Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
135839312
label
JGR/Reorganization Authorization
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
135839312
contentType
document
title
JGR/Reorganization Authorization
citationUrl
identifierLocal
485
collections
Records of the Office of Counsel to the President (Reagan Administration)
John Roberts' Subject Files
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
135839312
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1986-12-31
year
1986
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1982-01-01
year
1982
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
93605b58b5bb272b
ocrText
Ronald Reagan Presidential Library
Digital Library Collections
This is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.
Collection: Roberts, John G.: Files
Folder Title: JGR/Reorganization Authorization
Box: 47
To see more digitized collections visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library
To see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection
Contact a reference archivist at: [email protected]
Citation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing
National Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/
STATE THE CENTRAL SENSE LEAVE
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
/
DATE: 4/8/83
TO: mr. Roberts
FROM: m. Bedell
call in: why not
object to himit on
new ag creation ?
Irm Main told me
we were going to.
Get that in timing
benefits
OMB FORM 38
REV AUG 73
new file
Reorganization
DRAFT#4 4/6/83
Authority
EMBARGOED FOR RELEASE
UNTIL 10 Are
GP/12,1933
REORGANIZATION AUTHORITY
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee.
I am pleased to appear this morning to testify on H.R.
1314, the Reorganization Act of 1982. This bill would renew,
with amendments, the authority of the President to propose
reorganization plans to effect changes in the Federal
organizational structure.
Mr. Chairman, the President urges that the
reorganization authority be renewed to help meet his
responsibilities for the effective and efficient management
of the Executive branch. The reports of this Committee over
the years, and the testimony officials from of this and prior
Administrations, detail the reasons the authority is valuable
to both the President and the Congress. The value of this
authority is also evident from a review of those
reorganization plans which have become effective. These
plans also are the best indication of the types of plans that
this Administration may propose.
2
The reorganization authority has been available to
Presidents since 1939. Since that time, every President,
with the exception of one, has had this authority available
to him. President Ford submitted a proposal in 1975, but the
Congress did not extend the authority. In the last Congress,
this Administration also urged passage of a bill to extend
the authority which expired in 1981.
Over time, Congress has limited what can be done by the
reorganization authority and has circumscribed significantly
the procedures by which plans become effective. The most
recent enactment of the reorganization authority in 1977
continued this progression by instituting several significant
limitations in the grant of authority. H.R. 1314 proposes
changes, some of which, would impose still further
limitations and constraints on the President's flexibility in
using reorganization plans to improve executive branch
organization and management.
The most obvious change that H.R. 1314 would make to the
authority that was available to previous Presidents concerns
the procedures by which plans would become effective.
Previously, plans would become effective after 60 days unless
one House of Congress disapproved it. The absence of a vote
by a House did not prevent a plan from becoming
effective--only a vote disapproving a plan would prevent its
taking effect. H.R. 1314 would change this process
significantly. For a proposed plan to become effective, both
Houses of Congress would have to pass--by an affirmative
vote-- within 90 days, a joint resolution approving a plan.
3
If one House did not act within that time, the plan would not
become effective under the reorganization authority provided
for by H.R. 1314. We think that this change in procedure
will work, and we think that it avoids the possibility of
confusion and uncertainity that would result if the previous
procedure of the reorganization authority were enacted now
but then ruled invalid by the Judiciary. However the key to
making the procedures of H.R. 1314 work, of course, is to
ensure that each House will vote on the proposed plan within
the 90 days provided for Congressional consideration. We
believe these procedures will work because of your past
practice, Mr. Chairman, of taking these plans before the
full House for its judgment on proposed plans.
A
One of the new limitations which H.R. 1314 contains would
provide that a new agency which would not be a part of an
existing department or agency could no longer be created by
reorganization plan. To illustrate, the Environmental
Protection Agency and the Federal Emergency Management Agency
were both created by plan, but could not have been under the
authority proposed in H.R. 1314. This restriction would
significantly constrain the authority available to previous
Presidents to affect changes in the Federal organization.
Although we do not foresee the need to create new agencies,
under H.R. 1314 to create a new agency, we would have to
propose to Congress and Congress would have to pass a
statute.
4
H.R. 1314 would also increase the time it would take for
Congress to consider and approve reorganization plans.
The number of days for a plan to be before Congress would be
changed from 60 to 90 "days of continuous session. The
intermediate dates would similarly be increased by 30 days.
For example, any amendments by the President to his original
plan must be transmitted by the 60th day rather than by the
now
30th. The committees considering the plan must report it out
by the 75th day rather than the 45th day. Of course,
Congress could act on a plan at any time within the 90 days
if its consideration is complete before that time.
Finally, H.R. 1314 would prohibit a plan being used to change
the name of a department. We view this prohibition as
confirmation and clarification of the existing prohibition
against creating or abolishing a department by plan.
We support H.R. 1314 and urge its prompt consideration and
enactment by the Congress. We have two suggested changes to
H.R. 1314, however which we think are not major changes, and
we urge that the Committee consider them:
H.R. 1314 would require that a draft executive order or
other presidential directive would accompany the message
transmitting a reorganization plan when the reorganization
provided in a plan requires promulgation of an executive
order or directive. Apparently, the purpose of this
provision is to enable the Congress to appreciate the
full scope of a reorganization so that Congress can have a
more complete understanding of what it is asked to approve.
5
We do not disagree with the purpose of this provision.
However, we propose an alternative approach. We suggest that
the provision require the President to describe in an
accompanying message the actions that are be necessary or
planned in order to complete a reorganization. This change
would avoid problems of disclosing draft or working documents
of the President; would avoid problems concerning changes
later made to these drafts; and would provide the Congress
information it needs, when it needs it.
The second change we suggest is to increase by one the number
of plans that can be pending before Congress at any single
time. The authority that expired in 1981 limited the number
that may be pending to three. That provision was added in
1977, in part to ensure that the prior Administration's
zeal for proposing reorganization did not overwhelm the
Committees. H.R. 1314 would increase the time limits for
Congressional considerations of each plan has increased
from
60 to 90 days, thereby providing much more time for the
consideration of each plan. Furthermore, the procedures by
which a plan becomes effective have also changed--and
significantly SO. If H.R. 1314 were enacted, the consequence
of a failure by Congess to act would be that the plan would
not become effective. Previously, the consequence was that a
plan would become effective (unless the other House blocked
the plan by a vote). Overloading the
tot
system would be less of a congressional concern and more of
an Executive concern. The increase would also permit more
plans to become effective in the next two years.
6
Again, we support H.R. 1314. Many of the key changes
H.R. 1314 would make in the authority were proposed by you in
1977 and were considered by the Committee at that time. I
urge expeditious action by this Committee and the Congress to
reenact this authority.
I will be pleased to respond to any questions.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 4, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
SUBJECT:
H.R. 1314 -- Reorganization
Act Amendments of 1982
James C. Murr of OMB has asked for our views on the above-
referenced bill, which is expected to be the subject of
hearings this month before the House Committee on Government
Operations. The bill, which is the result of long negotia-
tions between OMB and Chairman Brooks, essentially repeals
the legislative veto mechanism for approval of reorganiza-
tion plans. Reorganization plans currently become effective
if not "vetoed" by either House within sixty days, 5 U.S.C.
§ 906. The bill would require a joint resolution approving
the reorganization, signed by the President.
The bill represents the Administration's legislative veto
position coming home to roost, since its effect in this case
will be to make it much more difficult for a President to
achieve a reorganization. I discussed the question with Ted
Olson, who believes that the bill is not only constitutionally
permissible but constitutionally required. He noted that
the Carter Administration had taken the position that
legislative veto provisions with respect to reorganization
plans were somehow "different" and less objectionable than
run-of-the-mill legislative vetoes. This position, however,
was rejected by this Administration during arguments in the
Chada case.
I am advised by James Murr that OMB and Brooks have reached
an informal agreement in support of the bill. OMB would now
like to send a formal letter indicating Administration
support. The letter would object to two aspects of the bill
other than the repeal of the legislative veto. Section 4 of
the bill requires submission of drafts of any executive
order, directive, or administrative action likely to
accompany a reorganization. OMB plans to object to such a
formal requirement. Section 5 of the bill adds two items to
the list of restrictions on the possible contents of reorgan-
ization plans in 5 U.S.C. § 905. Section 5 would preclude
renaming executive departments and creating new agencies
-2-
through reorganization plans. OMB plans to object to the
provision barring creation of new agencies by reorganization
plan. The issue is really not significant, since H.R. 1314
would make a reorganization plan essentially like any other
bill. Providing that some proposals must be submitted as a
regular bill rather than a reorganization plan thus does not
alter the President's powers -- the alteration is accomplished
by repeal of the legislative veto. Nonetheless, there are
advantages in terms of legislative scheduling and priorities
accompanying reorganization plan treatment, and there is no
harm in the contemplated OMB objection.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 4, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR JAMES C. MURR
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
Orig. signed by FFF
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
H.R. 1314 -- Reorganization
Act Amendments of 1982
Counsel's Office has no objection to a letter in support of
the above-referenced bill. It is our understanding that the
contemplated letter will object to sections 4 and 5 of the
bill.
FFF:JGR:aw 4/4/83
CC: FFFielding
JGRoberts
Subj.
Chron
ID #
CU
WHITE HOUSE
CORRESPONDENCE TRACKING WORKSHEET
o OUTGOING
H INTERNAL
I - INCOMING
Date Correspondence
Received (YY/MM/DD)
/
/
Name of Correspondent:
Jim murr
MI Mail Report
User Codes: (A)
(B)
(C)
Subject: H.R. 1314 - Beorgenization act
amendments of 9982
ROUTE TO:
ACTION
DISPOSITION
Tracking
Type
Completion
Action
Date
of
Date
Office/Agency
(Staff Name)
Code
YY/MM/DD
Response
Code
YY/MM/DD
CO Holland
ORIGINATOR 83,04,01
/ /
Referral Note:
WAT18
D 83,04,01
5 83,04,01
Referral Note:
/
/
/ /
-
Referral Note:
/ /
/
/
-
Referral Note:
/
/
/
/
Referral Note:
ACTION CODES:
DISPOSITION CODES:
A - Appropriate Action
I . Info Copy Only/No Action Necessary
A Answered
C Completed
C - Comment/Recommendation
R - . Direct Reply w/Copy
B - - Non-Special Referral
S Suspended
D - Draft Response
S. For Signature
F - Furnish Fact Sheet
X Interim Reply
to be used as Enclosure
FOR OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE:
Type of Response = Initials of Signer
Code = "A"
Completion Date = Date of Outgoing
Comments:
Keep this worksheet attached to the original incoming letter.
Send all routing updates to Central Reference (Room 75, OEOB).
Always return completed correspondence record to Central Files.
Refer questions about the correspondence tracking system to Central Reference, ext. 2590.
5/81
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEM ENT AND
ROUTE :
Recommend
TO
Richard Hauser
you Roberts
Fast tumarand
means
Discuss with me
For your information
See remarks below
P
Jim Murr (x4870)
4/1/83
FROM
DATE
REMARKS
H.R. 1314 - Reorganization. Act
Amendments of 1982
Per your conversation with Bob Bedell, attached is a copy
of H.R. 1314 for your review. The Department of Justice
advises that the bill presents no constitutional problems.
OMB is preparing a letter to Chairman Brooks that would
support the bill, but with suggestions for changing
Sec. 4 and two other less significant changes. Mike Uhlmann,
however, asked me to obtain your sign-off on the bill before
we take a formal position supporting it.
May we please have your comments ASAP.
Attachment
cc: Bill Cramer
OMB FORM 4
Rev Jul 82
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE
SUPCIT
OFFICE OF management AND BUDGET
SERVIS
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
SPECIAL
March 25, 1983
LEGISLATIVE REFERRAL MEMORANDUM
TO:
LEGISLATIVE LIAISON OFFICER
Department of Justice (OLC has already
reviewed this)
SUBJECT: H.R. 1314 - Reorganization Act Amendments of 1982
The Office of Management and Budget requests the views of your
agency on the above subject before advising on its relationship
to the program of the President, in accordance with OMB Circular
A-19.
Please provide us with your views no later than
Thursday, March 31, 1983 (Hearings are expected in early April.)
Direct your questions to Maurice E. White (395-3856), the
legislative analyst in this office.
James M C. Murr for
Assistant Director for
Legislative Reference
Enclosure
CC: Melissa Allen
Mike Uhlmann
Bob Bedell
B. Cramer
Rudy Dutzman, Rm 238
A. Curtis/Karen Wilson
+2-1/852
MAJORITY MEMBERS
MINORITY MEMBERS
JACK BROOKS, TEX., CHAIRMAN
white
FRANK HORTON, N.Y.
JOHN N. ERLENBORN, ILL
DANTE a. FACELL FLA.
DON FUQUA. FLA.
NINETY-EIGHTH CONGRESS
THOMAS M. KINDNESS, OHIO
ROBERT S. WALKER, PA.
JOHN CONYERS, JR., MICH
LYLE WILLIAMS, OHIO
CARDIES COLLINS, ILL
GLENN ENGLISH, OKLA.
Congress of the United States
WILLIAM F. CLINGER, JR., PA.
RAYMOND J. MC GRATH, N.Y.
ELLIOTT H. LEVITAS, GA.
JUDD GREGG, N.M.
HENRY A. WAXMAN, CALIF.
DAN BURTON, IND.
TED WEISS, N.Y.
house of Representatives
JOHN R. MC KERNAN, JR., MAINE
MIKE SYNAR, OKLA.
TOM LEWIS, FLA.
STEPHEN L. NEAL, N.C.
ALFRED A. (AL) MC CANDLESS,
DOUG BARNARD, JR., GA.
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
CALIF.
BARNEY FRANK, MASS.
TOM LANTOS, CALIF.
RONALD D. COLEMAN, TEX.
2157 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
ROBERT E. WISE, JR., W. VA.
BARBARA BOXER, CALIF.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20515
MAJORITY-225-5051
SANDER M. LEVIN. MICH.
MINORITY-225-5074
BUDDY MAC KAY, FLA,
MEL LEVINE, CALIF.
MAJOR R. OWENS, N.Y.
EDOLPHUS TOWNS, N.Y.
March 21, 1983
opD
JOHN M. SPRATT. JR., N.Y.
JOE P. KOLTER, PA.
BEN ERDREICH, ALA.
Honorable David A. Stockman
Director
Office of Management and Budget
252 Old Executive Office Building
17th and Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20503
The committee herewith submits to you the enclosed
bill, H.R.
1314
9 upon which the committee
would appreciate a prompt report, together with such
comment as you may desire to make.
Will you kindly transmit your reply in triplicate.
Respectfully,
John Broohs
Chairman.
Enclosure.
Reports also requested: GAO
Justice
Light 197
5147
98TH CONGRESS
Pules
1ST SESSION
H. R. 1314
To extend and revise the authority of the President under chapter 9 of title 5,
United States Code, to transmit to the Congress plans for the reorganization
of the agencies of the executive branch of the Government, and for other
purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
FEBRUARY 8, 1983
Mr. BROOKS (for himself and Mr. HORTON) introduced the following bill; which
was referred jointly to the Committees on Government Operations and Rules
A
BILL
To extend and revise the authority of the President under
chapter 9 of title 5, United States Code, to transmit to the
Congress plans for the reorganization of the agencies of the
executive branch of the Government, and for other pur-
poses.
1
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 That this Act may be cited as the "Reorganization Act
4 Amendments of 1982".
2
1
EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY
2
SEC. 2. Subsection (b) of section 905 of title 5, United
3 States Code, is amended to read as follows:
4
"(b) A provision contained in a reorganization plan may
5 take effect only if the plan is transmitted to Congress (in
6 accordance with section 903(b)) on or before December 31,
7 1984."
8
METHOD OF TAKING EFFECT
9
SEC. 3. (a) Section 906 of title 5, United States Code, is
10 amended—
11
(1) by striking out subsection (a) and inserting in
12
lieu thereof the following:
13
"(a) Except as provided under subsection (c) of this sec-
14 tion, a reorganization plan shall be effective upon approval by
15 the President of a resolution (as defined in section 909) which
16 has been adopted by the House of Representatives and the
17 Senate, within the first period of ninety calendar days of con-
18 tinuous session of Congress after the date on which the plan
19 is transmitted to it. Failure of either House to act upon such
20 resolution by the end of such period shall be the same as
21 disapproval of the resolution."; and
22
(2) by striking out everything after "otherwise is
23
effective" in subsection (c) and inserting in lieu thereof
24
a period.
3
1
(b) Chapter 9 of title 5, United States Code, is further
2 amended—
3
(1) by striking out "thirty calendar days" in sec-
4
tion 903(c) and inserting in lieu thereof "60 calendar
-
5
days";
6
(2) by striking out "sixty calendar days" in such
7
section and inserting in lieu thereof "90 calendar
8
days";
9
(3) by striking out "45 calendar days" in section
10
910(b) and inserting in lieu thereof "75 calendar
11
days"; and
12
(4) by striking out "45 calendar days" in section
13
911 and inserting in lieu thereof "75 calendar days".
14
(c) Section 909 of title 5, United States Code, is amend-
15 ed-
16
(1) by striking out "a resolution of either House
17
of Congress" and inserting in lieu thereof a joint reso-
18
lution of the Congress and
19
(2) by striking out "the -- does not favor" and
20
inserting in lieu thereof "the Congress approves".
21
(d)(1) Section 912 is amended by adding at the end
22 thereof the following new subsection:
23
"(e) If, prior to the passage by one House of a resolu-
24 tion of that House, that House receives a resolution with
4
1 respect to the same reorganization plan from the other
1
2 House, then—
2
3
"(1) the procedure in that House shall be the
3
4
same as if no resolution had been received from the
4
5
other House; but
5
6
"(2) the vote on final passage shall be on the res-
6
7
olution of the other House.".
7
8
(2) The heading of such section is amended by strik- ing
8
9 out "disapproval" and inserting in lieu thereof
9
10 "approval".
10
11
INFORMATION TO ACCOMPANY PLANS
11
12
SEC. 4. Section 903(b) of title 5, United States Code, is
12
13 amended by adding at the end thereof the following new sen-
14 tences: "If the implementation of the reorganization provided
15 for in a plan will or is likely to require or otherwise involve
16 the promulgation of an Executive order, Presidential direc-
17 tive, or other administrative action, a draft of each such
18 order, directive, or action shall accompany such message.
19 The President shall also submit such further background or
20 other information as the Congress may require for its consid-
21 eration of the plan.".
22
RESTRICTIONS ON CONTENTS OF PLANS
23
SEC. 5. (a) Section 905(a) of title 5, United States
24 Code, is amended-
HR 1314 IH
5
1
(1) by inserting "or renaming an existing execu-
2
tive department" immediately after "a new executive
3
department" in paragraph (1);
4
(2) by redesignating paragraphs (5) and (6) as
5
paragraphs (6) and (7), respectively, and by inserting
6
immediately after paragraph (4) the following new
7
paragraph:
8
"(5) creating a new agency which is not a compo-
9
nent or part of an existing executive department or in-
10
dependent agency;".
11
(b) Section 904(1) of such title is amended by inserting",
12 subject to section 905," immediately after "may".