SEPARATE VIEWS OF HON. RICHARD L. OTTINGER ON HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 958 While I fully support the intent of House Joint Resolution 958, I feel that 24 months is an unduly long time for conduct of the automobile insurance study. Twenty-four months would provide for submission of the report and recommendations called for in section 1(b) of the resolution in April or May of 1970. Chances are that Congress could not act on the recommendations during 1970 and a whole additional year would be lost. I proposed in committee that the time limit for the final report and recommendation be set at 20 months, which would fall in December of 1969 or January of 1970, so that legislative consideration could be given to this matter in 1970. This was voted down by a voice vote, but received support from both sides of the aisle. As the resolution was introduced, the reporting time would have been limited to 18 months, which in my opinion would have been ample time and have assured our ability to act in 1970. My proposed 20 months limitation was what I thought to be a reasonable compromise. The problems and injustices of the present automobile accident insurance system are too critical to permit 3 years to go by before the House considers action. The grave inequities are already well documented by a number of studies, including a preliminary staff study of the House Judiciary Committee. These studies show grave problems of nonpayment and inadequate payment of claims, arbitrary cancellation of policies, insolvency of companies, inadequate protection against foreign and out-of-State drivers, and inordinate delays and expenses in receiving compensation. These injustices cry for rectification. While I would support immediate legislation in this field and have made a specific proposal, I recognize the far-reaching economic ramifications. of drastic change and have therefore gone along with support of the study. I cannot, however, go along with a study that will delay action for as long as provided in this legislation. (16) O APRIL 4, 1968.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed Mr. DAWSON, from the Committee on Government Operations, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany H.R. 15688] The Committee on Government Operations, to whom was referred the bill (H.R. 15688) to extend the executive reorganization provisions of title 5, United States Code, for an additional 4 years, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with amendments and recommend that the bill as amended do pass. The amendments are as follows: Page 1, line 6, strike out "1972' " and insert in lieu thereof "1970'". Page 1, insert after line 6 the following: SEC. 2. Section 903 (a) of title 5, United States Code, is amended by striking out the period at the end thereof and inserting a comma and the following: "and specifying which of the purposes of section 901(a) is accomplished by each reorganization plan.". SEC. 3. Section 903(b) of title 5, United States Code (which relates to the specification by the President of reductions in expenditures in connection with reorganization plans), is amended by inserting "aggregate" immediately before "reduction of expenditures". Amend the title so as to read: A bill to extend the executive reorganization provisions of title 5, United States Code, for an additional two years, and for other purposes. PURPOSE OF THE BILL AND AMENDMENTS The purpose of this bill is to extend for 2 years the authority granted to the President in the Reorganization Act of 1949, now codified in title 5, United States Code, sections 901-913, to submit reorganization plans to the Congress. The bill will also require that in submitting such plans the President specify which of the purposes for making reorganizations that are listed in the act in section 901(a) are being accomplished. The bill will also require that the President state the aggregate reduction in expenditures that it is probable will be brought about by the reorganization contained in the plan. As originally introduced, the bill simply called for an extension of 4 years for the authority now due to expire on December 31, 1968. The first amendment reduces this extension to 2 years. The second amendment, which becomes section 2 of the bill, makes the requirement, noted above, that the President specify in each plan which of the six purposes contained in section 901(a) is being accomplished. The third amendment, which becomes section 3, requires the President to state the aggregate reduction in expenditures that it is probable will be brought about by the taking effect of the reorganization contained in the plan. The intention here is that some estimate be provided if a reduction in expenditures is anticipated. The fourth amendment merely amends the title to conform to the amendments incorporated into the bill. DEPARTMENTAL REPORT COMMUNICATION FROM THE DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF THE BUDGET TRANSMITTING A DRAFT OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION ENTITLED “TO AMEND CHAPTER 9 OF TITLE 5 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE, RELATING TO EXECUTIVE REORGANIZATION" Hon. JOHN W. MCCORMACK, JANUARY 27, 1968. Speaker of the House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. SPEAKER: The reorganization statute (ch. 9 of title 5 of the United States Code) provides that the President "shall from time to time examine the organization of all agencies and shall determine what changes therein are necessary" to accomplish various purposes, including more effective management, reduction in expenditures, and elimination of duplication. The responsibility vested in the President by the statute is indefinite. The President is also authorized to prepare and transmit to the Congress reorganization plans necessary to carry out the purposes of the statute. However, under present law, a reorganization plan may take effect only if the plan is transmitted to the Congress before December 31, 1968. I urge that the Congress extend for 4 years the period during which reorganization plans may be transmitted to the Congress. To accomplish this there is transmitted herewith a draft of legislation, to amend chapter 9 of title 5 of the United States Code, relating to executive reorganization. The continuing need for authority granted by the reorganization statute is clear. Similar authority has been available with few lapses since 1932, and each President has used it to improve the organization and operations of the Federal Government. The obligation of the President to see that the new programs of recent years as well as older programs are well administered and coordinated and to insure that our agencies are most effectively organized is unquestionable. The procedure set forth in the reorganization statute provides an important, workable, and time-tested means to assist the President in fulfilling his obligation. The creation of sound machinery to administer our laws is not an easy task, and it is never finished. The increasing complexity of modern life, the rapid growth of our population, and our commitment to the new programs of recent years make the task harder but more important. As the President said in his letter to the Congress on this subject 2 years ago, "Government has a responsibility to its citizens to administer their business with dispatch, enthusiasm, and effectiveness." The reorganization statute is a vital tool in achieving that goal. I know the Congress repeatedly has recognized the importance of the statute and the need for an ever-continuing study of the organization of the Federal Government. Therefore, I urge prompt action by the Congress on the proposed amendment of the reorganization statute. Sincerely, CHARLES L. SCHULTZE, Director. A BILL To amend chapter 9 of title 5 of the United States Code, Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of BACKGROUND The Reorganization Act of 1949 places upon the President the duty of periodically examining and reexamining all agencies of the Government and determining what changes are necessary to accomplish the following purposes of the act: (1) To promote the better execution of the laws, the more effective management of the executive branch of the Government and of its agencies and functions, and the expenditious administration of the public business; (2) To reduce expenditures and promote economy to the fullest extent consistent with the efficient operation of the Government; (3) To increase the efficiency of the operations of the Government to the fullest extent practicable; (4) To group, coordinate, and consolidate agencies and functions of the Government, as nearly as may be, according to major purposes; (5) To reduce the number of agencies by consolidating those having similar functions under a single head, and to abolish such agencies or functions thereof as may not be necessary for the efficient conduct of the Government; and (6) To eliminate overlapping and duplication of effort. It also makes a declaration by the Congress that the public interest demands that the above-stated purposes be carried out; that these purposes may be accomplished in great measure by utilizing the provisions of the act; and by proceeding in this manner these purposes can be carried out more speedily than by the enactment of specific legislation. The auhority granted under the Reorganization Act of 1949 to submit reorganization plans to the Congress has been given to the President in various forms since 1932. It is based on a demonstrated need that reorganization of the many departments, agencies, and bureaus of the executive branch must be made from time to time so that Government may carry out its purposes in an efficient and economical way. The act provides a tool whereby the President, with the approval of the Congress, may make such reorganizations as are warranted to achieve this desirable objective. This committee, in reporting the 1949 act, stated: *** there is an ever-present need for making such change in the organization of executive agencies as will make the executive branch of the Government more manageable, promote better coordination in the development and execution of Government programs by removing sources of confusing and conflicting policies, minimize the confusion encountered by a citizen in dealing with scattered and overlapping agencies and facilitate the conduct of his business with the Government, and otherwise promote efficiency and economy. For the last half a century one President after another has called the attention of the Congress to the need for reorganizing the executive branch. This need has increased as the role of the Government has been enlarged and as the number and size of Government programs and agencies have been correspondingly increased. Unanimity of opinion appears to have existed for many years that corrective measures with respect to executive organization are needed. Many reorganization plans have been put into effect since that time but none of these could be expected to provide a final and permanent arrangement for any agency. Functions change, new methods are developed, bureaucratic structures become obsolete, new laws are passed. Close attention must always be paid to organization. The Reorganization Act of 1949 was more comprehensive than previous legislation and was recommended strongly by the first Hoover Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government which was still in existence at the time the bill was considered by the Congress. The act and its predecessors admittedly reverse the usual legislative process by allowing the President to submit plans for reorganization which go into effect unless disapproved by the Congress within 60 days. This once unique method of legislating has become more and more used by the Congress in recent years in fields other than reorganization. But this method is peculiarly useful in Government reorgani 1 See Congressional Record for Apr. 9, 1963, p. 5590, for a list of provisions of Federal law relating to programs or activities which became effective if not disapproved or rejected by the Congress within a prescribed time. |