« 이전계속 »
Mr. WHITTINGTON. I agree with the substance of the view you have. But frankly, evidently to remove any sort of question, if they are not agencies of the executive department, it would not have been necessary to mention them; but having mentioned them Mr. LANHAM. I think it was for purposes of clarification; I do not think that we can really say that there are any exemptions in the bill as now written. Mr. WHITTINGTON. I think you are entitled to your view; but with all deference, if they are not executive agencies, it is not necessary to mention them. Mr. LANHAM. It may be surplusage, but I think you will agree with me they are not executive agencies. Mr. WHITTINGTON. I think they are the arm of Congress. But they are mentioned in this bill. Mr. LANHAM. That is true. Mr. McCoRMACK. Will you yield right there? Mr. LANHAM. Yes. Mr. McCoRMACK. On the courts in the District, of course the courts of the country are excluded automatically because they are the judicial branch, a coordinate branch; but with reference to the courts of the District of Columbia, I think you will probably concede might be justified because the District of Columbia comes directly under the Congress. Mr. WHITTINGTON. And I so indicated. Mr. McCoRMACK. Somewhat different than the rest of the country, and the exclusion of the judicial courts there might be considering the necessity of precaution. I am inclined to agree with you that it is surplusage. But on the other hand, there is a serious question there where we are the city council, the legislature of the District of Columbia, and the city council of the District of Columbia, in addition to being the Congress of the United States. Our jurisdiction over the District is entirely different on constitutional questions than over the rest of the country. lo. WHITTINGTON. I have indicated that I am in the affirmative on that. Mr. McCoRMACR. On that constitutional question, our jurisdiction on many questions is different in the District than over the rest of the country. Mr. WHITTINGTON. It is fair to say that I indicated that my view was in accord with yours and I think they are statutory offices; but even so, I trust you will not criticize me too much, when I began my statement by saying that I understood that other agencies, and I named them, beginning with the Interstate Commerce Commission, had been suggested to be excepted. Mr. LANHAM. That is just some talk, is it not? Mr. WHITTINGTON. I don’t know; but I think it is more than just newspaper talk. Mr. LANHAM. So far, it has no substance other than what we have read in the newspapers. Mr. WHITTINGTON. I will tell you, I know what I saw in the newspapers, but that probably isn't all I know about it from my years of experience with this legislation.
Mr. McCoRMACR. The fair thing and the proper thing is that so far as this committee is concerned, they are considering this bill as introduced. Mr. WHITTINGTON. I will trust them to continue to do so. Chairman DAwsON. Mr. Rich. Mr. RICH. Mr. Whittington, I have not received any requests by anyone to my knowledge to eliminate any bureau of the Government from this bill except one, and that was the Army engineers; and I come here and find you testifying, and you referred to H. R. 1569, and there is no exception except the ones in section 7. Now, we understand, do we, that you are here making the request for the exemption of the Army engineers from this bill? Mr. WHITTINGTON. If further exceptions are to be made, and I named them—ICC, SEC, and FTC. Mr. RICH. Only in case other agencies are exempted do you want the Army engineers included in the bill? Mr. WHITTINGTON. I said frankly I have always advocated, and I am still of the same view, a bill without exemptions of any kind would be more sound, but at the same time Mr. RICH. That is a good statement. I admire you for making a statement of that kind. Mr. WHITTINGTON. At the same time, I might be disappointing some of my friends; but that is my view, my well-considered view and I have to give you what I think frankly. I am not at all surprised, with due deference, that the only matter that has been brought to your attention by your constituents with respect to exemptions is this Corps of Engineers because I do not know of any—up at Williamsport and along that river—when they have profited more by the work of the engineers than in your district, and some people are asking to eliminate. Mr. RICH. I am trying to help the Army engineers because I can see no reason why they should be changed, myself. I agree with you. Therefore, we should not have any exemptions in this bill. Now, you have no doubt read the great number of agencies that are duplicating, according to a statement given by Lindsay Warren. You know what they are, do you not? Mr. WHITTINGTON. I am rather familiar with the duplication of agencies and that is the reason I favor reorganization to eliminate those duplications and to abolish the functions of the duplicating agencies; and I stated that in the beginning. Mr. RICH. I think that is a wise statement. I have read the statement by Lindsay Warren and I want to say I have greater respect for Lindsay Warren and the work that he does, and the knowledge that he has of the government, as much as any man I know in this whole world. Mr. WHITTINGTON. I supported that faith by supporting the reorganization plan when he was in charge of the program before the committee of Congress. Mr. RICH. I remember Jack Cochran on that. He had a lot of good ideas and he is a fine fellow. Mr. WHITTINGTON. You are putting me in good company with Jack Cochran and Lindsay Warren. When you come to the duplication of all these agencies, we have to do something.
Mr. RICH. Let me ask you this. If you think we will pass this bill, do you think you will do anything. Mr. WHITTINGTON. I am not President of the United States and I just don't know what the President is going to do; but I will just say this: I am of the same opinion that I was in 1945. I advocated giving President Truman then the power to reorganize and I advocate giving * o now. We limited that so it would not go beyond his term Of OIIICe. Mr. RICH. You remember I made the statement awhile ago, and I do that with all respect, that when we had about thirty or forty different agencies of government, we had a President who said that he would eliminate and consolidate; instead of that, we increased them until we had 1,800 departments or more and I don’t want to ever get in that position again. o want to simplify the operation of this Government and I am willing to vote for anything that will simplify the operation of this Government; but I would like to know your opinion, whether you think that that will happen if we pass this !. Mr. WHITTINGTON. Now, I do not want to get out of the realm of statesmanship into the realm of politics, if you will pardon me, but with or without establishing any agencies, the responsibility is finally on us, you and each oil. as members of Congress, because no agency can function unless we provide the funds with which they function and I just cannot satisfy my conscience by saying— Mr. RICH. Let me ask you this one further question and I will cease. If they put in certain changes by the Chief Executive into the Government that the Congress thinks ought not to be put into the Government, and with the time limitation we have, and suppose our chairman here does not want to call up a bill to prohibit the change in some agency of the Government, how can we get the chairman to act on that in 60 days? Mr. WHITTINGTON. He will give you reason, I am sure. Mr. RICH. The great authority for getting it before the Congress is going to be in the chairman of our committee, is it not? Mr. WHITTINGTON. I will just say this about authority and delay. It looks to me like the chairman of this committee has been about as prompt as a man could be in holding hearings on this, one of the first bills introduced. I think it is fundamental. Mr. Rich. I am just trying to get the information because I want something done in the reorganization of government. I am interested in that as much as anything else in cutting down the number of employees and certainly the expenses of Government. Mr. WHITTINGTON. The sooner you pass this bill, the sooner your views can be put into action. Mr. RICH. Now, Mr. Dawson, I had better ask you this question. If, for any reason, the President proposes something that should not take place in the minds of the members of Congress, those who are members of this committee, and believe that some action should be had, will he get immediate action on that? Mr. WHITTINGTON. This bill provides that where the chairman, whether he does it or not, under the rules of the House, any member can ask Congress to do that. That is the answer. Chairman DAwson. I was about to give that. Any members of this committee can get together and call a meeting of the committee. We have procedures to protect us, Mr. Harvey.
Mr. McCoRMACK. I am sure that Mr. Rich will agree that our present chairman, and our past chairman—but our present chairman confining it to this, will always do the right thing. Mr. WHITTINGTON. Finally, if you will pardon me, I have no intention of delaying you, but I do crave the privilege of making this suggestion to you with respect to exemptions. It is a difficult matter, no matter whether you consider the exemption of the Corps of Engineers or other agencies, and I respectfully say that from my study of the Reorganization Act of 1939, and from my study of the acts, bills that resulted in the act of 1945, that the best language that I know of to provide for the exception of the agencies that may be named is the language in the act of 1945 which you have before you, and I think that if that can be improved upon, Mr. Chairman, it can be improved upon by the language contained in the report of this committee, on the bill H. R. 4129 that resulted in the Reorganization Act of 1945. That language with respect to the engineers, is section 5, subparagraph (e) of the act of 1945. Mr. HARVEY. Just briefly, I certainly appreciate, Mr. Whittington, your fine testimony here this morning, and especially in view of your long background of legislative experience. You have very ably testified here for the benefit of our Corps of Army Engineers. The only specific case I had a little experience in trying to do this thing was at the State level. I think you have had a good deal of experience in the past in attempting to accomplish this thing. I think you can appreciate, probably as much as anyone else, the danger of even starting on exemptions, can you not? Mr. WHITTINGTON. I think I indicated that in the first sentence I used in my statement here. Mr. HARVEY. If I might quote from the 1937 hearings before the Joint Committee on Government Organizations, a statement by the late distinguished Senator Harrison, he said: Our people are individually interested in flood control along the Mississippi River. Always, the Army engineers have had control of these public works. It would be very disheartening to them if a Public Works Department should
be created and it should be found impossible, as I understand the bill, to let this particular character of work be carried on by the Army engineers.
Then he concludes by saying:
Apparently, as far as that, as far back as 1937, there was a great deal of concern in the minds of the delegation from Mississippi as to the fate of the Army engineers were it left to, shall we say, high executive authority.
Now, just what is the basis for that concern?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. In just a word, Senator Harrison and I are Democrats and we believe in party government, and with respect to the particular matter that he very properly and wisely mentioned, to which you have referred, I have already answered the question by saying that I do not think that this or any other bill—I think it can be improved on and as a friend of the bill, I would say the language could be improved on so that the President ought not to be given the power by the reorganization plan to establish a Department of Public Works with the rank of Cabinet position. I think I have answered that question at the beginning of my statement. So, Senator Harrison and I agreed about that as we do about practically every other governmental problem. Mr. HARVEY. Then, in conclusion, Lindsay Warren was up and testified, not as to the merits of the bill, but his legislative experience in attempting to get this type of legislation on the books. In his testimony he said that the thing that finally scuttled the effectiveness of the legislation was the great army of “but”-ers that came up here. Each agency that came up here said, I am for this reorganization business. I think it is a fine thing, “but.” And then immediately started in to proclaim the reasons why their particular case should be exempt from the bill. He finally wound up by saying that the net result was almost nullification of the fine benefits that should have been done. I just point that out to you, Mr. Whittington, in a friendly attitude, that if the committee starts making exemptions, I think the effectiveness of the reorganization will be pretty much nullified. Mr. WHITTINGTON. I think I anticipated you by saying, in the beginning of my statement, that sound legislation should provide for no exemptions. Mr. HARVEY. I agree there should be no exception. Mr. WHITTINGTON. And if you make any— Chairman DAwson. Mr. Hardy. Mr. HARDY. I believe you have amply answered the one or two questions that I wanted to raise. But I would like to give them a little more point. You are familiar with the provisions of this bill; do you believe this committee should report this bill without any amendments? Mr. WHITTINGTON. No; I so indicated, as a friend of the bill, that I think there should be some amendments. I just answered the gentleman here by saying that one of them should be—I don’t think it ought to be given Cabinet status. Mr. HARDY. My second question is, in that line, Do you believe it could be passed without exceptions? Mr. WHITTINGTON. I have given my reason for saying it would be very difficult to pass it because we could not pass President Hoover's and could not pass one of Lindsay Warren's and the committee and Lindsay Warren are in agreement. I have to be realistic. Mr. HARDY. Just one more question. It is entirely different from what we have been discussing up to now. This bill contains no expiration date. Do you feel that that is a good provision? Mr. WHITTINGTON. I think that is a fair question and personally I think it would be a fair limitation for it to expire with the term of the President, the present Executive, within 4 years. I have always favored a reasonable limitation. I tell you, among other reasons I have for that view, it is just as hard for the President to reorganize and eliminate as it is for Congress. He does what the folks uptown recommend. But if we give him an indefinite time, he will delay just as long as he can. So I think a limitation is constructive. Mr. HARVEY. I was just wanting to ask, Congressman, if you would support a nonexemption bill on the floor of the House, should the committee report it. Mr. WHITTINGTON. I have told you that I favored the principle of this reorganization bill, and I think I have answered it, and I have