Plans were submitted that arguably would not have beenaccepted as legislation using the regular legislative process, thus increasing tensions between thebranches. While Secretary of Commerce, President Herbert Hoover (1929-1933) had beena proponent of the idea that Congress should delegate to the President authority to proposereorganizations of the executive branch subject to some form of congressional disapproval. (4) 
Hoover, a Progressive in his politics, believed that "economy and efficiency" in the executivebranch were possible only if the President could act decisively according to "scientific managementprinciples." This criticalview, held by many members of Congress themselves, (6) has been recurrent over the years and continues to this day to be amajor rationale offered for proposals to renew the President's reorganization authority. Section 905 of the Reorganization Act of 1977 listed additional limitations on the President'sauthority to submit Reorganization Plans as follows:
Â§ 905 Limitations on Powers
(a)A reorganization plan may not provide for, and a reorganization under this chapter may nothave the effect of -- 
(1) creating a new executive department,abolishing or transferring an executive department or independent regulatory agency,or all the functions thereof, or consolidating two or more executive departments, ortwo or more independent regulatory agencies, or all the functionsthereof;
(2) continuing an agency beyond theperiod authorized by law for its existence or beyond the time when it would haveterminated if the reorganization had not beenmade;
(3) continuing a function beyond theperiod authorized by law for its exercise or beyond the time when it would haveterminated if the reorganization had not beenmade;
(4) authorizing an agency to exercise afunction which is not expressly authorized by law at the time the plan is transmittedto Congress;
(5) increasing the term of an officebeyond that provided in law for the office; or 
(6) dealing with more than one logicallyconsistent subject matter. None of the plans involved major reorganization proposals. What About the Future? Reorganization of the executive branch has been, and will be, a continuous process. Organizational change is the norm in agency life, not the exceptional action. The principal argument favoring renewing the President'sreorganization authority appears to be that this will encourage the President, through the Office ofManagement and Budget, to take the initiative in organizational management issues, something thathas not been the case in recent years.
Among the initiatives being promoted with the beginning of the Administration of PresidentGeorge W. Bush is that of renewing the President's lapsed authority to submit reorganization plansto Congress. The general rationale offered for renewing this authority is that it would provideadditional flexibility and discretion to the President in organizing the executive branch to promote"economy and efficiency" as well as his political priorities. The regular legislative route forconsidering presidential proposals involving organizational changes is deemed by reorganizationauthority supporters as being unduly slow and cumbersome. Thus, the proposal to permit thePresident to submit reorganization plans subject to mandatory congressional consideration with "fasttrack" procedures is viewed by the reorganization proposal's proponents as a necessary reform forgood government. Critics of the reorganization plan authority reject the arguments and assumptionsbehind the proposal and defend the efficacy and legitimacy of the regular legislative process forexecutive reorganization proposals.
This report addresses three specific issues: (1) the historical basis and use of the President'sreorganization authority; (2) the factors contributing to the lapse of the President's reorganizationauthority in 1984, (1) and(3) thoughts on the future of reorganization in the executive branch.