« 이전계속 »
4. Permit organization of Department of Agriculture councils in each county.
5. Authorize administration of services to the individual farmers through offices based on the States as units, and merge services at county levels.
6. Permit the establishment of i State council in each State and 1 county council in each agricultural county.
7. Establish Federal agricultural research stations only where existing joint Federal-State facilities cannot meet need. The plan deviates from the Hoover Commission recommendations in two
1. It authorizes the appointment of 2 additional Assistant Secretaries, whereas the Hoover Commission recommended only 1 additional Assistant Secretary.
2. The plan omits the establishment and alinement of the operational functions of the Department of Agriculture into eight major groups which were specifically provided in the Hoover Commission's report..
* The Commission, however, in recognizing the desirability of giving the Secretary some flexibility in the organization of the Department, also recommended that he should “determine the organization, be free to amend it, and assign the duties of the Assistant Secretaries,” without having to conform to "a hard and fast rule," which accords with the objectives of plan No. 2 of 1953.
There were nine additional recommendations contained in the Hoover Commission report on the Department of Agriculture, relating to changes in the functions of the Department, which are not covered by the plan. These will require substantive legislation, or further reorganization plans, in order to implement fully the programs proposed under these recommendations, which are as follows:
1. Restrict conservation payments to farmers to carry out complete program; cease payments upon completion of program.
2.. Operate commodity adjustment programs on a standby rather than on å continuous basis,
3. Charge production and inspection costs for benefit of general public to Federal Government, for benefit of producers or processors to producers or processors.
4. Pay customs receipts now allotted to the Department of Agriculture directly into the Treasury.
5. Authorize the Department to report on justification of irrigation or reclamation projects to the President and the Congress.
6. Transfer all Federal regulatory functions relating to food products to the Department of Agriculture.
7. Consolidate the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management (Interior), and Soil Conservation Service.
8. Transfer Bureau of Land Management (excepting minerals) to the Department of Agriculture.
9. Transfer water development activities except local farm supply from Agriculture to Interior. Following the filing of the Hoover Commission reports, reorganization plans were submitted to the Congress, or direct legislative action taken, toward implementing the Hoover Commission recommendations as applied to all executive departments of the Government, including the Department of Agriculture. With respect to the Departments of State and Defense, the Congress initiated appropriate legislation designed to conform to the general recommendations of the Hoover Commission, but which also dealt with broad aspects of policy beyond the authority granted to the President under the Reorganization Act of 1949.
REORGANIZATION PLAN No. 4 OF 1950 The President, under authority of the Reorganization Act of 1949, submitted to the Congress on March 13, 1950, Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1950, providing for the reorganization of the Department of Agriculture. This plan was, in many respects, similar to the pending plan. It was 1 of 6 similar plans (Nos. 1 to 6, inclusive) submitted with a view to carrying out Hoover Commission recommendations by transferring all functions vested in various officers, employees, and agencies of the Departments of Treasury, Justice, Interior, Agriculture, Commerce, and Labor to the respective Secretaries. Five of these plans became effective, the Department of the Treasury through a revised plan No. 26 of 1950, The Senate, however, adopted a resolution disapproving plan No. 4 on May 18, 1950 (S. Rept. No. 1566, 81st Cong.). Since a similar plan (No. 3 of 1949) affecting the Post Office Department became effective in 1949, and basic legislation incorporating the provisions of a similar nature relating to the Departments of Defense and State was approved by direct legislative action, the Department of Agricul
ture remains the sole agency of departmental status in which the functions have not been vested in the Secretary.
Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1953 differs from Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1950 in the following respects: (a) Functions of the Farm Credit Administration are not transferred to the Secretary; (b) the Secretary is required to give public notice of major changes in the departmental structure, with opportunity afforded to interested persons and groups for presentation of their views; (c) in any redistribution of functions, the Secretary is specifically required to simplify and make efficient any operations affected thereby; (d) the Secretary is required to seek to place the administration of the farm programs close to the State and local levels, and to adapt the administration of programs to regional, State, and local conditions; and (e) a limitation is established on the transfer of any unexpended balances of appropriations to insure that they shall be used only for the purposes for which such appropriations were originally made.
REDUCTION IN EXPENDITURES The President stated in his message that "reductions in expenditures will result from reorganizations of the Department of Agriculture made possible by the taking effect of Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1953," but stated that such reductions could not be itemized at this time.
An examination of the increased salaries involved in the plan indicates that there will be a total of $3,900 in additional compensation to the new officials authorized to be appointed. The two new Assistant Secretaries will receive increases of $200 each. One of the new Assistant Secretaries is serving presently as a member of the Commodity Credit Corporation Board, and the other as Director of Foreign Agricultural Service, at salaries of $14,800 each, which would be increased to $15,000. The salary of the Administrative Assistant Secretary will be increased from $11,300, as present Director of Staff Units, to $14,800, or an increase of $3,500.
According to information submitted to the staff, it is contemplated that this indicated increase of $3,900 will be more than offset by contemplated savings through the elimination of a number of other positions in the immediate Office of the Secretary.
GLENN K. SHRIVER,
Professional Staff Member. Approved: WALTER L. REYNOLDS,
(H. Doc. No. 508, 81st Cong., 2d sess.) MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TRANSMITTING REORGANIZATION PLAN NO. 4 OF 1950 PROVIDING FOR REORGANIZATIONS IN THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
To the Congress of the United States:
I transmit herewith Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1950, prepared in accordance with the Reorganization Act of 1949 and providing for reorganizations in the Department of Agriculture. My reasons for transmitting this plan are stated in an accompanying general message.
After investigation I have found and hereby declare that each reorganization included in Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1950 is necessary to accomplish one or more of the purposes set forth in section 2 (a) of the Reorganization Act of 1949.
I have found and hereby declare that it is necessary to include in the accompanying reorganization plan, by reason of reorganizations made thereby, provisions for the appointment and compensation of two Assistant Secretaries of Agriculture and an Administrative Assistant Secretary of Agriculture. The rate of compensation fixed for these officers is that which I have found to prevail in respect of comparable officers in the executive branch of the Government.
The taking effect of the reorganizations included in this plan may not in itself result in substantial immediate savings. However, many benefits in improved operations are probable during the next years which will result in a reduction in expenditures as compared with those that would be otherwise necessary. An itemization of these reductions in advance of actual experience under this plan is not practicable.
HARRY S. TRUMAN. THE WHITE HOUSE, March 13, 1950.
REORGANIZATION Plan No. 4 OF 1950
[Prepared by the President and transmitted to the Senate and the House of Representatives in Congress assembled, March 13, 1950, pursuant to the provisions of the Reorganization Act of 1949, approved June 20, 1949)
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
SECTION 1. Transfer of functions to the Secretary.-(a) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (b) of this section, there are herehy transferred to the Secretary of Agriculture all functions of all other officers of the Department of Agriculture and all functions of all agencies and employees of such Department.
(b) This section shall not apply to the functions vested by the Administrative Procedure Act (60 Stat. 237) in hearing examiners employed by the Department of Agriculture nor to the functions of the corporations of the Department of Agriculture, of the boards of directors and officers of such corporations, or of the Advisory Board of the Commodity Credit Corporation.
SEC. 2. Performance of functions of Secretary.—The Secretary of Agricu.ture may from time to time make such provisions as he shall deem appropriate authorizing the performance by any other officer, or by any agency or employee, of the Department of Agriculture of any function of the Secretary, including any function transferred to the Secretary by the provisions of this reorganization plan.
SEC. 3. Assistant Secretaries of Agriculture.-There shall be in the Department of Agriculture two additional Assistant Secretaries of Agriculture, who shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, who shall perform such duties as the Secretary of Agriculture shall prescribe, and who each shall receive compensation at the rate prescribed by law for Assistant Secretaries of executive departments.
SEC. 4. Administrative Assistant Secretary.-There shall be in the Department of Agriculture an Administrative Assistant Secretary of Agriculture, who shall be appointed, with the approval of the President, by the Secretary of Agriculture under the classified civil service, who shall perform such duties as the Secretary of Agriculture shall prescribe, and who shall receive compensation at the rate of $14,000 per annum.
Sec. 5. Incidental transfers.— The Secretary of Agriculture may from time to time effect such transfers within the Department of Agriculture of any of the records, property, personnel, and unexpended balances (available or to be made available) of appropriations, allocations, and other funds of such Department as he may deem necessary in order to carry out the provisions of this reorganization plan.
Senator Smith. I also include for the record a letter and statement from the Honorable Herbert Hoover, former President of the United States and Chairman of the Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government. Mr. Hoover points out that the plan is in accord with the recommendations of the Hoover Commission, and strongly recommends its approval. He points out that the plan should permit drastic reduction in the number of major units -20 in number---reporting directly to the Secretary of Agriculture; the reduction of expenditures through elimination of overlapping services within the Department; permit the Secretary to integrate related functions to the betterment of services to farmers; the establishment of closer working relationships between the Federal Government and State and local groups; and would make possible widespread streamlining and reduction in overlapping Federal activities at the State and local level.
(The letter and statement referred to are as follows:)
THE WALDORF ASTORIA TOWERS,
New York, N. Y., May 9, 1953. Hon. MARGARET CHASE SMITH, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Reorganization, Senate Committee on Government Operations,
United States Senate, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR SENATOR SMITH: I have your request, through Mr. Walter Reynolds, for my views on the President's Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1953 for the Department of Agriculture. I attach herewith a statement. Yours faithfully,
STATEMENT OF HERBERT HOOVER, IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUEST OF SENATE
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS UPON THE PRESIDENT's Plan No. 2 OF 1953 FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
The Organization of the Department of Agriculture is obsolete. To modernize it the Commission on Organization made 16 recommendations. Very few of these have been put into effect.
The first necessity in good and economical executive administration now is to give responsibility and to fix that responsibility. That is the purpose of the President's plan. It is in full accord with the recommendations of the Commission on Organization, and, in my opinion, the plan should be approved as soon as possible.
Major reductions in expenditures of the Department can be realized if the plan is approved and energetically implemented. Among the advantages which would derive from the plan are these.
1. The plan would permit the drastic reduction in the number of major units reporting directly to the Secretary. There are now more than 20 so reporting to him.
2. The plan would permit reduction of expenditures through elimination of overlapping of services within the department such as budgeting, personnel, supply, and research.
3. The plan would permit the Secretary to integrate related functions to the betterment of service for farmers.
4. The President's message directs that there be established closer working relationships between the Federal Government and State and local groups. The plan provides the machinery for making this possible.
5. The plan would make possible widespread streamlining and reduction in overlapping of Federal activities at the State and county levels. I refer you to the recommendation of the Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government of February 1949, as follows:
“We recommend a thorough overhaul of the organization of the Department, at State, county, and farmer levels."
Our comment on this recommendation was: “At the State level
“The State governments operate effective agricultural departments. They have in the past engaged in effective cooperative activities with the Department at State, county, and farmer levels. In recent years, the Department has not taken full advantage of the established and effective State organizations in performing many agricultural programs and has thereby produced some duplication of national and State effort at local levels. “At the county level
“This Commission was unable to conduct a detailed survey of activities at the county level. Sampling inquiries, however, revealed that considerable duplication has developed. For example, 47 employees attached to 7 distinct and separate field services of the Department of Agriculture in 1 cotton-producing county in Georgia were working with 1,500 farmers; a fruit and grazing county in the State of Washington has 184 employees of separate field services working with some 6,700 farmers; a dairy county in Maryland had 88 employees attached to these field services working with less than 3,400 farmers. In these and other counties, representatives of each agency frequently advise the same farmers on the same problems. Farmers are confused and irritated, as climaxed in 1 Missouri county, where a farmer recently received from 5 different agencies varying advice on the application of fertilizer on his farm. There are many separate field services at the county level. These include the Soil Conservation Service; Extension
Service; Farmers Home Administration; Production and Marketing Administration with its conservation payment program and school-lunch program; Farm Credit Administration, through its production credit associations and national farm loan associations; and the Rural Electrification Administration. In addition, the Forest Service may be represented by Federal-State farm forest management advisers; the Bureau of Animal Industry by specialists on animal disease eradication programs; and the Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine by others who work on plant eradication and insect control.
"Separate from those of the Department of Agriculture, representatives of the Veterans' Administration are usually present to administer the on-farm industrial training program for veterans. The farm labor representatives of the FederalState Employment Service and Federal-State Department of Agriculture representatives may also be in the field at the county level.
"A multitude of county advisory committees of farmers has been created and employed by these various activities at a cost exceeding $5 million a year. These local committees have been given administrative functions. The task force on agricultural activities believes that the local committees should be purely advisory on program formulation and operation. All administrative work should be done by departmental or State employees.
"Our task force recommends that only one committee be set up in each county. It estimates their annual cost for the entire Nation need not exceed $700,000.”
HERBERT HOOVER. Senator SMITH. The hearings have been so arranged as to permit proponents and opponents of the plan an opportunity to testify, either on plan No. 2 of 1953, or on Senate Resolution 100.
The subcommittee then will hear from the Secretary of Agriculture on Monday morning, May 18, to permit him to present his views in behalf of the plan, and to provide any information that will be helpful to the committee in the clarification of points that may be raised at the hearings, and to submit details with regard to reorganizations in the Department that may be contemplated under the authority of the plan.
The chairman will also wish to enter into the record letters received from other Senators, including at the moment Senator Hunt and Senator Robertson. (The letters referred to are as follows:)
UNITED STATES SENATE,
April 22, 1953. Hon. MARGARET Chase SMITH,
United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR SMITH: Your letter with reference to hearings on Senate Resolution 100, introduced by Senator Russell, to disapprove Reorganization Plan No. 2, 1953, is acknowledged with thanks.
It is not my wish to testify on this resolution but more and more I am becoming concerned with this type of legislation, if it can be called legislation. To my way of thinking, Congress is surrendering its prerogatives and in this particular case we have no information and are unable to get any information with reference to what action the Secretary of Agriculture intends to take regarding reorganization.
Consolidation, transfer of duties and possibly complete elimination of some functions under this resolution are of tremendous importance to the agriculture people of my State. Before voting favorably on Reorganization Plan No. 2, or voting favorably on the resolution to disapprove, I should like to know specifically and have it made a matter or record, just what the Secretary of Agriculture intends to do.
On the other hand, if the Secretary of Agriculture cannot advise in detail with reference to changes he expects to make, then I feel the resolution to disapprove should be adopted until such time as the Secretary can work out his program and give us definite information.
Would appreciate having this letter made a part of the hearing, if you will please. Very truly yours,
LESTER C. HUNT,