a very fine job and should not be stripped down. How could we stop you?

Secretary BENSON. Well, of course

Mr. CONDON. Sure; we could come to a hearing and testify, but we couldn't convince you.

Secretary BENSON. You could stop me through the appropriation route, for one thing.

Secondly, of course, I wouldn't do it without consulting the Members of Congress.

Of course, a lot of this has to be done on the basis of confidence, Congressman. If you haven't confidence in the people appointed in the executitve branch, of course, you could question every move they make, ask them to submit

Mr. CONDON. Well, you say

Secretary BENSON. A plan on anything that you feared might be adversely affected.

Mr. DAWSON. Will you yield, Mr. Condon?

Mr. CONDON. Yes.

Mr. DAWSON. How could we have confidence in you before we have had an opportunity to see how you are going to act?

Secretary BENSON. Well, I guess maybe that comes with time.
Mr. CONDON. I think-

Secretary BENSON. We have done a few things down there, though. Mr. CONDON. This is the basic concern with the plan-this business we are setting up in the Secretary of Agriculture-not just yourself, but for all Secretaries of Agriculture that may come after you. We are giving that Secretary the authority to take any and all functions away from existing agencies and put them over into another agency

Secretary BENSON. Within the same Department.

Mr. CONDON. Within the Department of Agriculture-
Secretary BENSON. Without destroying-

Mr. CONDON. And at that time we have no way of checking up except, as you indicate, perhaps by cutting some appropriation from the new agency that gets them, which means: How do we get them back to the old one?

Secretary BENSON. You could pass a bill prohibiting it; couldn't you?

Mr. CONDON. Well, I don't know.

Secretary BENSON. I think you could, if there was sentiment for it. Mr. CONDON. Now, it seems to me it would not be such a burden-I don't see why it would be such an administrative burden-on you at the time you decided to consolidate agencies, moving functions from one agency to another, to set them up in the form of a reorganization plan and have the President submit it to the Congress, and then we could look at it if we so desire; but in this way, unless we come to your hearing and are able to persuade you not to take a course of action you contemplate, there is no immediate check on consolidation.

Secretary BENSON. There are a lot of minor adjustments, of course, that will have to be made from day to day. The plan you propose still wouldn't take care of those, would it?

Mr. CONDON. Well, I think

Secretary BENSON. You have in mind major consolidation of agencies?

Mr. CONDON. Well, that is what your section 4 says-whenever it involves the assignment of major functions or major groups of functions, you are going to hold a hearing.

That is what your section 4 (b) says.
Secretary BENSON. That's right.

Mr. CONDON. Well, it seems to me if we are going to change major functions of existing agencies the way to do it is the way contemplated by the 1949 Reorganization Act, i. e., sending a plan up to the Congress from the President and giving the Congress a chance to disapprove it within 60 days.

Secretary BENSON. This plan, of course, as you know, follows the general provisions of the other plans approved by Congress.

Mr. CONDON. I am like my colleague, Mr. Fountain. I am not responsible for what happened in Congress before this

Secretary BENSON. I am not either.

Mr. CONDON. And, to me, I think Mr. Fountain is correct. We are, to that extent, where you can change major functions, departing from the theory of the Reorganization Act of 1949, because Congress does not get a chance to look at it.

Secretary BENSON. Suppose we try this plan out and if the Secretary doesn't do the right job, then I will come up and support a plan like you are proposing.

Mr. CONDON. I have nothing further.

Thank you, Mr. Benson.

I might say I probably know less about the workings of your Department than any other member of this committee.

I have no further questions.

Secretary BENSON. You have a lot of people in your State that do know a lot about the workings of it.

Mr. CONDON. I have a lot of farmers in my district, too.

Mr. FOUNTAIN. I would like to ask one more question, Mr. Benson: Did you consult with the leaders of the National Grange and the American Farm Bureau organizations, and similar organizations, before you submitted this plan?

Secretary BENSON. Yes; I did.

I mentioned, I believe, in the testimony that we appointed a special committee. There was a special committee appointed even before I took office to study this whole field. That committee consulted with the heads of the farm organizations; and then we took the report to our National Agricultural Advisory Committee. They spent a full day and most of the night on it. We also consulted with a number of people in the Congress. So, there was consultation.

Mr. FOUNTAIN. You, of course, were not in a position to tell them what functions might be transferred or what agencies might be consolidated?

Secretary BENSON. Not as to detail. We didn't make any commitment to them of any kind. We talked about the general provisions of the plan.

Mr. FOUNTAIN. Did they get any more details about what you propose to do than we, the Members of Congress, have gotten?

Secretary BENSON. No; I don't think they did-not from me, they didn't. I don't think from anyone on the Čommittee.

Mr. FOUNTAIN. I notice that State Farm Bureau federations from approximately 30 States opposed this plan, the essential parts of this plan, in 1950.

Secretary BENSON. I didn't know that.

Mr. FOUNTAIN. I have a list of those States here.

Mr. BROWNSON. Proposed plan No. 4, Mr. Fountain?
Mr. FOUNTAIN. Proposed plan No. 4 of 1950.

And the arguments in going through the records are very similar to the arguments which were given by Mr. Short and Mr. Davis and others that there was not enough limitations on the authority granted, that it left too much discretion, and Congress had no way of checking to find out just what was, at least in a general way, involved.

Secretary BENSON. All I can say is I hope they don't oppose this one-plan No. 2.

Mr. FOUNTAIN. But even though they took those positions in 1950 you are not concerned now that they are in your Department as to the position they will take in administering them?

Secretary BENSON. I'm not sure I understand your question.

Mr. FOUNTAIN. I mean the fact that they opposed this plan-
Secretary BENSON. Yes.

Mr. FOUNTAIN. So vigorously in 1950 does not in any way cause you any concern about their being in your Department at this time? Secretary BENSON. Well, of course, we have one member in our Department, and I don't know his being there would involve any particular danger or any commitment from those Farm Bureau groups, State organizations. He was a member of one State organization-I think in Arkansas-and happened to be vice president of the national.

It always concerns me when any important segment of agriculture opposes any program. Naturally, I would like to feel we are going to be able to work along with the great farm organizations of the country in all of our work.

Mr. FOUNTAIN. Of course, the one major thing that appealed to the farm leaders was the proposal, was it not, that you were going to have hearings, or at least you would consider having hearings?

Secretary BENSON. Yes; I think that does appeal to them. I think it should appeal to them.

Mr. FOUNTAIN. Of course, you are not bound

Secretary BENSON. No.

Mr. FOUNTAIN. By such hearings, and you don't have to have the hearings if you don't want to, do you?

Secretary BENSON. Well, I think we do. I certainly feel, under that plan, as it is written, I am obligated.

Mr. FOUNTAIN. Well, I think that is the spirit of it.

Secretary BENSON. Well, I hope

Mr. FOUNTAIN. I am just asking you a question.

Secretary BENSON. I hope I will carry out the spirit of it, as well as the letter.

Mr. BROWNSON. Mr. Riehlman.

Mr. RIEHLMAN. I have no question, but I would like to take just a minute to commend the Secretary for the very fine presentation he has made to the committee here this morning

Secretary BENSON. Thank you, Mr. Congressman.

Mr. RIEHLMAN. And the very honest and forthright manner in which you have endeavored to answer the questions which have been presented to you, too.

Secretary BENSON. Thank you. I appreciate that.

Mr. FOUNTAIN. I would like to add to those remarks and thank you for your patience in answering the questions I have propounded. Secretary BENSON. Thank you.

Mr. BROWNSON. Mr. Chairman, as acting chairman, I would certainly like to compliment Secretary Benson on the excellence of his testimony. May I say, in the last two terms of Congress, of all the testimony on reorganization plans I have heard, your testimony has been the most lucid and most clear and the most thoughtful presentation. I certainly want to congratulate you on that achievement and to wish you well in your courageous program for agriculture.

Secretary BENSON. Thank you very kindly.

Mr. BROWNSON. I would like to inform you further that my recent conversation with the farmers in my particular district, and checks by agricultural editors there, show very decisively that the farmers are behind your policies and are enthusiastic about the job you are doing. Somebody told me the other day that one of the distinctive things about the Eisenhower Cabinet was that as individuals they were so human. Being one of those human Cabinet officers, I imagine you get hungry like the rest of us, so in that case we will recess for lunch until 2:30.

Secretary BENSON. Thank you very kindly, Mr. Chairman.

(Whereupon, at 1:02 p. m., the hearing was recessed, to reconvene at 2:30 p. m. of the same day.)

AFTERNOON SESSION

(At 2:30 p. m. the same day, the proceedings were resumed.) Mr. RIEHLMAN. The committee will come to order. The first witness will be Mr. Finan. Will you identify yourself for the record, please?

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM F. FINAN, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR MANAGEMENT AND ORGANIZATION, BUREAU OF THE BUDGET; ACCOMPANIED BY EDWARD B. STRAIT, STAFF MEMBER, GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION BRANCH, BUREAU OF THE BUDGET Mr. RIEHLMAN. Do you have a statement?

Mr. FINAN. I have a prepared statement, prepared for Mr. Dodge, the Director of the Bureau of the Budget.

Mr. RIEHLMAN. Will you proceed with it, please?

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH M. DODGE, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF THE BUDGET (AS READ BY WILLIAM F. FINAN)

Mr. FINAN (reading):

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I welcome this opportunity to present to your committee this statement in support of the President's Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1953, which provides for reorganizations in the Department of Agriculture.

The Secretary of Agriculture has already set forth the principal, points in explanation of this reorganization plan.

Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1953 will make possible better administration of the Department of Agriculture. It does that in two principal ways: First, it clarifies the responsibility and authority of the Secretary over functions administered in the Department. Second, it provides the Secretary with three additional officers with appropriate rank to assist him in supervising the Department. One of the key points in the reorganization plan is that it permits the Secretary continually to seek better ways to administer the affairs of the Department of Agriculure. It sets forth specific goals toward which the Secretary is directed to utilize his delegation authority. It contains an important provision for giving appropriate public notice and obtaining the views of interested persons and groups prior to making any major shifts of functions. In my opinion, those qualifications placed upon the Secretary's delegation authority strike a practicable balance between giving the Secretary adequate flexibility in running his Department effectively and preventing any hasty or ill-considered departmental reorganizations.

Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1953 follows the sound principle, which was strongly emphasized by the Hoover Commission, of vesting functions directly in the department head so that he may be held more fully accountable for the administration of the Department. It is an arrangement which the Congress has already approved for most of the civil executive departments. It also provides the Secretary with the high-level assistants needed to give more adequate supervision to the operations of the Department.

I urge the Congress to permit Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1953 to become effective.

That is the end of Mr. Dodge's prepared statement, Mr. Chairman. Mr. RIEHLMAN. Do I take from the statement that Mr. Dodge sent up here that your department is of the opinion that this Reorganization Plan No. 2, if it is adopted, that there will be definite improvements in efficiency, and by that certain economies derived from it?

Mr. FINAN. Very definitely we anticipate that, Mr. Chairman. Mr. RIEHLMAN. Our committee is primarily interested in that factor, and that is one of the very important matters which is confronting all of us and when we are interested in these reorganization plans, we are anxious to know what those possibilities are. There has been considerable discussion in the last few days with respect to the responsibilities that are going to be granted and the authority given to the administrator, although he has not given a complete and definite outline of the program he hopes to bring about and the reorganization to be brought about.

But if my thinking is correct, every move that he intends to make will be along those lines. That is what we are hopeful can be accomplished.

Do you have any idea, or does the department, as to the economies that can be effected?

Mr. FINAN. Well, as you know, the Bureau of the Budget shares the concern of this committee about economical management of the executive branch.

This plan as we se it, is principally of value in that it creates a situation in which the responsibility of the Secretary for improving internal management is perfectly clear. In a department in which statutory functions are rigidly set out in a manner that makes it impossible for the Secretary to take any important steps toward improving the organization of the agency, he is in a position to, in effect, pass the buck any time any question comes up as to why this particular operation or that isn't run as economically as someone might assume that it could be. He could point out that nothing can be done about it, that the law prescribes certain organizational arrangements and that he can take no responsibility for it.