Evening star., 1939-03-13

David Lawrence.
ganization plans whether proposed
by Republican or Democratic Presi-
dents-who shall have the final say,
the President or both houses or
either house of Congress?
The House bill theoretically gives
Congress voice by providing that
when the President issues an eXecu-
tive order recognizing bureaus, 1t
shall be final unless Congress within
60 days shall by resolution say no"
Members of the Senate want to do
the opposite. They wish to provide
that no executive order for reorgan-
ization shall be valid unless Con-
gress gives specific approval within
so days.
On its face the propositions look
alike but they are fundamentally
different. In the one instance, the
Presidents order would probably
prevail because it Is easy to block
any legislation that must be passed
within certain time limit Con-
versely, If the other plan were used
1t would be easy for small group
to prevent the Presidents plan from
going into effect because they could
block affirmative action.
The delays incident to committee
action, the flibusters and the other
parliamentary devices that can be
employed are such that if it were
left for Congress to approve as q
matter of original action, the Presi-
dent would really control reorgani-
zations, whereas If the President
had to get specific approval in each
instance and wait on Congress to
act, there would be no reorganiza-
tionS except in few cases.
Situation q Stalemate.
This stalemate, for such it really
Is, Is based on the desire of the
Executive on the one hand to put
through consolidation of bureaus
and on an equal desire on the part
of members of Congress to protect
the jobs of their friends and, in some
cases, their political henchmen who
were placed in the bureaus by these
same members of Congress.
The reorganization" issue became
obscured by an atmosphere of die
tatorship" year ago only because
it was projected after the President
tried to "reorganize" the Supreme
Court of the United States. Had
Mr.. Roosevelt proposed the execu-
tive reorganization bill ahead of the
Supreme Court legislation, he would
have been successful because Con-
gress was not in suspicious mood.
A combination of influences-job-
holders who did not want to be mo-
Tested in what they conceive to be
lifetime tenure and members of
Congress who were importuned by
kilograms and letters to fight "usur-
patton" of power-defeated the last
reorganization" bill.
Today the dictatorship" argu-
ment has been weakened somewhat
by the fact that the reorganization
machinery will extend we'll into the
next administration and it is un-
likely that the Republicans, conf
dent of success in 1910, will object
to any reshuffling of bureaus which
permits an influx of their own party
workers. Also the 1888 reorganiza-
ton bills have been stripped of many
OF their Objectionable features.
From the standpoint of the true
public interest, none of the plans as
yet proposed goes to the heart of
the question of reorganizing the
Federal Government to save money
and get better results for the money
spent. Most of the suggestions thus
far made relate to so-called ad-
ministrative efficiency without set
ting forth any criterion for determ-
lining efficiency.
What, for instance, is the true
Federal function? This has never
been clearly defined by Congress.
Likewise, is the Federal Government
business or is it a welfare institu-
ton?
Revision System Needed.
The sponsors of various "reorgan-
ization" plans recognize this hodge,
podge and seek to unscramble it, for
instance, by proposing that quasi
judicial functions be separated from
administrative. Broadly speaking,
there are really only two general
functions inherent in the Federal
establishment aside from fiscal
operations and national defense,
and these two may be classified as
Regulatory" and "promotional."
Under the regulatory side, it would
be possible to set up law enforce
ment department co-ordinating all
policies, functions and the independ-
ent commissions or boards of appeal
created to protect the individual
citizen against arbitrary action.
Under the promotional side, it
would be possible to set up all de-
partments engaged in developing do
mestic and foreign commerce for the
business and industrial activities of
the Nation and balanced agricul-
tural program for the farmers.
In the one case the Government
would concern itself with the con-
f1ict of rights between individuals or
between individuals and the Govern
ment whereas in the other case the
Government would seek to improve
the social and economic welfare of
the country.
The real trouble with the Federal
Governmental structure is that Con-
gress has imposed no system of con-
stant revision or check on Federal
laws except the casual attention
given when appropriation bills are
rushed through without look at
the whole National Government in
the light Of agreed upon objectives.
ANY reorganization bill passed
which provides for executive power
to reshuffle agencies or for con-
gresslonal veto is better than no
reorganization legislation, but the
best results will not be achieved till
Congress itself appoints standing
committees on functional organiza-
ton and re-examines each year the
efficiency of the bureaus and the
effectiveness Of the Iou,. -o.rod ,,,