or ill-meaning men, I think, would be tragic. I mean you really destroy the ability of a President to work with people who he so desperately needs in the problems we have in this country, both foreign and domestic. HOPES FOR A CONTINUING EFFORT Mr. BAKER. I would like to add, although I hope this does not fail next week, that I certainly would hope that the attempt to give the President what he needs goes on. My initial connection with the Government was in 1940 on the Civil Aeronautics Board, and I have been in and out ever since. There is nothing unusual about this controversy. I hope, however, that the plan is not defeated. Senator RIBICOFF. I know. All of us who have worked in Government at any level have our share of frustrations and disappointments, but we keep on going in spite of them. I want to thank you, gentlemen, very much, and let us see if we cannot continue cooperating for the good of the country. Mr. Asн. Thank you. Governor CONNALLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator RIBICOFF. Mr. Mayo, please. You may proceed, Mr. Mayo. I have had harsh things to say about the Budget Bureau. If you want to reply to them, you can. But if you do not care to, that is all right with me. I am glad to see an old friend from Connecticut. Mr. JONES. Thank you, Senator. STATEMENT OF ROBERT P. MAYO, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF THE BUDGET; ACCOMPANIED BY ROGER W. JONES, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR Mr. MAYO. I appreciate the opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to appear before your subcommittee in support of Reorganization Plan No. 2 which would provide the machinery the President needs to help him meet today's critical problems. I have a statement. I will submit it for the record. If it is your pleasure, I will only speak informally at this point. Senator RIBICOFF. I think so. I think it would be preferable. Your entire statement will go in the record as if read. (See exhibit 4, p. 77.) It is apparent that the House feels that somehow you are being encroached upon and you are being downgraded. My feeling was that your function would even be more important under this plan. I have felt for a long time that the problem of program evaluation, coordination and management is even a more significant part of the contribution the Budget Bureau could do for the country instead of always being there to second-guess or nitpick on some testimony that a member of the Cabinet had to send up, or a program that he had to submit. I did not feel that you would be downgraded. I think that there would be a different type of function that you would have under this plan. I did not look at it as a downgrading. Mr. MAYO. Well, I appreciate your perception, Mr. Chairman, not only on what you just said but also your earlier remarks regarding the privileged nature of the President's relationship with his chief assistants. I think this plan is terribly important, and I agree with both you and Mr. Califano that this would make the Bureau stronger and indeed more responsive to the problems that the President faces. ENTRENCHED BUREAUCRACY Mr. Chairman, I cannot, of course, resist the challenge of what you have said about our being a somewhat entrenched bureaucracy. I am aware of some of those characteristics which grew up over a period of years. While I fully support what is being done here in Reorganization Plan No. 2, I want to say also that I am proud personally of the fact that during the last year and a half we have done such things as selling the President, if you please, on the first attempt at long-range planning in the budget of the United States with some figures, albeit gross figures, for 1975. TAKING THE LEAD This has never been done before. I think we are imaginative. And in our presentation to the President to start off the budget process last fall, we spent much of his time for 3 or 4 hours and you know how precious 3 or 4 hours of Presidential time is in talking about resource allocation over the next 5 years which completely intrigued him. Also, without intending to brag about it, I would urge that by taking the lead not in decisionmaking, but decisionrecommending, with respect to tightening up on the Defense program and the Space program, and proposing to the Congress a $2 billion economy program to eliminate what we think are marginal programs, we are showing imagination along the lines that you indicated were essential here. If we find programs that do not work, you will be sure that we will recommend to the President that he in turn recommend to the Congress that they may be eliminated. I emphasize one other thing. Maybe I am a little naive, Mr. Chairman, but I was not aware until you were speaking that I had as much power as you said I did. Senator RIBICOFF. You have a lot of power. Your predecessors have always used it. I don't know whether you do or not. STRONG RECOMMENDATION POWERS Mr. MAYO. I think we do have very strong powers of recommendation. I spent 40 or 50 hours, for instance, in getting ready for the 1971 budget personally with the President in a decisionmaking role. He made the decisions. I have made recommendations, and in most cases he had honored those. I will say that. Senator JAVITS. Would you yield to me for a minute? Mr. MAYO. Yes, Senator. Senator JAVITS. I am in an unfortunate time predicament here. I have got thousands of people from New York that I have got to go and deal with because of this Cambodia situation. I would just like to welcome Mr. Ash and his Committee and assure them that their work has been magnificent, and whatever the House does, it has not been in vain, and to join our chairman, with whom I will work intimately and closely, as we always do, to implement the substantive determinations at which they have arrived in whatevery way is available to me, either emanating from the Presidency in this or another plan or in legislation. But I would just like to assure them, because they are business people, not that this is pro bono publico to them, that their work is useful, appreciated, and will continue. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator RIBICOFF. You may proceed, Mr. Mayo. Mr. MAYO. Thank you. Basically, my statement, Mr. Chairman, which, as you suggest, will be in the record, covers the ground quite thoroughly as to what is being proposed here. You are acquainted with that already, and you have indicated your support of the plan. PLAN IS FULLY SUPPORTED I merely emphasize that I, too, feel that despite my statement that we have already done a great deal in the past year to upgrade the Budget Bureau, and we have also done a great deal in working with a White House organization that is already in existence and is functioning well toward the achievement of many of the goals that are embraced in Reorganization Plan No. 2, more needs to be done and I give my full support of the plan, and indicate my full support of the plan to you. I believe that this will result not in an additional layer between our agency and the President, but, rather, will indeed expand its evaluation responsibilities and its management responsibilities and its interagency coordination responsibilities. I stress all three of those. However, we will be working hand in glove with the Domestic Council in the achievement of a better Presidency. A COOPERATIVE EFFORT This is not an adversary situation such as many people have tried to make it in which the Domestic Council and the Budget Bureau are going to be at odds. As far as I am concerned and as far as the people who are involved in the White House are concerned, this is not likely to result in anything like that but, rather, in a cooperative effort. We are working for the same President. And I am mindful of a statement which Roy Ash made to me some months ago. I am sure he would not mind being quoted on this, at least cited on this. He said that perhaps the three most important staff men around the President with regard to program situations are Henry Kissinger, John Ehrlichman, in terms of the domestic programs, and myself as Director of the Bureau of the Budget, which really is the only place where you have the meeting of the defense side and the civilian side. I cite names here only to identify them with positions. I am really talking about the three positions that are involved. Thank you. Senator RIBICOFF. Thank you very much, and we do appreciate your coming here, and we look forward to working with you and your staff in the future. Mr. MAYO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Senator RIBICOFF. Dr. Jones. Did you have a statement? Mr. JONES. There is a statement which I would like, Senator Ribicoff, to ask be put in the record if possible, because there have been several questions from the Senate side, not from this committee but from others, about the relationship of the personnel functions that are involved to the Civil Service Commission, and certain statistics are given in there in response to those questions. And if they may be put in the record, I think that is all that is necessary. Senator RIBICOFF. The statement of Mr. Jones will be placed in the record as if read in its entirety. (See exhibit 5, p. 81.) Senator RIBICOFF. Thank you, gentlemen, very much. Senator RIBICOFF. The committee will stand adjourned. (Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., the subcommittee recessed to reconvene at the call of the Chair.) EXHIBIT 1 STATEMENT BY HON. CHET HOLIFIELD Mr. Chairman and Members of this distinguished Subcommittee on Executive Reorganization, let me begin by thanking you for scheduling my testimony for this morning. I know you are very busy and have several witnesses to hear, so, if I may, I shall make a brief statement and leave with you a more detailed argument for the record. On May 7, the Committee on Government Operations voted to report favorably House Resolution 960 which would disapprove Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1970. We expect to have a vote on the resolution on the Floor some time next week. Before we acted, the Executive and Legislative Reorganization Subcommittee held three days of hearings, carried on considerable correspondence and heard 17 witnesses. In other words, we gave the Plan very careful study-and I might add-we also studied the President's message very carefully. The conclusion of a majority of the Members of the Committee is that while some features of the Plan have considerable merit, it also contains some very dangerous undesirable features. In addition, there is a question as to the legality of one feature. The Comptroller General has ruled that the manner provided for appointing the Executive Director of the Domestic Council is illegal while the Attorney General argues that it is legal. Under these circumstances, a majority of the Committee-not strictly on party lines has concluded that the best way to put this reorganization into effect is to enact legislation which preserves the good and eliminates the bad in the Plan. The Chairman of the Subcommittee, Mr. Blatnik, and I have introduced H.R. 17376 to accomplish this purpose. Other Members of the Committee have asked to cosponsor the bill. If the Plan is rejected by the House, it is the intention of the Subcommittee to hold hearings and to report out a bill promptly. We intend to ask for an open rule so that it can be amended on the Floor if the House so wishes. The reasons we oppose the Plan are: 1. The Plan violates Section 904 (2) of the Reorganization Act (5 U.S.C. 904 (2)) which requires that officers authorized by Reorganization Plans be either confirmed by the Senate or be in the competitive civil service by providing that the Executive Director of the Domestic Council shall be an assistant to the President (a position neither in the competitive service nor apponited with the advice and consent of the Senate). 2. The transfer, by the Plan, of all of the existing functions of the Bureau of the Budget to the President with authority in the President under the McCormack Act (3 U.S.C. 301) to delegate these functions to the head of any Department or agency to any Senate-confirmed appointee in the Executive Branch would: (a) Modify at least 58 statutory provisions enacted by Congress to place specific functions in the Bureau of the Budget, and (b) Give the President almost unlimited power to restructure the administration of those functions at any time, delegating them where he might at that moment desire, without any action or review by Congress. 3. In providing that office of the Executive Director of the Domestic Council shall be filled by an assistant to the President, the Plan would render that officer and his large staff not accountable to Congress and beyond the power of Congress to question. Large and important areas of domestic concern could be completely concealed from the Legislative Branch. 4. The six new Executive Level V positions which the Plan provides shall be appointed, with the approval of the President, by the Director of the Office of Budget and Management, would be blanketed into the career civil service with tenure rights that could make it very difficult for this or any succeeding President to replace them. This is not appropriate for positions of such level and sensitivity in the President's own office. 5. The Plan, read together with those paragraphs of the President's accompanying message which spell out his intentions in respect to the Federal Civil Service, could be used as a basis for downgrading the statutory authority of the Civil Service Commission, endangering the nonpolitical nature of the Civil Service System and making the system subservient to the Executive Office of the President. 6. The good features of the Plan can be secured and the public interest can be adequately safeguarded by enacting it in the form of legislation with a few changes. I also have a statement of the principal differences between the Plan and the Bill which I will read or leave for the record as you wish. In view of the action taken by the House Committee, I urge that your Committee take no action that might run counter to our efforts to bring out the best possible legislation on the proposed reorganization. I will also leave with you a document entitled "Objections to the Plan" which constitutes the "guts" of our report on the disapproval resolution. I want to thank you again for giving me this time and I hope the information I have presented will be of help in your deliberations. NINETY-FIRST CONGRESS, MAJOR DIFFERENCES BETWEEN H.R. 17376 AND REORGANIZATION PLAN NO. 2 OF 1970 1, H.R. 17376 redesignates the Bureau of the Budget as the Office of Management and Budget and provides the same officers and the six additional officers as provided by the Plan. Under the bill the President is not required to appoint the six additional officers in the classified civil service. 2. The bill does not transfer functions from the Bureau of the Budget or the Director thereof to the President as does the Plan. 3. The bill contains no reference to the development of career executive talent and, therefore, does not expressly or by inference authorize such a program in the Office of Management and Budget as was set forth in the President's Message. 4. The bill adds to the Domestic Council the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, the Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity and the Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality. All other designations to the Council remain the same as in the Plan, including the President's authority to appoint other officers of the Executive Branch. 5. The bill spells out functions for the Domestic Council that were contained in the President's Message but leaves to the President the power to assign to it such other functions as he may wish as is contained in the Plan. 6. The bill authorizes the appointment of an Executive Director of the Council but, unlike the Plan, requires that he be confirmed by the Senate. 7. The bill requires the Executive Director to make an annual report to the Congress and provide the Congress with such other information as may be requested. This is not in the Plan. 8. The bill authorizes the Domestic Council only until June 30, 1973. No such limitation is contained in the Plan. ELMER W. HENDERSON, Counsel. MAY 4, 1970 |