As noted in House Report 92-130, the Commission now finds itself in the somewhat awkward position of appearing before one committee of Congress requesting funding through March 1972 for a Commission currently scheduled to expire on September 22, 1971. I request that House Report 92-130 be made a part of the record. The CHAIRMAN. It is so ordered. (The report referred to above follows:) 60-877 0-71—2 92D CONGRESS 1st Session } HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES { REPORT No. 92-130 EXTENSION OF THE COMMISSION ON THE ORGANIZATION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APRIL 20, 1971.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed Mr. MCMILLAN, from the Committee on the District of Columbia, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany H.R. 5765] The Committee on the District of Columbia, to whom was referred the bill (H.R. 5765) to extend for 6 months the time for filing the comprehensive report of the Commission on the Organization of the Government of the District of Columbia, having considered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass. PURPOSE OF THE BILL The purpose of H.R. 5765 is to extend the life of the Commission on the Organization of the Government of the District of Columbia six months, that is from September 22, 1971, to March 22, 1972. NEED FOR EXTENSION H.R. 5765 was introduced by Congressman Ancher Nelsen of Minnesota and cosponsored by Congressman Don Fuqua of Florida, who are also the House-appointed members of the Little Hoover Commission. Congressman Nelsen was elected Chairman of the Commission at the formal organization meeting held on February 5, 1971. At the March 8, 1971, meeting of the Commission, the members unanimously voted to request Congress to grant a six-month extension of the life of the Commission, and requested Congressman Nelsen and Congressman Fuqua to introduce legislation that would amend section 103(b), Title I, of Public Law 91-405, so as to effect the extension. The need for this six-month extension arises because of the fact that, for reasons beyond the control of the Commission, the Senate pointments to the Commission were delayed such that the final duntil the last week of January 1971. bers were not The Commission members who had been appointed met on December 16, 1970 and, upon a motion made and seconded, voted to take no permanent and final action toward organization until the final two members had been named. Shortly after the final two Senate members had been named, the Commission held its formal organization meeting on February 5th and since that time it has been engaged in the planning and organizational aspects of its work. The Commission has adopted a time schedule for its study which would see its efficiency study completed and a final report filed with the Congress in March of 1972. The Commission members fully expect to meet this deadline if granted this extension. COMMISSION BUDGET There is some considerable importance attached to this legislation, seeking a six-month extension for the life of the Commission, at least from the point of view of the Commission, inasmuch as the Chairman of the Commission must appear before both the Senate and House District of Columbia Appropriations Subcommittees in support of the Commission's budget for fiscal year 1972. Without some evidence of the intent of Congress to extend the life of the Commission to March 1972, it would be extremely difficult for the Commission to present and justify its budget. On the other hand, the funds currently appropriated for the Commission were not expected to cover the budget for the Commission for the entire term of its study, but only for fiscal year 1971. Public Law 91-665, an Act making supplemental appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 1971, enacted into law on January 8, 1971, contained an appropriation in the amount of $325,000 to fund the Commission in fiscal year 1971. It is currently contemplated that $150,000 in funds will be obligated by June 30, 1971 for staff salaries, administrative support, and contractual services. However, the principal part of the work of the Commission, and accordingly the costs incurred, will take place during the period of June 15, 1971, to March 22, 1972 (assuming the extension provided for in this bill). The budget request for the Commission for fiscal year 1972 is contemplated at this time to amount to $425,000. The total amount thus requested for the Commission during its life is contemplated not to exceed $750,000. The projected expenditures for the life of the Commission would provide salaries of $381,000, administrative support of $88,000 and contractual services of $276,000 for consulting, leases, etc. In the event, as is hoped, some professional assistance in conducting the Commission's study can be obtained through grants matching funds, or the assignment of professional experts in the fields of management, personnel, etc. from the public sector without reimbursement, there will be a balance of unexpended funds available after the termination of the life of the Commission. SIX-MONTH REPORT OF THE COMMISSION There is attached as Appendix A, the six-month report of the Commission transmitted to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate on March 22, 1971, as required by section 103(b), Title I of P.L. 91-405. APPENDIX A.-REPORT OF THE COMMISSION ON THE ORGANIZATION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA I. INTRODUCTION Section 103(b) of P.L. 91-405, an Act to establish a Commission on the Government of the District of Columbia, directs that the Commission shall submit a comprehensive report of its activities and results of its studies to the Congress within six months after the date of its enactment. This report is submitted in compliance with section 103(b) of the Act. For reasons as set forth hereinafter, this report is devoted primarily to what has been accomplished by way of organization and planning on the part of the Commission since its establishment. II. BRIEF BACKGROUND FOR THE STUDY This Commission, in a sense, had its origin in and is patterned after the Hoover Commission-type studies of the Federal Government which were chaired by the late President Herbert Hoover and were conducted in the late 1940's and early 1950's. And while there was some discussion and testimony by former President Hoover before the Congress where it appeared that certain functions carried on by the Federal Government and the District government paralleled and, in some cases, duplicated each other, and while it was suggested that there should be a discontinuance of some of these functions by one or the other government, neither the First nor the Second Hoover Commission was assigned or assumed the task of examining the operation and efficiency of the Government of the District of Columbia. The last study in any way generally related to that undertaken by this Commission appears to have been undertaken in 1937. This was an Executive study confined to the Fiscal Relations Between the United States and the District of Columbia Government. See Senate Doc. No. 12, 75th Cong., 1st Sess., 1937 (the Jacobs Report). That particular Commission study, while it was fairly comprehensive in one particular area (fiscal affairs), did not involve itself in the areas of economy, efficiency, and improved service of the District Government as contemplated by this Commission. Meanwhile, in the intervening years since the Jacobs report was issued and since former President Hoover testified on the results of the Second Hoover Commission, a number of reorganizations of the District Government have taken place. The most recent reorganization is that known as Reorganization Plan #3 of 1967, which was stated to have been instituted ". . . to provide a better government for the citizens of the Nation's Capital." Reorganization Plan #3 became effective on August 11, 1967 and operational on November 3, 1967 (81 Stat. 948; see also Title I, appdx., D.C. Code). 111 DUTIES OF THE COMMISSION The Commission was directed by Congress to study and investigate present organization and methods of operation of all departments, n is ageticies, boards, commissions, offices, independent establishits and instrumentalities of the District of Columbia cother than courts so as to determine what changes are necessary in order to -h the declared policy of Congress. It is hereby declared to be the policy of Congress to promote economy, efficiency, and improved service in the transmotion of the pubic business in the departments, bureaus, agoticies, boards commissions, offices, independent estabments, and instrumentalities of the District of Columbia རིམསྙ་ 1. Recommending methods and procedures for reducing expenditures to the lowest amount consistent with the etent performance of essential services, activities, and finctions. 2 Eaminating duplication and overlapping of services, 3- Consolidating services, activities, and functions of a similar nature, 4 Aboushing services, activities, and functions not necess sary to the efficient conduct of government, 3 Eiminating nonessential services functions, and activities which are competitive with private enterprise, 6. Defining responsibiaties of officials, and 7 Relocating agencies how responsib'e directly to the ommissioner of the District of Commbia in departments or other ageticies The Con ̧n 19-111 was f‚rther directed to subnat such interim reas deemed necessary w compoty her sive 6 month report, and a which may propose sich bistative et vetmeds and adt as an ats jddgment are recessity to carry out its The ontstration of the Cold itsstofi ens for the asp istment of marchers þar by the President foir by the Ngate and four of Rett 'atives 1. . thethbors as we ected by ench H f IN |