« 이전계속 »
Senator ANDERSON. That is why I said in the very beginning of my remarks that I thought it would be helpful, and I still think it would be helpful, if the Secretary of Agriculture would give you some idea as to what his plans are with reference to holding hearings before he makes any widespread change. You are going to have a chance to question him, and I think you ought to question him on that point.
Senator HUMPHREY. Yes, sir.
Senator ANDERSON. Because I can only say that after Milton Eisenhower and his group, which is a widely representative group, had finished their reorganization plan on the Production and Marketing Administration, we called in the representatives of the farm organizations, the American Farm Bureau, the Grange, the Farmers Union, and the Association of Co-ops, and many other little groups, and asked them to have a look at it. And they got through kicking it around, and we had to make a few changes in it, and we then called in the legislative committees of the Congress and we then called in the appropriation subcommittees of the Congress. If your plan cannot stand that sort of scrutiny, then you ought to hesitate before you put it in. But I do not believe that there would be the slightest difficulty with this or any other Secretary of Agriculture. He has to come back to the Congress time after time for legislative help, and he comes back steadily for appropriation help.
These next couple of years are going to be, I think, difficult ones in the way of trying to decide what commodities to support and at what level to support them. He is going to need the closest relationship with the Congress. I would be greatly surprised if the Secretary of Agriculture had a major reorganization without letting the Congress know all about it. It does not worry me in the slightest.
I am sure that he will come in.
Senator HUMPHREY. I want to say for the record that I appreciate the importance of the Secretary of Agriculture having reorganization power. I felt that way about the other department heads, no matter who is in charge of the administration. I am deeply concerned, however, about some of the feeling that have been manifested by the REA epople, for example. I happen to concur with you. I had hoped that REA would be left as a relatively autonomous agency, And I feel strongly about the Soil Conservation Service program. And I felt that way 3 years ago.
The only thing that bothers me now is that if there were such strong feelings--and I repeat that anybody wbo reads the testimony would know that there were such strong feelings before----there is nothing which indicates that those feelings should be removed, because no matter who is Secretary of Agriculture, he is going to be the subject of controversy, as will the Secretary of anything in the administration.
Senator ANDERSON. Yes, sir.
Senator Anderson, if this excessive grant of power should result in any abuses or any political blunders, and the Secretary of Agriculture should take any action which would result in adverse public reaction, of course, the opposition party would be glad to take advantage of it. So that will act as a psychological factor in preventing any excesses or abuses of
Senator ANDERSON. I would be one of the first ones to start picking out a good tree from which he could be hanged. But I am not worried about that. I just do not believe that there would be that type of reorganization. I just do not believe it.
Senator DWORSHAK. I do not, either. And that is why I asked you that question.
Senator SMITH. Senator Kennedy?
Senator KENNEDY. I have no questions. I certainly appreciate Senator Anderson's testimony. It is very helpful.
Senator Smith. With us this morning are Senator McClellan and Senator Symington, members of the main committee.
Senator McClellan, I neglected to ask you if you would like to ask Senator Aiken any questions. He is still here. Have you any questions to ask of either Senator Aiken or Senator Anderson?
Senator McCLELLAN. That is all right, Madam Chairman. I thank you very much. I do not care to ask Senator Anderson any questions. I would be interested to hear the Secretary testify, of course.
I would like to make one comment in response to a statement just made by the Senator from Minnesota.
I have not changed my mind very much about it. What surprises me is that I find some organizations now which then just could not tolerate the delegation of such blanket authority and which are completely turning a somersault now. They want to give it without question.
Now, I say this, too. I think there are differences in personalities. I might trust one Secretary to do a job of reorganizing. I might have greater confidence in his capacity and his purpose and ability to reorganize the Department than I would have another. I might withhold from one the same powers I would be willing to give to another.
But from a standpoint of basic principles, I can see very little difference in this reorganization plan and the other that we opposed.
There again, I might be willing to say, “Yes, I would trust Secretary Benson with the powers," but they are continuing powers, and the very next Secretary of Agriculture I might not trust at all.
There are your dangers. It is not a matter of opposing reorganization. I would like to see and understand how the authority is going to be used before I vote the power.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I read Senator Russell's testimony. I am sorry that I was a little late, but I had another committee meeting and could not hear all of Senator Anderson's testimony. But if it meets with your approval, I would like to ask Senator Anderson a couple of questions.
Senator SMITH. We shall be glad to have you. Senator SYMINGTON. Thank you. Senator, Senator Russell in his testimony said: It is purely a sweeping grant of power to a nonelected official, the Secretary of Agriculture, to reorganize that Department.
Do you agree with that?
Senator ANDERSON. I commented previously that I do not think it is such a sweeping grant of power. He now has authority to reorganize a great many agencies inside the Department, and there are other agencies which are not touched, such as Commodity Credit and the Farm Credit Administration and the Crop Insurance Corporation.
Therefore, I do not think that the power that is given him to reorganize the Forest Service and the Soil Conservation Service, REA, and the Farmers' Home Administration, and BAE is a sweeping grant
Senator SYMINGTON. So you do not agree with Senator Russell on that?
Senator ANDERSON. I hate to get things put in just that shape, because I am very fond of Senator Russell. I would say that I do not agree with him that it is a sweeping grant, no.
Senator Symington. Now, later in his testimony, Senator Russell says:
The power of the President of the United Stares to reorganize the executive branch of the Government has in each piece of legislation that has been enacted, been strictly limited as to time. When we enacted the amendment extending the Reorganization Act in this Congress, we placed a definite time limit of April 1, 1955, on the powers of the President to reorganize.
But this alleged reorganization plan has no time limit. It is a permanent delegation to any individual who happens to be Secretary of Agriculture to shift or alter the functions and activities of that Department to accord with his views without submitting to the Congress the proposed changes that he desires to make.
Do you agree with that, Senator?
Senator ANDERSON. No. I read that yesterday afternoon as I went through his testimony: It seemed to me that it was erroneous in this respect, that while it is true that the bills which we passed confer the right to the President to send up reorganization plans, the plans themselves have no dateline on them in any instance.
I think all the other reorganization bills are as limitless as this one is, as far as termination is concerned. This is no different from the others, not the slightest bit different. And I voted for all the others without any reservation for departments that I think need reorganization, perhaps, less than the Department of Agriculture does.
Senator SYMINGTON. On page 15, Senator Russell says:
If this plan be approved, the Congress has surrendered legislative control over the Department to an appointive official for all time to come.
Do you agree with that, Senator?
Senator ANDERSON. No, because my experience with the Appropriations Committee is that they can straighten it out very, very quickly and almost overnight. You can have the finest program in the world, but if you do not get along with the Appropriations Committee, they can change that program. The members of that committee can do
. that very quickly.
As long as Congress still has the power of the purse, it has not surrendered its authority.
Secondly, I say that the Secretary of Agriculture has to come steadily to the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry and to the House Committee on Agriculture to ask for pieces of needed legislation, and that if he has flagrantly violated this provision and has used it in such a fashion, that he has usurped the functions of Congress, they will help him get his feet on the ground shortly.
Senator SÝMINGTON. I have only two more questions, Madam Chairman.
I notice that Senator Russell says:
I am proud of the measures that I have handled on the floor of the Senate and of the record that I have made in attempting to handle the agricultural appropriation bill for 18 years
* * * I imagine that that means that he has had a lot of experience in this.
Senator ANDERSON. I would like to break in there and say, as I bave said a moment ago, that nobody could do a finer job than he has done steadily. No Secretary of Agriculture could have a more loyal supporter than he has been during those 18 years. And that is why I hated to answer your question a minute ago. He has had a tremendous-
Senator SYMINGTON. Another question.
Will you explain why Mr. Herbert Hoover. was so much opposed to this in the previous administration and now agrees with you so beartily in this administration? 1
Senator ANDERSON. No. I think that Mr. Hoover would have to make his own comments on that. My course has been consistent. If he has not-I do not know that he has not-he would have to do that explaining himself.
Senator SYMINGTON. Madam Chairman, in closing I would like to say that I believe, as some of my colleagues do here, that it is amazing the switches that have been made with respect to how dangerous and unfortunate such a reorganization would be in the past and now how desirable it is today.
The farmers of my State are worried, not only about this reorganization plan but about a good many other things. And I personally agree with Senator Russell. I do not support this plan.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator McCLELLAN. Madam Chairman, may I ask the Senator one question?
Senator SMITH. Senator McClellan.
Senator McCLELLAN. Senator, as I remember-I may be mistaken--you opposed the other plan; is that not correct, in 1950?
Senator ANDERSON. I do not think that I had much to say about it. There was a personal situation that somewhat existed between the Department of Agriculture and myself at that time that kept me from being very enthusiastic about anything that came down from the Department of Agriculture.
Senator McCLELLAN. That is just one of the dangers that we incur in voting these powers indefinitely. And you say you favor voting them indefinitely.
Senator ANDERSON. I favor giving
Senator McCLELLAN. I do not recall that the Senator was very enthusiastic in support of the other plan.
Senator ANDERSON. I would say that I agree with you completely that I was not enthusiastic about the support of the plan. But again, it was because of a personal situation, that I could explain at length if need be.
Senator McCLELLAN. I do not care about that. But I do point out that that is the very thing that some of us are trying to guard against. That same situation may arise with us a year from now or 2 years from now.
See comment by Dean H. P. Rusk, p. 193.
One other thought the Senator expressed, that was frequently expressed, was that as long as Congress appropriated the money, it could control all these things. I do not quite agree with that. Surely, the Congress can refuse to make any appropriations. We had the reorganization of the Defense Department. It has been reorganized. And yet many things are still wrong with it, and Congress cannot step in there and say, "We are not going to appropriate any money this year for national defense because we do not like the way the Department is being reorganized."
We cannot control it. We get these obligations. The agricultural program has to go on. They have to maintain the Department of Agriculture. And it is not the Appropriations Committee that actually is going to control it. If the Congress does not enact basic legislation to control it and direct it, the Appropriations Committees are almost helpless themselves unless they just refuse to appropriate any money for the Department.
Senator ANDERSON. I think what might have been
Senator McCLELLAN. I think that is pretty farfetched. I do not think it is practical to rely on that. In other words, I think the most practical way is to legislate.
Senator ANDERSON. I think that I would agree with that. I would simply say that I think my statement might have been based on the fact that when I went into the Department of Agriculture, I went into many, many situations, and people would say, “Now, Judge Tarver insists that it be done this way.”
Now, I was very fond of Judge Tarver. He was a wonderful gentleman. We served together on the Appropriations Committee in the House. But I knew he had influence.
Senator McCLELLAN. Thank you.
Senator Smith. Thank you very much, Senator Anderson. We appreciate your giving us your views.
Senator ANDERSON. Thank you.
Senator Smith. Representative Clifford R. Hope, of Kansas, chairman of the Committee on Agriculture in the House, is here.
Congressman Hope, would you give us your views, please? We are very pleased to have you here this morning.
Mr. Hope. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. I am very happy to be present and to make a brief statement in support of Reorganization Plan No. 2.
STATEMENT OF HON. CLIFFORD R. HOPE, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF KANSAS
Mr. HOPE. I think Reorganization Plan No. 2 is not only a desirable but a necessary measure if the Department of Agriculture is to function as an economical efficient organization. I know of no one who is at all familiar with the situation who does not agree that a reorganization is in order. Whatever differences of opinion may exist are on the question of the form which reorganization should take.
All of us know of the expansion which has taken place in the Department in the last 20 years. Many new agencies have been established. Other agencies have been expanded, or otherwise changed. In most cases the Secretary has direct control over these agencies and their functions. With respect to a few agencies he does not have this