(1) to promote the better execution of the laws, the more effective management of the executive branch of the Government and of its agencies and functions, and the expeditious administration of the public business;

(2) to reduce expenditures and promote economy, to the fullest extent consistent with the efficient operation of the Government:

(3) to increase the efficiency of the operations of the Government to the fullest extent practicable;

(4) to group, coordinate, and consolidate agencies and functions of the Government, as nearly as may be, according to major purposes;

(5) to reduce the number of agencies by consolidating those having similar functions under a single head, and to abolish such agencies or functions thereof as may not be necessary for the efficient conduct of the Government; and

(6) to eliminate overlapping and duplication of effort.

The desirability of these objectives is obvious. Section 2 contains in addition subsection (b), which states:

(b) The Congress declares that the public interest demands the carrying out of the purposes specified in subsection (a) and that such purposes may be accomplished in great measure by proceeding under the provisions of this Act, and can be accomplished more speedily thereby than by the enactment of specific legislation.

Accordingly, section 2 not only sets forth the objectives to be sought by the Reorganization Act but points out that they can be accomplished effectively and more speedily under the reorganization plan procedure.

The Reorganization Act specifically authorizes the undertaking of five basic types of "reorganizations" by reorganization plan. Those are (1) transfer, (2) consolidation, (3) coordination, or (4) abolition of the whole or any part of any agency or of the functions of any agency, and (5) the authorization of any officer to delegate any of his functions. "Agency" is defined to mean

any executive department, commission, council, independent establishment Government corporation, board, bureau, division, service, office, officer, authority administration, or other establishment, in the executive branch of the Governand any and all parts of the government of the District of Columbia except the courts.

The Reorganization Act has become a well-accepted and proven tool for helping to keep the executive branch well organized to meet its current needs and for attacking the problems of ineffectiveness, inefficiency, or uneconomical operations of the Government.

The cooperative executive-legislative approach authorized in the Reorganization Act was adopted after long experience had demonstrated that improvements in organization were difficult to achieve when the sole way of correcting defects was to rely upon the passage of specific legislation. Improvements were long delayed and often overdue when a reorganization contained in a bill had to pursue its course through the legislative machinery and overcome the forces of inertia and other obstacles. The Reorganization Act permits an alternative, or supplemental, way of approaching this problem, and it does so by clearly placing the responsibility for initiating improvements upon the President. In addition, it is an approach which provides ample safeguards for the rights of anyone who wishes to be heard for or against any particular proposed change.

The provisions of the present Reorganization Act have been developed over the past 25 years. While the early acts were experimental and did not always work too well, successive improvements have been made. Presidential initiation of organizational improvements subject

to congressional review was authorized by the Economy Act of 1932. Under it, the President could provide for certain reorganizations of executive agencies by Executive orders which had to lie before the Congress for 60 days subject to disapproval by a simple majority of either House of the Congress. Eleven Executive orders were subsequently transmitted to the Congress and all were disapproved. Several reasons existed for disapproval and the act proved to be unsatisfactory.

In the Economy Act of 1933 changes were made to strengthen the procedure. It was provided that Presidential orders making reorganizations would automatically take effect after lying before the Congress for 60 days. The Congress could not prevent such an order from taking effect except by enacting specific legislation. This arrangement swung the balance in the opposite direction, and made congressional prevention of a reorganization very difficult. The reorganization provisions of the Economy Act of 1933 were in effect until March 19, 1935, during which time 8 principal and over 15 subsidiary orders took effect and none was disapproved.

The cooperative executive-legislative approach to reorganization was revived and greatly improved by the enactment of the Reorganization Act of 1939. That act authorized reorganization plans as we know them today. Reorganization plans, prepared by the President, were transmitted to the Congress and became effective after 60 days unless disapproved by a concurrent resolution of both Houses of the Congress. This created a new and better balance between Presidential initiation and congressional review. Five reorganization plans were transmitted in 1939 and 1940 and all took effect.

During World War II, emergency powers were vested in the President to make wartime reorganizations by Executive order without congressional review. But after the war the Congress enacted the Reorganization Act of 1945 closely patterned after, and continuing the procedure of, the Reorganization Act of 1939. During the almost 221⁄2 years that the 1945 act was in effect, 7 reorganization plans were transmitted to the Congress; 4 became effective, and 3 were disapproved.

The concurrent-resolution procedure authorized by the 1939 and 1945 acts proved highly effective in those important prewar and postwar years. Those acts, however, contained a major defect which had been common in all the reorganization legislation up until that time; namely, they provided for the outright exemption of certain specified agencies and functions and the requirement for the special handling of others, thus preventing the application of the acts equally to all parts of the executive branch. Upon the recommendations of the President and the first Hoover Commission to make the reorganization-plan procedure comprehensive in its scope, the Reorganization Act of 1949 contained no such exemptions or limitations. This was a major improvement in reorganization legislation. Coupled with that improvement was a change in the disapproval procedure. The Reorganization Act of 1949 provides for congressional disapproval of a plan by the adoption of a resolution by a majority of the authorized membership of either House of the Congress. This is the so-called, one-House, constitutional-majority disapproval arrangement.

The period during which reorganization plans could be transmitted to the Congress under the Reorganization Act of 1949 was originally

scheduled to expire March 31, 1953, but it has been twice extended, and now expires at the close of this month.

The Reorganization Act has now emerged as a well developed and thoroughly tested measure contributing to keeping our Government well organized.

Great strides have been made since the Reorganization Act of 1949 became law on June 20, 1949. Fifty-six reorganization plans have been transmitted to the Congress, and 41 have become effective. Fifteen reorganization plans were transmitted during the past 4 years, and 12 were permitted to take effect. Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1957 is now pending before the Congress. Examples of some of the important plans of recent years include transforming the Federal Security Agency into the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; strengthening the organization of the Departments of Defense and Agriculture; reorganizing executive agencies for the conduct of foreign affairs; and improving the organization of defense mobilization functions.

Taking the broadest view, since the first Reorganization Act of 1939 became law virtually the entire structure of the executive branch has been reshaped by changes made under the cooperative Presidential-congressional approach embodied in the Reorganization Acts. Every agency in the Executive Office of the President has had its organization affected by actions under the Reorganization Acts. Every executive department has benefited from organizational adjustments made by reorganization plans; likewise, the Civil Service Commission, the Housing and Home Finance Agency, and many of the other major independent agencies have been reorganized. Viewed thus, the reorganization plan is a vital instrument for keeping our governmental house in order. One group, the President's Advisory Committee on Management, said this in 1952:

We therefore think there is good reason to regard the invention and acceptance of this tool for reorganization as the greatest single enabling step toward management improvement in the Federal Government in this generation (report to the President, December 1952, p. 6)..

The Reorganization Act of 1949 was enacted following the strong recommendation of the first Hoover Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government that the President be given authority to prepare and transmit plans of reorganization to the Congress. The Commission stated:

This authority is necessary if the machinery of Government is to be made adaptable to the ever changing requirements of administration, and if efficiency is to become a continuing rather than a sporadic concern of the Federal Government (pp. 8-9, concluding report).

The very first recommendation of the second Hoover Commission on December 31, 1954, was as follows:

As a result of unanimous vote at its meeting held on November 15, 1954, the Commission recommends to the Congress that the authority of the President to file reorganization plans, which expires on April 1, 1955, be extended (p. 22, progress report)

Thus, each of the two Hoover Commissions has urged that the reorganization-plan authority be continued as a means for attaining better Government organization.

It is my view that prompt extension of the period during which reorganization plans may be transmitted under the Reorganization

Act of 1949 is necessary in order that we may press forward with our continuing duty to improve the organization and management of the executive branch. We have come to know that reorganization cannot be done once for all time, but must be continuous to meet the ever changing needs of a dynamic Government.

For a quarter century, successive Congresses and Presidents of both political parties, by their actions under the several reorganization statutes, have demonstrated their firm belief that legislation, such as the Reorganization Act of 1949, is desirable to continue the cooperative efforts of both the executive and the legislature to bring to the American people the efficient, economical, and effective Government which is their right.

I recommend that the Congress continue the availability of the provisions of the Reorganization Act.

Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Fascell, any questions?

Mr. FASCELL. I have no questions.

Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Brooks.

Mr. BROOKS. Mr. McCormack, I want to thank you for according me the privilege of asking a question or two. I had occasion yesterday to visit with the distinguished Mr. Brundage and at that time, as I recall, you were in favor of the item veto privilege for the President. of the United States.

Mr. BRUNDAGE. That is correct; yes.

Mr. BROOKS. Feeling that was not going to give him the power to legislate and, according to your testimony, would not deter and actually stop, or circumvent the expressed intention of Congress? Mr. BRUNDAGE. That is my impression; yes, sir.

Mr. BROOKS. You are now here defending a reorganization plan. which by its nature enables the President to inaugurate legislation. which must be passed either completely or not; is that correct?

Mr. BRUNDAGE. It gives the Congress the veto power on each. proposal; yes.

Mr. BROOKS. Proposal as a unit, not for amendment. You cannot amend the reorganization plans; can you? A separate plan is a pretty extensive piece of legislation; is it not?

Mr. BRUNDAGE. Well, it is not a money bill.

Mr. BROOKS. It is legislation.

Mr. BRUNDAGE. It is legislation; yes.

Mr. BROOKS. Don't you think this is a direct violation of the constitutional provision that the Congress is supposed to legislate and the executive branch is supposed to sign it or veto it?

Mr. BRUNDAGE. No, sir; I certainly don't. It seems to me there

isn't the slightest inconsistency with my feeling

累

Mr. BROOKS. Don't you think with an item veto, if you got that

one through and got a reorganization plan through, you would then be in a position to handle the appropriation matters and for some other body down there to write reorganization plans covering all the legislation and we could just do away with Congress. Mr. BRUNDAGE. I don't think so at all.

Mr. BROOKS. I share your feeling, understand.

Mr. BRUNDAGE. As I tried to explain yesterday, the item veto is: merely breaking bills down into their constituent parts. We could send up to Congress 200 or 1,000 bills, instead of 12 or 15, and you could combine them or break them up just as you do now and this is in

effect giving the President the power to break it down into its constituent parts.

It seems to me a reorganization plan is an item in itself, it is a legislative item and you have the power to reject it if you don't like it. Mr. BROOKS. In toto and not to amend it.

Mr. BRUNDAGE. That is right.

Mr. BROOKS. Which makes considerable difference; don't you think? Would you be willing for us to be able to amend the reorganization plan?

Mr. BRUNDAGE. It seems to me there is a very essential difference there between an item veto on an appropriation bill, which deals with dollars for a purpose, and a reorganization plan which is presented by the Executive which is charged with the responsibility of carrying out the will of Congress and present a plan which the Executive thinks will enable a more efficient and more effective carrying out of the plan.

It seems to me that any proposal of the Executive is a single item, it is a single proposal that may have some ramifications, but it is a single proposal to accomplish a single purpose. I can't see the connection.

Mr. BROOKS. Wouldn't you think that both the Republicans and Democrats in Congress have that same ambition, to see that the country is run well and efficiently? Assuming that, you agree on that?

Mr. BRUNDAGE. I certainly do.

Mr. BROOKS. Wouldn't you think that the Republicans and the Democrats in Congress might occasionally-now I wouldn't want you to go overboard on this, but might occasionally contribute something in the way of legislation that would be helpful, even to a recommendation presented by a given administration, in the form of an amendment to one of these reorganization plans. Do you think that is conceivable?

Mr. BRUNDAGE. I do; yes.

Mr. BROOKS. Do you think it would be desirable?

Mr. BRUNDAGE. However, in order to be a part of the coordinated approach, I think they ought to have all the background and the purposes in mind which they would not have if they presented an amendment, necessarily-they could present the amendment to the plan and pass it without even having heard the executive branch. on it.

Mr. BROOKS. Well that is not very likely, I wouldn't think. But the question is, Do you think that a reorganization plan submitted by an administration-any administration-should be eligible to be amended by the Congress of the United States, elected by the people, to pass the legislation under which this country operates? That is the question. The answer should be yes or no.

Mr. BRUNDAGE. I don't think it would be as good as the present plan, the present legislation which is recommended by the Hoover Commission. I think this gives better effect to the desire to improve the executive branch.

Mr. BROOKS. Don't you think this reflects a lack of faith in the Congress of the United States' ability to make a constructive amendment to any proposed reorganization plan?

Mr. BRUNDAGE. No; I don't. I don't think so, at all.

Mr. BROOKS. You think we should just accept them or reject them? Mr. BRUNDAGE. I think this type of plan of reorganization-you