Page images

other things undoubtedly will come up in consideration by the committee that require a perfection in the draft even to carry out our recommendations in the report.

Representative TABER. I am going to suggest this for the consideration of the committee: It is exceedingly difficult with just that situation for an ordinary Member of Congress to tell just what he is shooting at, and I do not know but what it might be a good thing, if these gentlemen would do so, for them to have prepared a draft which would conform to their ideas, because, if the report says one thing and the bill that they have brought to our attention says another thing, it is rather hard for us to tell just what they are shooting at.

Mr. BROWNLOW. Some of those things have already been considered, and some of them were brought to our attention by Colonel Wren's memorandum. We would be very glad to do that, or we would be very glad to have in the draftsman who helped us with this bill an experienced man.

The CHAIRMAN. It may develop during the further hearings of the President's committee that there are other features of the bill that do not conform to the intent of the committee, and I think that a little later it would be well for the President's committee to revise its draft so as to take cognizance of the suggestions that have been made and of the errors that are in the tentative draft so that the committee may have a draft that will reflect the conclusions of the President's committee. I think your suggestion is well worth consideration so far as I am concerned.

Representative ROBINSON. Mr. Chairman, I cannot follow that suggestion. It seems to me that if we get the ideas of the members of this committee and understand wherein they differ from this bill we ought to be able to draft it.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, whatever bill is reported, of course, we will have the advantage of their suggestions in concrete form.

Representative ROBINSON. I am not suggesting, nor is Mr. Taber, that the committee at this juncture adopt any particular bill, but the idea is—and I think it a good one—to have a draft that will reflect the true intent of the report. It has been disclosed that in some particulars the draft we have does not do that.

Mr. BROWNLOW. In some places, as Colonel Wren has pointed out, the draft bill is not clear, and some amendments might be made merely for the purpose of clarifying it.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; a draft that would embody your intentions accurately would be helpful in the further studies of the committee, but one that is not in conformity to the purpose of the President's committee in important particulars would not be very advantageous.

Senator O'MAHONEY. Certainly the President's committee ought to indicate, as the hearings progress, those features of the bill as presented with which they no longer agree.

The CHAIRMAN. If there is no objection, the committee will stand adjourned until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning, when the hearings will be resumed at this place.




Washington, D.C. The joint committee met, Senator Robinson presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will please come to order. Is it the desire to continue the examination of Mr. Gulick, or shall we hear from Mr. Merriam this morning ?

Senator BYRD. Senator, I would like to ask Mr. Gulick a few questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Certainly. Proceed.

Senator BYRD. I want to refer to the testimony that Mr. Gulick gave yesterday, on page 139 of the record. I want to repeat what he then said. (Reading:]

Yesterday Senator Byrd referred to the fact that the Treasury Department now is a large spending department, and to that extent the Treasury tends to get spending-minded. He is right about that. That is one of the reasons why we suggest that there should be moved out of the Treasury particularly such services as the Health Service, which represents a spending service that does not belong there and which tends to influence the psychology of that Department. The Department must be built up as a brake on spending

And so forth.

Now, I want to ask Mr. Gulick to tell the committee exactly what activities it is intended to remove from the Treasury Department. The present activities in the Treasury Department are the Bureau of Customs. Would that remain?


Mr. GULICK. That would remain.
Senator BYRD. The Bureau of Engraving and Printing?

Mr. GULICK. That would remain, unless possibly there were a reorganization of the whole printing arrangement so that printing and engraving might be tied in with the Government Printing Office in some way.

Senator BYRD. The Bureau of Internal Revenue!
Mr. GULICK. That would remain.
Senator BYRD. The Bureau of Narcotics?

Mr. GULICK. That would probably remain, because the enforcement feature there is said to be primarily connected with the revenue, but I think there is some doubt as to the propriety of keeping it there.

Senator BYRD. The Bureau of the Mint ?
Mr. GULICK. That would probably remain
Senator BYRD. The Public Health Service would be removed ?
Mr. GULICK. That would go out.
Senator BYRD. The Federal Alcohol Administration?

Mr. GULICK. As you know, that has been taken out as it stands now.

Senator HARRISON. That is set up as an independent organization, is it not?

Mr. GULICK. That is set up as an independent organization.

Senator BYRD. The office of the Commission of Accounts and Deposits?

Mr. GULICK. That would, of course, remain.
Senator BYRD. The office of the Commission of Public Debt?
Mr. GULICK. That would remain.
Senator BYRD. The office of the Comptroller of the Currency?
Mr. GULICK. That would remain.

Senator BYRD. The Office of the Treasurer, of course, would remain ?

Mr. GULICK. Would remain.
Senator BYRD. The Procurement Division?

Mr. GULICK. That might be split; that is, if the Department of Public Works is created the part of it dealing with construction of buildings, and so forth, might very well be carried to the Department of Public Works, after investigation. As you know, in the procurement work the work is actually split at the present time. There is a division that works on office supplies, and so forth, and another division on construction.

Senator BYRD. The Secret Service Division?

Mr. GULICK. The Secret Service Division would probably remain, though there is a question of whether it would be possible, after investigation, to bring the secret-service groups more closely together.

Senator HARRISON. Well, they do not have jurisdiction of all the Secret Service, do they!

Mr. GULICK. No, sir.

Senator HARRISON. They have it just for that particular Department.

Mr. GULICK. Also the White House group. It is really for their department, that is true.

Senator BYRD. The United States Coast Guard division?

Mr. GULICK. It is not certain where that ought to be. It could stay there or it might be found, with the reorganization of the naval services, and so forth, that it would be better to bring them together.

Now, on all of these question may I say this: While I have gone down the list, to be as helpful as I could in answer to the Senator's questions, we have not made a detailed kind of study of overlapping and duplication of these agencies of the Government, whether they are in the Treasury or elsewhere, in order to determine where the proper final location should be.

Senator BYRD. You specifically stated, though, that this particular Department, because of the fact it has the audit control, that spending should be eliminated from this. I assume, therefore, that you have investigated certainly this particular Department.

Mr. GULICK. It does not require detailed investigation of the activities, or the determination of their proper assignment, to reach the conclusion which is well known on the basis of American business and fiscal practice, that finance departments should, as far as possible, be limited to the inherent functions of fiscal control, and everything else should be taken out, insofar as it can be done.

The CHAIRMAN. Your plan—that is, the plan of the President's committee-provides the framework and vests in the Chief Executive the authority to make the allocations with respect to all these forms of activity?

Mr. GULICK. That is so.

The CHAIRMAN. You did not go into the subject with a view to determining just where all these activities should be settled ?

Mr. GULICK. That is correct.
The CHAIRMAN. That is, in what bureau they should be settled!
Mr. GULICK. That is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. Your plan is to provide the general framework and bring them all within a certain number of organizations so as to make possible better administration?

Mr. GULICK. That is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. In expressing your opinion, in your answers to Senator Byrd's questions, you are expressing your opinion as to what would be the logical allocation of these services?

Mr. GULICK. What might be the logical allocation. It would depend, however, on a detailed examination. The committee, as such, has no opinion with reference to the specific location of the activities.

The CHAIRMAN. If there were to be legislation determining just where each form of activity-administrative activity-should be placed, under what supervision it should be, your committee would want to make, I assume, a study of that before you would feel, ready to pass finally upon all questions that might be asked in that particular?

Mr. GULICK. Not only that, Senator, but we would hold, on the basis of what we have seen already, that it would be utterly impossible for any body of men to sit down and within a reasonable period of months settle all of the problems of the future allocation of activities.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, how long would it require, in your opinion, your committee to reach conclusions as to those problems?

Mr. GULICK. Well, a preliminary determination might be made in 2 or 3 years of work. It is a colossal job.

The CHAIRMAN. How long would it take to reach a final conclusion?

Mr. GULICK. You never could reach a final conclusion that would be permanently satisfactory.

The CHAIRMAN. I understand; but as to the activities now in progress, as to the work now going on, you would not say it would take 2 years to work out plans of that nature ?

Mr. GULICK. Well, Mr. Chairman, you take, just as an illustration, the problem as between the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture on the allocation of forestry; I am satisfied that no man could reach a decision at any future time that would be at all satisfactory, without a detailed examination in the field throughout this country of the work that is being carried on in connection with the forestry work, scientific work, and administrative work. You cannot settle a problem of that sort.

The CHAIRMAN. There would probably be no unanimous concurrence of opinion on the subject after you spent years?

Mr. GULICK. I imagine that is true.

The CHAIRMAN. Because the controversy has been in progress almost since the creation of the services referred to.

Mr. GULICK. That is correct.

Senator TOWNSEND. You do recommend, however, that the Department of the Interior be abolished, do you not ?

: Mr. GULICK. No, sir. · We change the name to Department of Conservation, and we do suggest that there are some of the activities in that Department that might very well be examined to see if they should not be transferred to the Department of Public Welfare.

Representative TABER. What about Indians ?

Mr. GULICK. We have no opinion as to where that should ultimately be. It would be something that might be considered, however.

Representative CoCHRAN. When you say it is necessary to make a field examination to finally determine just what should be done in reference to forestry and national parks, have you reached the conclusion that you cannot accept the views of the present administrative officers—that you would have to go out and get the information

yourself! 5 Mr. GULICK. The views of the administrative officers are diametri

cally opposed, and in that situation we are not satisfied to take the opinions of certain groups, nor are we satisfied that by just sitting and talking with them sufficient knowledge of the facts could be obtained to work out a suitable over-all plan.

Representative COCHRAN. Does not that same situation prevail in any Government agency that


seek to transfer or regroup with another agency?

Mr. GULICK. No; not necessarily. In some cases it is quite clear.

Representative COCHRAN. Your opinion, then, is not in keeping with my experience. Let me ask you one more question before you get away from this. Have you given any thought at all to the Division of Intelligence, in the Bureau of Internal Revenue, as to where that should be?

Mr. GULICK. We have regarded that. We recognize that it is a problem. We have felt, however, that our duty was to provide a general framework and to see that that general framework was adequate to cover the kind of things that were being done rather than to determine where each thing should go. That would require an intimate examination of the situation.

Representative COCHRAN. But you have decided so far that, as far as the Division of Intelligence is concerned, that is a problem. Why do you reach such a conclusion?

Mr. GULICK. That it is a problem?
Representative COCHRAN. Yes.

Mr. GULICK. Because you find intelligence divisions in several departments, and it is one of the desirable elements in effective management to eliminate overlapping, duplication, the very problem that Senator Byrd's committee is at work on.

Representative COCHRAN. I am not antagonistic, I am just getting information and probably giving you some real information.

Mr. GULICK. I know that.

Representative COCHRAN. It is clearly evident to me that you do not understand the operations of the Division of Intelligence or you would not make the statement that it is a problem. The Division of Intelligence of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, under an appro

« PreviousContinue »