« 이전계속 »
been a Member of the Congress too long to say that I am going to support categorically any bill of any kind. I agree with the principles. I deal with principles and not exceptions. Mr. RICH. You do not believe you would be in better position by placing a limitation of 8 years rather than 4? Mr. WHITTINGTON. I would not know on that one. Chairman DAwsON. Mr. Karsten. Mr. KARSTEN. No questions, Mr. Chairman. Chairman DAWSON. Mr. Lovre. Mr. Lovre. Mr. Whittington, just to clarify the expiration date that Mr. Hardy mentioned. Do you think it would be advisable to have this law expire at the present term of the Executive? Mr. WHITTINGTON. I so stated; yes, sir. I put it substantially in the language of the expiration of 1949. I doubt, with all deference, if any Executive who had been defeated for reelection, as was the case with President Hoover when he submitted his reorganization plan, is going to get very far with reorganization; so I think the expiration date properly inserted, such as the national convention in 1952 might be in order. Mr. LowRE. There is one further question I would like to ask. I am sorry I was not here to receive the full benefit of your testimony; perhaps you have answered this before. Would not this particular be more in accord with constitutional legislative process if it provided that either House may, by a majority vote, reject any organizational plan submitted by the Executive : Mr. WHITTINGTON. I was facetious by saying I had referred to the matter. I think it would make the bill of doubtful constitutionality. You cannot deprive both Houses of the right to legislate. I agree with an interpretation of one of the ablest Attorney Generals, W. D. Mitchell, who said that that provision in the Hoover Reorganization Act or in the Economy Act of 1932, made it unconstitutional. I think both Houses ought to be allowed to pass on it. Mr. Lovre. In that particular act, it provided that it took one branch to stop the particular organization ? Mr. WHITTINGTON. We profited from that by providing for action by both Houses in presenting it in the acts of 1939 and 1945. Mr. Lovre. Thinking about it in the reverse, under present legislative process, a bill has to go through both Houses and then to the President. Mr. WHITTINGTON. That is right. Mr. Lovre. That is why I propounded that question to you: Would it not be more in accord with constitutional legislative process if either House could reject a plan submitted? Mr. WHITTINGTON. It would not; and I think your question, with due deference, answers itself. If it is necessary for both Houses to pass the legislation, it ought to be necessary for both to reject it. That IS m V VI eV. r. Lovre. Thank you very kindly. That is all, Mr. Chairman. Chairman DAwson. Mr. McCormack. Mr. McCoRMACK. In connection with the latter inquiry, the passage by both branches would not require the signature of the President. You understand that because it is the action of both branches and it does not require the signature of the President and then passing over him by two-thirds veto again. The majority action of both branches is final in the rejection. That is understood. Mr. Lovre. Yes; thank you very kindly. Mr. McCoRMACK. On the expiration date, Congressman Whittington, I recognize that as a debatable question there, but in the light of experience we have had in the last 20 years, that you and I are familiar with—and we remember the first bill, there were about 21 exemptions, as I remember; then gradually, in one of the later bills, 12 or 14 exemptions. Naturally, the feeling of fear was a powerful influence and it always is. I recognize that. And we had expiration dates on those bills. Now, what do you think? Would the veto power of Congress— have you given consideration to it—and I have great respect for your opinion—have you given consideration to the fact that with that power and in th light of our 20 years' experience, making this permanent legislation, giving the Executive continuing power to present reorganizations to the Congress, might be a wise course for Congress to take? Mr. Wirrrison f can very easily see the reason for that, and that is a view entertained by many; but unfortunately for me, I am on record, and I believe in all the circumstances that probably a limitation—and I have discussed the longest limitation that has ever been made in any reorganization bill by making it practically coequal with President Truman's administration, because we put the limitation in the act of 1945 and there was no limitation in the act of 1932, passed on June 20, 1932. There was not any limitation. On March 20, 1933, just after the inauguration of Franklin Roosevelt, the Congress put a limitation of 2 years there. I personally think that that limitation should be increased so as to make it the full 4 years and frankly I can see the view for no limitation at all. Mr. HoliFIELD. Mr. Whittington, may I interject a question at that point? You have studied title II of the bill which, in effect, sets up the rule for the handling of the legislation on the floor. To a certain extent it would replace the ordinary rule which would be rendered by the Rules Committee. If you have studied that, would you care to express your opinion as to the efficacy of that section of the bill in handling the legislation on the floor? Mr. WHITTINGTON. Frankly, I read title II and my reading of that leads me to believe that that is substantially the provisions of the act of 1945, and the best answer I can make to your question is that in 1945 this committee and the Congress adopted substantially title II and I think it is the most constructive provisions in the act of 1939 and should be contained in this. Chairman DAwson. Mr. Sadowski. Mr. SADowski. No questions. Chairman DAwson. Mr. Blatnik, Mr. Bolling? Are there any other questions of this witness? Mr. RICH. One question, and that is this: In reference to one who has the privilege ..} calling this up on the floor, under page 12, Section b, “Such motion may be made only by a person favoring the resolution.” That means that if one is not in favor of the reorganization bill, then anyone who objects to it could not call it up? Mr. McCoRMACK. Anyone favoring the resolution to disapprove. Mr. RICH. I could not quite get that as the meaning of the bill.
Mr. McCorm Ack. The purpose of that is to preserve the rights of any one Member of the House who might be opposed to a particular, any reorganization recommendation, so that they can have it brought up in the House instead of having it tied up in committee for 60 days and then be denied their opportunity. I think it is a very important provision to protect the rights of individual Members of the House.
Chairman DAwson. We are deeply grateful to you, Mr. Whittington, for your fine testimony before us today, and it adds greatly to your already great stature in presenting this to us.
Mr. LANHAM. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Paul Brown could not be here this morning so he has asked me, in his absence, to offer this letter to be included in the record at this point.
Chairman DAwson. Congressman Brown's letter will appear in the record as though read.
(The letter referred to is as follows:)
House of REPRESENTATIVEs, Washington, D. C., January 28, 1949.
Hon. HENDERSON LANHAM,
Committee on Earpenditures in the Eaxecutive Departments,
DEAR HENDERSON: I expected to appear in person this morning as a witness before your committee, but circumstances beyond my control make this impossible. As I told you, I am very much opposed to having the civil works of the Corps of Engineers included in the reorganization bill. The splendid work of the Army engineers over the years has been recognized by everyone. I have never heard any criticism against a single one of the engineers. The Corps of Engineers has always been composed of high-type men and their work has been based on engineering and economic conditions altogether. As it is set up now, there has been peacetime training for engineer officers, without which the wartime missions could not be successfully accomplished. For good reasons, the Reorganization Act of 1945, section 5-b, exempted the civil works of the Corps of Engineers from any reorganization proposed by higher authority. For these and other good reasons, I shall appreciate it if you will present my views to your committee. Sincerely yours, PAUL BROWN. Chairman DAwsON. Let the record show that Mr. Burnside had to leave the meeting because of an appointment with the President. We have three Members of Congress to testify before us. I was asked by Mr. Boggs to go on at 11 o'clock because he had an engagement shortly thereafter. I am going to ask the others who were here first if you will permit him to do that. I appreciate you have the right to go ahead. (General assent.) Chairman DAwson. Mr. Boggs, will you do us the courtesy of giving us your statement? Mr. Boggs, a Member of Congress, has won in his first term, I think, greater acclaim than any freshman I have seen in my short stay in Congress. He is interested in this matter and appears before us as a Witness.
STATEMENT OF HON. HALE BOGGS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
appear at this time. My Committee on Ways and Means is now meeting, and I would like to get back to it as quickly as I can.
There is very little that I can add to what the distinguished gentleman, Mr. Whittington, from Mississippi, has said. I support, without reservation, his testimony insofar as the Corps of Army Engineers is concerned. I am naturally particularly concerned about of the Corps of Army Engineers because I live in the city of New Orleans which is at the mouth of the Mississippi River, which drains about two-thirds of the United States of America. We know first-hand what floods are, what devastation can be wrought by the forces of nature when they are on the loose. We have lived with the Mississippi River since we have been a community and we are eternally grateful to the Corps of Army Engineers. In my judgment, there is no finer group of men in this great country of ours. They have been efficient; they have been capable; they have performed their duties without political favor or favoritism of any kind. They have been on the job in emergencies and they have accumulated, over a period of years, a tremendous amount of knowledge and experience. Like Mr. Whittington, I realize that we are faced with a quandary here when we talk about reorganizing the Government. Inevitably, someone appears before the responsible committee of Congress and asks that certain agencies be excluded. Again like Mr. Whittington, I, too, favor—certainly in principle— all that this committee is attempting to do. It seems to me that the sprawling, overlapping functions of the Government must be consolidated in the interest of efficiency and economy; but in doing so, I think that we must be careful not to interfere with agencies which have demonstrated, over a period of many years, their complete and total efficiency; and to my way of thinking there is no economy that could possibly be achieved by consolidating the Corps of Army Engineers with any other agency of the Government. I do not know of anything else that I could add, Mr. Chairman, except again to say that we who have lived with the problem of flood control are immeasurably proud of the Corps of Army Engineers and we would be gravely alarmed if we felt that the Congress did anything which might jeopardize their efficiency. Chairman DAwson. You stated that you endorsed in toto the statement made by Mr. Whittington. Mr. Boggs. Unfortunately, I did not hear all of Mr. Whittington's statement. I endorse all that I heard. Chairman DAwson. He started out, with this very fine statement: “If there are to be any exceptions”—then he thought that no branch of the Government deserved to be exempted more than the Corps of Engineers. Mr. Boggs. I will subscribe to that statement. Mr. Hol.IFIELD. In order to get a bill through on reorganization that would be an effective bill, Mr. Boggs, I believe you would agree with me that there should be no exemptions? Mr. Boggs. In principle, I agree with you. Mr. Holi FIELD. Thank you. Chairman DAwson. Are there any other questions of this witness? No response.) hairman DAwson. Thank you. . We all agree with your statement. Mr. Boggs. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman DAwson. I believe our next witness is Mr. Gathings, who has expressed a desire to be heard. Congressman Gathings.
STATEMENT OF HON. E. C. GATHINGS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN - CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS
Mr. GATHINGs. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am proud of this opportunity to appear before your committee this morning. I don’t come as an expert. I have never served on this great Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments. I have never served on the Committee on Flood Control, Rivers and Harbors. I have been doing quite a lot of work on the Agriculture Committee. - - - o But Mr. Whittington made a very wonderful statement—I heard every word of it—and I subscribe to it. Mr. Boggs made a great statement. I heard his statements with great interest and I subscribe to it. Mr. Boggs is down there at the mouth of the Mississippi River and he has been getting quite a lot of that water that has come from my territory on down the Mississippi to him. Now, I want to say to you that in eastern Arkansas, which I am privileged to serve, about the turn of the century right through, there were very few that lived in that section of Arkansas. When they settled the State of Arkansas, they moved to higher ground. The gentleman from California, born and bred in my district, knew something about my testimony. Mr. HoliFIELD. I was one of those who left for higher ground. * GATHINGs. Anyway we have your family there and we are proud of them. The Corps of Engineers has come in there and they have put in these good projects, drained our lands until we have one of the most fertile agricultural regions you will find anywhere outside of the Nile delta. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of §. committee, as I said to you before, I am not an expert, but I do think today that the Corps of Army Engineers should not be disturbed. That if you are going to write any exemptions whatever into this legislation, I trust you will include the Corps of Army Engineers. It was started by the first President, George Washington, and each succeeding President has continued to work with the Corps of Arm Engineers, including Franklin D. Roosevelt and President Harry S. Truman, because of the fact that they have done a miraculous job in navigation, flood control, rivers and harbors improvement, as well as in multipurpose dams that are so highly essential in the production of power and are necessary in case of emergency. Now, I think that there has been an exaggeration of the necessity for legislation of this kind. I really do, Mr. Chairman. I think that it has been overemphasized by the American people. I had people come to me a few years ago and say, “Now, we must retrench: we have to cut down the operating expenses of this Government”; and I agreed with them. I said we ought to do it when you look at the budget that has been prepared. This last Congress showed themselves. When you look at the budget presented to the Eightieth Congress, it looked like it was an enormous amount of money. Now, where are you going to trim.' I just thought it could be done. I