Page images
PDF
EPUB

should be improved. That ties back on the fiscal side to the recommendations that we already have made on the accounting and auditing side, to the recommendations that we already have discussed here, to the Auditor General and accounting; it would tie in on the other side of the fiscal affairs with the work of the Bureau of the Budget by special committees of the Congress which would follow that work and we have also suggested special committees of Congress to follow the work of the personnel management and the planning management features.

I would be very glad, if you desire to ask me questions now, to try to answer them, or shall I call on the other members of the President's committee to supplement these statements?

The CHAIRMAN. I think the committee would desire to question

you.

Mr. BROWNLOW. At the proper time I would like Mr. Gulick to make a statement.

The CHAIRMAN. May I ask you, how is the number of necessary executive aides, that is, assistants to the Chief Executive, arrived at? Mr. BROWNLOW. Well, that is not a precise number, and indeed our report said "these assistants probably not exceeding six in number." The CHAIRMAN. How is six arrived at?

Mr. BROWNLOW. We arrived at that by looking over the different types of administrative work in the Government, where we thought a man of the type that we have described would be useful. One, for instance, might handle foreign affairs, one fiscal affairs, one matters dealing with the economic work functionally, one would be a liaison officer, no matter what department it was in, with the personnel, and one with the planning.

Representative TABER. In other words, they would be split somewhat along the line of the split of the administrative functions into departments?

Mr. BROWNLOW. Well, they would be split, Mr. Taber, functionally and not in the way the departments were organized. For instance now, if something comes from the State Department with respect to foreign affairs, there ought to be some machinery for checking that_recommendation with, let us say, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Labor which has the immigration and naturalization.

Representative TABER. Could not that have been done before it is submitted by the State Department? Now, I am going to project this idea first: Does not the result of this administrative set-up look just about like this: It breaks the direct connection of the departments represented and presided over by Secretaries in the Cabinet, and does not that kind of a set-up destroy the present efficiency of the Executive resulting from the Cabinet meetings and the direct contact between these officers and the Executive?

Mr. BROWNLOW. Not in our concept, Mr. Taber. We have stated here that these men are not to be assistants, they are not to be between the Cabinet and the President, they are to facilitate the work. We have one at the White House, we have had one there for years who has been doing that kind of work, but there is too much work for him. Rudolph Forster is the type of man, for instance, and that is the type of work.

Senator TOWNSEND. What authority would these men have?

Mr. BROWNLOW. None, whatever. They could not make any decision, or anything else. They would be high-class, intelligent administrative aides, such as the president or the general manager of almost any business corporation has near him.

Senator O'MAHONEY. What is the particular kind of work that needs to be done by these executive aides which is not being done? Mr. BROWNLOW. Well, one thing is that sometimes now when they report directly to the President

Senator O'MAHONEY (interrupting). When who reports directly? Mr. BROWNLOW. Any one of these 100 agencies. They have to get to the President. There ought to be somebody there, when they send over things, who would brief the matters for the President.

Senator O'MAHONEY. When the head of an agency sends over something he ought to see a subordinate and not the President; is that your suggestion?

Mr. BROWNLOW. No; he sees the President. The President can act on it, but if the President wants additional information on it he ought to have somebody there that can look it up for him.

In answer to Mr. Taber's question, sometimes, of course, a department makes a recommendation and does not know that some other department is at work on the same thing.

Senator MCNARY. Doctor, how did your committee reach the conclusion that we need two additional departments of government? Mr. BROWNLOW. On the ground that we believe that all of these agencies should report through a department head, for coordination. Senator MCNARY. Following that idea of the expansion of the Government as expressed by two additional departments, do you propose to indicate to this committee what agencies and divisions should be in each one of these 12 departments?

Mr. BROWNLOW. No more than we have in this report.

Senator MCNARY. I find it very indefinite, very illusory. It is not even suggestive of what I think you must have had in mind when you suggested the expansion of the administrative and departmental agencies of the Government.

Mr. BROWNLOW. Senator, if I may answer that, we did not go into the operation of the particular bureaus, as I said, but if you look over the whole range of activities in the Government there were certain ones, and certain very large ones, that did not seem to fit into a general description of a department, and so we suggested a Department of Welfare and a Department of Works. Now, in the Department of Welfare, of course, which has been talked about for a long time, there are such things as indicated here, such things as health, for instance. The principal health activities are now in the Treasury Department, and general educational activities are now in the Interior Department. It is to conduct research in this field, to administer Federal grants, for such purposes; to protect the consumer. Now, there are consumer activities in three different departments, Labor, Agriculture, and Commerce, and if there is a unification perhaps it should be in this department. There is very grave reason for doubting if a consumer-protection unit should be associated with either Commerce, Agriculture, or Labor, for obvious reasons-they are primarily engaged in producer protection.

Senator O'MAHONEY. Is your fundamental concept that the Government establishment is bound to expand further, bound to grow

further, or is your fundamental concept that the Government establishment ought to be reduced?

Mr. BROWNLOW. Our fundamental concept is here, that we have attempted to set up what would be an efficient overhead managerial system for the Government as it is now.

Senator MCNARY. Well, to follow up that question, you do not anywhere propose any retrenchments or lessening of the costs of government, do you?

Mr. BROWNLOW. We believe that the organization itself would have some effect in economy, but we were not concerned with policy, we would not undertake to substitute our judgment for that of the Congress and of the President with respect to continuation, or the diminution, or the expansion of any activity.

We have attempted to set out here in the conclusions-if I may just read three paragraphs here:

In order to avoid any misunderstandings, it must be made perfectly clear that it was not the task of this committee to determine whether particular activities of the Government should or should not continue in operation or upon what scale of magnitude. This is an important question of policy determination which fell outside the field of our undertaking. It has been our problem to consider what forms of administrative management are most suitable, given such governmental activities as there are. As the work of the Government changes, the form of management will also alter somewhat, although not greatly unless the changes are considerable.

It will be noted that we have made no estimate of the amount of money that will be saved by such a rearrangement and reorganization of the executive branch as we have suggested. We have not made such an estimate for two reasons, despite the fact that we are convinced that the establishment of the managerial agencies and the reorganization of the administrative departments that we have recommended will result in large savings, not only of money but of time and effort.

The two reasons that we have not made such an estimate are as follows: First. The scope of our inquiry was limited to the realm of administrative management and excluded the realm of policy. It would have been easy to say that so much might be saved by utterly abolishing this, that, or the other activity of the Government. But this was not our task. We have been charged with the duty of suggesting means of making more effective, more efficient, and more economical the machinery for administering whatever activities have been decided upon by the people, the Congress, and the President.

Second. It has been demonstrated over and over again in large organizations of every type in business and in government that genuine savings in operation and true economies are to be achieved only by the provision of managerial machinery which will afford an opportunity for central executive direction to pursue day after day and year after year, in season and out of season, the task of cutting costs, of improving the service, and of raising the standards of performance.

Senator MCNARY. Doctor, that is very clear. I am quite familiar with the paragraph. I am speaking of the enlargement of the governmental structure by adding two departments. Did you get any estimate at all on the additional cost that would be necessary by reason of that proposal?

Mr. BROWNLOW. No, sir; I have not. My own opinion, of course, would be it would mean a reduction in costs.

Senator TOWNSEND. Doctor, have you outlined in a bill or memorandum how to carry out your recommendations?

Mr. BROWNLOW. Yes, Senator. We wrote this report and then in order to see how it would look carried in legislative language, we drafted a bill, in the first place, to check ourselves, and in the second place, if it was called on by anybody that wanted to consider this,

to look at it in its legislative form, that there would be something there upon which operations might be based, or performed, as the case might be.

Senator TOWNSEND. Have you copies of that bill so that the committee might have an opportunity to study it?

Mr. BROWNLOW. I have two or three copies with me. If the committee desires them I would be glad to send them copies.

Senator TOWNSEND. I would like to see one very much.

Representative WARREN. Is this the bill you refer to [indicating]? Mr. BROWNLOW. Yes.

Representative COCHRAN. Mr. Brownlow, is it your viewpoint that it would be advisable for the Congress to pass to the President unlimited power to do all these things that you suggest, with no veto power for the Congress and no limitation in the time that it should be accomplished?

Mr. BROWNLOW. The answer to that question depends somewhat upon the definition of the term "unlimited." It is our recommendation that the Congress give the broad power of the management of the organization to the President.

Answering the third phase of your question last, whether or not there should be a time limit placed upon the President, that is, 1 or 2 years, or something, we do not agree with that, as to the time limit, because, in our opinion, this is a continuing process. The executive branch of the Government and its work is dynamic. If the Archangel Michael could come down and arrange it perfectly by the 1st day of March 1937 by the 1st day of March 1938 you would need another Archangel to come down and adjust it. That is the reason for our recommendation. It is a continuing process.

Now, with respect to the so-called congressional veto, it has been our idea, which is expressed here, I do not recall for the moment how clearly, that with the increased machinery for the accountability of the Executive to Congress by an improved auditing system, and with the opportunity that the Congress has annually to review the entire executive establishment in connection with the Budget, that it would give the Congress a power to check the Executive on those occasions. The history of those two things is that under the Hoover administration either House acting independently could suspend the Executive order, and then under the act of 1933 it required joint action, which meant, of course, that if the President did not agree it required two-thirds vote by both Houses. We thought by bringing it back in this general way, in the budgetary procedure annually, the Congress would have, by majority vote, unless the President wanted to veto an entire appropriation bill, adequate control. That is our opinion, Mr. Cochran.

Representative COCHRAN. The power that you suggest be given to the President would enable him, if he so desired, to abolish, say, the Federal Trade Commission, the Tariff Commission, the Communications Commission, or any other independent agency that is now set up in the executive branch of the service, would it not? I seek information.

Mr. BROWNLOW. Well, he might. In fact I think he did abolish two such organizations under the last plan, the Farm Loan Board and the Shipping Board, therefore it has not been limited, but he could not abolish a function for which an appropriation is made.

Representative COCHRAN. He could abolish the Board and place an individual in charge. In some cases that would be sound, in others just the opposite.

Mr. BROWNLOW. Was not the setting up of a single commissioner under Executive order?

Senator MCNARY. You were speaking of the Farm Board that was abolished, but some of its activities were sent to the Farm Credit. Mr. BROWNLOW. The Farm Credit organization was set up by Executive order.

Senator MCNARY. Whatever was done, was done by the Congress. Senator BARKLEY. Before the Congress passed the Farm Credit Act the President, by Executive order, created the Farm Credit Administration as a substitute for the Farm Board, and set up the organization.

Senator MCNARY. We repealed the act creating the old Farm Board.

Mr. BROWNLOW. In my opinion, if you gave the President this power, it would require 2 or 3 years for even the best organization that he could get in the Research Division of the Budget to complete this reorganization. In the meantime you will see in our report that we recommend that there be continuing committees of Congress also at work on the problem. Now, the decision should be by the Executive, but I think there could be very useful work done by the congressional committees.

Representative TABER. Now, did you have in mind, when you referred to the commission or board, a definite idea of how the departments should be set up when such a law as you suggested is passed?

Mr. BROWNLOW. We had a definite idea of how each of the 12 departments should be set up. We did not have a definite idea of how these particular things could be placed in particular departments, and we have said we do not believe that can be done without much further study and without much further research.

Representative TABER. Would not you think that in submitting a program for the creation of new departments, and the setting up of particular departments, that we should have in front of us the particular functions of each department to build on?

Mr. BROWNLOW. Well, I think we have set out here the functions, but not the particular agencies. I started a while ago, and was interrupted, to complete the department of welfare, for instance. You have there the activities relating to public health, education, consumer agencies, the Veterans' Bureau, the eleemosynary institutions, the probation and parole; even if there had been no relief, if relief is to be stopped, you still have, and have had for 25 years, a very, very large number of activities which have been fitted into departments, that have either been independent or fitted into departments where they did not belong such as the health service in the Treasury, for instance, and just as recommendations were made, as far back as 1920 or 1921 for the department of welfare and department of works, at that time there were in the Governmentso it was held at that time-a sufficient number of these organizations that would be better administered if they were gathered together under departments where there was some functional kinship with respect to welfare and work.

« PreviousContinue »