Mr. AMUNDSEN. No, sir. From what I have been able to observe there, they are extremely careful in the matter of examining projects. One example that comes to mind is the development of the port of Lake Charles, La., with which I am sure you are familiar, in which the engineers rejected the plans for the channel on the basis of the nearby channel to the sea on the Sabine, and the citizenry went ahead on its own accord and did the job. I mean they are that careful about approving a project of major scope.

Senator LONG. That is all. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

The next on the list are Mr. Quinn or Mr. Webb.

Mr. WEBB. Mr. Chairman, Senator Long. Mr. Quinn was in Washington for about a week but he was forced to return home on a matter in connection with this subject and he asked me to present this statement for him to the committee.

The CHAIRMAN. As I understand it, Mr. Webb, then you are presenting a statement for Mr. Quinn who is executive director, Missouri Valley Development Association, of Lincoln, Nebr., is that correct? Mr. WEBB. That is right; yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. You are testifying for him or giving his statement to the committee. All right, you may proceed.

(The statement of John B. Quinn, executive director, Missouri Valley Development Association, was read as follows:)

Mr. WEBB. Mr. Chairman and members of the Senate Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments, my name is John B. Quinn, and my home and business headquarters are in Lincoln, Nebr. I am the executive director of the Missouri Valley Development Association, which is an organization broadly representative of the agricultural, commercial, and economic interests throughout the 10 States of the Missouri Valley. Our membership includes chambers of commerce, trade associations, commercial clubs, and individual citizens and companies throughout the length and breadth of the valley.

We are dedicated to the steady, unremitting development of the natural resources of the Missouri Valley through the group activity of the people in the valley. We welcome help from outside the valley of every kind and description, but we resent the intrusion of other interests public or private who would supplant the will of the people of the whole valley and put in its place the will of a few men, whoever they may be. We believe the valley's problems will be met in the most satisfactory manner in response to the needs of its own people, expressing themselves through their elected representatives. We are convinced that we do not need, or want, the will of a small clique of men—however learned or erudite and wherever they may originate-imposed on our millions of citizens and thousands of farmers, businesses, and industries.

We, the people, own the Missouri Valley and we want to keep on owning it and seeing it become ever more productive and prosperous and responsive to the needs of our people and to the needs of the whole Nation.

In addition to being executive director of the Missouri Valley Development Association, I am regional director of the National Rivers and Harbors Congress.

My purpose in appearing before your committe today is to endorse the idea of the proposed reorganization, but to suggest one change which, in the judgment of our people in the Missouri Valley, is of paramount importance at this time. We suggest the following amendment, or provision, to be inserted appropriately in whatever legislation concerning reorganization you may report out.

No provision of this act shal be applicable to the Corps of Engineers of the Army, or to any of its civil works functions.

Mr. Chairman, we of the Missouri Valley know that every new demand on the Government, every new function voted by the Congress to the executive department, every new problem in Government, poses the eventual necessity of change, consolidation, abolition and reorganization. Reorganization is not a new thing in our Government. The Federal Establishment has had to change constantly to meet changing needs. The executive department has had to be reorganized many times in the past, and, of course, it will have to undergo reorganization many times in the years to come.

But we do not go along with the wholly untenable thesis that merely because one, or several, or a dozen, or most of the agencies of the Government must be reorganized, it necessarily follows that all Federal agencies should undergo shifts and changes, or be subject to these, at the same time.

It is both logical and consistent to argue for reorganization generally and to stand for the exemption of specific agencies in particular. Reorganization is not a case of "whole hog or none." No intelligent administrator, in our opinion, should argue that it is, although some have, apparently without thinking the matter through.

Now, the Corps of Engineers is engaged in a great peacetime effort in the Missouri Valley Basin-and, in fact, all up and down this Nation. Its present enormous job can be likened to a war-a war against potential floods, against want, against natural disasters of every kind, from erosion to drainage. In our region alone, the Corps of Engineers is busy on scores of projects whose over-all value will total billions of dollars.

To jeopardize the present organization of the Corps of Engineers in any way, we believe, would jeopardize performance on many of these projects. It is conceivable that some interest, or interests, waiting for just such an opportunity as this reorganization plan could offer, would work subtly to undermine or sabotage the fine work of the Corps of Engineers. Oh, we understand that they would not want to disturb the work intentionally, perhaps, but their desire for power, or for the achievement of certain goals, would lead to the same result. It is possible-I do not claim that it is probable-but it is possible that projects now in process of being completed would be delayed or stopped, and that many of the projects already being constructed never would be completed, if the Corps of Engineers were to be reorganized out of existence, as some contemplate. It is possible that the whole enormous, comprehensive program of the Corps of Engineers in its civil functions efforts, passed by Congress in years past, would be jeopardized.

If the Corps of Engineers were to be included in this reorganization plan, and if certain elements of our society could have their way, it could mean the shutting down of work projects already under way. I

do not claim that it would mean this, but you and I can imagine what confusion such a reorganization might engender at this crucial time. I believe I can state unequivocably that reorganization now definitely would hamper the work of the Corps of Engineers and would delay the completion, or even the starting, of many projects already slated to be completed at specific dates. This is a particularly crucial time in the life of our region and in the life of our Nation to jeopardize the Corps of Engineers in any way, in our humble judgment.

It is possible that, if the civil functions of the Corps of Engineers were to be taken away from that organization, conflicts of authority could be started that would play havoc with many projects in the Missouri Valley and in other parts of the Nation. The new agency to be created may want to build a certain type of bridge at a certain point on the river. The Corps of Engineers, charged with the security of the Nation and the navigability of our inland waterways, would object to the construction of that particular type of bridge. Arguments about these and a wide variety of other possible subjects and projects would be endless.

Let us recall, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, that only 4 years ago, in a Congress dominated by the Democratic Party, but in an effort joined by most members of both major political parties, the Congress put into effect the famous Pick-Sloan plan for development of the Missouri River Basin. This plan contemplated the joining together and the working together of State, Federal, and local agencies in a gigantic effort to solve the multitudinous problems posed by the rambling Missouri River from its headwaters to its mouth. The Corps of Engineers was only one of the many Federal agencies to be considered a part of this gigantic plan, but it certainly was the integrating agency. Colonel Pick, now a major general, soon will be in Washington to take command of the Corps of Engineers, having recently been promoted to that high post. It will be an empty promotion indeed if he comes to Washington to learn that the work of years-yes, of decades-has been rendered useless through the hasty, ill-conceived passage by Congress of a reorganization bill that will tear the heart out of the work of the Corps of Engineers.

The Congress passed the Pick-Sloan plan after years of consideration, months of hearings, and weeks of vigorous, intelligent debate. It would be particularly tragic to the whole Missouri Valley and to millions of people in that valley if, by some strange chance, the Corps of Engineers should be reorganized right out of existence and the Pick-Sloan plan changed, or abandoned, through the machinations and plans of men in other agencies of the Federal Government, or, in fact, men outside the Federal Government.

No one, yet, has presented any real reason why the Corps of Engineers should be reorganized and its civil functions taken over by another agency. It just sounds good to unthinking people. And such a recommendation likely will be forthcoming, we have heard, although reasons may be scarce for the recommendations.

Now, we realize that when we ask you Senators to exempt one specific agency from the terms of a sweeping reorganization plan, widely ballyhooed by its sponsors, we should be able to give you some good reasons why this particular agency is unique. We submit that the existing reasons prove beyond a peradventure that the Corps of Engi

neers is unique and, therefore, should be exempted from any reorganization plan, or plans.

First, the Corps of Engineers is an agency set apart because of its responsibilities. It has been charged, since the earliest days of our Nation, with the responsibility of keeping jurisdiction over our inland waterways to be sure that nothing is done to jeopardize our defense in war. Thus, the Corps of Engineers is unique for another reason. It is older than most of the agencies being considered in this reorganization plan. It has undergone constant changes of its own to fit itself for the needs it has encountered in its age-old work. The corps today is as efficient and as economical in operation as we have a right to expect a Government organization to be. Also, as noted, the Corps of Engineers is charged with the security of this Nation. Its plans and projects must be based not only on immediate objectives, but on longrange possibilities, in peace or in war.

It could be particularly dangerous to render this vital agency subject to possible curbing in its most important functions and to make it possible for its powers to be taken away and given to some group whose leaders and personnel are, as yet, unknown to Members of Congress.

Second, the Corps of Engineers has developed a peculiar type of know-how when it comes to waterways and rivers and harbors. It has been working, for example, on the Mississippi River for almost 100 years and it has evolved unique techniques for handling that challenging giant. The corps not only is the oldest agency engaged in this type of work, and the most efficient, it is the only agency serving to increase the knowledge and experience of youthful engineering graduates from West Point and engineer recruits to the armed services, who otherwise would be engaged in private practice. These men are being trained in engineering through its actual practice. If the civil functions of the corps were to be taken away, Members of Congress would expect to make additional funds available for projects to help keep these engineers, which the armed services absolutely must have, in training.

Third, the Corps of Engineers is the only nonpolitical agency of any size operating in the executive branch of the Government. By their very nature, other Government agencies engaged in construction activities are in politics, some of them to a greater degree than other. But they all are led by men who are appointed by the President and are in office subject to his good will. Naturally they are in politics. Not so the Corps of Engineers. Everyone in both major parties concedes this fact. How tragic it would be, then, to merge them with an agency, or agencies, that could be filled with political medicines and subject to every political pressure.

Fourth, the Corps of Engineers has become noted because of its close working relationship with Members of Congress of all parties and factions. It is a fact worthy of recording that charges have been hurled at times against this or that agency, or official, of the Government because it, or he, engaged in activities designed to further this or that group's aims. No such charges ever have been thrown at the Corps of Engineers and none could be leveled, in justice. No Member of Congress, so far as we are aware, ever has taken the floor to demand the discharge of a responsible officer in the Corps of Engi

neers, or to make charges that this or that official was trying to use his high office to subvert the will of Congress. Such has happened in regard to officials of other executive agencies, as you are well aware.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it is very well for well-meaning but thoughtless citizens to say, without pondering the implications of their stand, that the "whole Government ought to be reorganized." We can understand their viewpoint at times. But mere change does not necessarily constitute progress. Alexander Hamilton said that new errors, as well as new truths, frequently arise. It may be that reorganization is a good thing-a worth-while undertaking-for most agencies and a bad thing for the Corps of Engineers. We in my organization believe that this is the case. We earnestly submit to you that this one vital agency should be exempt from the general reorganization plan and we believe that every fact vindicates our position.

Thank you very much.

On behalf of Mr. Quinn I thank you very much.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Webb.

The committee will not hold further hearings this week. We will recess over until Tuesday of next week at 10 o'clock. I am not in a position to announce at this time definitely that hearings can be concluded on that date. We hope to conclude them certainly next week.

It had been announced that we would undertake to have General Pick here, the incoming Chief of Engineers, to testify, but he is so engaged and occupied now in this disaster work out west in the haylift operations, that he will be unable to attend. We may have to conclude the hearings without the benefit of his testimony.

The committee will stand adjourned until 10 o'clock Tuesday morning.

(Whereupon, at 4:15 p. m. the hearing stood in recess until 10 o'clock Tuesday morning, February 15, 1949.)