Throughout the hearings on H. R. 2781, it was generally admitted that the accomplishments of the Bureau of Federal Supply under the Treasury Department were inadequate.

Under this bill, the supply functions of our Government will be submerged in the new agency among numerous other unrelated functions and therefore no great improvement or savings can be guaranteed.

H. R. 4754 IS CONTRARY TO CERTAIN SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE HOOVER COMMISSION

Section 103 (a), in addition to transferring the Public Buildings Administration from the Federal Works Agency, also transfers to the General Services Administration the functions of Public Buildings Construction, Community Services, the Public Roads Administration, and all other functions of the Federal Works Agency.

Recommendation No. 4 of the Hoover Commission in its report on the Department of the Interior (pp. 8, 9, and 10) is as follows: We recommend that the following agencies related to the major purposes of the Department be transferred to it:

(b) Public Building Construction from the Federal Works Agency. (c) Community Services from the Federal Works Agency.

Recommendation No. 7 of the Hoover Commission in its report on the Department of Commerce (p. 21) is as follows:

The Public Roads Administration should be transferred from the Federal Works Agency to the Department (meaning Commerce Department).

The majority report of the committee fails to disclose any reason for ignoring in the provisions of this bill the Hoover Commission recommendation that Public Buildings Construction and Community Facilities be transferred to the Department of the Interior.

The majority report does excuse the transfer of the Bureau of Public Roads to the new aegncy rather than to the Department of Commerce as recommended by the Hoover Commission with the statement that the committee has withheld action on such transfer until some determination is made relative to the over-all program to be accepted by Congress on the reorganization of the Department of Commerce, and on the proposed consolidation of transportation agencies.

As excuses go, this one is in the "A hope and a prayer" category. The people demand prompt action and now is the time to avail ourselves of the advice of that body, and insofar as we can, follow its recommendations. We are either for the recommendations of the Hoover Commission or we are against them.

Section 205 (b) of H. R. 4754, among other things, provides that the Comptroller General shall prescribe principles and standards of accounting for property, cooperate with the Administrator and with the executive agencies in the development of property accounting systems and approve such systems when deemed to be adequate and in conformity with prescribed principles and standards.

This provision which grants additional administrative or executive authority to the Comptroller General is directly contrary to recom

mendation No. 10 of the Hoover Commission in its Report on Budgeting and Accounting (p. 39). That recommendation is as follows: Therefore, the Commission recommends that

(a) An Accountant General be established under the Secretary of the Treasury with authority to prescribe general accounting methods and enforce accounting procedures. These methods and procedures should be subject to the approval of the Comptroller General within the powers now conferred upon him by the Congress.

The Commission's report states further (pp. 39 and 41) that—

Our recommendation would create a single officer in the Treasury Department with authority to prescribe a single system of fiscal accounts and to represent the executive branch in working out an administrative accounting system with the Comptroller General. The Accounting General would further supervise all departmental accounting activities throughout the executive branch and assist departments in performing their accounting duties.

We believe there is no inherent conflict between the present position of the Comptroller General and our recommendation to create the position of Accountant General.

In the task force Report on the Federal Supply System (appendix B) (p. 9), we find this statement:

It is hoped that the project on fiscal, budgeting, and accounting will recommend a clear-cut distinction between legislative and executive functions which would confine the Comptroller General's role to post audit and to reports to Congress of his findings. with recommendations for further investigation or legislative remedies.

This particular provision extending the authority of the Comptroller General was not discussed in the hearings on H. R. 2781 in relation to the above-cited recommendation of the Hoover Commission. Its inclusion in this bill can only be interpreted as an attempt to anticipate the Hoover Commission's recommendations on the subject of budgeting and accounting.

OTHER INSTANCES IN WHICH THE HOOVER COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATIONS ARE APPARENTLY IGNORED

Section 102 (b) of H. R. 4754 transfers the Office of Contract Settlement to the General Services Administration.

As pointed out, the Hoover Commission in its Report on the Office of General Services and Supply Activities recommended that only certain functions be placed in the Office of General Services. This transfer was not recommended by the Hoover Commission.

The same is true of certain other functions which this bill transfers from the Federal Works Agency to the General Services Administration, that is, the custody and maintenance, on behalf of the National Military Establishment, of plants and machine tools in the national industrial reserve, disaster relief, and the administration of certain functions of the water-pollution-control program.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Inasmuch as the Congress authorized the Hoover Commission to make the studies and report its conclusions, and as the people, generally, without too adequate a knowledge of what is in those reports, are demanding that the Congress make the recommendations contained therein effective, we should, if possible, perfect this bill on the floor.

The Hoover Commission spent almost $2,000,000-spent it wiselyits reports are invaluable, but the job it undertook is but half completed. The Hoover Commission told us of the changes that were needed, but it did not draft proposed legislation which would bring about the needed economy and efficiency.

The Hoover Commission, with the aid of experts, spent some 18 months in an effort to tell us what to do, where we should go, but it did not, because it was not a part of its job, tell us how to get there. In the judgment of the writer of this report, the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Holifield, who has worked so earnestly and conscientiously on the proposed legislation, should be given by the House ample funds to employ some of the experts who served with the Hoover Commission to assist in drafting the bills which are necessary to translate those recommendations into legislation.

Respectfully submitted.

1st Session

LOIS E. LILLIE

No. 671

MAY 25, 1949.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House and ordered to be printed

Mr. DENTON, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the

following

REPORT

To accompany H. R. 1023]

The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 1023) for the relief of Lois E. Lillie, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill, as amended, do pass.

The amendment is as follows:

Page 1, line 5, strike out "$3,000" and insert “$1,000".

The purpose of the proposed legislation is to pay the sum of $1,000 to Lois E. Lillie, of Dover, Del., in full settlement of all claims against the United States for personal injuries, pain, and suffering sustained as a result of an accident involving a United States Army vehicle, on United States Highway No. 301, between Richmond, Va., and Washington, D. C., on June 7, 1941.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

It appears that on June 7, 1941, at about 12:40 a. m., an Army truck, operated by an enlisted man and traveling in an official convoy of Army vehicles, was proceeding south on State Highway No. 2 (United States Highway No. 301) between Fredericksburg and Richmond, Va., at an undetermined but slow rate of speed, approaching the intersection of said highway with Mica Road, a side road. The truck in question was the second vehicle in the convoy. At the same time a 1941 Chevrolet sedan, owned by Francis T. Lillie, operated with his consent by his brother, Alfred Lillie, and in which their sister, Miss Lois E. Lillie, was riding as a passenger, was proceeding north on State Highway No. 2 at a speed of approximately 40 to 45 miles per hour and approaching the same intersection. There was no traffic signal lights or stop signs at the intersection in question. A soldier was placed

approximately 80 yards south of the intersection to warn traffic approaching from the south that the convoy would turn left on Mica Road. When the second vehicle in the convoy reached the intersection and began to turn to its left it was struck by the civilian automobile operated by Alfred Lillie. As a result of the accident the civilian vehicle was extensively damaged and Miss Lois E. Lillie sustained personal injuries.

It appears that the Army vehicles in the convoy were returning troops from maneuvers. Alfred Lillie states that after rounding a curve in the road where he passed two soldiers standing beside the road he saw a long line of automobile lights coming toward him from the opposite direction at a slow rate of speed; that he was traveling at a speed of about 40 or 45 miles an hour; that the other vehicles were well on their side of the road; that when he was about 60 or 70 feet from the front lights of the head vehicle in the convoy an Army truck turned directly to the left into his path to enter a road going to Mica, Va.; that he (Mr. Lillie) thereupon immediately applied his brakes and that his car skidded about 50 to 55 feet before colliding with the Army truck. A soldier who had been stationed on Highway No. 2 about 80 yards south of the intersection to slow down and control traffic approaching from the south stated that he was standing in the road and that he signaled the driver of the Lillie car to slow down but that said vehicle did not slow down and that in order to avoid being struck by it he had to jump to the side of the road. On the other hand Alfred Lillie and Miss Lois E. Lillie contradicted the statement of the soldier. It appears that there was a considerable number of Army vehicles on the highway on the night this accident occurred and that a number of soldiers were on foot on the road.

A bill (H. R. 4466 of the 79th Cong.) was amended, as recorded by the House Claims Committee, to provide for a joint settlement for the relief of Francis T. Lillie and Lois E. Lillie in the amount of $383.71; this was for expenses incurred in connection with this claim. The bill was approved by the President and enacted into Private Law 833, Seventy-ninth Congress.

Miss Lillie has not been paid for personal injuries, pain, and suffering, and this bill is introduced for that purpose. The Secretary of the Army states that it is believed that the award should not exceed the sum of $500.

Since the enactment of a law to pay her for expenses incurred in connection with this accident, Miss Lillie has expended the sum of $240 additional incidental expenses and, therefore, your committee, after careful consideration, is of the opinion that she is entitled to the sum of $1,000 and recommends that the bill be amended accordingly.

Hon. EARL C. MICHENER,

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, Washington, D. C., September 17, 1948.

Chairman. Committee on the Judiciary,

House of Representatives.

DEAR MR. MICHENER: Reference is made to your letter enclosing a copy of H. R. 6414, Eightieth Congress, a bill for the relief of Lois E. Lillie, and requesting a report on the merits of the bill.

This bill would authorize and direct the Secretary of the Treasury to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of $3,000 to