the Interior, and without showing any degree of efficiency, or any economy is not the proper thing to do.

Mr. PURNELL. Well, would you oppose that whether the new President approved it, or whether Congress undertook it, or no matter what group did it?

Mr. WILSON. Yes; or unless different evidence is furnished, than what we have had up to date in our experience with it.

Mr. DRIVER. Is this not true, that the thought was ever present during the course of the preparation of the legislation adopting the present projects in the Mississippi River, as well as the initial execution that it was the desire of those most intimately concerned to have a board of civil engineers to take charge of that project and execute it. But that was turned down by the Congress, when they were advocating it and insisting upon it. And now the project is under way

Mr. WILSON. Yes; and a review is under way with an eminent civilian engineer selected by the War Department, in order to make that entire review of the project to be executed.

Now, here is a situation in respect to this also: This resolution disproves the recommendations.

We had hearings before our committee; and there were the representatives of practically every department coming up with objections to some feature of it. And it is impossible to get agreement upon it; and why is it not the practical thing to do to postpone it and take it up for further consideration at a time when we may be able to go into it with some one who can say where there will be efficiency and economy if it is put into effect?

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Wilson, if we ever do this job of saving approximately $500,000,000, will it not be necessary to make somebody a dictator and let him do the job?

Mr. WILSON. Well, we have got to get something different to what is proposed here if we are to do anything.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, we have several others who desire to speak, and the committee must adjourn at 12 o'clock.

Mr. WILSON. Yes. So that I will say, in conclusion, that I feel the only practical thing to do is to disapprove these recommendations. Mr. MARTIN. Would you have this resolution subject to amendment whereby, if 75 per cent of the order is good, we can retain that? Mr. WILSON. I have not found anyone yet who will say thatMr. Cox (interposing). Well, do you hope to find anyone who will approve it if you consult those who are affected?

Mr. WILSON. NO; I think the practical thing to do is to disapprove it; because it should not go into effect; and then take it up for further study later on, and if we can find any efficiency and economy we can act on it.

Mr. MARTIN. Then, in 10 years we will be in the same place we

are now.

Mr. DRIVER. Then, would you have any objection to the transfer or the coordination of activity as suggested, when the projects to which you have referred have been completed?

Mr. WILSON. Not on the

Mr. DRIVER (interposing). I do not mean with regard to this resolution; but I mean generally speaking with regard to a reorganization: Would you personally have any objection, or would those

friendly to the execution of these projects now in course of demonstration, have any objection to a change when those projects are completed?

Mr. WILSON. I will be glad to take that up for further study.
Mr. RANSLEY. Would that not be objecting to the personnel!

Mr. WILSON. Yes; I would object to the personnel being changed. You have got an efficient personnel, that are carrying on the work now, and they should not be changed.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Wilson, for your statement.

I am going to confine our hearings to the resolution, which is House Resolution 350, providing that "upon the adoption of this resolution, the House shall consider H. Res. 334," which is the resolution disapproving the recommendation of the President.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN H. OVERTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA

Mr. OVERTON. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I will detain you only a moment or two. I shall begin by saying that I agree with the chairman that before any plan or reorganization and consolidation and regrouping of the various activities of the Federal Government can ever be inaugurated it will have to be done through the personal influence of some sort of dictatorship. I do not think a bill that would undertake to coordinate all the various agencies, such as contemplated in the various orders that have been issued by the President, would get through the Congress.

My objection to this plan, Mr. Chairman, is not predicated upon any consideration of the merits or demerits of the various orders that have been issued by the President. But it is this:

We have a plan or coordination and grouping that has been conceived in its preliminary stages by an outgoing administration that would have no opportunity whatsoever to carry that plan into effect. It is admittedly but a preliminary step toward effecting that plan. It will be turned over to an incoming administration.

Now, that incoming administration may have entirely different views in reference to what would be a proper and an adequate plan of coordination and grouping of the various activities of the Government. The incoming President may not give a sympathetic ear to this plan.

When Colonel Roop, the Director of the Budget, was on the witness stand, I asked him how long, in his opinion, it would take to get this plan working smoothly. And he replied that it would be from one to two years. During that one or two years of transition there is bound to be more or less confusion. As I understand his testimony, it was his opinion that the various agencies would not be working effectively until the plan got to working smoothly. Therefore, the incoming administration would be confronted with agencies that were in more or less confusion when the administration took charge of the affairs of the Government.

Now, I believe and I think my position is sound in the matterthat the responsibility ought to rest on the administration that inaugurates such a plan. That the administration that inaugurates ought to have the opportunity of carrying it to its ultimate consummation or conclusion.

And, to look forward to the incoming administration preparing a plan, it might not be dissimilar from the one that is now being proposed. But at least it will be the plan of the incoming administration, and the responsibility will rest upon the incoming administration, and it will have the opportunity of carrying into execution that plan.

Now, just one other thought: Every witness who wishes to testify in behalf had an opportunity to do so. Several witnesses were placed upon the stand and testified before the committee. There was not a single witness who pointed out any economy that would be effected by this plan. Not a single witness pointed out any efficiency that would result.

And I think, gentlemen of the committee, that that is due largely to the fact that a thorough consideraion to that plan had not been given by its proponents.

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM M. WHITTINGTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

Mr. WHITTINGTON. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I make these observations in support of the rule:

First, the proposed consolidation would result in no economies whatever. And no witness has testified, and no person has contended that the mere transfer bodily of one agency from one department to another, as proposed by the President in this grouping, will result in

any economy.

Secondly, it is universally admitted that, before any economies will result, there must be, after the transfer and the consolidation have been made, a redistribution of the functions so transferred and consolidated.

And that raises, Mr. Chairman, in my judgment, a very serious legal question. There has been general assent to the proposition that the President, within any department or any executive agency, may reorganize and regroup. But I submit that, whether intended or not, the economy act probably restricted that power which heretofore has been exercised by the President. Conceding, as I think it has been conceded, that he has the power to reorganize within any executive department, and that he has no power to transfer from one department to another, the economy act provides that the consolidations and the transfers shall be submitted to Congress. But it goes further, and for the first time affirmatively states that the President shall have power to consolidate or redistribute the functions. In other words, a very serious question arises as to whether or not the Executive can delegate to the Secretary-to the head of any department-power to redistribute the functions, without submitting that redistribution to Congress.

Now, I say that, favoring as I do, consolidations, coordinations, and eliminations, it strikes me that the economy act should be liberalized, and that the provisions of those acts really would require the redistribution of authority where any savings are to be made to be submitted to Congress.

Now, in the first place, Mr. Chairman, the economy act did provide for certain consolidations-some general law with respect to the Bureau of Education, with respect to the personnel classification, and

with respect to the radio transfers. The only provision that gave the President any authority to make any direct economies has not been acted upon by the President. And I called attention to this authority given to the President in a matter that has been widely discussed:

The President was authorized to merge such activities, excepting those of a purely military nature, of both the War and the Navy Departments; and in answer to a question propounded by me, Colonel Roop stated that the President had made no economies and had exercised no authority whatsoever in undertaking to effect any economies under section 407 of the economy act.

In other words, the authority given to the President to effect direct economies thus far has not been acted upon by the President. That included authority with respect to combining and coordinating so as to reduce the expenses of the Government in the Army and Navy, except as to those of a purely military nature; and it further provided for economies with respect to transfer of the Bureau of Education.

As has been suggested by those who have preceded me, these groupings here were made by Colonel Roop and his assistants. And he was asked the question, to point out what economy in any regard could result from a bare transfer from one bureau to anotherfrom one department to another-under in this grouping by this Executive order, and he answered in the negative, that none had resulted. He stated that it was the groundwork.

In answer to a further question, he stated that there could only be economies by eliminations and by redistributions of functions. And I submit that the Executive has been restricted, and that any authority granted the Executive to authorize redistributions must come from executive or legislative authority-that the power should be given him not only to make transfers, but to make the redistributions of functions. And for that reason, among others, I favored the rule.

Moreover, it is but a short time before the new administration will come in. It may be that that administration, in that redistribution of authority would conclude-as I think wisely it could concludethat there should be transfers, that there should be assignments, that there should be groupings, other than those made by the present Executive order. In other words, we will be in an anomalous situation, having the groundwork or the preliminary work done, which may not be in keeping with the views of the Executive who is to effect the economies and make the redistribution of authority. And to show you the carelessness with which these groupings have been made, I call attention to this rather important matter: This Congress has authorized an appropriation of $325,000,000 for flood control over the lower Mississippi River. And yet, in undertaking to transfer the rivers and harbors work and the flood-control work from the War Department to the Department of the Interior, nothing whatsoever was said about the utilization of Army officers in flood control work. In this, the largest internal improvement ever authorized by this or any other Government, the agencies that have been utilized for a hundred years are not provided for.

I will read you just two lines from the message of the President: Commissioned officers of the Corps of Engineers, United States Army, shall continue to be detailed by the Secretary of War upon request of the Secretary of the Interior for work on rivers and harbors projects.

Not a line with respect to flood control.

Colonel Roop, the author of this recommendation, and the spokesman for the administration, said that was an oversight. That may be an oversight-but it is an oversight involving the expenditure of $325,000,000, and that is not to be passed over lightly.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, there will never be any economy, unless there not only be a redistribution of authority, but the abolition of offices and of functions created either by Executive order or by the Congress.

I am prepared to admit that these 58 bureaus and offices are very largely the accumulation, and almost exclusively the accumulation, of Executive orders; and the fault lies at the door of the Executive rather than the legislative branch of the Government. In this recommendation of the President there are but three recommendations for the elimination and abolishment of legislative agencies. And to show you the utter futility of effecting any economies by merely the adoption of these transfers, I call attention to the fact that the only offices created by Congress, in all the things that the President of the United States proposes to abolish, or recommend the abolition of, are the Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway Commission, the Employees Compensation Commission, and the Trustees of the National Training School for boys.

I submit, Mr. Chairman, that there will never be any eliminations or economies, in my judgment, until the Executive is given full power and authority-not merely to transfer, but to redistribute and to abolish the functions when the transfers have been made. And in my judgment-and I am speaking after careful thought—the President of the United States was limited by requiring, not only consolidations, but redistributions to be reported to Congress.

I favor the adoption of the resolution for a rule.

Mr. PURNELL. I am surprised to learn from some of the witnesses here that nobody proposed or suggested the saving of any money. What is the purpose of this thing?

Mr. WHITTINGTON. That purpose can only be accomplished by the redistribution of authority, the redistribution of functions, and the abolition of offices. That is not the purpose in the message of the President. He proposes to handle that by delegating to the Secretary of the Interior, for example, the power to carry out the flood control. And I asked Colonel Roop, if we should give this power or approve these recommendations of the President, whether it would result in economies.

Mr. PURNELL. And do you mean to say he made no suggestion that the future might hold out some hope of savings?

Mr. WHITTINGTON. Yes. I am willing to give the substance of his reply. It was that that will depend upon the will of the Executive. And I say that the Executive who will have the responsibility ought to have the power. In other words, the responsibility for any

154843-33- -2