Being an independent establishment, section 2 (b) of S. 2700 makes it clear that neither the Board nor its functions can be abolished. By section 2 (c), however, the President is authorized to transfer to an executive department any of the routine administrative and executive functions of any independent establishment which are common to other agencies of the Government, such as the preparation of estimates of appropriations, the appointment of personnel and maintenance of personnel records, the procurement of material, supplies, and equipment, the accounting for public funds, the rental of quarters, and related matters. It is clear, therefore, that there might be taken away from the Board under this provision both the selection of its personnel and the preparation of its estimates of appropriations, as well as such matters as the procurement of supplies and quarters. In view of the nature of the National Labor Relations Act and the Board's duties in administering it, could this be done and still leave the Board its concededly necessary independent status? It is easily conceivable that there might be many instances in the governmental structure where this would be so. Given a statute or set of departmental regulations clearly defined as to jurisdiction and definite and fixed as to detail, there might well be left only a ministerial application of rules to facts. In such instances, the administrative officers could easily perform their functions with little regard to the identity or characteristics of the personnel presenting the matters for decision, and might be equally little concerned with the extent of appropriations made available to such personnel. The National Labor Relations Act, however, lays vastly different duties upon the Board charged with its administration. The act is entirely new to our Federal, political, and industrial economy. In the first place, the jurisdiction which it confers upon the Board is not explicit, but must rather be determined in each individual case after careful inquiry into often complicated factual situations. Moreover, the act itself is general in its terms and requires constant interpretation and exposition. For example, it does not specify what shall constitute "coercion," "restraint," "interference," or "discrimination." Nor does it define definitely the nature of an appropriate bargaining unit, or indicate exactly the circumstances under which elections should be held among workers to determine disputed questions of representation. Furthermore, the very nature of the act in offering protection to workers in the exercise of their rights of self-organization makes it mandatory that the Board should maintain its agents and organization at many convenient places throughout the country. It is clear that it would be physically impossible for the three Board members personally to receive all charges of violations and petitions for certification of representatives under the act (now reaching some 1,400 a month), inquire into the question of whether interstate commerce were so involved in each case as to give the Board jurisdiction, and then to investigate the merits of each case-all preliminary to the exercise of their quasijudicial function of fact finding and order making. Such work must of necessity be done by regional directors, attorneys, and examiners, carefully selected by the Board for their special aptitude for such work. And yet, such personnel is constantly and of necessity reflecting Board policy in all that it does. So long as that personnel is selected by the Board and responsible to it, the Board is in fact independent in its application and interpretation of the law. The moment that personnel is selected by and responsible to another, it is the policy of that other which will prevail, and the Board will have lost the power impartially and freely to administer the law. It would therefore appear clear that the National Labor Relations Act having been enacted under an administration favorable to the protection of labor's right to self-organization, the complete independence of the Board should be so protected as to prevent the possibility of subsequent control of the Board by indirection at the hands of a less favorable administration. It would seem equally true that unless the Board is left free to estimate and present its own needs for appropriations, its independence will in fact have largely been taken away. Possible future control of the Board's estimates of appropriations by an executive officer not in sympathy with the purposes of the act would obviously place in the hands of such an executive officer a life and death power over the scope of the Board's operations and hence over the degree of enforcement of the act. Section 204 of S. 2700 would apparently apply to all Board personnel other than the Board itself, save only such positions as might be found by the President to be policymaking in character. Here again, the nature of the National Labor Relations Act, coupled with its newness in the Federal system, makes it essential that the Board have real freedom of choice of personnel. Social and economic outlook, as well as personality, are perhaps even more essential elements for consideration in selecting its personnel than are the more easily calculable matters of education and experience. Here again, there is a very real difference between the problem wnich confronts the Board in selecting its nonclerical personnel and that which is involved in the administration of a statute which is well defined and clear-cut in its application. It may be that after the Board has developed the precedents under the existing act over a period of years there will be less difficulty in obtaining personnel by resort to civil service. However, the unique nature of the social problem dealt with by the Board is such that individual outlook and personality will always remain a very heavy element in determining the adequacy of personnel for use as attorneys, directors, and examiners. It is therefore the view of the Board that section 2 (c) of S. 2700, especially in relation to appointment of personnel and preparation of estimates of appropriation, would in its present form seriously impair the ability of the National Labor Relations Board to function as the independent establishment which it is recognized to be in section 5 (2) of the bill. It is likewise the view of the Board that its efficient operation would be impaired by the effect of section 204 of S. 2700 in providing that hereafter its regional directors, attorneys, and trial examiners could be selected only from persons having civil-service status. Respectfully yours, J. WARREN MADDEN, Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. If you have any further comment that you desire to make at this time the committee will be glad to hear you. Mr. MADDEN. I think I have nothing further. That letter of July 2 still represents the views of the board, and unless there is some question about it I will let it stand. The CHAIRMAN. If you have no further comment to make other than those set forth in the letter, Mr. Madden, you will be excused. The Government Printing Office, Mr. Herrell. STATEMENT OF R. H. HERRELL, COMPTROLLER, GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Herrell, the Public Printer was requested by the former chairman of the committee, Senator Robinson, to submit any comment that he desired to make in his capacity as Public Printer, with reference to the provisions of Senate 2700. I have in my hand a letter dated July 3 addressed by him to Senator Robinson. Did he submit any other communication? Mr. HERRELL. No, sir. That is the only submission. The CHAIRMAN. I wish to put into the record then the letter submitted by the Public Printer to Senator Robinson with reference to the bill. (The letter referred to is as follows:) UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, Hon. JOSEPH T. ROBINSON, MY DEAR MR. ROBINSON: Receipt is acknowledged of your letter of June 24, 1937, transmitting to this Office a copy of Senate bill 2700, providing for reorganizing agencies of the Government, extending the classified civil service, establishing a General Auditing Office and a Department of Welfare, and for other purposes, and requesting my views on such provisions of the bill as affect the Government Printing Office. While, insofar as I am able to determine, the bill does not directly affect the Government Printing Office, it does jeopardize its status as a part of the legislative branch of the Government in that it makes possible, without further legislative action, a transfer of the Government Printing Office from the legislative branch to the executive branch and a consolidation of its duties with the duties of any agency of the executive branch now existing or hereafter to be created. In view of the facts (1) that the Government Printing Office was established primarily to handle the printing for Congress, which includes, of course, the Congressional Record, hearings, bills, committee reports, private prints for Members of Congress, etc.; (2) that it functions under the Joint Congressional Committee on Printing which acts as its board of directors; and (3) that all of the laws and decisions governing it duties, functions, and management were enacted or rendered with the idea that it was a permanent part of the legislative branch of the Government, it is believed that the best interests of the Government as a whole would be served by continuing to carry the Government Printing Office as a part of the legislative branch of the Government under the close supervision and control of its Joint Committee on Printing. This can only be assured by deleting from the bill the reference to the Government Printing Office which will be found in section 5, page 7, beginning with the word "and" following the comma in line 15 and ending with the word "Office" which precedes the comma in line 16, the matter to be deleted reading "and the Government Printing Office." With this deletion, the term "agency" will not include the Government Printing Office, and the power to control the said Office will still remain in Congress. With the Government Printing Office remaining in the legislative branch of the Government, Congress may depend upon a continuance of the service which it has received from the Office for the past 77 years, and the Government Printing Office would be in a better position to serve the various executive departments and agencies impartially. For these reasons, and as stated above, it is believed that the best interests of the Government as a whole would be served by eliminating the Government Printing Office from consideration in connection with the reorganization bill. If I may be of further service to you in this or any other matter, please advise. Respectfully, A. E. GIEGENGACK, Public Printer. The CHAIRMAN. Have you any further comment that you would like to make? Mr. HERRELL. I would like to amplify some of the statements in the letter. The CHAIRMAN. We will be very glad to hear you. Mr. HERRELL. To supplement to some extent the Public Printer's letter of July 3, 1937, he has instructed me to add that the history of the Government Printing Office shows it was established in 1860 primarily to handle the congressional work and it still does more work for Congress than it does for any other one agency. Its history going back over the 77 years shows that as a result of many and costly mistakes, numerous changes in the laws, and regulations governing the operation of the Office have been made until today it is functioning smoothly under a head reporting jointly to the President of the United States and to Congress. In view of the unusual status of the Office created primarily to do the work for Congress, but yet serving all other branches of the Government, this is believed to be the best possible arrangement from a managerial standpoint. The reason upon which this conclusion is based is that Congress, through the control exercised by its Joint Committee on Printing, is assured that its work, which includes, of course, the Congressional Record, hearings, bills, committee prints, and private prints for Members of Congress and miscellaneous other matter will be gotten out on schedule and in the form desired by it without interference from any other branch of the Government. The other departments and establishments of the Government can be assured that as the Public Printer reports direct to the President, each and every one of them will receive equal consideration and attention. They have a further assurance that they will receive fair treatment through the fact that they have the right to appeal to the Joint Committee on Printing from any action of the Public Printer which in their opinion is unfair or unjust. These protections now afforded Congress and the departments would not exist if the Government Printing Office were, for example, under the authority contained in this bill, consolidated with or transferred to one of the present existing agencies. The Government Printing Office now being independent it can treat all agencies alike. If it were a unit of some other department, that department's work would unquestionably come first. The Public Printer is aware of the suggestion that the Government Printing Office might be placed under the Bureau or Office of Supply and of the very indefinite statement that it should be placed administratively where maximum economy may result and that the various departments and establishments of the Government should be given the full benefit of this economy in their printing bills. The Public Printer is, of course, in accord with the trite generality that the Office should be administratively placed where maximum economy would result and is firmly of the opinion that it is now so placed. Any impartial survey intelligently conducted will substantiate this view. With reference to the statement that economies resulting from management should be passed on to the departments, Mr. Giegengack has instructed me to call your attention to the fact that through economies effected in the Office during the past fiscal year, we were able to pick up the additional burden placed upon the Office by the passage of the uniform leave laws to the extent of approximately $1,000,000 without any increase in our charges to the departments. In other words, had the economies resulting from close and unhampered management not been brought about, the departments" printing bills would have been approximately $1,000,000 higher than they were. The CHAIRMAN. What are the total expenditures? Mr. HERRELL. The total expenditures, sir, are approximately $19,000,000. The CHAIRMAN. And you say you effected a saving of $1,000,000 during the fiscal year just closed? Mr. HERRELL. Yes, sir; that is clearly borne out, sir, by the fact that there have been no increases in prices, and the leave laws added at least $1,000,000 additional expense to the Office which was picked up without any increase in prices or appropriations. As to the suggestion that the Office might be placed under the proposed Bureau or Office of Supply, the Public Printer would like to point out that he does not feel that such action would be carrying out the purpose and intent of the bill as expressed in subsection (c) of section 1 which is to group and consolidate functions according to major purposes. This conclusion of the Public Printer is based upon the theory that the major purpose of the proposed Bureau or Office of Supply is to act as purchasing agent and warehouseman for the Federal Government, while the major purpose of the Government Printing Office is to manufacture for the Government, it being, I believe, the Government's largest manufacturing plant. From this it will be seen that the majority of the work of the proposed Bureau or Office of Supply will be of a legal and accounting nature in that it will act as purchasing agent-while practically all the work of the Government Printing Office falls within the classification calling for employees representing skilled and unskilled trades. The major purposes of the two units are, therefore, not only different, but the problems presented in the management of the two are as far apart as the poles, the first having to do with the handling of those versed in law and accounting and the second involving all possible angles of the various labor questions. For these reasons, the Public Printer has instructed me to say to you that he is firmly of the opinion that the best interests of the Government as a whole would be served by eliminating the Government Printing Office from this bill which, while it does not directly affect the Government Printing Office, does jeopardize its status as a part of the legislative branch of the Government in that it makes possible, without further legislative action, a transfer of the Government Printing Office from the legislative branch to the executive branch and a consolidation of its duties with the duties of any agency of the executive branch now existing or hereafter to be created. For these reasons we suggest that the words "Government Printing Office" be eliminated from the definition of Government agencies. The CHAIRMAN. The statement you make about the transfer to some bureau of the functions of the Government Printing Office was not made by any member of this committee, was it? Mr. HERRELL. No, sir; but it is a possibility under this bill unless changed as recommended. The CHAIRMAN. Transferred to what bureau? Mr. HERRELL. The Bureau or Office of Supplies which is proposed as a replacement for the Procurement Division. I haven't heard any definite recommendations along this line, however. The CHAIRMAN. I am just like you, I haven't heard any, and you do not seem to know about it. All right, sir. Does anyone desire to ask him any questions? All right, Mr. Herrell, that will be all. Dr. Briggs. STATEMENT OF DR. LYMAN J. BRIGGS, ACTING CHAIRMAN EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Briggs, I find that Dr. Ames, under July 3 addressed a letter to Senator Robinson, the then chairman of this committee, setting forth comments of your committee with reference to S. 2700, and I desire to place it in the record. (The letter referred to is as follows:) NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS, Senator JOE T. ROBINSON, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR ROBINSON: In response to your request of June 24, I submit herewith expression of views on the executive reorganization bill (S. 2700). The National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics is affected by this bill in the following particulars: 1. Although this organization is an independent establishment, it is not included as such in section 5 (2) on page 7. Unless so included, it may be subject to aboiition by Executive order, despite the apparent intent of section 2 (b) on page 3 not to authorize the abolition of "any executive department or independent establishment." Comment: The remarkable progress in the improvement of aircraft performance, efficiency, and safety, and the present leading position of the United States in the technical development of military and civil aircraft are, in large measure, due to the work of this organization and to its status as an independent estab |