must not cut off from sight the true purpose of efficient management. Economy is not the only objective, though reorganization is the first step to savings; the elimination of duplication and contradictory policies is not the only objective, though the new organization will be simple and symmetrical; ... Better business methods and fiscal controls are not the only objectives, though these too are demanded. There is but one grand purpose, namely, to make democracy work today in our National Government; that is, to make our Government an up-todate, efficient and effective instrument for carrying out the will of the Nation."

EXHIBIT 31

STATEMENT OF HON. M. GENE SNYDER, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE FOURTH DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to appear here today and testify in favor of S. 47 which I notice is sponsored by over one-third of the members of the Senate.

In the course of my testimony, I would like to draw your attention to H.R. 11385, sponsored by 25 members of the House, which is the maximum permitted under House Rules-and numerous other identical bills to H.R. 11385. While I am here to give my unqualified support to S. 47, I do believe that there are some additions which this committee could make to S. 47 which would make it an even better piece of legislation—and these additions I have attempted to incorporate in H.R. 11385.

Before going into any detail in regard to the need for this type of legislation, or pointing up the differences between S. 47 and H.R. 11385, I would like to call the Committee's attention to what I believe is a little contradictory language in S. 47 and which this Committee no doubt will desire to "clean up" before reporting any legislation. Section 3(a) of your bill provides for the number and appointment of the ten members of the proposed commission. The membership of the commission is limited to these ten. A total of six of these are from private life, two from the Senate and two from the House. Section 6(b) makes reference to members of the commission from the Executive Branch of the Government, and, as indicated, Section 3 (a) does not provide for any members from the Executive Branch of the Government. I believe that Section 6(b) should be eliminated from your draft if the composition of the commission, as set out in Section 3 (a) remains the same. If, of course, Section 3(a) is changed to provide for appointment of members from the Executive Branch of the Government, then certainly Section 6(b) would be proper.

Sponsorship of the legislation which you have before you indicates that this legislation is bi-partisan in nature. Not only does it cross political lines, but it also crosses philosophical lines.

Whether you are "for" or "against" a tax increase whether you are "for" or "against" the War on Poverty-whether you are "for" or "against" the War on Crime-whether you are "for" or "against" the War in Vietnam-whether you are "for" or "against" the Great Society programs in general-we in the Congress do have all of these matters to cope with. The American taxpayer is paying the bill for government or having it added to his debt.

Some of the Members of Congress during the recent recess went to the battlefields of Vietnam, while others of us evidencing, I think, a little more courage, went home and faced our constituents. I have not talked to anyone in the Congress who does not feel that our people are very much concerned and troubled about most of the major problems that confront our country. Some of them, as Members of Congress, we can't do much about. Others we can—and I think that one of the matters that most concerns our people in light of a potential tax increase is whether or not the money being collected by taxes is being wisely spent. H.R. 11385, which is similar to S. 47, is entitled "A War on Waste" and this is one of the improvements I think the House bill has-from a psychological standpoint-over S. 47. With your permission I would like to refer to S. 47 as the War on Waste, even though it does not have that title. The Great Society programs have declared war on many of the problems that face America-the degree of success with which they have met is a matter which can be and will be argued daily by partisans. But I think Congressional responsibility must now be directed toward relieving the American taxpayer from any irresponsible spending that may be going on in government-and we know, with the government being the

size that it is-with revelations by Members of both of the bodies of the Congress in recent months that there is irresponsible spending. We need to attempt to direct our attention, too, toward seeking relief for the taxpayer from red tape and duplication that encumbers most of government and draws from our resources and in many instances tends to cause the confidence of the taxpayer in his country and in those who represent him to be gravely weakened. While I have suggested that you might give S. 47 a title, I also would suggest that you name your commission as the "Commission for the Elimination of Duplication and Waste" or some other similarly significant title which you think may better represent the duties and responsibilities as outlined on Page 2 of S. 47.

I think the Congress, too, must recognize the need and assume the leadership for more responsible financial policies at every level of government, not just at the Executive level and, for this reason, H.R. 11385 differs from S. 47 in that the commission's study would also include the Legislative Branch of Government as well as the Executive Branch.

Let us not leave ourselves in the Legislative Branch vulnerable to the customary onslaught of the press and news media that we in the Congress want to clean up everybody else's house but our own. Let us get on with the job of building in the minds of the American people the truth about the Congress and that is that the vast majority of those who serve here, of both political parties and of various shades of political belief do so with a fixed purpose of mind-to do what is right, to be honest, and to prosecute government in the most efficient manner possible. I think most, if not all, programs initiated by the Federal Government, whether under this administration or under previous administrations, began as relatively attractive ideas. To say that all of us wish to encourage the American dream is by now a hackneyed cliche—but the time has come when we must face the realization that in seeking to further that dream, we may instead have undermined those invaluable American qualities of individual initiative, private enterprise, and faith in representative government. The legislation before us, if prosecuted after enactment to its maximum would do much to re-establish these invaluable qualities.

The people of my home state must live with the burdens of a local property tax, a state sales tax, a state income tax, local occupational taxes and last but not least, federal income taxes. I think this is true in most states. Our General Assembly, now in session, may find it necessary to impose additional taxes or to increase existing taxes-while we in the Congres must likewise face the question of a tax increase in the near future. Duplication in government is evident in so many places and I think that it necessary follows that duplication normally is responsible for waste. If we look at the catalogue of public assistance programs put out by the government, a book about the size of the Washington telephone directory, which outlines 459 separate programs and bear in mind that this catalogue is merely an index of the programs, we will find that almost all of those are duplicates of other programs appearing within that same catalogue. We know that grants-in-aid are available for the same type of program from several Federal sources. In many instances I find that local authorities are confused as to which Federal program to apply for and quite often apply for several for the same project.

The question is not whether or not we have the courage to admit that we have allowed spending to get a little out of hand and that we have avoided the task of organizing government so that it can work effectively at minimum costfor the answer to this is obvious to the taxpaying public. The question is are we going to let it go on and on until the American people turn in utter disgust, not just from a single politician, but from the whole improvident structure the Federal government is fast becoming.

The declaration of war on waste and duplication in government is one which the Congress should declare now. And let us not give the public the idea that we do not intended to wage this war in earnest. In this connection, I would suggest that you give consideration to the possibility of giving the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate some direction in the selection of the Members of Congress who would serve on the commission as we have done in the House bill heretofore mentioned. I would commend the idea expressed in that bill to your consideration, that is, that the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate should endeavor to select those who have been most outspoken in their criticism of waste and duplication in government. I would also call to your attention what I believe to be an additional help toward accomplishing the goals of S. 47 and that is the fact that the commission established shall, in

addition to the reports filed with the Congress generally every 90 days, shall also direct copies of that report directly to the Chairmen of the Committees on Appropriations in both the House and Senate with any additional comments and/or recommendations regarding possible immediate action by said Committee which the commission might deem appropriate.

Again, let me thank you for the opportunity to appear here. And I want to point out that the suggestions I have made are not to be considered as any criticism whatsoever of S. 47; I support it if you decide not to change a single word and I support it without any known reservation at this time—and that is the main purpose for which I appeared here today. But I do ask that you consider the differences between S. 47 and H.R. 11385 in your consideration of this legislation.

(Whereupon at 10:45 a.m. the subcommittee adjourned subject to the call of the Chair.)

ESTABLISH A COMMISSION TO STUDY THE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF THE GOVERNMENT

THURSDAY, APRIL 4, 1968

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EXECUTIVE REORGANIZATION,
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room 1318, New Senate Office Building, Senator Abraham Ribicoff (chairman) presiding.

Present: Senator Ribicoff.

Also present: Paul Danaceau, staff director; Robert Wager, general counsel; E. F. Behrens, minority consultant; and Pamela Gell, chief clerk.

Senator RIBICOFF. The subcommittee will be in order.

Today I am inserting in the record excerpts from the Godkin Lectures delivered by McGeorge Bundy at Harvard University last month. They will be published in the fall under the title "To Govern for Freedom," but I am including them at this point because Mr. Bundy excellently presents several ideas which a commission on the reorganization of the executive branch should consider. He points out that a strong Federal Government, rather than limiting individual freedom, is necessary to promote this freedom. Further, he concurs in the belief we have expressed here many times that the Federal Government today lacks the capacity for sustained and coordinated action on the problems facing it. Mr. Bundy makes a number of constructive proposals to remedy this situation which deserve the attention of the Commission when it is formed.

I am also inserting in the record an article by Walter W. Heller, former Chairman of the Council of Economic Adviser, entitled "Getting Ready for Peace," from the April, 1968, issue of Harper's Magazine. This will be one of the main issues facing the Commission, and Mr. Heller's article sheds valuable light on it. In particular, he discusses the need for priorities in our programs.

(The excerpts and articles follow:)

EXHIBIT 32

"To GOVERN FOR FREEDOM"

[Excerpt from the first of three Godkin Lectures given at Harvard University by McGeorge Bundy, president, Ford Foundation, Mar. 11, 1968]

The more we learn about problems of race and poverty the more we feel the force of two great contrasting propositions: the first is that these problems are enormously complex and deep-rooted-and the second is that they can be solved.

277