authority be given to the Comptroller General and let him eliminate these duplications where it is necessary, just as well as an accounting office set-up in the executive department.

Mr. HOOVER. You come into another range of thought in that point. The first part of that is that executive staff require definite responsibilities imposed upon them. The moment you set up an outside agency by the Congress that takes over part of those responsibilities, you are undermining the responsibilities of the actual executive agencies of the Government. There is a further thought on that; the question arises as to the Congress taking over the functions of the executive arm of the Government. I have always felt that the act of 1921 in some particulars especially in methods of accounting, was an absolute invasion of the executive arm by the Congress.

Senator HOEY. Do you not feel that Congress ought to have some sort of representation in the matter?

Mr. HOOVER. Certainly. The Congress ought to have an agency and I might say, incidentally, that I think I was one of the first to raise that question in the Harding administration-that the Congress must have an agency by which it could determine whether appropriations had been expended within the intent of Congress and whether the expenditure was accurately accounted for and complied with the usual fidelities. That was the original sense of the 1921 act, but it was carried into the question of the determination of systems of accounts, and that is where the first conflict arose. Naturally, there will always be conflict between administrative officials and the Comptroller because they may differ on their interpretation of the law. That is unavoidable. In any event, one of the important difficulties of the law is this very provision that the Comptroller General should set up systems of accounts. He has never been able to do it.

Senator HOEY. I have felt, of course, the executive needed the Budget Bureau and the other facilities, and that the Congress needed some bureau, some sort of authority to represent them and to furnish information touching the whole governmental structure.

Mr. HOOVER. There is no question of doubt about it.

Senator HOEY. I think it is awfully important for the Comptroller General's office to be maintained in its integrity and power and authority rather than being crippled by taking away its authority and placing it somewhere else in the executive department.

Mr. HOOVER. The Reorganization Commission made no proposal to destroy the power of the Comptroller General. I think he will agree with me that under the present set-up of accounting the Congress does not get a complete picture of the situation in our Govern

ment.

Senator HOEY. That is all.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Smith?

Senator SMITH. Mr. Hoover, do I understand that you feel that the General Accounting Office does not have authority to go into the executive departments and set up accounting systems?

Mr. HOOVER. I do not think they have that authority under the law, and if they did have, I would object to it strenuously because I do not think Congress has any business invading an executive responsibility in that fashion if it wants to hold the executive responsible for its acts.

Senator SMITH. Do you feel that there is anyone who has legal authority to go into the executive departments and set up accounting systems?

Mr. HOOVER. Not at the present moment. That was our object in trying to devise a method."

Senator SMITH. As I understand it, the Budget Bureau isn't concerned with accounting?

All that is going on now, and very properly, is an interdepartmental committee; its enforcement consists of persuasion; but persuasion is not a very effective instrument where you involve the reduction of personnel of the Government by probably 15,000 people when you are done.

Senator SMITH. Would it be possible to have mandatory legal authority that would help the interdepartmental committee to set up accounting systems?

Mr. HOOVER. If you are talking about divided authority, if you gave those three agencies the joint authority to set up a system of accounts, it would be worse than if you put it on the Treasury and the Comptroller General.

Senator SMITH. As I understand it, if an Accountant General's Office were established the Accountant General would serve the President only and act in consultation with the General Accounting Office?

Mr. HOOVER. He would be a part of the executive of the Government.

Senator SMITH. The General Accounting Office of course is thought of and considered as the watchdog of the Congress. We certainly do not want to do anything to cripple that organization. Do you believe that the two groups could work together?

Mr. HOOVER. I not only think they could work together, but I think they would work together. I see no other solution if you want a positive solution. If, on the other hand, you want to drift along only with good hopes, very little of any permanent reform will be established because, after all, Government officials are transitory people. The minute that one of the key men disappears, then come in new agencies. Beyond this, the existing laws, unless amended, make such a method impossible.

Senator SMITH. Do you think that the Accountant General, then, would set up a system in such a way that the Comptroller General could go in and question the items and report to Congress and give Congress what we are looking for?

Mr. HOOVER. Under the proposals of the Commission the functions of the Comptroller General would not be interfered with except on the one question of methods of accounting. He would have the same "watchdog" faculties or functions that he has now and, in addition, would have to approve any system of accounts established. Senator SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Schoeppel.

Senator SCHOEPPEL. I think most of the questions that I have some doubt about have been covered. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. We are deeply indebted to you for your presence and the testimony you have given. I will say to you that this committee, having to deal with a great deal of the recommendations of the Reorganization Commission, welcomes your

counsel all the time. I want to have you feel free to voluntarily make suggestions and not wait until we call upon you and invite you to come down, because we feel that we have a tremendous job ahead of us. It is very easy to say, "Let's have reorganization," but when we tackle specific solutions, we run into a lot of difficulties, a lot of technicalities. There are differences of opinion. As you said, we all agree that we need to do something; we all seek the same objective It is just a difference of opinion as to the method of reaching the goal. Mr. HOOVER. I think it is one of the most difficult tasks that ever has been laid before the Congress, and my sympathies are with you, as you know. I sat in consideration of this practice for two recent years. I would like to say to the other members of the committee that the Senator was one of the most valuable members of the Reorganization Commission, and he ought to be familiar with what went on in there, although we did not succeed in converting him to every one of our points of view.

The CHAIRMAN. You are very gracious. Thank you very kindly. Mr. HOOVER. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Warren? Will you come forward, please? The Chairman is very hopeful that we can conclude these hearings this morning, although keeping them open subject to any one who wishes to file a statement. I feel that we have given an opportunity to testify to everybody who has indicated any desire to appear personally. We have other measures to consider, and we are anxious to bring this hearing to a close as soon as we can.

Mr. Warren, since this bill if it became law, would have some repercussions on your agency, I felt you should be given an opportunity, after the testimony up to this point had been presented, to make any further statement that you desired. The committee will be glad to hear you if there is anything further you wish to state.

1

STATEMENT OF LINDSAY C. WARREN, COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, ACCOMPANIED BY FRANK L. YATES, ASSISTANT COMPTROLLER GENERAL, AND FRANK H. WEITZEL, ASSISTANT ΤΟ THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL, GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE

Mr. WARREN. Mr. Chairman, you will recall that on the opening day of this hearing I had only 25 minutes to discuss this matter because of the press of time. At that time I had a prepared statement which I merely put in the record, and I talked informally to the committee. I shall try not to be repetitious.

In the first place, I should like to say that I have the greatest respect and esteem for the Honorable Herbert Hoover. It has been my pleasure to know him when he was Secretary of Commerce and also as President of the United States.

I was very glad to see him appointed to head the Commission on Reorganization. I have at all times commended the general fine work of the Commission and I have been in sympathy with a very large part of it.

But, gentlemen of the committee, certainly there is nothing sacrosanct about any of the Commission's recommendations. As I recall, the Senate itself on a roll-call vote just last year rejected one of the

1See also testimony of Feb. 27, 1950, pp. 47-64;

Commission's proposals. I have strongly supported parts of their recommendations. This committee will recall that I was the first witness to appear before it asking for legislation to give the President reorganization authority which would implement the report of the Commission, and I think everyone agrees that had the President not been given that authority, a good part of the Commission's work would have gone for naught.

In my advocacy of legislation to implement these proposals, I even went further than the Congress itself. As you recall, I strongly advocated that the rejection of any plan of the President should require a veto by both Houses, and Congress settled with a veto by one House.

But there is one thing that I did strongly recommend, and it was against the recommendation of the President and others. I urged this committee not to give any President of the United States, regardless of who he might be, permanent authority to reorganize the Government. I was gratified to see that this committee and the Senate and finally the conferees adopted this view. I firmly believe that when vast grants of authority are given to the executive branch the period of that authority should be limited and there should be a complete accounting by the executive of how that authority was used. I was happy that the reorganization powers given to President Truman must expire about the time of the expiration of his present

term.

Gentlemen, I am not worth 5 cents to the Congress in my position as Comptroller General if, when I am called upon, I do not give you my well considered opinion on these matters in a nonpartisan and nonpolitical way, because the General Accounting Office is a nonpartisan nonpolitical office.

Mr Hoover, in advocating the accounting provisions of S. 2054, is merely renewing and continuing his assaults on the General Accounting Office, but in doing so he fails to take into account all that has happened in the last 18 years and especially in the last 9 years. In 1932 he made and Congress rejected his proposal to destroy the General Accounting Office.

I hold in my hand Executive Order No. 5959, signed by Mr. Hoover on December 9, 1932, which would have practically done away with the General Accounting Office, and note, if you will, what the House committee said in rejecting this and other reorganization plans. I did not write this report. I was not a member of the committee. But the committee found the order

to interfere with work specifically given by law to an agency specifically created to function independent of the executive branch and on behalf of Congress * * * Even if it were possible within the authority given-and it clearly is not-what is proposed in this regard would defeat the very purpose of existing law, as it would break down the means of obtaining a uniform accounting system throughout the Government by dividing the work between two agencies, the General Accounting Office, where matters relating to accounting belong

It might also be noted in passing, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Hoover's own Director of the Budget advised Congress at that time to reject his reorganization proposals.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Warren, may I ask at this point if that Executive order would have repealed the present section 309 of the Budget and Accounting Act?

Mr. WARREN. Absolutely. It would have transferred accounting to the Bureau of the Budget.

The CHAIRMAN. The present section 309 is short. I should like to read it at this point into the record:

The Comptroller General shall prescribe the forms, systems, and procedure for administrative appropriation and fund accounting in the several departments and establishments, and for the administrative examination of fiscal officers' accounts and claims against the United States.

The Executive order that the Congress rejected to which you have referred would have in effect repealed that statute, would it not? Mr. WARREN. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And would not the pending bill in effect repeal that statute?

Mr. WARREN. Absolutely.

Then along came President Roosevelt, and he, too, was hostile and bitterly antagonistic to the General Accounting Office. He tried to destroy it by the legislative route, and was repulsed. For 4 years, Mr. Chairman, I sat as a member of the Joint Committee on Government Reorganization, headed by a great American, the late Senator Joe Robinson, of Arkansas, and I lived with this subject during that period. I have heard all the stock arguments advanced during this hearing, and I can assure you that it is the same old thing without a single new idea. Yesterday you heard one of the representatives of the citizens group speak. I was not here, but I am informed that a good part of his statement contained a quotation from the report of the President's Committee on Administrative Management back in 1937 when President Roosevelt tried to destoy the Office.

At that time there was an overwhelming Democratic majority in the two Houses. When the votes were counted every single Republican, without exception, voted to uphold the integrity and the independence of the General Accounting Office and a majority of the Democrats likewise voted the same way.

At that time President Roosevelt was joined by the entire Government in his assault on the General Accounting Office. The Office then was headless and without leadership, because for 2 years the President had refused to appoint a Comptroller General. Roosevelt gave up his fight when I accepted this appointment, and so far as I know, he never again renewed the fight.

Mr.

Mr. Chairman, it is hard to conceive that I would give up a seat in Congress and accept this position in order to preside over the liquidation of the General Accounting Office. President Roosevelt told me, and he told it to many others, that the very fact that I had accepted this appointment was sufficient notice to the Congress and to everyone else that he had dropped his fight.

Then Congress was beginning to get tired of all these assaults on its own agency. The war came along, and the President asked for wartime powers of reorganization. When the bill reached the Senate, Senator Taft offered an amendment which was unanimously adopted: "This act shall not apply to the General Accounting Office." There was a colloquy between Senator Taft and Senator Barkley, and both agreed that the General Accounting Office was an arm of the Congress and should not be subject to reorganization powers of the President. While the amendment offered may not have been necessary, both