페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

dollars—are made available through the Federal Government to be used-oh, it's clever, it's subtle, and ordinary people won't believe how subtle it is. But, of course, this proposition, example, that you used wasn't very subtle.

Mr. HOFFMAN. Not very.

Mr. WOOLLEY. But when you've got billions of dollars being used and the control is from a Federal Government and Federal tenacles entangle the entire body politic, this thing gets pretty rough.

And if you really believe in liberty, you just don't believe in pushing that thing one step further. In fact, you believe in turning around and getting out of the hole you've gotten yourself into—whether you blindly or knowingly walked into it. You know it's there now. You can see it. It's obvious, and you had better do something about it if you intend to protect yourself.

Mr. HOFFMAN. I think that is all.
Mr. RIEHLMAN. Mr. Dawson, do you have a question?

Mr. Dawson. I was interested in what I heard, but I don't think I heard enough to predicate any questions.

Mr. HOFFMAN. Would you feel the effectiveness of a Federal agency putting signs in your district's official office that Mr. Dawson was no good as a candidate?

Mr. Dawson. Is it true? Would it be true
Mr. HOFFMAN. No; but it might misinform some individuals.

Mr. RIEHLMAN. You wouldn't care to have that statement in the record ?

Mr. HOFFMAN. What? My endorsement of the gentleman?
Mr. RIEHLMAN. Pardon.
Mr. HOFFMAN. I have no objection. I think he is a good Congress-

Mr. FOUNTAIN. Did Mr. Benson or anyone for the Secretary make any statements to you or your group as to what he would do or would not do as far as the Farm Credit Administration is concerned?

Mr. WOOLLEY. The only commitment I know he has made has been made publicly. Everything I know about it he has said is in the record.

Mr. FOUNTAIN. That is all.
Mr. RIEHLMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Woolley.
The next witness will be Mr. Robert L. L. McCormick.
Will you identify yourself for the record, please?

Mr. HOFFMAN. May I ask how many more witnesses there are and whether you intend to conclude by this evening or continue until you finish?

Mr. RIEHLMAN. Mr. Chairman, with your permission, we hope to finish this evening.

Mr. McCormick has a very short statement. He said he would be glad to have it inserted in the record, make a brief statement and permit us to ask him any questions.

I think that might be true of 1 or 2 other witnesses, and we have, I think, only 2 other witnesses following Mr. McCormick, plus 2 or 3 statements I will insert in the record at the close of the hearing.

Mr. HOFFMAN. Well, I have no suggestions. I was just asking for information, and I assume Mr. Dawson would be glad to have the same information,

man.

33798_53_--10

Mr. DAWSON. Yes. Mr. HOFFMAN. I hope the gentleman will proceed, and close tonight, if possible.

Mr. RIEHLMAN. We will endeavor, sir, with your cooperation.
Mr. McCormick.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT L. L. McCORMICK, DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH,

CITIZENS COMMITTEE FOR THE HOOVER REPORT

Mr. McCORMICK. Mr. Chairman, my name is Robert L. L. McCormick. I am director of research for the Citizens Committee for the Hoover Report.

I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if it would be all right if I were to submit this prepared statement for the record and then comment on two points that I'd like to make.

Would that be all right, sir?

Mr. RIEHLMAN. We would be very happy to have you do that, Mr. McCormick.

(Mr. McCormick's prepared statement is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF ROBERT L. L. MCCORMICK, DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH, CITIZENS COM

MITTEE FOR THE HOOVER REPORT

My name is Robert L. L. McCormick. I am director of research of the Citi. zens Comimttee for the Hoover Report and I am also vice president and a principal in the firm of Coates & McCormick, Inc., of New York, N. Y., and Washington, D. C. I am appearing before your committee at the request of Sidney A. Mitchell, chairman of the Citizens Committee, and John Stuart, chairman of the agricultural committee of the Citizens Committee.

We believe that Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1953 provides for a much-needed reorganization of the United States Department of Agriculture.

WHAT THE PLAN WOULD DO

The following changes are the more important ones provided in the plan:

(1) Transfer to the Secretary all departmental functions not now vested in him, except those of the hearing examiners, the corporations of the De partment, the Advisory Board of the Commodity Credit Corporation, and the Farm Credit Administration.

(2) Authorize the Secretary to redelegate functions.
(3) Permit transfers of records, property, personnel, and appropriations.

(4) Create 2 additional Assistant Secretaries and 1 Administrative Assistant Secretary. These represent new titles for existing offices, and will

not increase existing personnel. The plan represents a fundamental step in the first thoroughgoing departmental reorganization in many years.

WHAT COULD BE ACCOMPLISHED

1

This plan would make possible several organizational proposals made for that Department by the Hoover Commission. First, a reduction in the number of officials reporting directly to the Secretary. As the Hoover Commission pointed out, well over 20 major entities now report directly to the Secretary. Second, ending the organizational autonomy of major units. The Hoover Commission called the Department "a loose confederation of bureaus," and recommended most strongly that the Secretary should be in full charge of his Department. Third, reorganization of the Department can be accomplished right down to the county level. Fourth, conflicts in the Nation's agricultural policies can be reduced or eliminated.

According to the analysis of the Senate committee, 7 of the 16 recommendations of the Hoover Commission are either included in the plan or can be ac complished through authority which would be granted by it. We would like

to point out, however, some important recommendations of the Hoover Commission cannot be accomplished by this reorganization plan, but would require substantive legislation. Others can be done by reorganization plans, bat, since they entail interdepartmental transfers, could not be accomplished in a single plan applicable only to one Department. In this respect, the practice of submitting a separate plan for each separate transfer always has been followed. Although it is not clear whether or not this is required by the Reorganization Act, it has not been customary to incorporate interdepartmental transfers in a plan for a single Department.

PAST HISTORY OF THIS REORGANIZATION PROPOSAL The Hoover Commission recommended that department and agency heads should be given authority to reorganize their departments and agencies as they saw fit. That principle was accepted by the previous administration. During the 81st Congress, Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1950 was submitted, along with 20 other plans, most of them of similar type. That plan was defeated on the ground that it was not sufficiently specific, although it had been certified as being in accord with the recommendations of the Hoover Commission.

Faced with defeat of that plan, the Citizens Committee then prepared a very, very detailed proposal, spelling out everything that ought to be done in the Department of Agriculture. That proposal was made to the new 82d Congress in early 1951 by your present chairman, Mr. Hoffman (H. R. 3308) and by your committee's then chairman, Mr. Dawson (H. R. 3684). Simultaneously an identical measure, S. 1149, was introduced in the Senate by Senators Aiken; O'Conor, McCarthy, Taft, Ferguson, Smith of New Jersey, Lodge, Douglas, Benton, Duff, Saltonstall, Ives, and Dirksen.

In the House, these two bills were referred to the Committee on Agriculture. Several requests were made to that committee for hearings, beginning on May 8, 1951, with a formal letter of request from Dr. Robert L. Johnson, chairman of the citizens committee, to Chairman Cooley, of the House Committee on Agriculture. However, no opportunity was afforded to the citizens committee, the farm organizations, and other interested groups to appear before the Committee on Agriculture in order to explain the detailed plan. The Committee on Government Operations, by contrast, held extensive hearings with regard to some 10 or 12 Hoover Commission bills within its jurisdiction. Hence, the specific plan we presented was apparently not acceptable in 1951-52-any more than had been its predecessor, Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1950.

So now the Congress is faced with a third attempt to reorganize the Department, an attempt by a new administration to come up with a third plan. This plan, while it is very similar to Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1950, is at the same time considerably more specific, as previous witnesses have pointed out in detail.

It seems to us, therefore, that, since a very broad plan has been tried only to fail and since a very specific plan has been tried only to fail, this plan before you today presents the Congress with an acceptable middle course.

Four further objections have been raised to this plan.
First, it is said that the plan might lead to abuses.

It was a major premise of the Hoover Commission's report that an official charged with heading a department should have reasonable authority to direct the affairs of that department. Otherwise the President, the people, and the Congress would not be able to hold the Secretary responsible for obtaining results or for the lack of results obtained.

The principle embodied in this plan has been accepted by the Congress in the case of every major executive department, except Agriculture. The principle has been tried for 3 years; so far the Congress has not been faced with the problem of abuses predicted by opponents of the 6 departmental reorganization plans enacted. What better evidence have we than the fact that the Congress has not been asked to pass remedial legislation due to abuses of the authority in any of those 6 cases? Hence it can be proven that the principle does work without abuse. It does not seem reasonable to us therefore to make a special case out of Agriculture by defeating this plan No. 2—and hence excepting Agriculture from a principle which has worked in the other departments.

Second, it has been said that the plan just gives "a blank check” to the Secretary and that the Congress does not know what use would be made of it.

This argument was raised in the discussion of Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1950, which was defeated. However, in the instant case, there is a substantial difference. On January 21, 1953, right after the inauguration, the Secretary did issue memorandum No. 1320, indicating the direction toward which he would move in reorganization. This met with general approval on the part of farm groups and Hoover Commission and citizens committee experts. Furthermore, President Eisenhower has shown his general approval of the Hoover Commission's proposals. In effect, this approval has already been picked up and partially acted upon by the Secretary, so that one can assume that further changes will follow the broad pattern already adopted. Parenthetically, I might point out that the steps already taken cannot be fully implemented without this plan. In addition, I note that the plan is quite specific in its requirements of greater decentralization of Federal agricultural activities. In this case there is a definite indication from the President, both in the plan and in his message.

Third, it has been implied that the plan would lead to elimination of functions of the Department.

There is no authority set forth in Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1953 for elimination of functions which have been authorized by the Congress. In effect, section 5 of the plan requires that appropriations granted by Congress must follow the functions in any transfer from bureau A to bureau B, or from one official to another; and section 4 (4) of the Reorganization Act covers the same point.

Furthermore, we would like to point out that some 30 plans including 6 departmental reorganizations of the same general nature have been approved by Congress in the last 4 years. In not one case has a function been eliminated. There have been subsequent transfers, mergers, and redelegations, but no elimination of agencies or functions.

While it might be argued that the Reorganization Act of 1949 carried with it the authority to abolish functions, this authority, if it exists, would apply only to the submission of plans to Congress for that purpose. Since plan No. 2 does not even mention "abolition of functions” it is clear that the President has not here sought such authority for the Secretary, even were it unlawful for him to do so.

Hence, we cannot identify any reason that might lead to the conclusion that the plan would permit elimination of functions. That would have to be done by Congress.

Fourth, it has been said that the plan should have a time limit on it.

We have never supported the idea that termination dates should be put on specific reorganization plans. We have felt that an administrator should have the authority to make changes as a situation requires. Imposition of a rigid structure has been found to place a heavy burden on an administrator because he would lack the flexibility to meet changes or emergencies. There are several other good reasons why plans should not have terminal dates. Some of them are given below:

(1) There have been some 40 or 50 reorganization plans authorized in the last dozen years. Were there to be terminal dates put on each, Congress would be constantly reopening the matter of every single proposal; and year after year the renewal or extension of these plans would clog up the machinery of Congress. Had this been found to be necessary, we would. of course, advise such periodic consideration of the plans. However, since there have been no efforts at controversial remedial legislation as a result of these plans, we feel that the constant renewal of them would take up the time of the Congress—and to no foreseeable results.

(2) All legislative action taken subsequent to the enactment of a plan is beyond the purview of the authority set forth in it. On this the record has shown us that the reorganization authority in these plans gradually diminishes, as changes affecting organization are embodied in substantive legislation. Hence, the authority is not nearly so permanent as opponents might allege.

(3) Experience also shows us that, due to the great inertia of Government organization, the problem of future action detrimental to the proper conduct of an agency is not likely. In fact, our information is that those interested in streamlining agencies have found the problem more often is one getting changes started after the plans are put into effect. You, I am sure, are familiar with the departments' tendency to think that, once legislation is passed, the job is done.

(4) It is our further observation that, regardless of political party, an administrator tries to do approximately the same things in running his organization. In this connection we cite you the view of Senator Anderson who supports this plan, of Secretary Brannan who fought for one almost exactly like it, and of Secretary Benson who has testified in favor of the instant plan.

(5) The Congress always can, should actions be taken contrary to its views on organization, correct the situation. In this connection, I cite you the example of the Farm Security Administration, the abolition of which was so clearly explained by Congressman Cooley on Thursday. Similar action has been taken by the Congress in a few other cases. The relationship of the Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation to the Treasury was clarified by Congress, subsequent to the passage of a plan. Minor revisions were also made in the case of the General Services Administration and also in the case of the transfer of the Bureau of Employment Security to the Department of Labor. Where this problem has come up,

Congress has taken appropriate action. Former President Hoover, speaking as Chairman of the Commission, has urged adoption of the plan, for, without it 7 of the 16 recommendations of the Hoover Commission cannot be acted upon. The great nationwide farm organizations, speaking for the American farmer, have urged adoption of the plan. We commend it to you, because we believe that, unless this plan is enacted the Secretary will not have the authority necessary to give the kind of economical and efficient service that the farmers of America need and want.

Mr. McCORMICK. I would like to comment on the past history of

this plan.

In 1950 Reorganization Plan No. 4 was submitted, along with 20 other plans, most of them of a similar type. That plan was defeated on the ground it wasn't sufficiently specific.

Then in 1951, with the new 82d Congress, your present chairman, Mr. Hoffman, and Mr. Dawson, who was then the chairman of the committee, submitted an extremely detailed plan, which spelled everything out to the last iota practically. That bill was also put into the Senate.

Now, we asked again and again of the Agriculture Committee that they hold a hearing on the bill. They never gave an opportunity to the Citizens Committee or to the farm organizations or anyone else to come in and testify; and, yet, I've seen representatives of that committee who say, "Well, we don't have a specific plan.” They had one before them, and they never left anybody come in and explain it to them even.

Now, it seems to me, having been in effect defeated on a general plan, defeated on a very specific plan, that this plan, the present plan before the Congress, is a happy middle ground. I mean, it seems to me that you can't have your cake and eat it in this way.

Either

you want to do something about the Department of Agriculture or not; and this saying that one's too specific and the other's not specific enoughyou just don't get any place.

That is my first comment. And, then, my second comment, sir, is on the subject of this time limit. It's been suggested that these plans should have time limits, and I don't think anybody's answered that question in detail—at least not in any of the testimony that I've read.

There have been a total of 44 plans put into effect since the plan 1 of 1939.

Now, if there had been a time limit on 44 plans, and they came up every year, or 2 or 3, we think it would just clog up the machinery of Congress to no avail; and we think so because there have been no bills introduced to correct them, if they were wrong. There has been no remedial legislation suggested by people who fought to the death

« 이전계속 »