill I might not agree with, but I think that is a matter of policy for this committee. I do not think that it would be proper for me to appear here in a dual capacity, as a member of the so-called Hoover Commission, which will make some recommendations that will come up later.
I think that many of those recommendations could be carried out under the authority granted, if the Congress grants it to the President, under this reorganization plan.
1 The reference is 37 Opinion of the Attorney General 56, at p. 63.
There is one statement that I think should be clarified, and that is the question of the constitutionality of the delegation of the legislative powers to the President. We are really not delegating the powers to the President in passing the reorganization plan. The act itself provides for the reorganization. When you create a new department you cannot spell out the number of clerks and the number of stenographers and the number of auditors, and so on. The Congress sets the policy and the executive department implements that policy to carry out the functions imposed upon it by the Congress.
I think the act would be constitutional. I am not a constitutional expert, but I just give that as my opinion.
If a provision were made in this act authorizing the President to reorganize without both Houses of Congress having to disapprove if it were rejected, I think it would still be constitutional because it would be carrying out the will of the Congress under the powers granted in the Reorganization Act.
That is a matter that I thought might be proper to bring out at this point.
As a gratuitous opinion, I believe that the Congress should retain the power to create new departments, executive departments. If the present act is passed like it is, I think we will be giving up one of the precious prerogatives of the Congress.
The CHAIRMAN. May I ask the question: Is there anything in the bill that takes away from Congress the power to create a department?
Mr. MANAsco. No; there is nothing.
The CHAIRMAN. We could still initiate legislation to create any department that we think ought to be created ?
Mr. MANASCO. That is true. I know when we had the Reorganization Act of 1945 the Army and the Navy were to be merged under those powers, but we decided we had better keep that in our own hands,
although we did go along and have a so-called unification later on. But it came out of this committee.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any questions that any member would like to ask of Mr. Manasco?
Mr. KARSTEN. What would be bad about the creation of a new executive department by the President!
Mr. MANĀSCO. Well, it could create some problems that might become embarrassing to Congress sometime. I have never seen much difference between the head of a large administrative agency and a Cabinet officer, except that the Cabinet officer outranks him at cocktail parties, and perhaps gets a larger car and more chauffeurs. There is nothing in the Constitution providing for a Cabinet officer. The President can invite anyone to sit in his Cabinet that he wants to, but when you create a department it is assumed that he will be a Cabinet officer.
Mr. KARSTEN. We still have the prerogative, and we have not divested ourselves of the right to do so. We simply give the direction to the President to take the initiative and if we disagree we can veto.
Mr. MANASCO. That is right. You have a bill introduced by the chairman creating a new Department of Welfare to succeed the Federal Security Agency. I think the department should be created, but I think this committee should report that bill out.
Mr. HOFFMAN. The suggestion of Mr. Karsten was that the Congress could abolish the department if the Congress does creat it under this
bill, but as a matter of fact, from the testimony of Mr. Warren, the Congress over the years has never abolished anything, or consolidated anything to any great extent. Is that not so?
Mr. WARREN. I think that I can go along with you on that.
The CHAIRMAN. The Congress has turned down recommendations of the President in my short time here.
Mr. HOFFMAN. That is right, but we have never effected any economies, as I recall.
The CHAIRMAN. We have with us a former Member of Congress, Mr. Charles Irwin Stengel.
STATEMENT OF CHARLES IRWIN STENGEL
Mr. STENGEL. I concur very fully in what the Comptroller General has said. I have been in this fight before. I was in a fight with him and against him on one occasion, and I believe he is on the right line. His advice is good.
The CHAIRMAN. We all have that same high respect for him.
We also have with us Mr. Sasscer, a Representative in Congress from the State of Maryland.
STATEMENT OF HON. LANSDALE SASSCER, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND
Mr. SASSCER. Thank you. I did not come here to testify, but since you have been kind enough to ask that I do testify, I would merely like to say that if this bill is not passed I have some apprehension that later these agencies may not be consolidated.
Mr. ManAsco. I have another suggestion. If pressure is brought to bear on you to exempt any of these quasi-legislative and quasijudicial bodies, I think that it would be very wise for this committee to do this—and it has never been done before-if in writing those exemptions you would permit the transfer of the purely administrative functions into a regular executive department. I see no reason why regulatory bodies should make the rules and then have the power to enforce them. We do not do that in our courts. The judge finds a man guilty and lets some other department administer the punishment. I would like to have you give that some thought, Mr. Warren.
The CHAIRMAN. In your opinion, maybe something should be done about some of these agencies that have been exempt in the past?
Mr. MANASCO. Yes, transfer of the pure administrative function.
Mr. PFEIFFER. Do I gather from what you say that you are in favor of some exemptions?
Mr. MANASCO. That is a matter for the committee to decide, and if you do exempt some I think some of the functions of these quasilegislative and quasi-judicial bodies should be permitted to be transferred to the executive department.
Mr. WARREN. Mr. Chairman, one more thing: I feel that I should be in every way frank with this committee. As I said, I think that exemptions will greatly weaken this. I will call your attention, though, to the committee print bill on page 8, section (d), which is not carried in this bill.
Now section (b) on page 8 of the committee print makes certain outright exemptions. I think that it would be a great mistake to exempt them, as provided in the old act, but if in the wisdom of the committee and in the wisdom of the Congress exemptions should be made, then they should be included under (d) on page 9; that is, if anything was sent up it would be a special plan for that one purpose and not be loaded down with other catching and appealing propositions. Mr. PFEIFFER. In other words, Mr. Warren, we are exempting the District of Columbia now under this bill. Mr. WARREN. No; the District of Columbia is included in this bill, and I think very properly so. Mr. HARDY. I would like to get a little clearer explanation of just what Mr. Warren means there. How would that be set up, Mr. Warren? You say in section (b) on page 8 of the bill. Mr. WARREN. You will notice that in section (b) on page 8 of the committee print, which is not carried in this bill, certain exemptions were made. Mr. HARDY. That is right. Mr. WARREN. Now, in section (d) there were named the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corpora: tion, the United States Tariff Commission and the Veterans’ Administration. I say my suggestion is if in the wisdom of the committee and of the Congress—although I think they would be making a mistake—you wish any exemptions, you should treat it as provided for in section (d). I am talking about the old bill, and that section is not carried forward in this bill. I am talking about the committee print. Mr. HoliFIELD. Are you referring to the treatment of those particular agencies, or to all agencies? Mr. WARREN. Only the treatment of such agencies, not for those specific ones at all. The CHAIRMAN. We are very grateful for your presence here with us. We all have been greatly benefited in our endeavors to give a good bill for the reorganization of the executive departments, and we feel free to call upon you further, and we will accept your offer to send us one of your men to work with us. Mr. WARREN. Thank you very much. The CHAIRMAN. Is there anything else? Mr. TAURIELLO. Have you decided how long you are going to have these hearings? The CHAIRMAN. Our next hearing will be held on Friday, January 28, at 10 a.m. in committee room 1501. We are concluding Monday. I think that we ought to meet in the caucus room, because I am of the opinion that the presence of former President Hoover will be of great interest to many citizens of the community and probably this room will not hold them. We have obtained the caucus room for Monday, and will meet there at 10 a.m.