Mr. McCARL. Because he is a member of the official executive family. The major purpose when the office of Comptroller General was created was that he should function for the Congress and to keep the executive branch of the Government within the law in the uses of public money, and when you, the Congress, surrender his duties and responsibilities to the executive branch you will have lost all controlall means of control. You will have failed in one of your greatest responsibilities.

Mr. SWING. You do not think that the Attorney General who is the official and legal adviser

Mr. MCCARL (interposing). Of the President.

Mr. SWING. Of all the members of the Government.

Mr. McCARL. The legal adviser of the President, the law adviser in the President's Cabinet. I am not speaking in disparagement of any Attorney General's legal ability or of the value and helpfulness of his opinions, I am supporting the system of legislative control over the expenditure of public money.

Mr. SWING. How else are you going to avoid continual disputes between the interpretations of law unless you agree upon the chief law arm of the Government to have the last word on what the law is? Mr. McCARL. You will have disputes as long as the Congress itself encourages the executive branch of the Government to resist or disregard decisions of the accounting officers of the Government with relation to the uses of appropriated money. When you of the Congress let them know that the decisions of the accounting officers, your own agency, are final then these disputes will stop. It is lack of support of the accounting office by Congress that makes our work difficult.

Mr. SWING. Do you as Comptroller General reserve the right to make findings of fact?

Mr. MCCARL. Please do not say "reserve the right," because I do not reserve anything. I simply perform my responsibility under the law.

Mr. SWING. You assume the right to make findings of fact, and have.

Mr. McCARL. You know that I did not say that. You know my answer to that question was not as you state. I do not "reserve the right." I do accept administrative findings of fact unless they are clearly wrong.

Mr. SWING. You do not change their findings?

Mr. McCARL. No, sir. If we find in the audit an error made by an administrator official as to a fact, that official is usually delighted to have us find it out. He is no more anxious to make a mistake than we are.

Mr. SWING. I thank you for the information you have given me. The CHAIRMAN. You are excused, Mr. McCarl, and I thank you very much for being here this morning.

(Thereupon the committee adjourned, to meet again at the call of the chairman.)

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURES

IN THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS,
Thursday, February 20, 1930.

The committee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m., Hon. William Williamson (chairman) presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will please come to order. We will proceed with the consideration of H. R. 6441, dealing with the consolidation of governmental activities affecting war veterans.

Mr. Royal C. Johnson, the gentleman from South Dakota, who originally introduced this bill several years ago, is present, and we want to hear from him this morning.

STATEMENT OF HON. ROYAL C. JOHNSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA

SUMMARY OF MR. JOHNSON'S STATEMENT

H. R. 6141 is substantially the same as a bill introduced in 1924 by Representative Johnson when, as chairman of the Committee on World War Veterans' Legislation, he became convinced that there should be a consolidation of veterans' relief agencies. It would be valuable as a basis upon which to build uniform legislation for the future relating to veterans' matters.

At

Each of the agencies engaged in veterans' activities recognizes
the necessity for consolidation. They remain in agreement
until the place where concentration is to be made is named.
this point previous similar bills have been lost in a sea of tech-
nicalities. Each agency is jealous of its own prerogatives and
seeks consolidation in its own position. Practically, it makes
no difference where the consolidation is made. Whoever takes
charge is going to be appointed by the President and will be
subject to executive control.

Legislation to bring about coordination is not logical as long as part of the activities are under legislative and part under executive control. If they are to be put under one head and run efficiently there is no difference between coordination and consolidation. Any plan that would give the President power to consolidate would be satisfactory.

Consolidation will make necessary a revision of the laws which are effective in the veterans' agencies. There is now pending before the Rules Committee a resolution providing for a joint committee to make a study of this problem. That will be reported out if this bill is passed.

Comparisons between the Veterans' Bureau and Bureau of Pensions are misleading. Administration for the former is complicated by such operations as the rating table, which would be a fair method if it could be operated, and repeated adjudications. Inferences of inefficiency are drawn from the statement that it costs more to write a check in the Veterans' Bureau, while as a matter of fact great corporations have come to Washington recently to study the Veterans' Bureau system.

The Soldiers' Homes adopted a more satisfactory policy following an investigation by the World War Veterans' Committee, but they are nowhere near the standard of the Veterans' Bureau hospitals yet. The problems of hospitalization and domiciliary care are now closely interwoven. If they are consolidated it does not mean that the cost of custodial care will be increased so that it will be on the same basis as hospitalization.

It is believed that in a few years World War veterans will be put on a pension basis, although those who actually received their disabilities in the service will probably be on a different plane from those who later became eligible for benefits.

The Director of the Veterans' Bureau should have full power to settle claims. It is ridiculous to have the Comptroller General deciding the same thing.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman and ladies and gentlemen of the committee, in 1924, at the time that the Committee on World War Veterans' Legislation was created, and I became the chairman of it, I had become convinced that there should be a consolidation of the various activities looking forward to the equal treatment of the veterans of all wars and their dependents.

Three different times since 1924 this bill, and in almost the same form in which it is before your committee to-day, was introduced.

The original hearings held on this legislation were based upon H. R. 16530 of the Seventieth Congress, second session, which I introduced. I appeared before the committee and testified concerning this legislation on January 30, 1929, in the hearings which appear as hearings on H. R. 16722, which was introduced later by the chairman of this committee.

I want to call your attention to the history of the legislation so that you may know that it has been considered by other committees, and has been a matter that has been before Congress in some form or other for many years.

I recall very well, prior to 1924 when the Veterans' Committee was organized, when this legislation was handled by the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, and before that committee, which handled veterans' legislation for the World War, this same legislation was considered. No action was taken.

When we reported this bill from the Committee on World War Veterans' Legislation we recognized the fact that very possibly that committee had no jurisdiction, but by reporting the bill when we could, if I got it up under suspension of the rules, the rules would be suspended, and the bill could have been passed under the rules of the House. That, however, could not be done at that time, and those hospitals could not be consolidated and legislation could not be secured because a very eminent Senator had a very close and dear relative who was on the Board of Managers of the Soldiers' Home, and that distinguished Senator happened to be the chairman of the committee to which that legislation was sent, and he was very frank in saying that so long as his father lived there should be no legislation. To that I took no exception, because I felt that that relationship between the father and son was one that could not be interfered with. It was a personal relation coming into legislation. But I have always felt that the legislation ought to be enacted.

I have not followed closely the hearings of this committee, but from what I have heard as to the procedure, it has coincided with our experience when this sort of legislation was before the committee of which I have the temporary honor to be chairman. I found we were lost in a sea of technicalities and debate with each agency fighting for its own legislation. Each department was strong for consolidation, and they all recognize the necessity for it; they all say that it will be equitable for the soldiers and equitable for the dependents, and they are very much for it, provided, however, they can consolidate in the department which they control.

31158 3011

Mr. MONTET Would you permit an interruption there?
Mr. JOHNSON. Yes.

Mr. MONTET. The testimony before this committee does not indicate that everybody wants consolidation. In fact, outside of those connected with the Veterans' Bureau, none of the witnesses who have appeared here have favored consolidation. They favor coordination and not consolidation.

Mr. JOHNSON. In my judgment there is absolutely no difference between coordination and consolidation. If it is coordinated so that it is run efficiently, it is going to be run under the control of one man or one board, you may call him or it what you please, a director of the Veterans' Bureau, director of the veterans' activities, or Secretary of the Interior, or anything you please.

Mr. MONTET. Do you not think there is a great deal of difference between consolidation and coordination?

Mr. JOHNSON. No; I do not think so.

Mr. MONTET. My idea is that consolidation means the taking over of the whole thing, lock, stock, and barrel; and coordination does not go that far.

Mr. JOHNSON. I do not think there is any difference.

Mr. MONTET. Why not enact a law and provide that there shall be coordination, looking forward with a view to ultimate consolidation? What would you think as to that?

Mr. JOHNSON. I think it would be about as logical as saying that I must coordinate with a Member of Congress that I dislike and differ with. It would be fine but futile legislation. Somebody could say that we should coordinate but nobody could make us coordinate.

Mr. MONTET. If we had jurisdiction over the three boards or organizations, we could compel coordination. I do not mean actual physical force should be used, but I mean have one head that would be the controlling factor over all three.

Mr. JOHNSON. My judgment is that it would be entirely useless, for this reason, that you must have a consolidation in order to coordinate and that means that you must have a complete revision of the laws which are effective-that is, at the institutions. That, I think will eventually be provided for in the companion piece of legislation to this H. R. 222, which I introduced some time ago and which is now pending before the Committee on Rules. I am informed that it will be reported out as soon as we pass the veterans' legislative bills. It will provide for a joint committee of the House and the Senate to make a study and survey of the laws affecting veterans of all wars and their dependents, with an idea of revising the laws affecting hospitalization, compensation, and allied subjects.

The only danger of that is that then we may have three committees functioning in Congress, or four committees, a Committee on Veterans' Legislation, the Pension Committee, this committee on the consolidation bill, and the joint committee which would supersede all other committees.

Mr. MONTET. Of course you know that the bill proposes to turn over the functions of the National Homes for Volunteer Soldiers to the United States Veterans' Bureau. Are you wedded to the thought of turning those two agencies over to the United States Veterans' Bureau, or would it make any difference to you if consolidation comes

about, that an entirely new bureau be created to take over all three agencies?

Mr. JOHNSON. I am glad you asked that question. I do not think it makes a bit of difference. I have come to the conclusion that this Government is a government of men. We can talk about amendments all we want to, and talk about laws all we want to, but eventually the administration of law comes down to one man, and that man is the President. Whoever takes charge of this consolidated bureau will be appointed by the President of the United States. I am for the consolidation, and I do not care what you call it.

Mr. MONTET. That is what I wanted to get.

The CHAIRMAN. As you know, we have in the National Home for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers the Board of Managers, which is a body not subject to the jurisdiction of the President or anyone else. Do you think consolidation of veterans' activities can be effected and still leave this board intact?

Mr. JOHNSON. I do not think so. I think that law was originally passed in such terms as Members of Congress desired to control the appointment of that board, which happened to be the hospitalization group of the Civil War veterans. There was a great deal of politics involved in it at that time, when that original law was passed, and they did not want the President to have anything to say about appointments. The law happens to be in its present form as the result of a personal squabble between the then President of the United States and the Congress. There never was any logical reason for such a situation, and it is unthinkable to me that you would have this board functioning as an executive body with the responsibility for its creation in the legislative branch of the Government. I do not think there ought to be any board functioning that is not responsible to the executive branch of the Government; and I do not think that we, as the legislative branch, ought to be acting in an executive capacity.

Mr. MONTET. Suppose we should establish some head agency that would have authority to supervise and coordinate and control all three agencies; would you call that a consolidation?

Mr. JOHNSON. I do not think it would do any good at all. I think it would be the same thing as passing a resolution that I must agree in all matters with my Democratic opponents on the floor of the House. I think you have to have a law that will do this.

Mr. MONTET. Suppose you had a law that would give them general supervision or general control; would not that ultimately bring about as effective a consolidation as you have in mind? You would have one man at the head of all three agencies, would you not?

Mr. JOHNSON. No; we would have one man that would be supposed to be at the head, but in reality you would have a Board of Managers in the Soldiers' Homes that would be running one branch, and the Veterans' Bureau that would be running its own branch.

If you transferred the physical property and transferred the physical control, and gave these men the power to discharge under the law, and change the personnel and to do the things that must be done, then I think that is physical consolidation.

Mr. SCHAFER. The gentleman, of course, understands that every great veterans' organization has gone on record in favor of recognizing