페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

against the plan. So, why bring them up every 2 years and hash them all out over again?

We also feel-and I think this is an important point—that the power delegated in the entire plan is at its crescent, you might say, the day after the plan was put in effect.. Then, as subsequent statutes come with later dates on them, they delegate authority here and there in the Department and the power of the Secretary gradually diminishes.

I point out in that connection the State Department. In 1949 there was complete authority delegated to the Secretary of State. Subsequenly, Congress enacted statutes relating to the Technical Cooperation Administration and the International Information Administration, with the result in those two fields and several others the Secretary's power is much less than it was after you gentlemen granted him the authority in 1949.

Another point on this time limit is that we've always found the problem to be not one of worrying so much about abuses after a plan is put into effect, but getting the agencies to do something after the plan is put into effect.

I cite you on that the question which has come up of supply in the military. In 1944, I think it was, the Truman committee attacked that point. They made recommendations. Very little happened. In 1947 the first unification act was passed. One of the problems was to have a unified supply system-do something about it. Nothing happened. In 1949, the same thing.

Now, we find on this ammunition problem-what's the trouble? The supply system hasn't been made up.

And your committee, of course, pointed out the same thing, I think, a year or two ago—the Bonner subcommittee.

So, we don't think the problem is one so much of abuse as making sure something happens afterward.

I had 1 or 2 other points, but I thought those observations might be helpful to you, Mr. Chairman.

I will be glad to answer any questions.
Mr. RIEHLMAN. Mr. Dawson, do you have some questions?
Mr. DAWSON. No; I have not.
Mr. RIEHLMAN. Mr. Fountain.

Mr. FOUNTAIN. Mr. McCormick, I gather from your testimony that, since the so-called specific plan was defeated, which you said had an abundance of details—the plan at the time, the plan of 1950, plan No. 4, was defeated because it wasn't specific—you are submitting or supporting what you consider a middle-of-the-road plan?

Mr. McCORMICK. Yes, sir.

Mr. FOUNTAIN. Do you feel that this is truly a middle-of-the-road plan?

Mr. McCORMICK. I think it is.

I think that the Secretary has already taken steps, in that memorandum 1320 of the 21st of January, and supplement 1, which came a little later, very much in line with what the Hoover Commission recommended; but he doesn't really have the authority to set up the Department into major subdivisions. I think there are six of them he proposes, without the authority. In other words, it seemed to us he was indicating his intention by setting it up informally and pre

а

sumably would follow through that intention later on, sir, if the authority is delegated by Congress.

Mr. FOUNTAIN. Have you had occasion to study Reorganization Act of 1949 very carefully?

Mr. McCORMICK. Yes, sir. Mr. FOUNTAIN. What is your interpretation of this phraseology: Whenever the President, after investigation, finds that, any 1 of 6 things he can find is necessary to accomplish one or more of the purposes of section 2 (a), he shall prepare a reorganization plan for the making of the reorganizations as to which he has made findings and which he includes in the plan.

Mr. McCORMICK. Well, sir, that language is taken from the Reorganization Act of April 3, 1939, which, if it would be all right, Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit the pertinent wording from the act which was signed by Mr. Roosevelt on April 3, 1939. It's almost exactly the same.

May I submit it for the record ?
Mr. RIEHLMAN. Yes, sir; you may do that.

(The pertinent wording from the Reorganization Act of April 3, 1939, referred to, follows:)

REORGANIZATION ACT OF APRIL 3, 1939
SEC. 4. Whenever the President, after investigation, finds that

(a) the transfer of the whole or any part of any agency or the functions thereof to the jurisdiction and control of any other agency; or

(b) the consolidation of the functions vested in any agency; or

(c) the abolition of the whole or any part of any agency which agency or part (by reason of transfers under this Act or otherwise, or by reason of termination of its functions in any manner) does not have, or upon the taking effect of the reorganizations specified in the reorganization plan will

not have, any functions, is necessary to accomplish one or more of the purposes of section 1 (a), he shall

(d) prepare a reorganization plan for the making of the transfers, consolidations, and abolitions, as to which he has made findings and which he includes in the plan. Such plan shall also

(1) designate, in such cases as he deems necessary, the name of any agency affected by a reorganization and the title of its head;

(2) make provision for the transfer or other disposition of the records, property (including office equipment), and personnel affected by such transfer, consolidation, or abolition;

(3) make provision for the transfer of such unexpended balances of appropriations available for use in connection with the function of any agency transferred or consolidated, as he deems necessary by reason of the transfer or consolidation for use in connection with the transferred or consolidated functions, or for the use of the agency to which the transfer is made, but such unexpended balances so transferred shall be used only for the purposes for which such appropriation is originally made;

(4) make provision for winding up the affairs of the agency abolished; and (e) transmit such plan (bearing an identifying number) to the Congress, together with a declaration that, with respect to each transfer, consolidation, or abolition referred to in paragraph (a), (b), or (c) of this section and specified in the plan, he has found that such transfer, consolidation, or abolition is necessary to accomplish one or more of the purposes of section 1 (a). The delivery to both Houses shall be on the same day and shall be

made to each House while it is in session. The President, in his message transmitting a reorganization plan, shall state the reduction of expenditures which it is probable will be brought about by the taking effect of the reorganizations specified in the plan.

Mr. FOUNTAIN. I might go ahead and complete that sentence so you can discuss it a little more fully.

I hadn't meant to stop there.
Mr. McCORMICK. Excuse me.

Mr. FOUNTAIN (reading): and transmit such plan to the Congress, together with a declaration that, with respect to each reorganization included in the plan, he has found that such reorganization is necessary to accomplish one or more of the purposes of section 2 (a).

That would indicate that the plan would actually contain possibly a number of reorganizations which one could read and understand as the framework of the reorganization proposed.

What is your interpretation of that language?

Mr. McCORMICK. Well, of course, I would point out I am not a lawyer, but the way I look at it, as á layman: There have been 44 of these plans approved since 1939—5 under President Roosevelt, 5 under President Truman under the first act, 34 under President Truman in the second act, and 1 under President Eisenhower.

Now, you've had a variety of Attorneys General. Most of those plans have been bitterly fought and, yet, no one has ever taken one of them into the court, even though there are some plans-for example, the plans of 1939—some of those were bitterly fought at the time. They were concerned with farm credit and, yet, the opponents of the plan apparently did not feel they had sufficient justification, from the line of reasoning that you're following, sir, to take them into court, because there's never been one taken into court.

That's all I can say.
Mr. Dawson. May I ask him one question?
Mr. RIEHLMAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dawson. Has your committee been reorganized ?

I think the last time I talked with you you were thinking of going out of business. I had a letter today from Mr. Stuart saying you were in business again.

Mr. McCORMICK. Yes, sir. We have reorganized on a very modest scale, compared to formerly, and I don't know what our plans will be. We're having a directors' meeting on this Thursday to decide the future course of the committee.

It's been decided to go ahead on a modest basis-approximately onethird as active as formerly, and I will be glad at the directors' meeting on Thursday to give any information on that.

I just don't know, sir.
Mr. RIEHLMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. McCormick.
The next witness will be Mr. J. T. Sanders.
Mr. Sanders, will you identify yourself for the record, please?

STATEMENT OF J. T. SANDERS, LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL, THE

NATIONAL GRANGE

Mr. SANDERS. Mr Chairman, my name is J. T. Sanders. I am the legislative counsel of the National Grange, and I appear today in behalf of the Grange.

Mr. RIEHLMAN. Do you have a prepared statement?

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I have a statement, which is 3 pages, double lines, and I believe if I tried to start talking it would take longer than if I would read these 3 pages.

Mr. RIELAMAN. All right; you may proceed to read it right into the record.

Mr. SANDERS. It will take only a few minutes to read the paper.

Six departments of the Federal Government have been reorganized under the general reorganization law of 1949, and the National Grange has wholeheartedly supported all of these reorganization proposals that incorporated the essentials laid down by the Commission on Reorganization of the Executive Branch of the Government.

And may I just digress here a moment to say that the previous witness, Mr. McCormick, and I, and and other representatives, representatives of other farm organizations, worked on the detailed reorganization bill which he mentioned, which never got submitted. I mean, we never got to discuss it before the committees after we worked it out.

Mr. RIEHLMAN. You are referring to Mr. Hoffman's and Mr. Dawson's bills?

Mr. SANDERS. What's that? Mr. RIEHLMAN. Were you referring to the two bills introduced by Mr. Hoffman and Mr. Dawson!

Mr. Dawson. I think he is referring to one of the agricultural committee, weren't you?

Mr. SANDERS. I am referring to one I don't believe ever got in the form of a bill printed

Mr. RIEHLMAN. That is right.

Mr. SANDERS. Where we worked out in great detail, by conferences, what we thought we would fit a detailed reorganization plan of the Department, simply to meet that criticism at the time.

Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1953 follows closely the basic principles as laid down by the Commission on Reorganization of the Executive Branch of the Government, and we are in hearty agreement with it. We hope sincerely that the committee will facilitate its becoming effective as soon as possible.

The National Grange appeared before the Commission on Reorganization of the Executive Branch of the Government when it was formulating its original recommendations. We also appeared before the Agricultural Task Force that was in charge of the special study on the problem of reorganization of the Department of Agriculture. We, therefore, have had a direct and active part in this movement for improving our Federal Government from the beginning. We have formally and repeatedly approved of the general principles of reorganization which the Commission proposed. That is, the National Grange has done this in its national session.

Two marked advantages have resulted, and will result, from carrying out the recommended reorganization. In the first place, we believe that a much more effective, efficient administration of Federal functions will result from these reorganizations. Duplications and conflicts should be eliminated. These are always frustrating to employees of the Government where they exist. Their reduction is certain to improve the morale and efficiency of the personnel. In the second place, we believe that reorganization has saved, and will save, much Government expense.

The proposed Reorganization Plan No. 2 for the United States Department of Agriculture is no exception to the general principles applicable to the reorganization already accomplished under the General Reorganization Act of 1949. At the present time 9 agencies of the Department of Agriculture under the full jurisdiction of the Secretary, and 10 functions or agencies are under special legislative charter or authority and are subject to the Secretary's limited jurisdiction only.

Obviously, if a Secretary is given the responsibility of administering efficiently such a divided house, he cannot render to the country, to the Congress, and the President the most efficient service he is personally capable of rendering. The Commission on Reorganization of the Executive Branch of the Government put the case briefly when it said “No subordinate should have authority independent of his superior” and that every administrator "should have full authority over the reorganization of his Department."

The agencies in the Department over which the Secretary now has full administrative authority are the Agricultural Research Administration. the Production and Marketing Administration, the Commodity Exchange Authority, the Extension Service, the Foreign Agricultural Service, Office of Budget and Finance, the Office of Plant Management, and the Library. · The agencies over which his authority is legislatively limited are the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, the Forest Service, the Soil Conservation Service, the Farmers Home Administration, the Rural Electrification Administration, and the Office of the Solicitor.

All of these listed agencies would be brought under the Secretary's full jurisdiction so far as personnel and duplication of functions are concerned by the Reorganization Plan No. 2. In addition to the above 6 agencies of limited jurisdiction, there are 4 other agencies in the Department over which the Secretary's authority is legally limited but which are not included in the plan now presented. These are the Commodity Credit Corporation, the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, the Office of Hearing Examiners, and the Farm Credit Administration.

I heard the Secretary this morning explain why these were excluded from the plan. I shall not discuss the reasons for excluding them, except that I would like to say, in the case of the Farm Credit Administration, legislation dealing with that agency is now before the committees of the Congress, which explains in part why it is now omitted.

The National Grange, through a joint Farm Credit Committee of which the present Secretary of Agriculture was an original member, has collaborated closely over a period of 10 or 11 years with 2 other major national farm organizations and with Farm Credit Agency representatives throughout the country more recently, in an effort to work out plans for reorganization of the Farm Credit Administration, which plans are now in pending legislation.

We should like to call attention to some of the features incorporated in the present reorganization plan which were not included in the 1950 proposed plan No. 4. In the first place, the present proposal has a snecific provision written into it which obligates the Secretary to consult with general farm organization leaders and the appropriate committees of the Congress before he makes any major reorganization proposals.

« 이전계속 »